jyl

I've come to suspect that I fit best on stretched out frames.

My proportions are top heavy; put it this way, at 5' 11" I can barely stand over a 58 cm road bike, but on this bike, which has a top tube slightly shorter than the seat tube, I set the seat all the way back, use a 100 mm stem, and feel best on the hoods.

What C&V bikes had stretched-out geometry? I'm primarily interested in racy road bikes.

oldmuthariley

Lemond bikes all have longer top tubes than you would expect.
ie: a 55 will have a 55c-c seat tube and a 56.5 c-c top tube.

stevenc

Eddy Merckx did quite some streched-out frames, usually combined with long stems.

photogravity

Interestingly, old English clubman style bikes like my Norman Rapide or the RRA tend TI have long top tubes. I just measured several this weekend so I know this based on personal observation and a carefully placed measuring tape.

irwin7638

I have the same problem, 6' tall with barely a 32" standover. I've spent a lifetime with long stems riding the hoods. My Rivendell's have longer top tubes and are a lot more comfortable than comparable bikes. My Hillborne is the biggest bike I can ride, it has a 56cm seatpost and 59cm top tube.


Marc

clubman 

I too have a very short inseam and long arms. I found this SR Triathalon from the mid 80's with a 52 ctc seatpost and 56.5 ctc top. Really comfortable and a nice ride. The stem shown is a little short because it was a city commuter and I liked to keep my head up. I think other Japanese makers (Nishiki) made similar versions of these bikes before "tri" design got radical.

noglider 

Consider yourself lucky. I have a similar physique. I'm 5'9-1/2" tall and I'm all torso with very short legs. I find I can ride any bike between 54cm (21") and 58cm (23"). Being cramped on the top tube is easily solved by installing a longer stem. People who have the opposite proportions (short torso and long limbs) can feel stretched out, and they may already have a short stem installed, and there's no easy solution.

RobbieTunes

The new Tarmac SL4, but not quite C&V, and the price of a used car.

ColonelJLloyd 

Mondia

Velognome 

The curiousity of the long top tube and short seat tubes on the Pre-war British bikes was to create a lighter stiff frame. The '36 Hercules R series (racer) only came in a 20 frame with a 22 1/2 toptube and the BB was very low, 10" maybe. The Hercules Renown shares the same demensions, 21" Seat Tube and a 22 1/2 Top tube

Renown


Streached out and relaxed? How about mid '80's to early 90's rigid MTB frames? My late 80's Giant Iguana is relaxed alright, it's a reach to the bars and I'm 6'1". It's by far my sleepest ride.

repechage

The prior suggestions are pretty good, basically, you have to keenly review a bikes geometry.
A slack seat tube angle may not help you if you don't need your saddle set way behind the bottom bracket, (i.e., long femurs)
One of the dimensions I try to figure out is the length of the top tube in front of the bottom bracket, a bit of geometry helps in figuring that out.

jbchybridrider 

My Mid 90's Olympia is 56 top x 53 seat and very racy in feel. Actually the first time I rode it it felt like I would just fall over, it's so twitchy and light in the steering.

jyl

Thanks. I'm going to measure all my bikes as suggested by

repechage: The prior suggestions are pretty good, basically, you have to keenly review a bikes geometry.
A slack seat tube angle may not help you if you don't need your saddle set way behind the bottom bracket, (i.e., long femurs)
One of the dimensions I try to figure out is the length of the top tube in front of the bottom bracket, a bit of geometry helps in figuring that out.

I'm also going to take some pics of myself on a bike and see what you all think.

Perhaps I am over-obsessing about fit. As a practical matter I can ride all sorts of bikes without pain, as long as I get full leg extension. But someday I'd like to have a custom frame built - or take a frame building class and build my own - and I want to really understand fit by then.

Velognome: Streached out and relaxed? How about mid '80's to early 90's rigid MTB frames?

I do feel very comfy on my early '90's MTB (and I think Bridgestones were known for longer top tubes even then). It is pretty much my standard for fit right now. But, I currently ride road.

thinktubes 

Steelman built with 72 degree seat tubes and TT roughly .5cm over the seat tube.

Check some of the major brands from the late '90s. Seems like the trend then was for longer TT.

Lewis_Moon

IMHO, a long stem only partially compensates for a short TT. I'm 6'5" ish with a long torso and I sometimes feel like my CG is way too close to the front hub in the jump phase of a sprint.

Also, "relaxed" (aka: stage race) geometry always meant a lower BB to me. A lot of the steel bikes made during the latter years of the "Age of Steel" tended to have crit geometry. Any leads on more classic Italian stage race frames from the mid eighties to the early ninties?

caloso

My '86 Gazelle Champion Mondial is that stage race geometry: ST 52.5 cm x TT 55.5 cm (measured c-t-c). Though I think that as the frame size gets larger, the Gazelles tend to get squarer.

Puget Pounder

Bridgestone RBs

Wildwood 

I would consider using stems of 12cm instead of 10 if you are pushing your saddle rearward. I ride a 14cm stem on 1 of my bikes that has a long head tube.

Der_Kruscher

My '82 Trek 730 has a 56.8cm* ST and a 57.4cm* TT - it's what they called a 58cm. It fits like a 56cm with an extremely long TT and short HT. At 5'9" I have plenty of standover but the TT is much too long for me to fit on this bike properly but a 54cm would fit even worse. As it is, without a tall quill stem on it and modern bars the drop to the hoods would be unmanageable for me. I can't speak to subsequent years of Treks but I'd guess that all of their race model bikes fit this way through the '80's. I'd also guess that if you stick to searching for bikes that were actually intended for racing you'll find similar geo but that's just a hunch.

*According to the '82 Trek brochure

Puget Pounder

+1 at the OP's height, a 120mm is well within an acceptable range of stem lengths.

LeMonds also tend to have longer TTs

iab

Anything from the 30s will have a top tube 2-3cm longer than the seat tube.

old's'cool

Although the dimensions aren't significantly different from my other bikes, for some reason my 78 GJ seems to be more stretched out than the others. So much so that I find a standard 100mm stem to be marginally uncomfortable, and consequently ride with a 60mm stem. If you get a chance, get a leg over a 70's Motobecane that's your size, ST-wise, and see what you think.

OldsCOOL

I have been at home on the '85 Trek 460 but couldnt deal with riding in the drops for too long.

So in picking up the '89 Technium PRE, the top tube is stretched 1.5" and gives me the comfort in riding in the drops at will and without limitation. That extra 1.5 is nice once you get the seat and bar adjustments to your liking. The PRE is very nice, very light and quite upgradeable to your liking.

Michael Angelo 

My Gazzelle Gold Line Racing Frame has a long top tube, it fits me perfect.

Kobe 

Bridgestone's seem to have a longer top tube than most, especially in the larger sizes. I had a Basso Gap that a really long top tube but the seat tube was too short for me, so try some of the Italian makers too.