lbgary

My LBS tells me that some makers lean toward bikes sized for riders with short legs and longer torsos, while others do the opposite. Does anyone know of a maker of steel lugged or titanium bikes that favors long legs/short torso? My legs say 59-60 cm, but I seem to lean too far forward, with excessive weight on my hands with bikes of that size. I'm 5' 11", with inseam 35"+. I think the leg length is mostly femur, since the plumb bob-from-the-knee method seems to always indicate moving my seat back. Or is custom the only way to go? I guess I could get something like a 56 cm bike and just extend the seat height, but there may be other issues. Thanks, Gary

Steel Man

I went custom, but Colnago and Gios are know for shorter top tubes. Use the "Search" option and you will find plenty of threads on this matter.

jonestr

It seems like going with a 56cm and raising the post would help get you far enough behind the BB but then you might run into issues with seat drop, which it sounds like you do.

Bob Jackson would be the first place I would look for a lugged steel frame. I dont think their custom prices are outrageous either. Rivendell might be a place to look as I am speculating that they like to throw together a fairly upright bike, also if you use a threaded headset with a long nitto quill you might be able to achieve the position you are looking for.

johnny99

https://www.rivbike.com/ may be perfect for you.

Hendley

Long head tube relative to top tube is what you're looking for. With long leg/short torso proportions, it's all about trying to get the bars high enough without massive spacers and stem kludges on a TT that is short enough for your upper body.

Often this means the "comfort" versions of road bikes (which, if you are long-legged/short-torsoed will provide a fit similar to what average proportioned riders experience on standard bikes).

Don't know much about steel/titanium brands, but for general road bikes, these brands/models tend to work better than others:

- Almost all Specialized bikes (except the Tarmac team, I think?). The Roubaix is especially good.
- Trek Performance geometry
- Cervelo RS (only, the rest of the line is long TT, short HT)
- BMC road bikes
- Ridley (although the high BB negates the long HT somewhat)

In steel, I know the Soma is short-torso friendly, whereas Surly is most definitely not. Note that most steel bikes will have external headsets, so you can add 2 to 3 cm to the headtube length as listed on the geometry tables.

(I have no idea why Colnagos are always suggested in this context, as on all the geometry tables I've seen they have rather short HTs compared to TT).

Edit about going down a size: I really do NOT recommend going down a size (to a 56 in your case), because you will either have a huge saddle-bar drop, or so many spacers and a flipped up stem that the reach ends up too short.

scirocco

Serotta's Fierte range (since you asked about Ti) has long headtubes for the top-tube, or short top-tubes for the head-tube, whichever way you want to look at it.

Otherwise so-called "comfort" geometry bikes can fit plenty aggressive if you have long legs / short torso.

ericm979

Depending on the bar drop you can tolerate you may fit fine on stock frames. I'm 6' with a 35.5" cycling inseam and I can fit on a Cervelo R3 (56cm) which has a 165mm head tube. I do have the stem turned up and about 2cm of spacers but that's well within the specs and does not make the bike handle funny.

Another brand with short top tubes to look at is PedalForce. I have a 58cm QS2 (no longer made) whose top tube is within .5cm of the R3 but the head tube is about 3cm taller. To get the same bar positon as the R3 the stem is down on that one and it only has a 10mm spacer.

DaveSSS 

Frame size should not contribute to leaning forward and having too much weight on your hands. That would be a saddle fore/aft problem (too far forward of the BB) and a stem length problem.

That said, you have the same proportions that I do, except that you are 12cm taller with 6cm more leg length. The inseam that you posted should require a saddle height around 79cm.

I ride stock LOOK 585's in the 51cm size with a very normal 110mm stem length, but a larger than average 10-12cm drop from the saddle to the bars. If you can't handle at least an 8cm drop, that's when problems occur. You'll need more head tube length than a standard frame will provide.

LOOK has the optimum geometry 585 that provides about 15mm more HTL, plus a shorter TT length. The XL size is probably what you need in that frame.

You might also look at the new 566 model in the size L. It has a 185mm head tube (6cm taller than mine) with a 55.8cm TT and 73.7 degree STA.

Steel Man

+1. Forgot the Fierte

valygrl

Try a women's model, that's the typical women's proportion.

Longfemur

It's hard to say. With long femurs, you might or might not need to be further back. You might want to try not further back but higher instead. This has the advantage of a stronger power stroke while at the same not bending you over as sharply. The further back you are, the higher and/or closer your bars have to be in order to maintain the same overall shape of your body over the bike.

I have longer femurs myself, and I find that a lot of what you can read on the internet just doesn't work right when actually riding the bike as opposed to reading about it.

TruckerMike

x100

Hendley knows what he's talking about, and I could not have said it better. I'm 6'0 w/35" inseam, and found traditional geometry frames with >170mm head tubes were the target. Professional fitting told me stuff like BMC Team Machine and Marinoni's were the way to go if I didn't want a lot of spacers under my stem. Like the OP, I like the seat tube length of 60cm bikes, but that's where the love affairs ended.

More and more, I think ST is a bad way to size a bike. Tell me the head tube length, and horiz TT. A good bike fit goes a step further and tells you the ideal saddle setback from the bb spindle centre.

BTW, I have a Marinoni over in the classified that may fit the bill if you're after steel....

RFC

I have the same issue and have worked with it for a couple of years. I am 5'9" with a 34" cycling inseam. In addition, I am broad shouldered and barrel chested, which means that the lowest I can go is the point where my knees pound my chest. (I guess that's true for everyone, I just reach that point earlier as my short, thick upper body bends forward). And, like my legs, my arms are long. As a result, I like a forward seat position to rotate my body foreward a bit in a semi tri position.

My general bike size is with a 54-56cm top tube. Even so, my seat post is high and I build about 4cm of spacers under the 110 - 130mm stem.

It seems that the majority of modern bikes tend toward the standard 73 / 73 seat tube / head tube angles and longer top tubes, with some of the exceptions noted above. I prefer a virtual seat tube angle of 74 degrees or better. My out-of-the-box best fitting bike is my 2007 Schwinn Madison with 74.5 parallel angles and a 54cm top tube. For other bikes, like my Litespeed Ultimate, I use a zero setback post. In fact, though many of the self-anointed here will scoff, I now have a Profile FastForward post on my Ultimate, which gives me a great deal of flexibility with higher seat tube angles.

Another option I've tried with success. Get one of the tri bikes with more moderate tri angles and set it up for road. For example, my 2005 Quintana Roo Santo -- 55cm tt, 76.5 st angle.

What's kind of interesting is that many of the 1980's crit bikes have better stock geometry for me than new bikes. For example, my:

1985 Team Fuji -- 57 st, 55 tt, 75/74 angles.

1985 Tomasso -- 56 st/tt, 77/75 angles.

The most important thing is to realize that human bodies differ much more than different bike brands. I think you are on the right track finding your own general fit. Try different configurations to see what works for you and don't pay any attention to those commentators who are basing their opinions on style and fashion rather than function. On the whole, the sport of cycling does not have a disproprotionately high number of rocket scientists among its members.

lbgary

OP here. Thanks for all the replies and helpful info. I hadn't even thought about head tube length 'til now. One of my LBS's (King's in Seal Beach, CA) sells some high end brands, Serotta included, so I may just pay them for their time and see what they come up with in terms of fit. Then we'll talk about brands. A custom build is not out of the question for me, but you still have to make a pretty large financial commitment to a builder or seller at some point, especially with a brand new bike. Gary

Jurgen

But they seem to have tall seat tubes relative to top tubes.

Hendley

Yes, you're right, but the head tube lengths are short relative to size, which means the long-legged rider is going to struggle to get the handlebars to a comfortable height.

Taking the C-50 as an example. I'm usually looking for a top tube about 58cm:

(Size, TT, HT length)
60cm, 58 cm, 17.3 cm
61cm, 58.6 cm, 18.4 cm
62cm, 59 cm, 18.8 cm

Those are short head tubes relative to top tube.

In contrast, the Specialized Roubaix, size 58:
58, 58.2 cm, 22.5 cm

Or the Specialized Tarmac, size 58:
58, 58.2 cm, 20.5 cm

Or the BMC Pro Machine, size 59:
59, 58.5 cm, 20.4 cm

I suspect the Roubaix would fit me the best, and the Tarmac or Pro Machine would be fine. The Colnago, no way. And I'm not talking about Grant Petersen handle-bar-level-with-the-saddle fit, either...the Roubaix would still give me about 8cm saddle-bar drop.

audiojan

I have long legs and short upper body for my height... 34" inseam and only 5'8". I've tried to find standard bikes that fit me well and I just got a Look 595 (size M) that fits me really well. The biggest problem I've had is to find a fit is the setback since I have long femurs. Most bikes with short TT puts the BB to far back (creating a steeper seattube angle). I also have a Colnago, which does fit Ok, but the Look does fit better.

DaveSSS 

Most generalizations about Colnagos are wrong. Colnago geometry has only changed slightly since the days of lugged steel frames, by adding 7mm to the head tube length. That was done in about 2004.

Prior to 2004, the head tube lengths of the carbon models were the same as the lugged steel models, with the head tube not much more than 1cm above the top of the TT, as determined by the typical head tube lugs of the day.

Also keep in mind that most Colnagos use conventional headsets that add 25-30mm to the head tube length, while integrated head tubes only increase by 8-20mm when the headset is added. If you don't figure in the headset, your comparisons are not accurate.

I owned 54 and 55cm C-40s with 125 and 134mm head tubes. After adding 25mm headsets, those lengths became 150 and 159mm. I used NO spacer with either one. The larger frame was setup with a lower angled 80 degree stem and the smaller one use an 84 degree stem. The larger frame only had 3mm more reach than the smaller frame.

If I was buying today, I'd select an even smaller frame, to produce a head tube length of only 145mm, with the headset and spacers. That would be a 52cm size. The reach is only about 5mm shorter.

Colnagos are racing frames. Comparing them to comfort geometry frames doesn't make much sense to me.

TruckerMike

Few more tips for the OP:

1) Most OE stems today can be flipped. This is a cheap and easy way to get desired bar height w/o too many spacers.

2) Watch out for stock cranks at 172.5. You'll likely need 175mm with your inseam.

3) Showing a bit more post is better than too much steerer in my experience wrt noticeable flex. A parking lot ride will tell you if the post bobs too much at your height.


Also, for the Colnago chit chat - you guys know there's a trad and compact model for their bikes right? You need to look at the trad chart in this discuss and forget the compact numbers. Whilst we're on the topic of high end euro CF bikes in this context - I'm on a Cyfac Nerv and love it for all comfort. I was on a Columbus steel frame and the compliance and slack seat tube of the Nerv is very suited to long days in the saddle. Not a crit specialist, but terrific comfort.

Enthusiast

+1 on 80's criterium bikes for the long leg/short torso-ed among us. I'm 6'1" with a 36" inseam. My '85 Trek 760 fits me very well with a 60cm st/58cm tt lengths and 74/73 st/ht angles. I use a 90cm stem and have about 8cm of drop. You'll have a great fitting bike that rides like a dream!

JerryZ

I have the same sort of proportions-I am 5' 11" w/36" inseam. My experience is that any off the shelf frame will be a compromise setup at best. You either have too much bar drop or not enough stem to get correct steering. I now have a Carl Strong custom w/59.5cm seat tube and 56cm top tube w/11cm stem. Huge difference! I recommend custom-you'll be so glad you did.

Hendley

No one is doing that, unless you think the Spec Tarmac or BMC Pro Machine are comfort frames. All we're doing is trying to find geometries that work for long-legged, short torso riders, without worrying about how marketers choose to classify those frames.

Your point about external headsets is very well taken, however; if the C-50 I cited above has an external headset, then yes, that will put the effective HT tube length right up there with the Specialized, Ridleys, BMCs, etc, making it a decent choice.

Which just serves to highlight how deceptive a simplified approach to geometry can be. We haven't even talked about different axle-to-crown heights in forks yet...

Hendley

That is quite a way out on the curve. I'm similar to Enthusiast above, 6'1"-2" and 36". Not so extreme that I can't fit any stock bikes, but there are many brands/models that don't work.

If I ever had a custom bike made, it would be something like 57cm TT and 220mm head tube. That would be about perfect, I think.

DaveSSS 

Yes, fork axle to crown measurements vary from 365 to around 374mm, but most brands fail to list their fork lengths in their geometry charts. Those that do (like LOOK and Colnago) know enough to provide the buyer with all the necessary information. I'm don't think I've seen any brand list the headset stack height. With frames using conventional headsets, that is the buyer's choice, but not so with some proprietary integrated models.

Look frames with IS headsets have a 15mm stack height, but could be changed to a model that is 8-20mm in height. The newer headfit headsets are about 20mm tall and can't be changed so those have a taller minimum height.

BB drop also affects the head tube length needed, but very few frames use a BB drop that differs much from the common 70mm. Serotta is the exception with a lot of 80mm BB drops.

I always figure out the necessary bar height from the floor to the top of the bars - then it's simple to figure out the total stack height needed with common stem angles, like 73, 80, 84 and 96 and 100. I would never use a 96 or more myself, but sometimes it's a good alternative, if the rider can't tolerate a lot of drop.

As an example, I get a bar height of 85.5cm with a 145mm stack height and a 73 degree stem. Taller stacks will increase that vertical height by 95% of any additional amount. An 84 degree stem will add about 2cm and a 96 will add almost another 2cm.

Jurgen

On non-compact frames, isn't ST, SA, and TT going to tell you more about "fit" for us long-legged folks than HT? (The Soma Speedster, for instance, has almost no HT on otherwise what seems a fairly squarish traditional cockpit.)