Hybrid Bicycles - How is my position on this bike?

Trying to figure out whether this bike is properly sized and fitted, or not. I'm about 5'4". The frame is 16.5" - 17" (measured from top of seat tube to middle of BB). The handlebars are flat, not risers. And yet, I "feel" quite upright on the bike. I'm guessing the length of the top tube must be shorter than what I'm used to, maybe that's why. I'm afraid that putting riser bars on it might screw up the nice feel it has. As you can see in the pic, my arms are fully extended on the flat bars (they're low enough to allow that). Is this good, or should they be bent a bit, with the bars raised? As far as my back and that is concerned, it feels right and fine. I rode many km with this bike today along the Rideau Canal in Ottawa, Canada. However, my hands were under duress. Fingers weren't numb, so much as the palms or back of the hands. A bit too much pressure due to the lower-than-I'm-used-to handlebars, but on a long ride, it became uncomfortable to keep both hands on the bars. Raising them might diminish comfort elsewhere, ie. back or shoulders. OTOH, I don't want to have to start wearing gloves all the time. FWIW, I'm used to riding a bulky 20" hybrid, with a much higher handlebar height. It is much easier to manoeuver the smaller Specialized, and even pull back on the bars to go uphill.

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii100/The_Cappucino_Kid/position.jpg

to my uneducated eye, looks like your legs are too bent...

to my uneducated eye, looks like your legs are too bent...

Which means the seat is too low, although it's hard to tell with the leg not in the 6:00 position. Raising the seat will put even more weight on his hands.

I'd suggest correcting your posture and increasing your core strength per Sheldon: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/pain.html#posture

Ergon grips will also help a lot by dispersing the contact area.

Looks way small for you, and you seem cramped. Saddle up and back may help. Those shoes don't help things either, you seem to be pedaling from the middle of your foot.

The bike is small for you, but you can make it fit. Raise the saddle first. You probably need a longer seatpost to get proper extension of your legs.

Right now, your back is nearly vertical. Raising the bars could allow you a slightly more upright position, but you are already almost as upright as possible. Gel gloves and bar ends will help with the numb hands.

You need to have your pedal at the bottom of the pedal stroke to accurately determine saddle height. Hard to tell without being there in person , but it looks to me like you're too far forward also. Moving your butt back will actually take weight off your hands. This will make you bend forward slightly more, but your weight should be supported more by your core (torso) and not your hands. But remember, it's a very individual thing, what works for one may not work for another. Make adjustments in small increments.
For casual riding, your position doesn't look too bad. Hand numbness is something I've never gotten totally away from, but moving my position back helped alot. FWIW wearing gloves makes no difference one way or the other on numbness for me.

If you want to ride straight up and down, get another handlebar, with a lot more rise. That would go well with your raised, and moved rearward, seat. Before spending the money on the bars, try raising the seat, and adding Ergon Grips, to see if that helps. You won't be out anything, as you can swap the Ergons to new bars later, and you might find riding with a slight lean forward (with proper hand support) a nice way to ride.

You should be able to straighten your leg, with only your heel on the pedal, without rocking on the seat. Then, pedalling with the balls of your feet, will result in a slight bend of the knee, in the bottom of the pedal stroke.

That stuff, with Ergon Grips previously mentioned, will make a world of difference in riding comfortably.

Ergon grips, Specialized body geometry hybrid grips, are both good. I also wear Specialized Body Geometry gloves which alone help reduce hand soreness/numbness. Doing light shoulder/arm exercises helps with that as well, keeps blood flowing helps prevent pinched nerves by strengthening muscles.

That bike is way too small for you. you don't look 5'4", either. but it is a picture, so its hard to tell!

That is a more upright position than even I like. One of my bikes is close to that its ok for 5 miles max, more than that its too cramped.

to me, it doesnt look like it's too small since, when you are peddling, it looks as though your leg will be about 90% extended at the furthest position - which i think is how it should be.....

if it is small tho, like others are saying, adjust the seat height.

Thanks for the opinions. I had already read the section on posture from Brown. I didn't always understand what he was saying; (there's a huge lack of pictures on the site for many subjects, which would greatly help). I even did research on Google images for exactly what position "arching" refers to, and it looked like the back was bent forward in this position ("bowed"), which made no sense. Maybe if I can see what a picture of perfect posture on a bike looks like, I can better understand this business about shoulders and backs and flexing and rolling forward and upper spines dangling, held up by collar bones.

The seat is position at about the middle of its travel; if anything, just slightly forward of middle. As for the seat height, yes I'm aware my saddle's a bit low according to the standard method of seat height (having the knee only slightly bent at 6p). I find I have more power in my stroke and can maintain a comfortable cadence when the seat is a little lower than recommended.

I'm not sure how to tell if the bike is too small for me, maybe it is, but I know that I -can- get the seatpost at the recommended height no problem, and I have good control with a smaller than a larger bike. I can fit the riser style bars that's on my Giant Cypress, but wouldn't having a more raised posture than I have now be worse for the back? It seems to be either deciding to make your back worse or your hands worse! I am more upright on my (20") Cypress DX, and while I like the comfort of the upright posture, I do seem to find that a slightly leaning forward posture, as on this Specialized, is a nice way to ride. If I do decide to replace my (heavier) Cypress DX with this bike, I will definitely get the Ergon grips!

As for the feet, I'm not sure if the shoes have any bearing on this, because I always pedal in the middle of the foot. Didn't know you weren't supposed to?! I guess the front of the foot (ball) is what most people use?

Yeah you're "supposed" to pedal with the ball of your foot.

I assumed that, once the saddle was raised enuf to extend your legs, you would need to do the same for the bars, also assuming that you do like the upright position - buttttttt, I also suggested that you try to ride with a little mor eforward lean before laying out the $ for different bars.

p.s. It isn't possible to generate more power and higher cadence with a seat that is tooooooo low. Let those big leg , back, and butt muscles do their work....

Your KOPS position is way forward of where it should be, with the front of the knee over the pedal spindle. Get that seat up, and back, to try to get to a good starting point.

Lots to try and consider........

No, a more upright position will not necessarily make your back hurt. 65er's back hurts when he sits up straight on a bicycle, but that's unusual. For most people an upright position will put less strain on the lower back.

If you prefer a low saddle height, that's fine, but it puts a lot more stress on your knees. The straighter your leg is when you put a load on it, the less likely you will injure yourself.

I have a knee condition which requires I use a high and forward saddle position. I would disagree with advice to move your saddle back to compensate for a short top tube. I would suggest instead a longer stem. When you move your saddle back you are effectively changing the seat tube angle, which may or may not be desirable. If you don't feel comfortable think about trying some of the changes suggested here. Notice raising your saddle is the most frequently offered advice. Think twice before shrugging it off.

You are not increasing your power by pedaling with bent legs. The opposite is true.

I assumed that, once the saddle was raised enuf to extend your legs, you would need to do the same for the bars, also assuming that you do like the upright position - buttttttt, I also suggested that you try to ride with a little mor eforward lean before laying out the $ for different bars.

p.s. It isn't possible to generate more power and higher cadence with a seat that is tooooooo low. Let those big leg , back, and butt muscles do their work....

Your KOPS position is way forward of where it should be, with the front of the knee over the pedal spindle. Get that seat up, and back, to try to get to a good starting point.

Lots to try and consider........

Good post! KOPS is a good rule of thumb, measured from the front knee to the pedal spindle with cranks level to the ground. I think raising the saddle will get him close to that position, but he might need to move the saddle back some as well. I've owned a lot of less expensive hybrids like this one, in fact one was a Crossroads, and the slack seat tube angles typically found on such bikes has always meant I had to move the saddle as far forward as possible, even upgrading to zero offset seatpost to get me forward enough, but every body is different. None of this is written in stone.

hi op,

here's a video of what a back "arched like a bridge" looks like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0oiejAA1vA

move the seat all the way back. this will (1) put more weight on your butt and less on your hands. (2) better balance (3) help you to arch your back like a bridge.

you are a healthy fella but do back stretch exercises for a week. this will make it easier for you to adjust to a 45 - 55 degree back posture.

if you want to study your posture just have someone do a video recording or put your camera on a car trunk and ride around in an empty parking lot. then go home and see the frame by frame stills.

Kid - Check this out. It' pretty helpful.

http://www.jacksbikes.com/index1.html

No, a more upright position will not necessarily make your back hurt.


If it did then people wouldn't be able to sit on bars stools for long periods, which is demonstrably untrue...

A curved spine is safer for the discs it is made of when you go over bumps in the road- it sways instead of taking a vertical shock - but a reasonably fat moderate pressure tyre should take care of that.



If you prefer a low saddle height, that's fine, but it puts a lot more stress on your knees. The straighter your leg is when you put a load on it, the less likely you will injure yourself.


This is true. The OP's seat should be much higher.



I have a knee condition which requires I use a high and forward saddle position. I would disagree with advice to move your saddle back to compensate for a short top tube. I would suggest instead a longer stem. When you move your saddle back you are effectively changing the seat tube angle, which may or may not be desirable.


Yes. Moving the seat back to make the bar distance fit will interfere with the ergonomics of pedaling. The OP is already on the way to a blown knee, he should avoid doing anything to make it worse. Horizontal saddle adjustment is for getting the rider's pelvis in the right place relative to the BB. If he needs more reach - which he does - then he should buy a longer stem. Or a different bike. Stems are cheap, knees are very expensive.



If you don't feel comfortable think about trying some of the changes suggested here. Notice raising your saddle is the most frequently offered advice. Think twice before shrugging it off.


Sometimes you have to try things you're not comfortable with. Especially when the alternative is a blown knee.

Btw - that bike doesn't look like a 17 to me. A 17 would be on the large side for a 5'4'' and this bike isn't.

Re. the handlebars - why not better grips on? Ergons are often reported as being the best - they need aligning correctly for your position, so read the docs. And now I've noticed how your foot is on the pedal, I'm even more convinced that the saddle needs to go up.

His seat is going to have to go back - his knee is a good 8" ahead of the pedal spindle. I don't think he will get that much by just raising the seat. Even with his feet way ahead of where they should be.

p.s. The straight arms are causing your hand problems. Lean a little forward to put a little bend in your elbows. Every jolt is slamming into the smallest joint in the line - hands and wrists...

And Ergon Grips will help hold your wrists up, which will also help alleviate that problem.

From the pictures, it appears you have long arms and legs for your size - getting stretched out a bit will help put you in a more supple position. It's your long arms and legs that make the bike look too small for you. Make it fit you, and you will feel a lot better, and enjoy it more.

It's OK to carry weight in your arms and back. But, you need flex in those things (slightly bent elbows). You just don't want to carry it on "down" wrists. That's where the Ergons will help.

I think I have rather short arms and legs for my size, if anything, but I'm told by one that they are in proportion to my height. I agree the bike does look small, like a tiny clown bike, in the photo. It also looks small in person. But what can I say, it measures 16.5"-17" from top of seat tube to middle of bottom bracket. A 16" frame is supposed to fit a rider 4'9" to 5'6", while a 17" is about 5'2" to 5'8". And I double checked, I'm 5,4! So either should be a fit for me. The Specialized's top tube is about 19" long, which is only 1" shorter than my 20" Giant Cypress DX frame. The measurements of the bike, the exterior look of it and the feel riding it all seem to say different things; leaving me wondering whether the bike is a good size or not. Which is precisely why I started this query.

If I raise my seat, and the bars, and get Ergon grips, all that won't really change the amount of pressure of my hands against the grips, but I will do further experiments with seat height and try riser bars, etc. The YouTube video was helpful, thanks. What is called "arched" in the video, I call "hunched over". It's just way more bent forward than I want to be (it's why I can't stand riding road bikes!). I can see it's because the forward angle of the stem on the guy's bike. But knowing its good for the back, I will in the future try to adjust to a position in between upright and the bent over position shown in the video, and adjust so my elbows are a bit bent. I will have to somehow raise the handlebar to relieve the hand pressure, while adjusting elsewhere so that I pitch my upper torso forward even more than in the pic, while at the same time ensuring my knee is situated over the center of the pedal. I guess I'll see how well I can accomplish all this. I can install the Giant's riser bar which has an angled stem that gives a lot of xtra options, but I might not need a different stem. I can probably raise the present one, I just haven't tried yet. When I get a chance to experiment with adjusting (and test riding) the seat, bars, etc., I will take everything into account; thanks.

Trying to figure out whether this bike is properly sized and fitted, or not. I'm about 5'4". The frame is 16.5" - 17" (measured from top of seat tube to middle of BB).

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii100/The_Cappucino_Kid/position.jpg

That bike is a LOT SMALLER than 17". A real 17" would probably be a little too big for someone 5'4". That bike looks too small for you. I'm 5'9" and ride a 17" bike.

That bike is a LOT SMALLER than 17". A real 17" would probably be a little too big for someone 5'4". That bike looks too small for you. I'm 5'9" and ride a 17" bike.

The wheels look like 26s and the seat tube looks like it is about a wheel radius - a 13 or 14. Even if the wheel's are 700c there would have to be something very weird about the photo for the frame to be much bigger.

The simple act of raising, and relocating the seat rearward, just might put you in enough of "the position" to eliminate a lot of problems. It will lengthen your legs, will cause you to lean a little more forward, bend your arms, pull your knees back to get the front of it over the pedal spindle, etc.

Then go to work on things like stem, bars, grips, etc.

Keep in mind, there are a few simple checks to get to a good starting point.... the front of your knee should approximate the pedal spindle when the pedals are horizontal, your butt should be on the seat, not your nether regions (start with a level seat, and adjust until you don't slide fore or aft, or feel the nose of the saddle,) you should be able to sit on the seat, with only your heel on the pedal, leg straight, and pedal backwards without rocking or bouncing on the seat. (then - pedalling with your ball of your feet over the spindle, you will achieve a partial bend at the bottom of the stroke.) It's not necessary that you be able to stand flatfooted while on the seat. Holding yourself up with toes is sufficient.

Once you achieve all this, start fine tuning for your own comfort - but give it a fair trial ......

Just to clarify, are you calling this bike a 17 inch based on top tube length?

In most bikes other than BMX a bike size is measured by the seat tube, or virtual seat tube.

I will second the other comments on saddle height. If you spend the time to get used to a higher saddle position, your body will thank you later in life.

The wheels look like 26s and the seat tube looks like it is about a wheel radius - a 13 or 14. Even if the wheel's are 700c there would have to be something very weird about the photo for the frame to be much bigger.

I hope the following resolves the controversy about whether this is "really" a 16.5-17" frame, as I had said I measured.... and whether the wheels are really 700c, or 26 inchers! (I measured about 28" diam., as you can see in the pic). No camera tricks were done to take the pic! It was a simple snap n' shoot in a nice sunny day.

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii100/The_Cappucino_Kid/crossroads-size.jpg

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii100/The_Cappucino_Kid/tirediam.jpg

You don't measure past the junction of the top tube and the seat tube. And you're holding the tape on a diagonal instead of parallel, which adds around an inch. The frame is about a 15. That's about the smallest someone of your size should ride, assuming you have average length legs.

And that seat is waaaay low. It should be set so your leg is just *slightly* bent at full extension with the *ball* of your foot on the pedal. You can go a little lower than this, but not much without losing power and risking knee injury. Try moving the seat up in stages.

(Nice idea DDAC.)

You don't measure past the junction of the top tube and the seat tube. And you're holding the tape on a diagonal instead of parallel, which adds around an inch. The frame is about a 15. That's about the smallest someone of your size should ride, assuming you have average length legs.

15"? That can't be. Perhaps for the measurement of a road bike, which is measured center to center (of top tube). But my Giant Cypress DX, which is similar to the Specialized in that they're both sloping top tube hybrids, has a sticker certifying it is a 19" frame. It measures 19" from center of bottom bracket to top of seat tube, just as I measured the Specialized (vs. only 17" to the top of top tube). Same with my Giant Transend: an 18" bike, it measures 18" from center of BB to top of seat tube, and 16" to top of top tube. BTW, Bikepedia lists the Specialized Crossroads Cruz from 93 to 95 as 16.5" and 14.5" (93 is only 16.5). But mine may be a 92.

Kid, let me ask you a dumb question.....are you 100% positive you're 5'4"?!?!?!??

i was thinking the same as soon as i saw the photo.

meanwhile, bicycle sizing should be universal......but for some ******** reason, it isn't.


The simple way would be to give the intended stand over height. Including "reproduction safety space" so that sizes between road and MTB are compatible.

Kid, let me ask you a dumb question.....are you 100% positive you're 5'4"?!?!?!?? How are you riding 17" & 18" bikes being 5'4"? I would say 5'7" & up would be a comfortable height to ride a 17" bike.

Yet....you being 5'4" make a 17" bike look small!!! How's that possible?I don't know, I'm wondering that myself! The photo was taken normally, with the photographer standing up, not a worm's eye level or anything. But like I said, the bike (subjectively) looks small in person too, even though it seems to fit okay when I'm on it, and I can easily raise the seat to where I am too high on the bike. When I stand over the sloping top tube, about in the middle (the seat prevents me from going further back), it is touching my goodies. The middle of the top tube to the ground measures almost 29". My inseam, measured via book method, is, or very nearly is 29". The top tube, as measured from the centre of the head tube to the centre of the seat tube, is 20 5/8". So is the bike too SMALL or the bike too BIG?!! I'm concerned it might be too small. I was never concerned it might be too big. Since I feel like if I wear a fez, I can easily fit in at a Shriner's parade, with this thing.

I'm just not sure how Specialized measures their frames, since there seems to be no standard, and even the reliable Sheldon is of no help here. Checking the seat tube measurement again (with a flexible tailor's tape this time, which allows me to go right up against the tube, not at an angle, and in between the crank and bottom bracket), I know that if I measure from the centre of the bottom bracket to the top of the seat tube, I get about 16.5". To the centre of the top tube, I get 15.25". Except Specialized doesn't make a 15.25" frame. According to Bikepedia, it should be either 16.5" or 14.5". I can only assume it is a 16.5" frame, and Specialized measure from centre of BB to top of seat tube. (I only get 14.5" if I measure from the top of the BB, to the centre of the top tube. I strongly doubt this is how they measure their frames).

And yeah, as I had previously mentioned, I double checked my height, having a friend measure me. So I am 99% positive I am 5'4". (I'm not 100% positive of anything!). My main bike is (confirmed) a 19" Cypress DX. Yeah, it certainly looks and feels a lot bigger and heavier than the Specialized. It feels like a boat on wheels, in comparison. But I have never had problems riding it (it's just that I can't manouever it as well as a smaller, lighter bike; if I have to make fast turns and the like). The top tube slopes steeply, the seat can go low enough to enable a slight bend in the knee at 6pm, and more significantly, the stem angle and height (and even angle of the riser bars) can be adjusted to fit. That said, I have a Norco city bike with risers that measures (from the BB) 20" to the top of the top tube and 21" to the top of the seat tube. It has fat 26" tires, and a standard (non sloping) diamond frame. Yet it feels like the best fitting bike I've tried. I am very agile on it, and have full control and great grip on the bars. So the "boatiness" of the Giant may have more to do with its weight, bulky 700c tires and oversized tubes, than the official frame size.

http://jleibovitch.tripod.com/63434160.jpg

15"? That can't be. Perhaps for the measurement of a road bike, which is measured center to center (of top tube). But my Giant Cypress DX, which is similar to the Specialized in that they're both sloping top tube hybrids, has a sticker certifying it is a 19" frame. It measures 19" from center of bottom bracket to top of seat tube, just as I measured the Specialized (vs. only 17" to the top of top tube). Same with my Giant Transend: an 18" bike, it measures 18" from center of BB to top of seat tube, and 16" to top of top tube. BTW, Bikepedia lists the Specialized Crossroads Cruz from 93 to 95 as 16.5" and 14.5" (93 is only 16.5). But mine may be a 92.

This points out what a truely meaningless method of measuring center of BB to TOP OF SEATTUBE really is. Think about it... if all the tubes and angles remain the same, and only the seatube gets longer, your measurement grows(obviously) but the "actual size" of the frame doesn't change.

this points out what a truely meaningless method of measuring center of bb to top of seattube really is. Think about it... If all the tubes and angles remain the same, and only the seatube gets longer, your measurement grows(obviously) but the "actual size" of the frame doesn't change.

+1

The answer would be to measure all bikes with "effective" seat tube, and top tube, lengths.

A horizontal line from the headtube/toptube junction (center of the headtube) to the juncture of that line with the seat tube (center.)

Same juncture to be used for the seatube measurement. Center of the BB, to the center of the toptube/seatube juncture (using the above mentioned juncture.)

This would be used on any bicycle frame.

Buttttttttt, that makes too much sense, and will never happen. Confusion helps manufactureres keep market share......

I have seen "standover" measurements, but have no idea exactly where they are measured from/to.

I have also noticed top tubes are far more angled now then how my bike was measured (very flat top tube), so my 19 inch bike frame can't REALLY be thought of as 1 inch "smaller" than a current 20" frame. Logic seems to have led me to the same place Norwood proably got to long ago!

Funny, something sn00k said to me had me measuring the effective top tube length in thinking about sizing should (when) I get a new bike. And yes, fore/aft seat positioning and bars also play a factor.

It also has already occured to me to do what the Kid did, take a picture while riding. So my simple question is... how did you get that picture taken? I was thinking to grab someone, give them my camera and set it up for shutter speed and 8/sec rate...

It also has already occured to me to do what the Kid did, take a picture while riding. So my simple question is... how did you get that picture taken? I was thinking to grab someone, give them my camera and set it up for shutter speed and 8/sec rate...

If you notice, I am leaning against a pole. Not actually riding. I had a friend take the snap, point and shoot, no fancy adjustments. You could even do it alone, with the self timer.

Found this site, in which you enter your inseam size and it tells you the size needed for the frame and seat height. So with my inseam at 75cm, it says a mountain bike frame should be 38-40cm, which is 15-16"! According to this, the Specialized might be TOO big! (Or about right, if we don't want to get too accurate...).

http://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit/

Inseam minus 13 inches, is a rule of thumb that works for me for mountain bike, but I prefer one inch bigger for hybrid.

So raise your saddle already. That is what everybody is telling you but you don't want to hear, or raise your handlebars which is what nobody is telling you but you do want to hear. Let us know how it worked out for you. Do not slide your saddle back. Raise it to get a more powerful straighter leg, but move it forward to keep a more upright position which you obviously prefer.

Raising the saddle to the proper height and sliding it forward will put you in a less upright position then what you currently enjoy, but not as much as raising it and moving it back. Raise the bars twice as high as you raise the seat if you want to sit up high, but raise the seat.

The reason your bike looks ridiculously small for you is because the saddle is ridiculously low. Of course, every body is different. None of this is writ in stone.

The reason your bike looks ridiculously small for you is because the saddle is ridiculously low. Of course, every body is different. None of this is writ in stone.

You realize of course, that the photo provided by the OP shows the foot/pedal at about the 3 o'clock position and not at the bottom of the stroke, a position which would be necessary to show, to make a determination that the saddle is ridiculously low.
The photo does seem to show that the OP is too far forward on the bike, possibly putting too much weight on the wrists/hands. IMO the saddle needs to be moved rearward. The saddle may or may not be too low.

You realize of course, that the photo provided by the OP shows the foot/pedal at about the 3 o'clock position and not at the bottom of the stroke, a position which would be necessary to show, to make a determination that the saddle is ridiculously low.
The photo does seem to show that the OP is too far forward on the bike, possibly putting too much weight on the wrists/hands. IMO the saddle needs to be moved rearward. The saddle may or may not be too low.

Yeah, how about one more pic? From the measurement pic and from the way the top tube meets the fork tube and (lower) tube, I'm guessing 14.5". Even the crank arms look tiny!

Nope, saddle too low. Saddle is not too far forward.

OP,

Refer to the article by Sheldon Brown and also the article by Peter White (linked in Sheldon's article) on bike fit. They give you the knowledge you need so you can adjust the bike YOURSELF to a satisfaction that not anyone on this forum or perhaps even the LBS can do. After you read the articles, or if you have already read them, post questions on this forum for the parts that you did not understand and we'd be happy to help. Having the knowledge YOURSELF gives you greater power to tweak things at will rather than have people set you up one time and you're not sure why. What is it about Sheldon's article that you did not understand?

I'll admit, I've read both said articles half a dozen times and tried them out on the bike for several miles. Only now am I comfortable with my set up. Of course, I am not the sharpest tool in the shed (having had to re-read the articles so many times) but I am also OCD and demand the best fit - even though I'm a casual, re-creational rider.

Yeah, how about one more pic? From the measurement pic and from the way the top tube meets the fork tube and (lower) tube, I'm guessing 14.5". Even the crank arms look tiny!

I'm not sure sort of pic or measurement you're asking about?


Refer to the article by Sheldon Brown and also the article by Peter White (linked in Sheldon's article) on bike fit. They give you the knowledge you need so you can adjust the bike YOURSELF to a satisfaction that not anyone on this forum or perhaps even the LBS can do.

Believe it or not, I actually have read Brown's and Peter White's articles a number of times in the last few weeks, along with other articles and videos on bike fitting; (more recently, KOPS). ie. So I know very well what the saddle height "should" be, for example. I experimented for days at a time outside my house, with different saddle heights, on numerous different bikes, bike sizes and bike saddles. And found with all of them, that as I approached or achieved a height where my leg is almost fully extended at 6 oclock, my foot would kind of "float" on the pedals more, which meant there was less of a natural force pushing on the pedals. Whereas the lower position produced a stronger, steadier cadence (so long as I didn't try to pedal faster than this natural cadence rhythm). Reminiscent of a "fixie", where the pedals turn by themselves, which means you have to exert less force on them, because they are doing some of the work. I also observed the height of the saddle would determine where the natural muscle soreness in my legs from riding would be, and if I'm remembering this correctly, lowering the saddle would raise the location of the soreness to my (inner?) upper thigh, where it would almost disappear. In both cases, this means I can pedal greater distances with less strain. While it is more comfortable (less "crampy") to have the leg fully extended, I would alleviate this by extending it straight out with the pedals horizontal. Usually, if I raised the saddle, I would raise the handlebars.

That said, I am -not- against raising the saddle to standard height. I am still experimenting with all of this. Including the handlebars, because while I always preferred them high on my hybrids to get a comfortable seating, I discovered riding a certain mountain bike that there's a certain "other comfort" (perhaps back-related) to having them low. On that bike with the lower bars and fixed forward angled stem, even though I never took it far, it just felt like I could ride for days with minimal pain. That said, I am certain that lower bars give me hand pain which is not tolerable, so
I have to have the bars fairly high on any bike.

I think what I was trying to figure out here, is what size (hybrid) frame is right for me (5'4", 29.5" inseam). It's something I've always been a bit unsure about (ESPECIALLY with this seemingly tiny Specialized). That's because I have bikes ranging from about 16" (Specialized Crossroads) to maybe 20", both 26" and 700c wheels, and they all seem fine - once fitted. (My main ride is a 19" Giant Cypress hybrid). I can achieve correct saddle height on ALL of them, so that's not an issue. Now the top bar length will change, but I can also change the distance between me and the handlebars, by either moving the seat forward or moving the handlebar angle back or (if the angle can't be positioned), up. In effect, making a large bike smaller, or a small bike larger. They say you're more comfortable if you're fitted with a bike of the right size, so that's why I am interested to work with one that's supposed to be right for me. But the only serious comfort issues I can recall from riding any of these bikes, seem to arise from hand pain. But in this case, that's more a function of the handlebar height than the size of the bike. So the primary difference I notice in the different sized bikes, is that I can manoeuver smaller ones better. This basically means that if I want to do a 180 on the sidewalk, I'll have a better time of it than a larger bike. That said, one bike I find I have great control over, is a Norco city bike, and I believe its a 20" frame (straight diamond skinny tubes). It has 26" wheels, wide handlebars. Whereas the 19" framed Giant (700c) is a boat on wheels, and I could never control it tightly, that I could easily turn it around on the sidewalk. But despite its 19" size it has never been less than a comfortable ride.

I think what I was trying to figure out here, is what size (hybrid) frame is right for me (5'4", 29.5" inseam).



As qmsdc told you: Inseam minus 13 inches, is a rule of thumb that works for me for mountain bike, but I prefer one inch bigger for hybrid.



But the only serious comfort issues I can recall from riding any of these bikes, seem to arise from hand pain. But in this case, that's more a function of the handlebar height than the size of the bike.


So change the stem.



So the primary difference I notice in the different sized bikes, is that I can manoeuver smaller ones better.

Smaller wheel bikes tend to be more agile than larger ones. I notice quite a difference between my MTB and cyclocross bike.

You are bringing out a lot of points on this post.

One that seems to float forward is that maybe, you are coming from a BMX mindset. Where the maneuverability of the "smaller" frame is paramount.

If this is the case,it's going to be difficult to get you situated on a "road oriented" type ride.

Is this a possibility? Road type rides, and MTN (and BMX) are significantly different. To "convert" a MTN type ride to road use, you usually rodify to mimic a road bike. Riding styles are different.

Is that what we are trying to deal with?

You are bringing out a lot of points on this post.

One that seems to float forward is that maybe, you are coming from a BMX mindset. Where the maneuverability of the "smaller" frame is paramount.

If this is the case,it's going to be difficult to get you situated on a "road oriented" type ride.

Is this a possibility? Road type rides, and MTN (and BMX) are significantly different. To "convert" a MTN type ride to road use, you usually rodify to mimic a road bike. Riding styles are different.

Is that what we are trying to deal with?

No. I have never ridden a BMX in my life. I don't think it requires a special mindset to observe that a smaller bike is more manoeuverable than a larger one (and by "small", I was referring to both frame and wheel size); as that comes down to a case of physics. I don't like road bikes either, I am only talking about hybrids, really, as that's what I have. While the smaller bikes (16" Specialized 700c, 20" Norco 26") are more easier to control and manoeuver, I have no difficulty riding, say, the 19" Giant behemoth. I just don't swerve as quickly with it.

Exactly why I asked the question, as it seemed that you were trying to get to the BMX type riding position.....

You just need to transition to a more stretched out riding position than you are accustomed to.

p.s. I don't know why you are attacking me??? I've done nothing but offer positive statements to get you to a more comfortable position.

I'm outta here!

Who is attacking you? Cap does not "need to transition to a more stretched out position". He does not appear interested in transitioning to a more stretched out position. Nobody has attacked you.

Exactly why I asked the question, as it seemed that you were trying to get to the BMX type riding position.....

You just need to transition to a more stretched out riding position than you are accustomed to.

p.s. I don't know why you are attacking me??? I've done nothing but offer positive statements to get you to a more comfortable position.

I'm outta here!

Huh?? Wherever did you get this idea that I am "attacking you" from? I appreciated your positive contributions, so I am at a loss to explain that. I'm also not sure I understand the other part of your response, for it seems by the way you've worded it, that you still think I am used to riding a BMX, which I said I have never done. I am accustomed to riding hybrids on 700c tires; 18 or 20" frame. As I've said, my current main bike is a large (oversized tube) 19" hybrid, with the seat raised so my leg is slightly bent at 6pm. So I don't know why you believe I am used to a cramped riding position, or that I would not want a stretched out riding position. I do, which is exactly why I was concerned the seemingly tiny 16.5" Specialized Crossroads might be too small for me. For the most part, I am used to riding on larger hybrids.