Originally Posted by big chainring

This is how I ride. Very comfortable. 62cm frame and I am 6' tall.
Short top tube and low BB on this bike.

Originally Posted by Bandera

Trying a French-ism fit on a more contemporary design before whacking the steerer tube off for my 'normal' 4-5CM drop.

So far so good, I kinda like it.
Measure thrice, cut once.

Originally Posted by elcruxio

...And why pray can one not strive for a sporty aero powerful riding position? Speed is power but most of all speed is aerodynamics. If you ride like mary poppins it's good bye to speed. A horizontal back will make one really fast. Assuming of course you can handle such a low position. Stretching stretching stretchin. And a saddle with a canal.

Originally Posted by Camilo

I don't know if this relates to what I wrote, but I believe that the limit of aero position is most likely hip flexibility, not necessarly the saddle-bar drop. Even with bars up closer to saddle height (say within 0-3 inches), bending elbows, use of deeper drops, etc. will get the position as low as the hips will allow. I totally agree with stretching - and of course getting the tiny muscles in the inner core tuned up.

Saddle w/ canal? Nah, not necessarily. For some, but there's a lot of good saddles that sit the body correctly and protect the fragile areas without canals. Mine for instance.

Originally Posted by Camilo

- assuming you understand that elbows bend.

Originally Posted by Camilo

My standard for aesthetics for a horizontal top tube bike is about "a fist" of seat tube.

"Standover" is a stupid criterion, mostly (imo) brought to road bikes by the mountain bike crowd. As is the aesthetic of long seat tubes.

Standover is fine if you can stop the bike, lean it over to put a foot on the ground and have some clearance when you keep the opposite foot on the pedal. You have absolutely no need to straddle the bike with both feet down and the bike straight upright.

Both of my horizontal (or nearly horizontal) top tube bikes have about a "fist" of seat tube showing, and I have about an inch (at the max) of clearance over the top tube, flat footed, bike vertical - wearing my bike shorts and bike shoes. When I actually stop the bike, lean over and put a foot down, I have several inches of clearance.

Then saddle-bar drop.... what a mess. The old standard, for almost all riders, even racers, was handlebars at about saddle height, maybe 1-3 inches below (say 0-7 cm of drop). Comfort was achieved riding on the tops or hoods, and "aero" was achieved by using bent elbows and/or normal/deep drops. The body was able to get into the same position of horizontal back as with undersized frames. The above frame sizing benchmarks also achieved a head tube that was high enough to get the bars up within that high/low range.

Nowadays, frames are smallish, headtubes are correspondingly smallish, stems are longish, and handlebars are shallow because the position on the tops is so low that hardly anyone can use deeper drops. But the body doesn't get any lower - a body can only flex so much at the hips regardless of whether you achieve it with low drops and bent elbows or shallow drops and less bent elbows. Higher handlebars with deeper drops gives you a substantially greater range for comfort as well as race position - assuming you understand that elbows bend.

Bike fit and aesthetics for the recreational rider is nuts nowadays. THEY'RE NOT MOUNTAIN BIKES FOLKS!! YOU'RE NOT AN EURO-PRO RACER!!

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

Back in the early '80s a colleague from the UK came for the first time to work with us in Houston and brought his bike with him. I saw immediately that it was about 4 cm larger than a US shop would have fitted him with. In response to our constant razzing, he finally sold it and built up a frame his "proper" size. I subsequently learned he did a lot of light touring back home and had another frame there similarly oversized. Over the years I have seen one British bike after another with very little seat post showing, suggesting to me the same oversized fit for their riders. I have concluded that UK cyclists must attempt to obtain the effect of the taller head tube we now associate with long ride comfort on compact geometry frames by upsizing and using a shorter reach stem with traditional geometry.

I had always thought there must be a separate category of bikes with these features built into the design and overlong seat tubes shouldn't be necessary. Certainly I would have thought that any custom frame could have been designed for a less aggressive fit. Besides, I would imagine that standover must be a problem with the oversize strategy. Ouch! Not to mention how unsightly the appearance is (according to our aesthetic standards). In light of what we now know about compact geometry, sloping seat tubes, and tall head tubes, the whole thing seems rather naïve. Assuming no one had thought of the sloping seat tube back in the day, was the idea of just building up the head tube significantly above the horizontal seat tube also never pursued as a superior approach? Or even just the most obvious solution of very tall stems?

Then we come to the question of why this fit approach persists today in the UK. Is it just a lot of really old bikes still being ridden. Or do things just change really slowly there.

Robert

Originally Posted by Nick Bain

I think people forget that even though the bars are even with the saddle, you can still get in the aero position if you want to.

Originally Posted by Campag4life

I ride the exact fit you write about Robert. To me, it is the 'correct' fit. Year's ago...I have been riding a long time...cyclists seemed to ride larger bikes relative to their body size. This is the whole premise of a French fit. The essence of a comfort or endurance geometry is just as you write Robert...it is Up and Out and not handlebar position Down and In as in vogue today...largely borne out of 6 sigma (outliar BMI, flexibility and fitness) pro racers average Joe wants to emulate. With a Roubaix geometry you can have a British or French fit BUT with increased standover by sloping top tube...which also builds more compliance into the seat post with a longer length. I give kudos to Specialized R&D for creating the Roubaix style bike which has spawned a whole new generation of road bikes that make more sense for the average rider. Many quit road biking needlessly because they can't tolerate an aggressive position with a square geometry bike.

Originally Posted by Campag4life

Absolutely. I can get almost a flat back in the drops with bent arms. Also, virtually everybody that I ride with ride with more drop. There is nothing between us in speed. I also believe that I have less fatigue as the ride gets closer to 50 miles. Lastly, I find the drops much more usable and comfortable with a longer head tube. As a result, I ride in the drops a lot.

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

I was just wondering why the only solution was upsizing the whole frame and giving up stand over and (as far as I am concerned) aesthetics. Or was upsizing just the readily available, ready-made, off-the-rack solution, and that is why we see so much of it? Oops. Did I just answer my own question?

Originally Posted by chasm54

and as for aesthetics, that is entirely a matter of what you are used to. To my eyes, these bikes look much, much more elegant than my carbon TCR advanced.

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

And although we disagree about deep drop bars, that is why I like them. I have the tops and hoods only a couple of cm below the saddle for more relaxed riding and a deep drop position for situations when I need that. As far as I am concerned, that is the best of both worlds.

Originally Posted by elcruxio

True. To me the french fit style bike is a horrid sight that should never have seen daylight. Modern bikes are cool and the more aero the frame the better it looks. Then again I'm probably 20-30 years younger than the average age of this forum.

But for reference, I don't feel comfy if I'm too upright. Bars level with the saddle is way too upright for me. Atm my drop is 5 inches with a shallow drop bar and it feels perfect. I don't use the drops much. For me they are for downhills, sprints and headwinds. The sram apex hoods are so nice I don't really appreciate the drops that much. But I can relate to older people who started out with bad hoods and using the drops was the norm.

It's what you get used to

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

Patience is such a virtue! I knew if I waited long enough, you would come into this conversation, and I could discuss the issue with someone who has both historical and current experience with it.

What I was really getting at was that there must have been more elegant ways of building frames even back in the day to provide (okay, let's call it) French Fit besides just upsizing. Even in the absence of the sloping top tube epiphany. Lengthening the top tube without lengthening the seat tube is really not a problem; it is easy. What about building up a taller head tube (connecting the horizontal top tube lower on a taller head tube)? Did no one ever do that. Or just using a taller stem which was easily available back then. I was just wondering why the only solution was upsizing the whole frame and giving up stand over and (as far as I am concerned) aesthetics. Or was upsizing just the readily available, ready-made, off-the-rack solution, and that is why we see so much of it? Oops. Did I just answer my own question?

Originally Posted by chasm54

No, you just have it backwards. These frames were not "upsized", they were the right size. It would be just as valid - more so, since they were later on the scene - to argue that the modern fashion is for "downsized" frames. Standover height is unimportant - in any event, I've always been able to stand over a traditional geometry bike (bottom brackets tended to be lower); and as for aesthetics, that is entirely a matter of what you are used to. To my eyes, these bikes look much, much more elegant than my carbon TCR advanced.

Originally Posted by Campag4life

You may like them Robert, but keep in mind old conventions die out for a reason...a sea change in sentiment about evolving technology. Compact bars are embraced because they are preferred...including flat bar tops I also prefer that some still do not.

Originally Posted by Campag4life

While I agree with much that you write and even that a big drop bike has a sexier aesthetic...what people prefer isn't because of what they get used to. People try different set ups and choose what works best. Quite right...you won't see many upright Roubaixs among pros...and we agree that older riders in particular benefit from a more upright position. Keep in mind a road bike with big drop like you have in the bike universe is an anomaly....well to the right of the bell curve. The vast majority of bicycles sold in the world have the handlebars at least level with the saddle as in the case of mtb's...or well above for dutch style bikes. You may prefer your 'outliar' set up in the bike universe...but it is just that.

Originally Posted by elcruxio

Well yes if you consider it like that, but in that case even a decent road bike is an anomaly. The massive majority of bikes sold are just normal bikes for everyday use. The variations are endless. But if we keep the discussion within the road bike spectrum, having the tops lower than the saddle is not an anomaly. It's quite normal actually. I agree, my position might be a bit extreme, but you have to look at it in context. I'm 195cm (6'4" or closer to 6'5") tall so I can handle such a massive drop. But I am by definiton already pretty right on the bell curve.
Someone shorter than me, with more traditional proportions should not even consider such a drop.

If you look at ye olde road bikes and pro riders, the thing I notice is, that their tops were pretty level with the saddles, but they had seriously deep drops and the riders tended to ride a lot on the drops. If I compare the bikes Eddy Mercx rode with my bike, I notice that his drops are pretty much at the same level as mine or even lower. So what really is dfferent is just the contrast between the tops and drops and not the actual back angle or riding height.

I look at the pro riders for inspiration. Had I been a cognizing personality in the 70's or the 80's I might think differently, but as I have found the joys of watching pro cycling on the 2000 era, I do think lower is better, at least for those who can manage it. And so far going low has not been such a big challenge. My back angle is good, my hip angle is healthy and open and I feel stronger than ever on the bike. I think I could possibly do 40km over one hour if given the right gear (Yeah, the aero stuff and the works. In the end it's the small things) and my back only gets sore when my postural muscles shut down (and that is a topic for an another thread)

Sorry, I really try to be more analytical and rational than this, but a few bears can make anyone anecdotal. Peace out!

Originally Posted by Bandera

Trying a French-ism fit on a more contemporary design before whacking the steerer tube off for my 'normal' 4-5CM drop.

So far so good, I kinda like it.
Measure thrice, cut once.

Originally Posted by elcruxio

If you look at ye olde road bikes and pro riders, the thing I notice is, that their tops were pretty level with the saddles, but they had seriously deep drops and the riders tended to ride a lot on the drops. If I compare the bikes Eddy Mercx rode with my bike, I notice that his drops are pretty much at the same level as mine or even lower. So what really is dfferent is just the contrast between the tops and drops and not the actual back angle or riding height.