Old 09-23-20, 06:18 AM
  #6848  
fishboat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 1,852

Bikes: Lemond '01 Maillot Jaune, Lemond '02 Victoire, Lemond '03 Poprad, Lemond '03 Wayzata DB conv(Poprad), '79 AcerMex Windsor Carrera Professional(pur new), '88 GT Tequesta(pur new), '01 Bianchi Grizzly, 1993 Trek 970 DB conv, Trek 8900 DB conv

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 759 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 810 Times in 471 Posts
Originally Posted by BCATC
I have a size "Large" 1993 stumpjumper, top tube measured at roughly 58-59cm when I normally ride 55-56cm bikes. It took time to figure out how to approach the reach because I felt stretched out on it despite having a long torso. I use a 80mm 25 deg stem with flared drop bars at pretty tall stem height to make it feel sort of comfortable, but I feel aches after around 2 hours of riding. Not sure how to proceed with it yet. I had a size "medium" 1995 stumpjumper that I sold, and even then I think the top tube measured at 57-58cm. Maybe having to have a higher seatpost height would've decreased reach?
Seatpost/saddle fore-aft isn't a variable for adjusting reach. The saddle/post gets adjusted in to fit your legs/knees to the pedals. After that, it/they become a constant relative to the front end of the cockpit.

You need to research vintage frame geometries and look for shorter top tubes..obvious, I know. They do exist. Take a look at the top tube length of the 1990-1993(4?) Trek mountain bikes, specifically the 900 series, though maybe the 800 series too(haven't looked). relative to TT length of the late '90s.

I converted a Trek 970 (haven't posted pics yet) to a dropbar touring bike..fits great.,,very similar to my road bikes. We just completed a 275 mile tour (6 days)..no fatigue from a bad fit.
fishboat is offline