DAK...Why do people ride smaller frames than years gone by

[The utility cyclist]

I just saw a Steve Goff frame for sale in the ad section, suited to tall rider was the suggestion by the seller (he's 6ft 5"). it was a 60cm c-t and effective c-c Tt was same.
Now for me at 5ft 11/32.5" IL and not particularly orangutan arms this would actually work for me with the stem at a horizontal position and a few spacers down or cut the steerer.

My current audax/winter/tourer is 60cm c-c top tube with a 110mm stem (reasonably stretched out position but nothing extreme) and classified as a 58 (there's a significant slope to the TT) though if it were a full 60cm c-t as per the steve goff frame this wouldn't impinge on me being able to ride it as I already ride a 62cm c-t horzontal diamond frame.

just curious why folk are seemingly (these days) are put off by bigger frames or don't seem to think they will work. Is it still about being able to sit astride the top tube or ability to swing ones leg over or is it that having a lengthier amount of seat post sticking out is more pleasing aesthetically?

I argued on another forum that for those wanting to purchase a full on racing machine without compromising to an endurance type bike to get a comfortable position due to injury etc (that a racing bike ordinarily wouldn't offer) and not have an upangled stem/loads of spacers underneath on the more agressive racing frame that a larger size frame could be a solution.

Is it that people would rather have loads of seatpost sticking out and an upangled stem/loads of spacers than go a frame size up even if the contact points were in exactly the same position?

[meic]

Most of us are controlled by what is available to buy.
My Van Nicholas is a virtual 60cm and an actual 58cm, anything bigger would have been a custom job and £300 extra. I put up with a long seat post and stem to save some money.

The only people who seem to make frames like the old Dawes/Raleigh 25+" are Surly who I think offer a 64cm option.

[PH]

The frame in question is a compact one with a sloping top tube, 6cm according to the advert, so in traditional horizontal sizes would that be a 66cm?
I don't know if any of it matters, you need to get the contact points in the correct place and have a standover clearance you're comfortable with. This last point has changed over the years, people brought up on mountain bikes might not feel comfortable with a handful of seatpost showing.
There are some rational arguments for compact frames and against. A stiffer frame and more flexible seatpost is one. But the real advantages seem to be for the manufacturer, fewer sizes are needed to cover the same range of riders. The rest is fashion.

[foxyrider]

There are many, many reasons for using smaller frames - some are aesthetic, some constructional others practical.

Firstly, for the weight weenies a longer seatpost can weigh less than than a larger frame.
Frame stiffness is enhanced with a smaller frame
Lower top tubes result in less frame contact injuries
There are more.

For me, well I have a 70's steel frame that's 59cm 24" - it fits, is comfortable but was always referred to as 'the gate'. Pretty standard design for its time.

My equivalent machine now is a 52cm frame - the 'cockpit dimensions are very similar despite the very different geometry except for the bar position - it's 4cm lower on the new bike, the stem is horizontal and it's actually more comfortable in that position.

I also use a 50cm frame CX bike - position almost identical to the 52cm except slightly lower saddle.

In both the latter instances I tried the next size up and found myself, at 178cm tall with long arms, feeling very stretched.

So there is no single reason for smaller frame use, I would generally recommend any modern off the peg bike be bought smaller than expected as TT lengths have been adjusted to compensate. In any case try several sizes if you can to pick the best fit for you and don't be put off by an apparent small size.

[ANTONISH]

I think we just adopted what was current - photographs of professionals at the time show much less seat post than now.
In the fifties stages in professional races tended to be longer and they had a more upright position.
It may be that the radical change with the Loughborough studies made a relatively smaller frame more suitable.
Bernhard Hinault produced a book on cycle racing which described the changes he made to his position. Essentially a higher saddle and lower bars - achieving a flatter back rather than the previous crouched position.
I think the tendency is to copy the professionals to an extent - and the point has been made that it enables manufacturers to produce a smaller range of stock sizes.

[Ugly]

Partly it is a fashion thing, look at old catalogues. When researching my 1924 Sunbeam, 28" frame, the smallest mans cycle in the Marston Sunbeam catalogue was a 22" frame, largest 28", and ladies 21" largest 24". The fashion was to sit high with little seat pin showing. Come the cycling boom of the thirties sports and lightweights came no bigger than 22", rarely 23" roadsters were still larger up to 24 or 26". After the war the lightweight style was for larger frames with less seat pin. Over the last 30 or so years the fashion has become smaller frame with a sloping top tube. I do wonder what will come next.

[Bonefishblues]

Had both, did some mountain biking, got used to and liked the compact frame feel, plus more generous standover, and have continued to prefer that style since the mid 90s.

[Boring_Username]

The pros ride small frames with a huge drop from the saddle to the bars.

The fashion sheep want bikes that look like that.

[Cunobelin]

The quick answer is ....

Mike Burrows

Following the success of the "Lotus" bike and his employment by Giant, Mike started producing a Compact Frame bicycle

Rather than have the tailor made frames, it was cheaper to build a few sizes of frames that were smaller, lighter, and stiffer......then alter the fit with the components rather than the frame.

It made things easier for the companies and caught on quickly as teams adopted the concept followed by other companies

The Giant Compact TCR was the first commercial version and they caught on for the same reasons - lighter, stiffer and cheaper



Having said that there was also Ron Cooper as an advocate for these compact frames

[djnotts]

Had both, did some mountain biking, got used to and liked the compact frame feel, plus more generous standover, and have continued to prefer that style since the mid 90s.

Pretty much this for me also.

And why drag around more steel or whatever when it serves no purpose. As long as saddle and bars relationship suits, the frame size is largely irrelevant. I often rode 22-23" trad frames. My exceedingly comfortable Trex 7.5X "hybrid" is a 17.5" - tho' a sloping top tube muddies the maths.

[Brucey]

F - F - F - F .... fashion....

[mercalia]

Trouble with small frames is getting the reach right? ( or wrong more likely)
When I had a Dawes 25"/65cm Horizon ( same frame as the Galaxy ) I could feel the frame flex even with my lack of strength, no such flex with the Dawes 1-Down 57cm frame, on the other hand getting the reach right wasnt easy and they cut down the steerer so had to get a long extension.

[andrew_s]

In years gone by all top tubes were horizontal, and the seat tube length was much the same as the top tube length.
These days, almost all frames have sloping top tubes, and a bike with the same riding position would have a shorter seat tube and a longer seat post.

Frames are usually sized by seat tube length, for reasons of tradition.
The old frame may have been quoted as 22.5", but the new one may say 19".

The reason for changing to sloping top tubes is that it's cheaper to keep a stock of differently sized seat posts, stems and handlebars than it is to keep a stock of differently sized frames (or whole bikes), especially for the frame maker.
Lighter and stiffer was how the cheapness was sold to the punter.

[mattsccm]

Although frames now tend to be sold by size not measurement or if measurement its ST to a virtual TT. There are exceptions of course . Maybe its just the circle. Back in the depths of time frames did tend to be smaller then gradually increase for a given rider.
Small frames can be stiffer. That may not be needed but its more efficient. Economies of scale in production do no harm.
Realistically . as long as the contact points are correct and the handling works then the frame shape doesn't matter does it.
I wonder if small works better with different materials. A steel frame is relatively flexible and that is part of the ride whereas smaller frame tends to be carbon or alloy.
Either way its no big deal is it?

[Bonefishblues]

F - F - F - F .... fashion....

I find it's easier to turn to both the left and the right on a compact frame.