Originally Posted by
Unca_Sam
I didn't say too small! It's probably a complication of the compact geometry and the sloping top tube making the bike appear smaller (and that space from the saddle to the hoods look longer). Also, what's so bad about a +/- 17 degree stem?
Keep in mind that I'm firmly in the dark ages of bicycle geometry here. Road bikes have 'square' frames. I end up making compromises on my own fits because I have a preferred ST of 56cm and a preferred TT of 54 cm. So it's either long seatposts or stubby stems for me.
To me, saying that he could "comfortably" ride the next size up implies that his current frame is too small. As far as -17° stems, I generally think that they're ugly, but sometimes necessary. But adding 2cm to the TT, with the next frame size up, would mean subtracting 20mm from the stem; that stubbiness, combined with a -17° angle, would be hideous, IMO.
Yeah, I kind of figured that you were basing your comments off of older standards. A fist full of seat post is no longer the norm and, hell, at this point, I couldn't even tell you what my preferred ST length would be, because I don't know. Semi/compact geometry has made that mostly irrelevant and I couldn't tell you the ST length on any of my bikes in the last 15 years.