Size matters, doesnt it?

[caemis]

Hi!
When I began skipping my classic mtb's for even older road bikes, putting as wide as possible tires into them to still ride them off road, I got a lot of comments for my seemingly way to large frames.

First one was an 1970s Gazelle "Sprinter" with a wooping 64cm (ct) seattube and a rather low BB - set up like this, I rode a 160km race on it fixed gear:



With 87cm (34") standover height, it is a good inch about my inseam (32.5-33).

While on the bike riding, I haven't felt any discomfort, also the TT was indeed pretty close and getting of (or on the bike) wasn't alway easy.

Ok, I thought, I'll give a smaller frame a chance. A Raleigh Record Ace from 1982 turned up, with 60cm (ct) BUT a higher BB. Getting out in the woods with it recently, I felt the same way riding it than I did with the Gazelle. Meassuring the standover height revealed a suprising 87cm again.



Now I began to wonder whether or not I might need a smaller frame again. The typical meassuring methods for my inseam would suggest a 56cm frame. But checking classic pics from the 30s-60s the seatpost is visible on many bikes just the way like on both of my bikes.

So, if I am looking for a new frame what would you suggest I should go size wise?

Thank you!

 

[averagebiker]

I guess it all depends on how tall you are?

Anyway it would only be a problem if you weren't happy to jump off the bike backwards at any sign of crashing lol

 

[caemis]

I guess it all depends on how tall you are?

Anyway it would only be a problem if you weren't happy to jump off the bike backwards at any sign of crashing lol

Well, I am 6ft (183) - and yes, the TT gets in the way when jumping off the bike - I try to avoid it, though

Still I assume there are some riders the same height as me with some experience in frame sizes they rode both from the earlier days (30s-60s) and the more modern (70s-80s)...

Cheers

 

[averagebiker]

Ok, same height as me and I wouldn't ride a frame that big.
I seem to recall in the eighties the bog standard test was to see if you could stand astride the top tube with both feet on the ground even if on tippy toes. That always seemed a bit perilous to "my gentleman's area" to me

 

[The History Man]

Ahem.

 

[caemis]

Ahem. View attachment 665524

But you are taller, aren't you @The History Man ?

 

[The History Man]

But you are taller, aren't you @The History Man ?

I’m 5ft 3”

 

[pigman]

Something doesn't add up for me.
The gazelle is 64cm, you have what looks like a couple of cm seatpin out and it fits you.
The Raleigh is 60cm. Again the same couple cm of seatpin and that also rides comfortably.
Surely a difference of 4cm between pedal and saddle can't both fit you well.

 

[caemis]

Something doesn't add up for me.
The gazelle is 64cm, you have what looks like a couple of cm seatpin out and it fits you.
The Raleigh is 60cm. Again the same couple cm of seatpin and that also rides comfortably.
Surely a difference of 4cm between pedal and saddle can't both fit you well.

The secret is the BB height in relation to saddle height, the Gazelle has a way lower BB compared to the Raleigh. Possible the 4cm (+-).

Unfortunately, I have no older frame to compare this, but in my logic I could well get away with an older frame with a relatively low BB and a 60cm seattube - when for instance a more modern frame with a higher BB would be a better fit with a 57cm or so frame - the seat height relative to the center of BB would be still the same.

Mmmhhh.

 

[2manyoranges]

Ahem. View attachment 665524

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?