curttard

I have a 52cm Fuji Sportif endurance road bike, and a 56cm Specialized Diverge 2018. I'm 5'9.5".

I have them set up the same as far as saddle height from BB, fore-aft from BB, saddle-handlebar drop, and saddle-handlebar reach -- the Fuji came with a 120mm stem and the Diverge with 100mm.

I still feel like it might not be quite dialed in. Is there a rule of thumb for reach? The Competitive Cyclist calculator gives me a range from 54cm saddle-to-handlebar to 56cm. Right now I'm at about 49cm. So I'm supposed to put on a 150mm stem to get that extra 5cm? That seems absurd. I thought a 56cm bike might be a bit big for me as it was, so how is my reach so short on it? Getting a 58cm bike for a 5'9" guy also seems ridiculous (and the reach on the 58 is only 6mm longer anyway).

No doubt a big contributor to the problem is that I have to put my seat very far forward; I guess I have short femurs? I used KOPS as a starting point and adjusted the seat after each ride until I stopped finding myself shifting myself forward or back on the saddle while I rode. Should I get shorter cranks? Although thigh length was part of the Competitive Cyclist calculation, so I'm not sure what's going on.

curttard

With my elbow at the nose of the saddle, the handlebar comes at the end of my fingers plus an additional 2-3 sideways fingers.

Carbonfiberboy 

Look in a mirror. With your hands on the hoods, forearms horizontal, back straight, your upper arms should make about a 90° angle with your torso. There really is no other standard. But once you have that standard setup for one bike, you can simply measure from saddle to bars for other bikes, assuming the same saddle and bars. Of course given that setup, you can also make other measurements.

Wildwood 

@curttard wrote - Is there a Rule of Thumb for reach?
Appropriate reach is an elusive thing. It is derived from many components; including, but not limited to:

Riding style
Flexibility
Core strength

Optimum reach, is not just the simple calculation of torso/arm length that the 'fit calculators' spit out based on generalized assumptions about other factors, such as those listed above. As flex/core/style change over time so can reach. I know this personally, as I went from 210 to 180 pounds - that is, almost flabby to almost fit. Riding the same bikes felt different at the extremes. With less gut and more core strength, i wanted to stretch out more on the bike. That's why refining bike fit is such an elusive and never-ending process. I'm back to 195 and am still happily riding all my bikes.

curttard

Interesting, thanks.

Carbonfiberboy - I thought forearms horizontal was in the drops, not on the hoods?

fietsbob

For Me, when its good, I'm looking straight thru the steering axis line, riding, and looking down.

Carbonfiberboy 

Deep in the drops. Oddly enough, correct reach will have the upper arm approximately perpendicular to the torso throughout the range of motion using those two hand positions. Yeah, so either way, but on the hoods is easier for most people. The idea is that then one is using the least amount of muscle to hold the position. Try the pre-pushup "front leaning rest position" with the 90° angle and then move the hands further away and then closer to the feet to see the obvious difference.

oldbobcat

This is the one I go by. It seems to work for a variety of back angles and frame geometries. A little shorter than 90 degrees works for more casual riders.

The forearm measurement was popular when I started riding around 1970. Even in 1970, with long arms and a more upright back angle, it always came up too short for me. The stem-hub eclipse method introduces parameters into the fit formula that are not related to fit, namely, head angle and fork rake. Both of these methods fail to account for an important factor, handlebar and lever reach.