27inch

After many years of riding mostly road bikes there's a few features that I just don't understand. Being 6ft02+ and over 300 lbs with a 42" waste for most of my adult life, I'm built more like a line backer than a cyclist.
I've been riding fairly often since I was a young teen, and I simply will never understand the placement of down tube shifters on upper end models?
I currently own five what I call decent bikes, the first a 1977 Raleigh Super Course, the second a 1970 Gitane TDF with Super Champion Clinchers added, third a 1981 Panasonic DX2000, fourth a 1974 Motobecane Grand Jubilee, fifth, a 1980 Univega Supra Sport, and the sixth a 1975 Nishiki International.
I ride these bikes very little because of their shifter location, especially the Japanese bikes.
I find it physically impossible to reach the DT shifters without my face hitting the handle bars or my upper torso resting on the top tube. These are all 23 and 25cm frames, the smaller frames are better in the Japanese models worse in the French and English models.
On the French bikes, the distance from the bars to the seat is too short, simple turns require me to swing my knees out of the way to turn the bars, but the pedal reach and leg extension on the French bikes is by far the best. Now, I've got several duplicate bikes, on which I've moved the shifters to the stem or gone with barcon shifters like on the 77 Super Course. Barcons help but reaching the brakes on the SC is an issue, I cannot reach far enough on the bars on the far side in a turn.
I have a 36" inseam, and long legs, with knee issues. I have very large hands but a somewhat normal arms reach and am no doubt overweight but that's not likely to change much as I get older. (53 now).
I just can't for the life of me who designs these larger frame bikes, I watch smaller guys I ride with keep one hand on the top of the bars and reach down to their DT shifters, with me, in that position I can barely get my free hand past the top tube. I sit very tall, I hit my head in just about every car I've ever been in. When I ride with my hands low on the bars, my face is looking down in front of the front tire. (Yeah, if I hit a tree, my head would hit first).
This is the case on all but a few old Peugeot UO8 bikes I've got, also in 25" frames. the bar reach is better, but not perfect but not so close I have issues turning.
I find this is the case with most lower mid grade bikes, they just fit me better.
A week ago I was given a 25" Ross Gran Tour, rusty, faded, HEAVY, but ridable, and a 24" Schwinn Varsity, both bikes are steel rims and gas pipe tubes. Both bikes fit me like a glove, I rode the Ross over 10 miles the other day, all along waiting for the 30 year old Hutchinson tires to pop under my weight but they never did. The bike has to weigh over 35 lbs, the Varsity is heavier, yet both bikes are very comfortable to ride, in all bar positions.
The Varsity is a lot cleaner than the Ross, but a good 10 lbs heavier.

What am I missing? I have a slew of bikes, some to ride, some I guess just because. Many are bikes I bought just to try with the thought in mind that riding would get more comfortable or easier as I went up the ladder in equipment and price. It seems the better the bike, the worse the fit. I've always said this over the years but those who ride or sell bikes have always said that the better the bike the better the fit, well it don't add up. Out of all the import bikes, the British bikes fit the best overall but the French bikes seem to give me less knee pain. The Japanese bikes are just a total non-fit, the bars are too far away, even with a shorter stem, and the DT shifters are out of reach. (Switching to a shorter stem usually makes the knee interference issue appear on the Japanese bikes as well. I did make a smaller frame work so-so, I took a 21" frame, added a 24" seat post and super tall stem and mtb bars and the bike is comfortable but odd looking. In order to get good leg extension, I have to put the seat so high I have to jump down to reach the ground. The act of using the low pedal to hoist myself onto the saddle on take off has resulted in several bent pedal axles and broken or bent crank arms. I snapped two pair of Campy Record cranks off a Paramount I had for a bit, the same bike finally developed a crack where the rear stays met the seat lug. (I've also cracked the frames on a Panasonic, a Lotus, and a Nishiki Olympic) The Panasonic DX5000 cracked where the BB casting meets the seat tube, the Lotus cracked where the seat post ended just above the front derailleur, and the Olympic cracked the bottom tube lengthwise just above the BB and the right chainstay all but broke clean where it entered the bb lug. While these issues were years ago, and I don't ride nearly as far or has hard as i used to, I did just snap off a pedal axle over the weekend on my Nishiki International. (I ride plain pedals, I've never been able to find toe clips to work with size 17 sneakers nor do I have the reach to get in and out of them while starting and stopping. I haven't ridden with toe clips of any sort since I broke my first Campy record crank in the 80's.
Fit wise, with a 63cm frame, I've got about 2" of free space standing over the frame, which on most of these is at or around 34 to 35". I then have to hike up the seat post almost 7 inches to get proper leg extension. To me, proper leg extension is my leg slightly bent on the bottom stroke of the crank. If I go to a taller frame, I can't clear the stand over height of the frame.

I will likely never part with the bikes I collected but I somehow feel I've been chasing the wrong bikes all these years. Maybe I'm better off with junk, its sure a lot nicer to ride.

79pmooney

Without seeing you, I'd say you were a classic candidate for a custom frame. Most production frames are made for those who are high on the bell curve of physiques.

I am very different from you, build-wise. Barely over 6' (before I started shrinking), short torso but long legs and arms that go forever. I could never find bikes with long enough reach (but reaching those downtube shifters - easy! 20 years ago, I had a 180 mm stem made for my stock commuter. Wow! What an upgrade! Since then, I have have 4 stems built and two custom frames. I get to ride in comfort I never imagined.

Consider going to a framebuilder who specializes in bikes for large people or perhaps just getting a professional fit and taking that to builders. (Lennard Zinn is builder of bikes for tall people. He races and is tall. Ti Cycles specializes in unusual projects. Ask around. There are others. On a custom bike, you can fine tune everything to be exactly hwat you want. I have one bike set up for the SunTour DT shifters that are on a box that sits on top of the downtube. Easier reach, though I did it because I tend to ride knees in and have slammed the right DT shifter onto the tiny cog in back while climbing very steep hills many times. It gets old. A cusotm bike could also have the shifters mounted closer to the headtube and therefor slightly higher and closer if you choose to stay DT.

Ben

TrojanHorse

I'd say you're a candidate for integrated shifters/brakes. I never did like down tube shifting.

I'm not understanding your fit description though. I'm 6'2" with about a 34" cycling inseam (I wear 32" pants) and I am perfectly happy on a 58cm frame (approx 23"). It sounds like you're a bit leggier than I am and you're putting yourself on a bike that's a few inches larger and you still need 7" of seat post showing AND you're looking past the front of the handlebars?

MRT2

Indeed. I get the appeal of vintage. Even rode a mid 80s Schwinn Letour Luxe with downtube shifters for a couple of seasons, but once I switched to brifters, I swore I would never go back to downtube (or stem) shifters. And I haven't.

27inch

I've pretty much resigned myself to riding a road bike converted to straight bars with thumb shifters, I can't get used to the new shifters, I have an MTB with rapid fire shift and I hate it. I never hit them hard enough to make a full shift.

My inseam is measured barefoot standing flat on the floor, 36" is a full length measurement, A comfortable standover height is 34" on some, 32 or 33" on others. When I sit, I sit tall, I drive an F350 and hit my head on the roof with the seat all the way down.
When I'm on a Japanese bike, I don't look down on the tire, I'm well behind it, but on my Peugeot or my Gitane, I'm looking down the front of the front wheel. The bike is way short and my knees interfere with the bars. The Gitane is worse, I almost can't even ride that one even though its a 25" frame.
I need a 63cm frame and a medium top tube, and bars that are either super wide or out front clear of my knees.

My problem isn't so much what I need, I've more than got that figure out over the past 40 years or so but I just can't figure out how they come to the conclusions on how to build some of these stock frames. The Gitane TDF is downright short up front, but long in the rear. The Japanese bikes are long rear, long front. I've tried several combos of stems, bars, and seat posts and so far the best thing I've come up with yet is a 23" frame, with a super long s/p, 165mm cranks, and a super long Nitto 65mm reach road stem with straight mountain bike bars with thumb shifters.
For some reason I do better with 165mm cranks than anything longer, which I was told shouldn't be the case but the longer cranks irritate my knee issues. I've been as heavy as 435, as light as 310 in recent years, my size doesn't seem to change much, same pant size, same shirt size, I just get heavier and lighter for some reason. I gained a couple pant sizes about 15 years ago and nothing changed much since then. Right now I'm at 330lbs.
Weather permitting, I try to ride about 10 miles a day, but its tough in the winter with bad knees. When the cold gets to the knees, I'm done. The right knee is worse than the left, but both hurt me for a few hours after I ride, if I over do it, I pay for weeks. Yet if I'm down the shore and I hop on a junk beach cruiser, I can ride all day with no issues. But my lower back bothers me on those type of bikes.

I've had knee issues since I was a teen, I had a doctor tell me that bike riding wore out my knees, but overall, riding makes them better so long as I don't push too hard and so long as I've got full pedal extension.
With a 65cm frame, with the seat post set where I can get my toes on the ground while on the saddle, I can't get anyhwhere close to full leg extension on the down stroke. My knee is bent closer to 90 degrees than it is straight. It feels good if I can pedal and nearly straighten my leg at the bottom of each stroke. But at that point, the seat is nearly 7" out of the frame. I bought a Kalloy post so I wasn't pushing my luck with the original SR Laprade stem.

katsup

I'm 6ft 2in with a long torso and usually fit 58-60cm modern drop bar bikes. I'm comfortable on my 59.5cm Vaya, but I am not sure how that translates into vintage bikes.

Unless you are a collector, sell off the bikes that are uncomfortable to ride.

RayLee

tall with more leg than average for a person thats 6'2.... short stack heights are real killers for me. so many bikes I tried had the hoods at about the same drop from the seat as most peoples drops... and the drops from the proper seat hight look like time trials bike. Some bikes worked out like the Marin Gestalt and the Spec AWOL but they are far and few between. FYI mountain bikes are really annoying, a bike that I could make fit in 6 minutes is pretty much useless because all the manufacturer cut the steerers. last 2 mountain bikes I bought I just get em home pull the forks for Ebay and order up some new ones

Kontact 

Fit and bicycle quality have nothing to do with each other. The bikes that fit you do so because they are the right dimensions, not because they are cheap.

27inch

It does seem related, they don't build the higher end models to the same geometry as the lower end models.
An fit when it comes to most bikes is a matter of frame size, seat post height, and stem length. Nothing else is adjustable.


For instance, one 25.5" Raleigh Super Course is exactly the same as all the rest, they don't offer different tube lengths or rear stay lengths, no bike company I've ever seen does. At least not in an affordable price range.
It seems the more a bike costs, the less likely it is it'll fit me.
My biggest gripe is with older Japanese bikes, some are so long I can barely reach the bars to turn. On my Panasonic, the frame shifters were 16.25" below the top tube, the saddle was 7.5" above the top tube, roughly 2" above the stem level, which in itself is a problem. The bike was built with a 110mm SR stem.
When on the saddle, my arm/shoulder height is 24" above the saddle. My arms fully extended are 24" max to my finger tips. The stem is 5.25" out of the tube to the max line. My stomach and chest hit my legs long before I get within 6 inches of the shifters. Riding with my hands on the lower drops means I'm being pulled off the saddle.
That means in order to reach the shift levers I have to let go of the bars with one hand, I'm off the saddle, with my face pressed against the handle bars trying not to get my hand caught in the front spokes as I blindly reach for the shifters and attempt to stay upright. Barcons help but only on some bikes.
The issue is mainly on Japanese bikes, they must have figured that a guy who needs a 63cm frame has arms that equal his inseam length.

I've looked at newer bikes, and they don't build anything to suit me, its all aluminum and carbon fiber. My track record with carbon fiber and aluminum frames isn't good. I broke a Fuji Finest AL about 12 years ago, a 62cm frame on which the bb shell got out of round or egged out, after a some creative repairs, the forks snapped on that same bike, breaking off right near the top on the right side blade. A rep looked at the bike then looked at me and said the bikes were built for a max rider weight of 170lbs, I was double that. I also broke two pair of carbon cranks on a casual ride in the Poconos a few years ago, I stood up on the cranks and the right crank broke off like a cardboard tube twisting apart. It cost me a pair of cranks on my buddies bike, I bought a used Trek with similar cranks a year later and they too failed, but less catastrophically. The right arm started to look frayed around where my boots were rubbing the crank, it wore through the gel coat I guess, but soon after the point of attachments for the sprocket worked loose and couldn't be fixed. I gave the bike away and bought an older all steel bike.
Most shops won't sell a road bike to a big rider these days, I've been told dozens of times they don't build a bike for a big guy like they used to, most tell me to go find an old Schwinn or a Raleigh three speed.
I have to sort of agree with them, bikes with light aluminum tubing, carbon fiber spokes, and skinny tires have no business under a big guy like myself on the type of roads we have here. The carbon issue is two fold, you have to raise up off the saddle to save the wheels over bumps yet doing so risks breaking the cranks or pedals.
As a kid I rode a lot of heavy old Schwinn 10 speeds, I can't count how many cranks I bent and how many pedals I broke and I was a lot lighter back then. I didn't hurt the wheels though, for the most part wheels lasted ok, so long as they were steel with strong spokes. I did break a lot of rear axles though.

jsigone

There has been allot of geometry changes from the era of Bike you ride to what seems normal t since day 2010.

But zero shops will stock a taller Bike then a 58/59. Not cuz they hate tall people cuz that Bike will sit for a yr or two until the right person comes in and the lights turn bright as he walks out the door.

I’d narrow the search down to a endurance fit Bike or a steel gravel bike with the tallest head tube you can find. Reach can be adjusted a bit with stem.

First I’d find a shop that has a Guro fit jig and have you get setup on it. Likely not free but hey can upload many bikes while you sit on the machine. It can adjust all angles and fine fit stem length and seat set back distances

Most of my taller then me friends run a setback post of at least one inch on top of 59 or 61cm frames. Thompson makes a longer setback post that my legged friend has on all his bikes.

https://www.trekbicyclesuperstore.co...a-305255-1.htm

https://www.trekbicyclesuperstore.co...3-307732-1.htm

Both of these have 220mm to 235mm head tube. Adjust fit with stem and seatpost. Lifetime warranty on the frames and better build options are there if your wallet is. If it breaks send it back and get the current model of that frame or possibly a next model up.

Wheels will be custom or veulta HD wheels from nashbar (not disc brake though)

In defense of the Fuji finest, it was he lightest alum frame Bike of the time, lighter then the CAAD8s and was made for crit racing and crit racing only. They had some nice color schemes back then. I just got flash backs of the jelly belly team Bike I wanted to buy at the time. Not alum frames are formed to be stronger, head tube welds have increased with some models.

RayLee

Specialized AWOL is steel and has a weight limit of 300lbs, tall stack height of 664.... toss on some heavy duty wheels and go ride. Velomine sells a heavy duty 40 spoke Sun Rhyno wheel set for $180.

Kontact 

A Super Course with different tube lengths wouldn't be a Super Course any more than a Corvette with 4 doors would be a corvette.

You appear to be stuck in the past trying to get 1980s road bikes to fit like something other than a road bike. You need to figure out what the fit on your cheap bikes are that you like and what kind of bike can duplicate that - and it is likely to be an MTB, city bike or something like that if you like a Varsity with 26" wheels.

There are plenty of steel bicycles available. There are also plenty of super strong aluminum bicycles. For new bikes or frames look at Soma or Surly, otherwise look at used hybrids and MTBs. An older MTB can be converted to a very tough "road bike" with a change in tires, bars and levers.

27inch

There are lots of new bikes, and new bike prices. I don't have a grand to spend on a new bike. My point here isn't to by a new bike, my point is to find out why different manufacturers seem to build to a certain style or measurement.
I'm fine with riding the old Schwinn, it'll outlast me by far.
Japan isn't known to be a country of super tall people with long arms, I can't see why all the bikes built from there are built the way they are. Just the same, I can't see why so many French bikes I've seen are built so short.
Who at the factories back then made the decision to built any model bike a certain way?

Kontact 

Those bikes were built for Western road bike riders. Just like the Datsun 240Z fit taller people than the '70s Corvettes - it has nothing to do with Japanese needs or preferences. Plenty of road bike riders very much liked the way road bikes fit, which is why so many of them were produced and sold.

But you don't like the way road bikes fit you, which means you should stop buying old or new road bikes. What I was suggesting is that you should figure out what the fit on the Varsity actually is and see what old or new bikes will serve that role without being 45 pound clunkers - if you actually want something nicer than a Varsity. And if you read my last post again you'll notice I suggested both new and used bikes, so I don't know why you are talking about new bike prices.


And if the point of the thread is to claim that people who like to ride road bikes are fools, I'm sure you won't get much traction with that. Road bike geometry is great, but it isn't for everyone, and not for you.

27inch

[QUOTE=Kontact;20116380]Those bikes were built for Western road bike riders. Just like the Datsun 240Z fit taller people than the '70s Corvettes - it has nothing to do with Japanese needs or preferences. Plenty of road bike riders very much liked the way road bikes fit, which is why so many of them were produced and sold.

But you don't like the way road bikes fit you, which means you should stop buying old or new road bikes. What I was suggesting is that you should figure out what the fit on the Varsity actually is and see what old or new bikes will serve that role without being 45 pound clunkers - if you actually want something nicer than a Varsity. And if you read my last post again you'll notice I suggested both new and used bikes, so I don't know why you are talking about new bike prices.


And if the point of the thread is to claim that people who like to ride road bikes are fools, I'm sure you won't get much traction with that. Road bike geometry is great, but it isn't for everyone, and not for you.[/QUOTE

I am not at all speaking about road bike riders, or road bikes in general. Just that most higher end Japanese road bikes were all built to a similar geometry. As were the French bikes and the English bikes were but all three groups differ greatly.
It has nothing to to do with any modern bike or how I fit on them, or my preference. My question is why would only the Japanese bikes be built this way. If your going to build only one style or fit, why not carry that throughout the line. A guy doesn't grow longer arms just because he wants a nicer bike.
As you go up in frame 'quality' in the late 70's to 80's bikes the top tube got longer. If I put my lowly Ross or Schwinn Varsity up against my Panasonic, the seat post lengths are the same, yet the rear triangle is shorter, and the top tube is longer by nearly 2". Plus the fork blades are straighter, All but the Varsity have a 110mm stem. The Varsity has roughly a 90mm forged steel stem.
The point I'm getting at is why wouldn't they build a lighter or higher quality bike with the same measurements as the lesser models?
I'm also only talking about off the rack bikes, not extremely high dollar custom bikes. If the local LBS didn't stock it, it was out of my price range then and likely still would be today.
The models I mentioned are simply because that's what I have on hand here to compare to but it holds true with many models and brands but the trend is definitely mostly with Japanese bikes. I can't speak for Chinese built bikes, I've never owned one and likely never will.
One of my favorite bikes, if I choose to ride a drop bar bike is my Peugeot UO8, it fits me well for the most part and is one of the lightest bikes that I feel safe on. The Ross is my second choice.

fietsbob

TL,DR..

you can get the bike to fit better by getting the right frame size , and getting the stem, seat and pedals

on a modestly priced bike or a bling one.. the latter of course has more bragging potential.

They pick parts to complete the bike at a price you are willing to pay , then you are free to change things to suit your specific fit needs..

Often at point of sale in the bike shop..





....

Kontact 

Japanese road bikes don't have unique or odd geometry. They are copies of European and American road racing bikes.

You don't like the geometry of road racing bikes. Period. You are asking about very common geometries as if they are unusual, but they are not. They aren't unusual on the low end or high end. The price had nothing to do with why they don't fit you. The fit other people just great.

You have found some bikes that fit you, and they happen to be cheap bikes. That doesn't mean you can't get an appropriate fit with bikes nicer than that, but you need to look someplace other than road racing bikes for that fit.


It has nothing to do with cost, or Japan. It is just a class of bike that doesn't work for you, and the bikes you do like are not part of that class.

MRT2

[QUOTE=27inch;20117515]Just spitballing here, but back in the 70s and into the early 80s, the entry level "10 speed" was a kind of generic bike a lot of high school kids and adult recreational riders bought. Fat tired cruisers were out of fashion, mountain bikes were either not invented yet or in their infancy, and city bikes were not that big of a thing. And companies like Schwinn sold tens of millions of Varsities in that era. I would surmise that as you went up in price and quality, the manufacturers were building bikes closer to what racers demanded, including lighter better quality components and racier geometry.

27inch

[QUOTE=MRT2;20120808] Exactly
What I don't understand is why they didn't keep the same geometry, most of the English bikes did but the Japanese bikes got longer. I wouldn't expect that in a particular price bracket in any one year bikes would vary so much in geometry.
I don't see where the Japanese frames were copies of the euro bikes, I've got a Panasonic DX frame here, a Raleigh Super Course frame, and a Trek 410 frame. All were mid grade bikes, with chromoly main tubes in 25" to 63cm frames. The Trek and the Panasonic are almost 4.8" longer over all. The rear triangle is much shorter on the SC, the top tube on the Trek and SC are similar, but the top tube is almost 3.5" longer on the Panasonic. I've got an unknown Shogun frame here that's also Champion #2 tubing that's identical to the Panasonic frame.
These models all sold around $500 when new, all had upper mid grade components. The Raleigh is a joy to ride, it fits me fine, the others are too long even with a shorter stem and the seat slid forward on the rails.
My point is that it looks to me that all the Japanese frames had one geometry, the British another, and the French another and I was simply wondering why. For instance, nearly all 70's era French bikes have long sweeping forks, lots of flex, lots of tire room. The same era English road bikes had straighter forks with far less tire clearance. This holds true for my Raleigh Super Course, International, Super Tourer, my Peugeot PX10, UO8, and AO8, plus my Gitane TDF and Interclub. The French bikes seem to have short top tubes, and short rear triangles thus are an issue for a guy with long legs. The British bikes seem to increase incrementally with frame size to a standard that works. The Japanese frames increase in huge jumps, a taller frame always seems to mean an even longer top tube, usually too long. What I end up having to do with a Japanese bike is finding a small frame, and buying an extra long stem and seat post to get the top tube length that works. This is not the case with the British bikes, and all the French bikes are too short for me.

I'm not complaining here, I'm stating an observation after owning many bikes.

Kontact 

You have a Raleigh Super Course size 25.5, like these:
Retro Raleighs: The Super Course

And you have a Japanese 63cm frame like the Miyata ones shown here, and the top tube is 3.8 longer than the Raleigh:

https://www.bikeforums.net/framebuil...king-fork.html

The Miyata's geometry sheets show 610mm top tubes on the 63, which is 24".

So either your size 25.5" Super Course has a 20.2" top tube, or do you have a 63cm Japanese with a 70cm top tube?

I did find this reference to a '76 Super Course 59cm frame having a 555mm TT, or 21.8". If that's accurate, it seems amazing that you have a 25.5 with a top tube that is 1.6" shorter than the next size smaller.

https://geometrygeeks.bike/bike/rale...e-mk-ii-c1976/

The Raleigh in the above link seems to have a very similar TT to ST ratio to the Miyata I posted above.