Size matters, doesnt it?

[caemis]

Look, this photo is doing my head in. How on earth are you storing those bikes in the background? They clearly aren’t thrown on top of each other and what the hell is that painted rod doing? Or are we looking down on them and the blue bike is horizontal….what the F—— is going on?

I would guess, the bikes in the back hanging up side down on some hooks, while the one up front is just hanging up front... if your turn the pic to the left you will see it as well. But on the other hand

 

[Guinessisgoodforyou]

They are hanging up.

 

[torqueless]

In the 1970s/80s the rough 'n' ready formula was: Seat tube (c-t) = inside leg minus 11 inches.

 

[The History Man]

I would guess, the bikes in the back hanging up side down on some hooks, while the one up front is just hanging up front... if your turn the pic to the left you will see it as well. But on the other hand

 

[legrandefromage]

Over the years it turned out that I had been riding 'too small' and have ended up with many a larger frame.

My standard size is now 60cm with a 63cm in the line up, seat post showing and nuts intact

Barely 6 foot these days but T-Rex shaped, long legs, long body and stumpy arms

Rrrrrrrrrr!!!

 

[2manyoranges]

View attachment 665630

Ah ha … Einstein was right after all … everything depends on your relative position when you are looking at things …

 

[caemis]

So, aside of the practical lesson in Einstein's theorey (thank you @The History Man ) you basically disagree with the notion of a smaller frame.

Given the above rule of thumbs my 23.5" Raleigh minus 11" equals 32.5" inseam lenght. That of course must be set into relation to the give tire size which will put my toptube higher up...

Strange world. Thanks though

 

[averagebiker]

Look, this photo is doing my head in. How on earth are you storing those bikes in the background? They clearly aren’t thrown on top of each other and what the hell is that painted rod doing? Or are we looking down on them and the blue bike is horizontal….what the F—— is going on?

Turn 90 degrees one way or other as I reckon but Kes are hanging vertically from the wall.

 

[The History Man]

I was told the blue Bob Jackson was 25” which is my usual road size. It turned out to be 27” and was being sold on behalf of the father who was now bedridden upstairs. It was my privilege to restore it.

 

[Woz]

The more I poke in this subject (and there's a few posts about geometry and frame sizing) the more I believe it's always been fashion driven throughout the history of bikes, rather than it being an exact science.

Looks too big for 80s ..... will an aero or fluted post look OK in that? I think not.



Looks too small for 50s .... that stem is the bit of a give away.



Looks right for 1900s .... it must be. It's an advert with a rider blessing.



Looks right for 2020s .... (with slightly sloping top-tube to help comparision)



It's just one of those thing's very difficult to answer properly.