Talking Bikes back in 1977
Mon, December 7, 2020 
I was reading over an old article I wrote for the British “Cycling” magazine in November 1977, it really made me think. First thought was just how long ago that really was? 43 years and I was 41 years old at the time I wrote it, over half a lifetime ago for me.
I was reading this again in its entirety after several years, and the thing that struck me most was my choice of words, it was almost like I was writing this for children, it is not the way I would write today. However, I do not remember feeling that I was talking down to my readers as I was writing it. I think the reason was I was putting forward some new thinking and had the explain my reasoning behind every statement.
Everything I had read, and therefore everything everyone else had read before was stated as fact with no explanation as to why it was so. For example, there was a cycling handbook put out in the 1960s by the Italian Cycling Federation, it was advertised as being “The Bible of Cycling.”
It contained a section on frame design, which was really the “Gospel according to Cino Cinelli,” it stated that road bikes should always have a seat angle two degrees shallower than the head angle. This explained why Italian frames of the 1970s were 75 head, 73 seat, but gave no explanation what-so-ever why this was so.
I knew the reason because I had learned frame building from “Pop” Hodge in Luton, England, in 1957 when the standard frame angles were 73-degree head angle, 71-degree seat. The reason being, with the seat tube leaning back by 2 degrees, as a frame got bigger the top tube became longer. It made it easier to build a range of different size frames with the same standard lug angles.
A 71-degree seat angle was totally unsuitable for someone of my short stature which started me on this quest to build a better frame for myself. It just never made sense to me that someone with shorter legs, and a shorter body should have the same seat angle as a much taller person.
I remember one indication that I was questioning the Status Quo at the time in that an old gentleman wrote me a hand-written letter sent through the mail. He said that my ideas on head angles and “Trail” were all wrong and he enclosed a photocopy of an article from “Cycling” magazine dated 1946 to prove it. Back in 1946 and before that, it was thought that trail was a bad thing that made the steering sluggish.
One thing I said in this piece I need to draw your attention to is where I say “Frame size equals two-thirds of the inside leg measurement. This is somewhat simplifying the issue and two-thirds will not work for people with a long body and short legs. Overall height is a better indicator of frames size.
Click here to open or download the original article in PDF format. There are four pages standard 8.5 x 11 that can be printed or read on screen where you can enlarge the image for easier reading.
To Share click "Share Article" below
Reader Comments (5)
Nice job Dave, too bad today frames have been reduced to 'easy to make' being the only criteria.
My different bikes have very different frames, and I like the different feel and handling characteristics.
Though now that I ride less I don't ride the 'twitchy' one (Alan) mutch. You have to really have your bike handling skills for that to be fun.
I like a 73x73 frame in a 59cm size, or whatever it takes to get a 58cm top tube.
Sometimes it's a 58cm frame, and sometimes it's a 60cm frame.
Thanks for the pdf.
Very good article, thank you for sharing.
Hi Guys! Nice article, really enjoyed reading, useful source of knowledge. You can also visit my website, if anybody looking forward for adventure and might need a self driving cars or bike to hire. Zoprent provides the best self driving cars and bikes on hire at affordable cost in India. Don’t forget to book vehicles for your adventure. Visit https://www.zoprent.com/
Your last paragraph on two-thirds inner leg length not working for people of long body and short leg fits me to a T. The two-thirds method would have me riding a 51.5 cm when all my Fusos have been a perfect fit at 57cm. Some years ago you discussed your sizing ranges and included a chart based on your many years experience and observations fitting people on your bikes. I have one of those odd bodies where somewhere in the womb it was decided my foot should start further up the leg for my size, i.e., I have very long feet to go with my short legs. So proportionally, the overall length of hip to toes combined with longer torso places me on a 57cm C-T frame. Thank you for all your contributions to the repository of cycling knowledge.