Watching a repeat of the Raleigh story the other night and was struck by the size of the frames used by the professional racers of the 1950’s & 60’s.
They all seemed to be riding frames that required the seat post to be very short & with very long top tubes, very much different to modern styles of sizing.
It reminded me that the other week I saw a rider at a café stop on a bike with around 12/14″ of seat post exposed & a large stack of spacers beneath his stem. To my mind he was riding a frame too small for him but why is that a ‘thing’ ?

Until very recently some mainstream mfrs were still making bikes with flat or even beyond flat top-tubes (maybe some still do as an option – was it cannondale, maybe ?)
That in itself doesn’t alter geometry at all and probably doesn’t do much else either, though in the days of ded skinny tubes maybe it helped stiffness

These days, fashion dictates a dropped top tube more than function does but it probably also allows mfrs to claim lighter frame weights (and there’s no stiffness problem with modern frames)

super-long stems & seatposts – well, the occasional pro does this, ostensibly to minimise frame flex under power but in a casual rider it’s either copying, poorly chosen frame or just maybe the rider bought correctly after a test-ride but now rides more and is more flexible ?

(Long stem supposedly stabilises the bike at speeds over 40mph or so)

I do like a horizontal top tube

also the wheel sizes were slightly bigger back then weren’t they?

It reminded me that the other week I saw a rider at a café stop on a bike with around 12/14″ of seat post exposed & a large stack of spacers beneath his stem. To my mind he was riding a frame too small for him but why is that a ‘thing’ ?

It’s a ‘thing’ because people buy bikes online without trying them or having any advice on correct fit. So, then they are forced to make the bike fit in this way.

In Mountain Biking, there has historically been some element of riders wanting/believing the bike should be a bit too small for them so it’s more ‘chuckable’. Whereas you can get away with this to an extent with a mountain bike, the same philosophy with road bikes is not so forgiving.

I suspect, although have no real evidence, vanity plays a part. The aesthetics of the bike can influence the size a rider chooses. Nobody likes a gate.

I vaguely remember Giant introducing the modern compact frames, smaller, lighter and stiffer what’s not to like. I suspect that they’re cheaper to manufacture.

Older bikes had horizontal top tubes (which don’t require much seatpost out of the frame). However, these had no standover – and fashion has since changed to compact frames (with sloping top tubes).

Older bikes also had much longer headtubes as the riders tended to ride on the drops rather than nowadays when riders will tend to sit on the hoods. All this tends to make old frames look bigger than they actually were.

i think a lot of new riders choose a small size to avoid being “stretched out”, forgetting that the smaller frame also has a lower front, so they end up with a big spacer stack and an upturned stem, kinda like a surly that’s the right size.

The modern compact frame came about partly due to the move of mass manufacturing to the Far East – the factories didn’t want to make all the different sizes that the level top tube almost mandated. The sloping top tube lets the manufacturers cover the same size range with fewer different sizes.

I think it was Mike Burrows, the guy who designed Chris Boardman’s Lotus bike, that did the design or was involved in it.

Would be good to hear more on this frome someone who built bikes back then, but from what I understand older bikes were like this due to lugs dictating the angles between tubes. After lugs went away there was still a habit of sizing bikes in the same way, and as said above, head tube was longer as the TT was higher so bars were higher and the drops were used more (something that we should go back to perhaps). Parallel geo and lugs meant the TT was level and ‘square’ geometry was the norm, so a ST length was about the same as TT length.
Back then a 56cm really was a 56cm, not some near-meaningless size dimension with no relation to TT size, reach, compact or non-compact etc.

edit to add, yes Mike Burrows popularised compact road geo, basically taking MTB frame ideas into road bikes. A wise move.

When I got my 1st adult sized road bike (Steel Basso) I was told the bike fits when your sack is just resting on the top tube……

also the wheel sizes were slightly bigger back then weren’t they?

Tubular tyres and sprint wheels are the same size as 700c
27″ wheels are a bit larger
My road bike then had a 24″ seat tube, my modern bike is 58cm.

The thing to think about is manufacturing in the 50s.

Jigging the frames is easier (using lugs too remember) if you keep Head and seat tubes parallel and a horizontal top tube always intersects with those at the same angle… Scaling the front triangle between sizes made them easier to produce quickly and consistently.

Sloping top tubes also suited the manufacturing methods of the 90s, mitred, welded aluminium where jigs could be set up for different sized runs, plus those shorter seat tubes save a little material making it marginally cheaper, as well as the look/ride/standover being a selling point…

Bit of the TCR story

[video]https://youtu.be/TsQ1PimjpaE[/video]

Got 2 horizontal TT bikes, love the look of them.

Makes sense on the tourer, great with heavy loads and I can fit two 900mm bottles, but still needs a few spacers, even with the bars lower than the seat.

A pain on the old quill stem roadie though.
The negative rise stem, low head tube and old school deep bars look the part, but it would suit me better these days with a rise on the stem and some modern shallow bars.
It does look lovely though.

Mrs S has a Trek roadie and an AWOL with sloping top tubes.
I like the increased standover and higher front end, suits me fine.

Unless you prefer the look of horizontal, I think slightly dropped makes more sense for most people these days.

@Rusty_Spanner Deda Piega bars offer the modern short reach, flat hood transition in a 26mm clamp. They’re not pricey either

When Andy Thompson built us a pair of 853 frames in 97 he persuaded us to go for sloping top tubes. IIRC his rationale was that the frame was lighter, stiffer and something to do with how the bike reacted to bumps.
The drop was about 30mm from front to back in oval 853, we’d agreed to have them built in the then brand new coffin shaped 853 tube set, but Greg Lemond had bought the entire production run in between agreeing the frames and Andy going round to Reynolds to get the tubes – so we got oval – horizontal oval top tube and vertical oval down tube.
All I know is that because I have relatively short legs I got reasonable stand over with about 120mm of seatpost out of the frame, and a really nicely handling frame and forks – built with a thread less steerer which was still unusual at the time. My bike was built to take Salmon guards with normal drop brakes, and herself’s was more pure road oriented.
I think they were the last 2 frames that Andy built – at the time as featch but also with his previous colaboration as islabikes, and zinn.
I still ride mine, it has its 3rd groupset on it, still with the guards and with a pair of Monty Young built wheels ( I can remember him phoning me up to complain about how difficult it had been to build with the medium deep rims which we’d got).

If you have a horizontal top tube and need a long head tube then you have no option but to have a long seat tube and a large frame. However the large frame with also have a long top tube which causes someone like me a problem.

I need a shorter top tube but can’t have that while maintaining a decent height head tube so without going custom built I have to make do and use a smaller frame than ideal when using an off the peg older steel frame.

Interesting to read the history of the modern frame design, particularly the virtual top tube.

But I’ve never had an issue getting 1L bottles in the cages on any modern bike I’ve owned? Maybe because I’m 6ft so tend to ride larger models?

I vaguely remember Giant introducing the modern compact frames, smaller, lighter and stiffer what’s not to like. I suspect that they’re cheaper to manufacture.

I recall Geraint Thomas in a podcasted interview saying the compact Giant he raced years ago was his favourite frame… then 30 seconds later remembering he’s paid to race an overpriced, overweight, gimmick-riddled Italian “thoroughbred” and said “oh and Pinarello, obviously….” 😆

As others said, at least partly its down to fitting more people with fewer frames.

In the old days if you had short lrgs you either lived with no standover or a short TT. Now the same frame fits you if your 5.10 with short legs or 6.1 with long legs. Cannondale still make ‘normal’ frames and only just dropped the intermediate 57cm frame size on the CAAD leaving only 9 options! Giant only make 5 TCR’s.

I still prefer horisontal tubes though, they just look right. And are having a bit of a resurgance with the aero trend (a sloping tube is not very aerodynamic).

It’s not necessary to have a sloping tt if you want to tighten the rear triangle or increase standover

Though the inch of headtube above the tt isn’t to everyone’s tastes either.

nathb – Member
But I’ve never had an issue getting 1L bottles in the cages on any modern bike I’ve owned? Maybe because I’m 6ft so tend to ride larger models

I’m a shortarse, hence the issue.
🙂
Lots of smaller road frames have clearance and toe overlap issues too.

thisisnotaspoon – Member
As others said, at least partly its down to fitting more people with fewer frames.

And fitting people better too.
Lots of people used to ride frames that were too large, I did for ages.

And hydroforming has kicked off a resurgence in alloy frames too.
Can’t believe how nice the good ones are to ride now, even the budget models.
My 20 odd year old alloy road frame is like riding a brick.

Prior to integrated shifters, it was quite uncomfortable to ride on the hoods for prolonged periods, so bike fit was set-up to ride predominantly on the drops, combined with headsets and quill stems meant the top of the bars were quite a bit higher in comparison to modern bikes. It wasn’t until the late 90s and the cross-over from MTB where guys like Ross Shafer from Salsa and Keith Bontranger started building road frames where the ‘compact’ frame evolved, further developed by Mike Burrows who developed the original TCR for Giant.

And fitting people better too.
Lots of people used to ride frames that were too large, I did for ages.

Nothing stopping you riding a smaller horisontal TT frame with more seatpost.

Its the other way round thats the problem, people who wanted long bikes but had short legs.

I’m of relatively normal proportions (legs are short but not extremely so) and dont really see the issue with standover on a road bike. So never really wanted anything other than a traditional frame. Mu only OCD gripe is thenlogo on the seatpost is slightly hidden by the seatube!

I still prefer horisontal tubes though, they just look right

agree and part of the reason I’ve always liked Cannondale; they’ve always made some batsh1t crazy bikes and parts, and yet their road bikes are amongst the most conservative old-school (in a good way) looking bikes around, with horizontal TTs and quaint round tubes.

Its the other way round thats the problem, people who wanted long bikes but had short legs.

That is my problem.
🙂

For standover, a 50cm htt fits fine, but is usually a bit low and short at the front end.
The stock stem on the 50cm Trucker is very short, I’m using a 90mm and even with the bars below the seat I need a good inch of spacers.

On the old roadie the current quill is negative rise and has a small range of vertical adjustment.
Add in a virtually non existent headtube and it becomes a pain.

It will be fine when I get round to fitting a slightly higher rise stem with more adjustment and some modern bars.
I’m 48 btw with a dodgy back.
The racy position was quite comfy until a few years ago.
🙂

I do like a horizontal top tube

Me too, those steeply raked top tubes just make me think that the rider’s bought too small a bike. I know they haven’t but that what it looks like.

Cannondale and Ribble do “proper” bikes 😀

A little bit of rake is OK, but I’d much rather that it was horizontal. Might have to cough up for a custom made frame for the next bike, been thinking about treating myself anyway.

Prior to integrated shifters, it was quite uncomfortable to ride on the hoods for prolonged periods

This is cobblers. What probably made the biggest improvement in riding on the brake levers was the introduction of rubber hoods, which pre-dated Ergolevers and STI shifters by a couple of decades. Even then, not all rubber hoods were the same: the brown hoods fitted as OEM standard on Weinmann brake levers found on many bikes were more like rigid plastic than rubber, and I remember the vast improvement when I changed mine for much softer black rubber ones (also made by Weinmann). Changes in the general shape/profile of brake levers made by Shimano and Campag in the 80s and 90s improved their ergonomics further.

With regard to why frames were made with horizontal top tubes showing short amounts of seatpost, most seatposts were 250mm or less, so even if manufacturers had overcome the lack of suitable lugs by using fillet brazing to make a compact/sloping frame, they would not have had the components needed to build it into a bike.

Consequently when Giant introduced its compact frames with Mike Burrows’ input, it also had to develop and supply its own range of extra long seatposts to sell with them.