Out for a cushy ride: Cyclists Special, 1955

[MurF]

Found this on You Tube:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP1KxPjh4RM&feature=related

Dunno if anyone else has posted it here, but worth a watch. I really like the bit at the end when they talk about the cyclist not being an enemy of the train operator. Just wish I could go back to those days... cycling would be so much more fun.

Happy watchin.

=M-u-r-F=

PS . Would love to send this to SWT

[noonoosdad]

It's a really great little video - I've got the whole thing on a DVD which is basically about train journeys around the U.K.
My mum (who is in her 70's) found this very nostalgic. This just shows how pleasurable cycling was back in the 50's when the roads were less busy.
Love the unusual dismounting displayed by some riders - Fantastic !

[Freddie]

Have you seen how much seatpost those riders had showing, people rode much bigger frames in general then (hence the strange dismount).

Whilst I don't necessarily suggest that you ride such large frames, this standover nonsense and to a lesser extent "compact" frames have put everyone on midget frames and kept chiropracters in business.

What relevance does standing over a frame have to your comfort whilst riding it?

[Si]

I think it's racing influence....the theory being that a smaller compact frame is stiffer and thus allows better power transfer. Oe course, it's only the pro riders who are good enough to really feel/benefit from this, but manufacturers think that they'll sell more bikes if they look like pro-bikes.

Also, there is the other theory that in the good old days the frames tended to have slacker angles and longer tubes because roads were often worse*. Since everything got tarmacced this was no longer necessary.


*although you could argue that roads are now getting worse than in the 1950s!

[fatboy]

but manufacturers think that they'll sell more bikes if they look like pro-bikes.

They actually do sell more bikes if they look like a pro-bike! How many people come in here asking about one or other road bike that they've been recommended by their bike shop when actually it's the last thing that they'd want!

[stoobs]

Fab film.

And I think that beginning sequence is actually Watford Junction, looking west up Station Road. You only have to look at Station Road there now to see what a complete mess it is, with random cycle lanes on and off the path, stopping nowhere, a massive car park serving the station to the north of the rail lines for people who actually could cycle, and dangerously narrow lanes, along with abysmal attempts at reducing traffic speeds. It's barely recognisable. Progress? I think not.

[Freddie]

"I think it's racing influence....the theory being that a smaller compact frame is stiffer and thus allows better power transfer"

I know that's the theory, but in my eyes it's more *acquired knowledge*. I mean a longer seat tube is going to be less flexy than miles of seatpost any day of the week, no?.

"Also, there is the other theory that in the good old days the frames tended to have slacker angles and longer tubes because roads were often worse"

A lot of (maybe even most) lightweight bicycles had 73 degree head tubes by the 50's. As a taller chap, I lament the loss of decent length chainstays (44cm+), I mean who wants to sit on top of the rear wheel and have the front unweight up the slightest incline.

[Freddie]

"How many people come in here asking about one or other road bike that they've been recommended by their bike shop when actually it's the last thing that they'd want!"

This kind of behaviour is a shame, but then what have they to offer in it's place, the CB Dalesman looks OK, but the largest size they do is 59cm and look at the state of the Dawes Galaxy these days.

If I knew relatively little about bikes, I think I'd be asking about racing bikes too.

[Si]

"I think it's racing influence....the theory being that a smaller compact frame is stiffer and thus allows better power transfer"

I know that's the theory, but in my eyes it's more *acquired knowledge*. I mean a longer seat tube is going to be less flexy than miles of seatpost any day of the week, no?.

Don't you mean "shorter"? If so then yes, but at the same time a longer tube is going to create more leverage on seat tube/top tube join and be more likely to break the frame. Tis all swings and roundabouts, swings and roundabouts.

[Freddie]

Don't you mean "shorter"? If so then yes, but at the same time a longer tube is going to create more leverage on seat tube/top tube join and be more likely to break the frame. Tis all swings and roundabouts, swings and roundabouts.

I think you confused what I was saying.

I think a longer seat tube with less seatpost/seatpin extension is less flexy than a compact seat tube with more seatpost/seatpin extension, given that a seat tube has a wider diameter than a seatpost/seatpin and is invariably made of better material.

This seems to go against conventional wisdom, but seems pretty logical to me.

[Si]

Don't you mean "shorter"? If so then yes, but at the same time a longer tube is going to create more leverage on seat tube/top tube join and be more likely to break the frame. Tis all swings and roundabouts, swings and roundabouts.

I think you confused what I was saying.

I think a longer seat tube with less seatpost/seatpin extension is less flexy than a compact seat tube with more seatpost/seatpin extension, given that a seat tube has a wider diameter than a seatpost/seatpin and is invariably made of better material.

This seems to go against conventional wisdom, but seems pretty logical to me.

Ah, sorry, totally mis-read it...yes, agree with you.

[Mick F]

I agree too.

Manufacturers are sellers. The want to make more dosh. Therefore they cut costs by producing stuff that costs less to produce. ie smaller frames.

My Mercian looks old fashioned not just because it's steel and lugged, but because it has longer tubes as well. It has a completely different look to it.

[Freddie]

I agree too.

Manufacturers are sellers. The want to make more dosh. Therefore they cut costs by producing stuff that costs less to produce. ie smaller frames.

My Mercian looks old fashioned not just because it's steel and lugged, but because it has longer tubes as well. It has a completely different look to it.

I don't think it costs significantly less to produce a smaller frame per se, but compact frames allow a smaller number of sizes, that's where the money is saved, by squeezing and stretching people onto frames. Also big frames are so old hat, so I'm told...

I'm only 6', which isn't particularly tall, but I have long legs for my height. Therefore the smallest frame I like to ride is a 24", preferably 25". It seems the largest frames manufacturers are making these days is 23.5".

Most LBS's don't know such frames exist and/or treat you with some kind of strange derision at very mention of such a "thing".

I pity those taller than me.

[Mick F]

Yeah, you're right. Less sizes, less outlay, more dosh.

My Mercian Vincitore is 23.5 inches 73 degrees parallel, BTW.



I just love showing it off!

[drossall]

I suspect that the Cyclists' Special film mentioned by the OP has been ripped off from this DVD. I'm waiting for them to bring out Cyclists Abroad from the same stable, but AFAIK there are no plans.