ThermionicScott 

I didn't suggest moving the feet further back. I was hinting that perhaps they should be more forward.

79pmooney

My suggestion? 1) get an adjustable stem. 2) Slide the seat forward a bit. Ride it for two-three weeks. Is this better than what you have now? If yes, do it again, adjusting the stem to match. (Leave tape to indicate all your last settings.) Again, if this is better, do it again. Keep doing this until you havfe gone too far, then go back to your last. Look at this as research for all your bikes. When you get the seat right, now play with the stem.

I am taller and a lot longer legged than you but also ride very upright seatpost bikes (so I can have a close rear wheel for good weight balance). Four of my bikes are 74 degrees or steeper. I have two custom 60mm posts and one like yours except that I replaced the clamp with a bolt. If you decide to go custom, a framebuilder/machinist can order the very nice clamp parts from Thompson and build you a very nice 2-bolt post. TiCycles can make you a nice one of any setback you want.

Ben

AnthonyG

A seat tube angle is, a Vector. All well and good yet there is an absolute measurement which should be used instead but its only rarely used.

The setback distance from the nose of the saddle to the vertical line from the centre of the BB (Bottom bracket). Now from even the smallest children's bikes to the largest size bikes for 6'+ riders the saddle setback distance should be reasonable similar and only range from say 5cm to 8cm or thereabouts.

What you will find is that to get a saddle setback of 5cm on a small frame needs a far more RELAXED seat tube angle than to get a 5cm setback than on a larger frame. Modern small adult frames with 74-75 degree seat tube angles often have the tip of the saddle at zero setback or even in front of the BB.

Modern children's bikes routinely have the tip of the saddle significantly in front of the BB.

This state of affairs in bike fit is ridiculous!

Now an important aspect of me declaring this current state of affairs ridiculous is that fact that I used to own vintage children's bikes that were EVERYTHING I now recommend. Small wheels, VERY relaxed seat tube angles (68 degrees), short cranks (110mm), low BB's and short front to centre distances.

Nothing new under the sun. Its just deliberately forgotten for their own purposes of cheaper manufacturing.

The bad news is that bike manufacturers aren't in a hurry to remember old knowledge and they intend to keep on foisting the current garbage on the public yet I'm going to keep on taking a stand against this garbage.

CliffordK

Don't kid's bikes have seats that are two feet long?



And, yes, that is supposed to be a 2017 bike.

Nonetheless, there are many things that determine seat position. As mentioned above, balance. So, if one is sitting bolt upright, then a person's balance point is much further forward than if a person is in a full aero tuck.

On the other hand, in a full aero tuck, there is more risk of the knees hitting the tummy (especially for those of us that don't have 6-packs), and thus one may need to move the seat forward some to open up the body/leg angle (thus TT bikes often have a forward seat position).

AnthonyG

Take note that that is a LARGE child's bike with that much seatpost exposed. Its probably marketed at adults who used to own the originals. Even with the banana seat the nose of the saddle is behind the BB which is rare these days.

If your moving the seat forwards to open up your leg angles then the cranks are too long. Another problem with modern bikes.

tyrion

Maybe it's time to get your femurs shortened.

CliffordK

Or get the Tibias and Fibulas lengthened.

AnthonyG

There is NOTHING unusual about the OP's size or proportions.

Modern road bikes are only designed to fit average people properly and everyone else can deal with what they are given. Preferably without complaining.

There are thousands and thousands of "fit guru's" who are happy to "tow the line" and convince people that THEY are the problem and that THEY have the solution rather than publicly admonish the bike manufacturers for the TERRIBLE job they are doing.

CliffordK

I'm not convinced that the OP needs the seat so far back, but this is one of the complaints that Terry (Terry Bikes) made.

For the small 700c bikes, the typical method to shorten the top tube was to make a more vertical seat tube, and more slack head tube. Larger bikes were just the opposite to make the illusion of a longer top tube.

In a sense, this is all an illusion. It looks good on paper, but doesn't help if one has the vertical seat tube, but the seat set as far back as possible. And, reach can be adjusted with the stem, from short to long.

Terry's solution was to either use mixed wheel sizes (700/650c), or to put smaller people on smaller wheel bikes (650c, or 24").

I'm not sure that the OP's height is short enough to warrant one of the small wheel sizes though.

Personally I keep my seat back quite a bit, but I'm not convinced that is actually "better" to ride either, and may start nudging it forward (and up).

For cruiser bikes, there are a lot of seat position choices from forward to semi-recumbent. But, a semi-recumbent position does require a person to sit more or less vertical, otherwise the rider is folded in half.

AnthonyG

If you followed the thread you would know that the op has moved the saddle forward already. For all her efforts Terry Bikes still didn't shorten the cranks so the effort was wasted.

Clem von Jones

Get a slack vintage mountain bike frame at the co-op and put 700c wheels on it. Really this whole thread is just silly because you refuse to lower your bars properly.

agmetal

Where's the "facepalm" smilie when you need it?

tyrion

Could be a new thing: instead of expensive and painful bike fitting ordeal, just get a couple of operations. (The removed sections of femur would make nice earrings.)

woodcraft

How can the frame look tiny with a short stem & hardly any seatpost showing?

Short cranks give higher saddle position so this looks like negative stand-over clearance.

CliffordK

I did that. I use it for my foul weather bike. It makes for a unique ride.



And, yes, the former MTB has some interesting proportions. Long chainstays, long top tube, short height, low handlebars, high seat.

As far as lowering the bars. Vintage bikes used to have the bars at about seat level. Modern bikes seem to drop the bars some, but I think are ridden from the tops/hoods more than their vintage counterparts.

To maintain not too much midsection bend of the body, lowering the bars, at least to an extreme forces one to move the seat forward.

Iride01 

How can you judge anything by the length of seat post showing? Though the OP provided pics, I still couldn't judge if the seat was at the correct height. But the frame may well be a size or more to large.

At the time I made that comment I think it was more just to provoke more conversation on that thought.

You are correct that shorter cranks might give a higher seat height. I ride 165mm cranks.

But how does this help the OP?

motorthings

what part of the knee are you using for KOPS?
i was taught to use the tibial tuberosity as the reference point, and it looks like you may be using the patella itself.
that shift in location can make a yuge difference.

agmetal

My comment was in reference to the part about refusing to lower my stem.

Tall saddle plus unusually tall seatpost due to the adjustable portion. Also, I think I may have lowered it as I moved the saddle rearward. I haven't taken this bike out for a ride since that day, though.

unterhausen

we only have pictures of the OP when the seat was too far back, but he looks uncomfortable with the reach. Losing weight and working on core strength are really the fix for that, but you can't do that with a wrench and it's unhelpful to suggest. I think I would suggest going to a shorter stem. I am not a big fan of high-rise stems, but the OP really isn't there yet. I think I would get a stem that is 20mm shorter as a start. Maybe go with a quill adapter and threadless so changing stems isn't quite so involved. That's what I have on my current road bike.

As far as neck and shoulder pain, I have been doing shoulder rolls on the bike and they help a lot. I think we tend to tense up our shoulders while riding.

fietsbob

A custom frame can use tricks like a curved seat tube*, to get you frame setback but still offer the short chain-stay for snappy performance..

* done long ago by famed builders like the Tailor brothers , as Jack Tailor bikes.

but I expect your budget is too small for that.





....

Iride01 

Doesn't have to be custom. The real Schwinn had that as an offering in their lineups. Whether they made a lot of them I don't know. But every so often I see one on Ebay at what I consider a reasonable price.

This is a Schwinn Sprint from an old thread here

https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-v...nt-sprint.html

CliffordK

The Schwinn Paramount appears to have the bent seat tube to shorten the chainstays... somewhat, much like is common with the Funny Bikes.

I've found that doing so also messes with the front derailleur capacity, if mounted before the curve. If the FD is mounted in the curve, it also messes with the angle of the tail of the FD cage.

It would be much better to just make a slack seat tube, say 70°, and use a slightly longer chainstay. With vertical dropouts, one could even dimple the seat tube for tire clearance.

Still, the question remains whether the seat needs to be set so far back, and as was pointed out above, bending the elbows and even dropping the bars might benefit the OP.

agmetal

Just to reiterate: I'm not a racer, and I'm not looking for a racing bike. Short chainstays are overrated.

AnthonyG

For the record, ANY bike with a 74 degree seat tube angle has the seat pushed too far forwards and ANY rider will need a rearset seatpost to get a proper position. The OP is not a freak.

If you guys have pictures of someone who IS a FREAK and fits on a bike with a 74 degree seat tube angle, that ISN'T a TT bike, then I would like to see it.

74-75 degree seat tube angles should be for TT bikes ONLY.

unterhausen

most humans will not fit that well on a 74 degree seat tube, that's true. I have no idea why someone would put that angle on a bike the size of the one in the OP. On a smaller bike, it's compromise to fit everything together and not have too much toe overlap. Still a bad idea