Why are there so many mens TALL cycles from TOC around???

Most Recent BUY IT NOW Items Listed on eBay
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
eBay Auction Picture
These ads go away when you register for an account!

bricycle

I'm the Wiz, and nobody beats me!
Nov 18, 2009
23,160
Chicago area west
Fewer than 4 percent of any age group were as tall as 6 feet in 1885-1900.
Twenty percent of the 20-29-year-old men were at least 6 feet in 1955, and 3 percent were at least 6 feet 3 inches tall.
 

The Carolina Rambler

Look Ma, No Hands!
Nov 25, 2018
96
23
North Carolina
I think the reason why most bicycles from the 1890s, that by today's standards would be called "Tall Frame" bicycles, is because at that time, that was the standard. We would call them tall frame nowadays, but back then there were not hardly any men's bikes that set any lower- other than the few boys bikes they had in those days. I reckon this is because frames that set down lower, had not yet really been developed, and would not remain so for another decade. And plus, people back them were used to having to get a running start to hop on a bicycle, as the only machines available prior to this were high-wheelers and the like, in which you have no choice but to get a running start. Even the women's bikes I've seen from those days are just as tall as the men's, and with women being, in general, a little shorter, they definitely had more trouble. Like you mentioned, average man in that time was 5ft and some change, with women being shorter. So in conclusion, I reckon it is for the same reason a 1910s-20s car is taller than a 50s or newer car; that is just the position the technology and development had reached at that time. Just about every 1890s bicycle I have seen sets up pretty tall, some a little more than others.

I could be totally wrong though; this is just what I believe to be the case from what I have seen, I am no expert.
 
Last edited:

piercer_99

Cruisin' on my Bluebird
Dec 27, 2015
2,076
59
Sanger, TX
I know my 1929 Westfield, GJ1 was built as a juvenile model. It has a 32" standover, same as my 1918 Pierce Motor Bike, and my Pierce Racer, yet the photos I have found of youths of the time periods, looks like they had to either have a good curb or jump up on them.

1114315




1918
1577239680608.png

1918
1577239701253.png


1577239720168.png


1913

brake issues.

1577239769798.png


1930's Dallas TX
1577239802957.png


1920's
1577239873062.png


1930's
1577239915344.png


early 1920's, the brothers won a Mead Ranger for selling the most newspaper subscriptions, allegedly it caused some strife in the family.
1577240005145.png


1913, smoking may stunt your growth.
1577240086013.png

1911
1577240115359.png
 

Brian R.

Finally riding a big boys bike
Oct 16, 2015
472
Toronto, Canada
I've wondered that too, Brian. The 2-part conclusion I've come to is that, (as Grandpa Simpson says), it was the style of the time; and the bikes look taller than they are. I'm not quite 5'7", with stubby legs, and I can ride this huge looking 1896 Comet comfortably. Why? because although the top tube is high off the ground, so is the bottom bracket.

...When I say I can ride it comfortably, I mean pedal it. Riding in downtown traffic in the year 2019 is a different story. It's not so comfortable to look for a curb to stand on or to keel over sideways at a traffic light. In 1896, with no cars around and only a few horse carriages here and there, I suspect looking high and mighty and dignified on your wheel was far more important than straddling the top tube with your feet flat on the ground.

p.s. According to the 1896 Comet catalogue, this bike has the medium size frame!
1114342
 
Last edited:

morton

I live for the CABE
Nov 9, 2007
1,649
York, United States
........ because although the top tube is high off the ground, so is the bottom bracket.
Amen to that and still true today. I was never able to find a "mountain" bike that fit me because the bottom bracket was so far off the ground, when I raised the seat to a proper lever for leg extension, a running start was the only way I could mount.

I can comfortably ride a 23" (center of bottom bracket to end of seat tube) road bike but not a MB with the same demensions as the BB on the ones I tried were usually 1 1/2 " or more higher.

Sure you could do a running start but did't like that as I did and still do most of my riding on the street.
 
This ad goes away when you register for an account!

bikejunk

Wore out three sets of tires already!
Nov 1, 2014
729
57
passaic NJ
Back in the 80s it was the craze ( around the north Jersey area ) to buy a 28 inch bike no mater what your stand-over height was fuji and Panasonic sold many more 28 inch frames than people who could ride them safely
 

detroitbike

I live for the CABE
Sep 26, 2011
1,107
Detroit , Michigan
Back in the 80s it was the craze ( around the north Jersey area ) to buy a 28 inch bike no mater what your stand-over height was fuji and Panasonic sold many more 28 inch frames than people who could ride them safely

I still sell lots of tall vintage road bikes.
Favorite in my area is the 28" Schwinn Continental .
Most buyers dont fit them and ignore my recommendation on correct size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: piercer_99
This ad goes away when you register for an account!