Originally Posted by
meanwhile
Yes. And my answer, which seems to have gone over your head, is that this is the wrong way to approach her real problem.
Despite what you junior school teacher told you, there ARE stupid questions. You just asked one. If I knew of a CF frame that seemed ideal then I would have suggested it, yes?
If the OP wants me to expand on what I mean by a relaxed fit, then I'll certainly do so (it sounds to me like she needs the sort of geometry that Rivendell favour, although this doesn't restrict her to one of their bikes - it .) But talking over that is complex and time consuming so it makes sense to see if she's interested in going that route.
I think you need to grow up a little and realize that not every post can be a complete essay. People with lives say stuff and then explain more
if the person who needs information expresses an interest.
But - because I like you! - I'd suggest reading this:
https://www.rivbike.com/kb_results.asp?ID=38
...I think some of Rivendell's recommendations are generally over-cautious (not everyone over 35 needs their bars as high as Elron seems to think) but they fit here. I suggest taking her bars higher than she has so far, using either a fork with an uncut steerer or a bike designed for a quil stem, which she could fit with an extender. And it might be an idea to go for moustache bars rather than drops - if bar height is a problem, then getting multiple positions from one height can make sense.
You have been extremely condescending and rude in reply to my extremely reasonable and impersonal observations. Luckily I have a thick skin. I read the article, thanks? Bars 4" higher than the saddle? Why use such a conservative and controversial piece of tripe to make a point? Everyone in this thread should, I think, take a minute and think about what they know about bikes, frames and the people that ride them. Come on. You know more than you think. O.p. included. First thing. A woman with longer legs and arms and shorter torso is not at all weird or unusual. Women specific designs assume these very proportions in fact.
I think if pressed I could name every manufacturer of CF frames easily available in North America. If further pressed I could list their geometries and size ranges! On paper, none would suit the o.p. Ah... but is that really true? Yesterday, in another thread I said words to the effect that in general I go against the usual impulse to make the frame responsible for the heavy lifting of "fit". IMO the frame merely needs to be in the ballpark of "reasonable". In other words I would not recommend a 50cm for the o.p. nor a 62cm. That leaves about 5 or 6 common size options open and if the o.p. chose ANY one of them I could make it fit her with suitable selections from the VAST assortment of stems, bars, seat posts and even cranks on the market. An uncut steerer is one way of getting bars higher than normal. There is, however, I think a growing culture of "its all good" when it comes to bike fit. I live in Portland and this exposes me to huge racks of commuter bicycles at large institutions. I love looking at the different rigs people saddle up and go to work on! I wince though when I see saddles tilted 30* from horizontal nose up! I shake my head when I see saddles tilted 30* from horizontal nose down. I cringe when I see bars 12" higher than saddle... 12* lower than saddle. I'm sure those riders can justify their choices. Friends... some things are really just wrong. A little effort learning to work with what is generally accepted to be normal might mean still having a bike and enjoying cycling in a year versus getting rid of it cheap on Craigslist because it was just too painful.
The great thing about using components to dial in "fit" is that they are usually cheap (often very cheap) compared to a frame. What "fits" today might actually cease to become comfortable as you develop new muscles and adapt to the tensions inherent in riding diamond frame bicycles. You can buy a longer stem to stretch out more for under $20. You can buy an adjustable stem to try out new positions on a whim for under $30. New positions within reason of course. There really is no good reason barring unique orthopedic intrinsics to have drop bars higher than saddle height. There really isn't. For one thing your saddle manufacturer expected you to have a certain amount of weight on your hands and when you throw those expectations out by significantly altering your torso angle your saddle is now going to be uncomfortable. A saddle wide enough and plush enough to make one comfortable with a high bar height will not allow for a lot of pedal effort. So you will be slow compared to other riders. Knees will hurt, etc.
I'm done but if you get anything from this its that the actual frame matters little. Especially if the frame that does it for you by the numbers costs $5K. Nashbar has been selling a CF frame in touring, CX and RR dimensions for years. $1K. I wouldn't spend more at this juncture in CF evolution. I don't know what seat tube length would fit the o.p. , or what top tube length but a decision on one will make a choice in the other moot. You pick the one that is important and finesse the other with component choice. A 400mm seatpost can fix ANY choice of top-tube length desired in a mass market product. FWIW.
H