Big bikes were popular 45-60 years ago...

[LondonClassic]

Yes, built (well, assembled) by Falcon and bloody awful things they were too. I saw a costing sheet for one of the better models in 1980 and the bottom line was a touch over £10. The frames were imported in bulk from the Far East and over the years production of the head badges had been contracted out to successively cheaper suppliers (who had no idea who Eddy Merckx was or what he looked like) with the result that his features had taken on a distinctly Oriental appearance.

You can have a lot of fun with a Merckx head tube badge.

 

[Guinessisgoodforyou]

You can have a lot of fun with a Merckx head tube badge.
View attachment 958710View attachment 958712

Your graphics?

 

[LondonClassic]

Your graphics?

Not me, no. I saw these a while back on this bike:
https://www.elmycycles.co.uk/m21b0s365p4814/1986-Freddie-Merckx-I-want-to-break-free-Tribute

Ian Da Costa is the man for these.

 

[Scott-S]

Not me, no. I saw these a while back on this bike:
https://www.elmycycles.co.uk/m21b0s365p4814/1986-Freddie-Merckx-I-want-to-break-free-Tribute

Ian Da Costa is the man for these.

Shame its got them funny bars on it ( ) cos that is amazing, what a bike

 

[Jesper]

When I started out with the CTC as a teenager, there was one shop in Sheffield that used to sell everyone 25" frames. We reckoned it was stock they couldn't shift but convinced parents the lad would grow into it. That shop still exists and has expanded quite significantly into numerous branches since those days

That's hilarious! I picture a 5'6" dad and even shorter mom (pretty much my family) going to that shop with their boy of well under 5 and half feet walking out with a gigantic framed bike because he'd definitely "grow into it". Luckily, I bought my first 2 race bikes (brand new entry and mid level Peugeots) myself and I got MY size (51-52cm c-c); but ironically, upon buying my first true professional bike (used Colnago Super) I got a 58cm frame out of necessity (I could not afford a new Super w/Super-Nuovo Record or anything close to it; e.g. Raleigh Pro or Schwinn Paramount) and opportunity (I could not afford to pass up an incredible offer, $400, on an incredibly clean bike). I rode that bike for 30 yrs and never gave it a second thought even when a shop would look at me odd as if I had stolen some big guy's bike.

I know when I was selling used frames that I would, in general, sell frames of equal quality but of different sizes at prices reflecting lower "value" for extra small and large frames due to a much smaller market. Of the large and small frames I still have I'd probably sell them below their market value just to move them out and also help someone who cannot find a good vintage frame in their relative size. It certainly happened in the 70s where overstock of bikes with large frames got dumped upon the market for cheap.
Full cycle; I bought a very clean Super again a couple years ago at again another great price ($500) that was an exact match for my now old beat up Super but with panto'd parts; and though being much closer to my size, it was a couple cms smaller (yes, I do own newer Supers in my actual size); but that small frame is much more responsive given it is the same geometry and "SL" tubing.

I cannot find a photo of my old big bike, but my small Super before I received it shown with rather large Basso frame.


70-72ish Panasonic stock size frame.

 

[non-fixie]

When I was in my teen years the general rule of thumb was that a frame should be 10" smaller than the rider's inside leg measurement (...)

I hadn't heard of that rule before, but it actually works very well for me.

35" inseam. True 25" bike:

 

[PhillB]

When I was in my teen years the general rule of thumb was that a frame should be 10" smaller than the rider's inside leg measurement.

Yes, this is the rule I've always gone by too...

 

[jim haseltine]

It probably came about because steel seat pillars for utility frames back in the day were usually rather short. Maybe 6-8" at most which gave you only a maximum of 2-4" adjustment once you'd fitted the saddle clip and had a reasonable amount in the seat tube - not that too many people bothered with that, deformed seat lugs and cracked seat tubes were not uncommon sights on bikes that came in for service.

 

[Old Ned]

A friend of mine - who is Ronnie Corbett size - offered me his 1952 track bike that he rode at Fallowfield Stadium BITD. As I am rather taller (quite a bit actually!) I asked the size and he replied 23". What! I replied. Yes, he said, I rode it with the saddle on the top tube. It fits me perfectly.

The best place to look at how fashions in frame size change is old black and white photos of Tour de France riders where their saddles are low and down near the top tube and the tops of the bars are almost level with the saddle. Possibly not so many crashes in those days?

 

[Freeman]

It probably came about because steel seat pillars for utility frames back in the day were usually rather short. Maybe 6-8" at most which gave you only a maximum of 2-4" adjustment once you'd fitted the saddle clip and had a reasonable amount in the seat tube - not that too many people bothered with that, deformed seat lugs and cracked seat tubes were not uncommon sights on bikes that came in for service.

Interesting theory. More frame sizes were offered back in the day of level top tubes. Starting in the late 90s the slanted top tube came in with long seat tubes, and I am sure it was to cut costs for manufacturers who now had to make fewer frame sizes, just long seat posts. I always hated the newer road bikes with slanted top tubes, it just spoke to me as corporate think invading the noble world of cycling, no thank-you.