Originally Posted by alanbikehouston
Why did those bikes work so well? Their size and geometry placed the rider's hands as high or higher than the saddle. Pefect for urban riding, surrounded by motor traffic on the right and on the left. And, there was still three to six inches of clearance between the top of the saddle and the top of the top bar.
Or about a fistfull of seatpost, which is the "classical" standard of sizing a bike with more classical geometry. This is also applicable still to modern bikes of a certain geometry. However, the advent of the compact geometry frame changes this. One can have appropriate horizontal spacing with a little extra room for the boys and for your pubic bone. Which leads to...
Originally Posted by alanbikehouston
But, it was impossible to stand "flat footed" with both feet on the ground, one on each side of those bike. How did people ever survive? Duh...they didn't put both feet down. At a red light, the rider put his left foot on the ground, and the right foot remained on the right pedal. Learning how to do that takes a child about five minutes.
At a red light, sometimes I put one foot down (I'm not as clever as a child, but it only took me about 5 minutes to learn that too) and sometimes I put both feet down, take both hands off the handlebars, and fidget with gear, water bottles, simultaneously pick my nose and scratch my back...you know, just whatever I want to do. Maybe just relax with both feet on the ground whilst leaning on my handlebars. If it's a long red light, the ability to chill out while standing over my bike is actually a critical ride feature for my commuter. Because of that, I like to have about 2" of clearance so it's nice and casual.
Originally Posted by alanbikehouston
Today, I see guys six feet tall riding bikes that are the correct size for a child about five feet tall. A foot or more of clearance from the top of the saddle to the top of the top bar. They are "scrunched up" with their hands three or four inches lower than the saddle. Their hands, wrists, neck, and back ache after a two hour ride. But, they feel very "safe". They have that wonderful thing known as "stand over".
A lot of this came about when conventional wisdom in racing took a sharp turn. To achieve speed, the racing folks decided that the new way to go was to put a tall rider on the shortest frame you could fit him on. A more compact frame would "flex" less and transfer power better, and the lower handlebars and tucked position makes one aero. I'm not saying I advocate this method of bike fit, but a lot of it was done without consideration for standover. There were other factors.
Originally Posted by alanbikehouston
When you buy a bike, you need to make one basic decision first. Are you buying it to RIDE or are you buying it so you can stand over it?
That depends if standover is a part of your ride comfort considerations. Like I said, it actually is for my commuter, and no, I haven't compromised by giving myself a squished cockpit. So I have my cake and eat it too.
For the OP, who states and intention to do some rougher type riding, I would argue that safe standover actually is part of riding that bike. I would not want to go ride a rough, irregular, debris strewn unprepared surface with a bike that I could only place on foot on the ground without crunching a metal tube up into some potentially tender spots.