Size matters, doesnt it?

[Tootyred]

@The History Man im glad to see triumph haven't updated their machining tolerances yet...still need an oil pan for it.......

And at your height, how on earth do you ride a modern bonnie....they are tiny seat height!

 

[torqueless]

Given the above rule of thumbs my 23.5" Raleigh minus 11" equals 32.5" inseam lenght.

No.

 

[caemis]

No.

Well. Good that I am not a mathematician...

Turning the formula around, i.e. 32.5" inseam minus 11" = 21.5" seattube... But well, as we have seen fashion rules

 

[Woz]

If it helps, found this: https://www.speedbicycles.ch/velo/366/colnago_super_1975.html



This would have been a cutting edge road race bike at the time, and I would have assumed Colnago would have got the frame size spot-on for the parts and geometry technics. Something like a Touring or Randonneur would have been "lagging" and probably more traditional with the frame appearing larger, and still using Brooks style saddles just to muddy the waters and throw the fluted seat-post theory out of the window