Originally Posted by cyccommute

A 52 cm road bike is a small frame. It may fit your legs but it's not fitting your torso. You are all hunched up and putting most of your weight on your hands rather than using your core muscles to hold yourself up. You need a larger frame with a better standover height. A sloping top tube bike in a "56cm" would fit you better. The "56cm" really isn't the length of the seat tube but is the length of a virtual seat tube. However, the top tube is proportionally longer on that kind of bike.

Something is hinky with the Haro website, however. They say that a 53cm frame has an effective top tube of 597mm with a head angle of 70.5° and a seattube angle of 74.5°. That a slack headtube angle and a very steep seattube angle which should make the bike have a very short top tube...which you can see in your picture. A Trek 1.1 has a head angle of 72.8° and a seat angle of 73.7° for a 54cm bike with a toptube length of 543mm. I don't think that the Haro's toptube is 54mm or 2.1" longer than the Trek with that slack a head angle.

Either way, you would benefit from a slightly larger bike with a longer top tube.