MrJames

Hello,

I am a former road bike rider.

I say old because I had lengthening surgery because of my obsession with short stature. (I would appreciate if you don't ask questions about this please)

My old height: 158 cm
My new height: 166 cm

Old inner leg length: 72 cm
New inner leg length: 80 cm

The operation was from the upper leg, that is, the femur.
An lengthening of +8 cm was made to the femur length.

It's a very exceptional situation, if I look at the frame size according to the length and inner leg length, it will probably be wrong because the upper body, arms, etc. short.

I wonder if it would be a fiasco if i took 50-51 size bike, you know, the arms are short.
I guess there is no solution for short arms in the big bike?

In summary, there is a situation where the femur is long but the arms are short.

If you could help with this situation, I would greatly appreciate it.


thanks

TiHabanero

Man, that must have hurt to gain 6 inches. You now have a beautiful situation that totally justifies a custom frame due to the additional leg length.

MrJames

Yes, it was pretty difficult Is there any other solution other than Custom Frame?
Do I need to make any additional changes to the bike? (handlebar stem etc.)

downhillmaster

How about getting your humerus lengthened?

MrJames

The leg was very difficult.
It is difficult to make another lengthening surgery.

jadmt

I would think stem and handlbar choice would help a bit.

sovende

BTW, 8cm is just a bit over 3 inches 😉.

sovende

I’d think that (other than a custom frame) a frame size appropriate for the OP’s torso might be a reasonable starting point. Seat height and fore/aft position along with stem height and reach are reasonably easy to adjust. Another consideration would be the proportional change between the “knee to hip” length and “knee to ankle” length. Crank length may need to be taken into consideration 🤔.
It might be reasonable for the OP to consult with someone with more than amateur knowledge of the anatomic physiologic aspects of cycling. The opinion of a trained kinesiologist would also be helpful. Before I did any serious cycling (if I were to have had this type of surgery), I’d be sure to get clearance from my “cosmetic orthopedist” to ensure complete healing of both femurs!

MrJames

Thanks for the answer. Yes, I think once the bone is fully healed. Cycling also helps with recovery. I just got stuck with the Frame size issue. Some people said that you can no use old frame size (47). Some said that due to an abnormal situation, you can't ride a bike for life anymore.
Everyone is saying something but no one is helping.

Thanks.

qwaalodge

Luckily for your, they make the shortest possible stem. Look for 32mm long stems.

One potential problem with short stems is the low stack so be sure you get generous amount of steerer tube length to give you plenty of length for stem spacers. You can always cut the steerer tube to shorter length if you don't need the extra length

genejockey 

There are several online fit calculators, some of which use upper and lower leg lengths, torso length, and arm length. Competitive Cyclist has one. That might put you in the range. I suspect the biggest challenge isn't the torso to leg ratio, but rather the femur to humerus ratio. Bikes these days are a lot more adjustable, because you're meant to get a frame that's in the ballpark then there are all different length and angle of stems, long seatposts with no setback, some setback, or a lot of setback, and cranks from 165-177mm. I wouldn't give up on fitting an off-the-shelf bike just yet.

icemilkcoffee 

Find a Terry bike with small front wheels. These have shorter top tubes than equivalent sized regular road bikes. And use a Nitto Technomic stem. These are tall stems that let you bring the bars up

70sSanO

While this is good advice, I'm not sure you can find very many new bikes with quill stems.

I'm not a frame designer or builder, but over the years, most small frames seem to be poorly contrived compromises to the best designed sizes. My opinion is that frame design in the 54-58 or maybe 60, as people are getting taller, represent the ideal balance for performance for a given design. Slacker/more comfort/longer wheelbase designs probably have a wider range.

Over the years I have found that torso/reach and flexibility/stack are the defining aspects of fitting a bike, at least for me. Years ago I bought a bike that was too big for me, but I have a longer torso and shorter legs, so bikes with that top tube length have been perfect for me. On a road bike the degree to which a rider is able to stretch out and the flexibility to be able to ride in the drops, when desired, is everything. If that fit is off, you can't take full advantage of the bike. If you have less flexibility and need the bars higher, then stack, steerer length, (up to a point depending on the steerer material), and stem angle can help to get you there.

The problem arises when you need a shorter reach/top tube. Since most road bikes, in the generic sense, run 700c wheels, there is an issue with wheelbase and smaller frame sizes. If a head/seat angle of 73/73 is designed for a 56cm sized frame, you won't get that on a 46cm frame. You'll probably get a 70* head angle and a 75* seat angle. This allows for a long enough wheelbase so there is a minimum amount of toe overlap, But with the weight forward and a short enough stem it will help to not make the bike a total slug.

Georgina Terry pioneered using a 650b front wheel, or wheelsets, on smaller frames to be able to produce a bike that had similar characteristics to a larger 700c equipped bikes.

There is a slight twist if you go with a touring/endurance/gravel bike that has slacker geometry. I haven't compared geometry on these more comfortable bikes, but I'd guess that there is less of an impact as you go smaller. But you will need to determine what you want in a bike from racing to gravel and go from there.

John

philbob57

The Terry frames are designed for the small front wheel, 'standard' rear wheel.

I think Trek 'Woman Specific Design' bikes and frames were based on the theory that women had, proportionately, longer legs and shorter torsos than men of the same height. I believe the theory is not well backed-up by actual data from the field, but the bikes are available nonetheless. You can probably get a decent fit with, say, a 51 or 52 CM square frame with a high seat and short stem. You might also be able to find a maker whose standard make is 21" nominal size with a short front end that allows you to get the handlebars within a good range for you..

If you were making your living on a bike, you might have to go custom, but most of us have some flexibility in sizing. I think it's easier to get a short threadless stem than quill, given what the market offers these days.

MrJames

Thanks for your answers.

Which plan do you think makes more sense?

A) original height (for short reach)
frame size 47 etc.
extra spacer
high seat
maybe crank size 170 to 172,5 or 175

B) new height (for high stack)
frame size 50,51 etc
short stem (32mm etc.)
high seat (maybe middle)
maybe crank size 170 to 172,5 or 175

C) ???? (your plan)

thank you all.

Kapusta

I so you are now 8cm taller and it is all leg. So your stack needs to increase about that much, but the reach you need is the same.


You can size up some from your old size, but the reach is going to start to get too long. I would not size up too much. I would instead come to peace with having a lot of seat post showing and a lot of stem spacers.

Or custom.

TiHabanero

Oops, I doubled it! The mind does funny things sometimes.

I worked in a shop that was a Terry dealer and unless you really are unable to find a good compromise fit on a standard bicycle, avoid the old Terry design with the smaller front wheel. Never liked the way they behaved and we had several returned because of that very reason. It is a compromise in design to accommodate a smaller body build.

Polaris OBark

The custom bike suggestion is a good one. (I have quite short legs for my height, and went this route.)

Yours is a much more unusual situation, and a custom bike would be ideal. At the very least, it should be worth the time and cost to get a very thorough fitting analysis (which for me was part of the customization process).

rosefarts

Was this covered by insurance? I’m guessing not unless it was to match up leg asymmetry. That makes me think that you have the means for absolute full custom.

I’d go for a “forever” type build, steel or ti usually. Assume that you won’t be selling it, ever. The whole bike, depending on spec will probably be between $8000 to $12000. Basically the price of a 10 year old Corolla.

As for whom to chose, I don’t have an idea. It’s one thing to build a fairly typical custom bike for an enthusiastic dentist, it’s another thing entirely to build one for someone with out of ordinary “geometry”. Good luck.