Funny, I'm going the other way. My road racing bikes were 59-60 cm and now I like 64-65 cm, a full 2 inches bigger. I used to have the stem slammed too, and now with trad stems (non-Technomic) I have them up near the highest safe position. I used to have a very aero position but now I don't go fast enough to benefit much from aero, even if I could still bend over that much.
What's the reasoning for going to s smaller frame? I thought the shortening from age was mostly in the spine, which doesn't care what your framesize is. The legs don't get much shorter do they? (I'm really asking, I don't know). I'm only 65, so not much height lost yet if at all.
When I get too decrepit to throw a leg over, I might make some sort of mixte or step-through frame, but with a really long head and steerer, to match the bar height of a 65 cm level-TT frame. As a young cyclist, I imprinted on classic stems shaped like a "7" and drop bars, so I want to avoid extreme up-jutting stems or riser bars. Just an aesthetic crotchet of mine. I doubt I'll find anything "off the rack" with that spec, so I'll probably have to make it myself. It'll have lugs, centerpull brakes (or canti), friction shifting etc, so young people will smirk and pity me. But I get a fair bit of that already — I can take it!
Mark B
Last edited by bulgie; 07-24-21 at 11:27 PM.
Reason: stupid typo!