>>2026329because it's pre- integrated shifting (which is kinda awkward from the drops) riding in the drops was bigger.
You have more control in the drops, also, the brakes were weaker, and you can get more leverage from the drops on them.
Current ethos with drops is basically to put the hoods as low as is tolerable and then the drops are for sprinting or getting aero on descents and are basically unrideable otherwise.
Back in the days with higher bars and the drops as your primary position, the other positions become more relaxed, which imo is far more useful for a bar with multiple positions.
So because you wanted higher bars, they had to get up somehow, and doing it with a tall quill stem wasn't really a thing because that would add a tonne of flex which makes the bike sprint worse and can make it handle sketchily. The riders in that pic aren't racing but even for racing, to the very end of the steel era, you'd see 'odd' fits like that, pic rel is the last quill stem to win the Tour de France, done this way probably to save a tiny bit of weight, and a 'normal' bike to achieve the same fit for a tall person, who isn't racing, would be like what you see with Brandt's bike.
It's called a french fit 'fistful of seatpost'.
It's also a 'pro' thing because it means you might not have ball clearance so it's signalling that your bike handling is good enough to handle that and not find it dangerous or akward because you can dismount expertly and do a trackstand and you're riding clips.
>>2026338>1. Longer seatstays flex more and absorb shock better.This is true as well. It's comfier, but the main thing is that it's stiffer.
The reasons it wasn't more common are:
>Expensive to have bikes that only fit really tall people >No ball clearance is hostile to casuals >Pros would often ride undersized frames to drop weight and this was imitated 