This discussion of bike fit is a good illustration that general guidelines can get overruled by individual needs. I had an older student who hangs our here too and his saddle angle would not work for 99% of us but was comfortable for him. In the past, most bike fit studies and subsequent recommendations have come from racers seeking greater performance. Eventually these recommendations get repeated and become more like rules that should be obeyed. But of course not everyone is seeking maximum speed when they are riding. Of the 3 variables that determine position, mechanical efficiency, aerodynamics and comfort (3 factors often in tension with each other), many of my students or custom frame customers prefer a greater emphasis on comfort. We get fatter and less flexible and ride slower anyway. Most commonly this results in a higher bar with less reach to the saddle. This more relaxed position also results in more saddle setback. This is more obvious when setting up a comfort position on a fitting bike.

Working against this comfort position is industry regulations. Lawyers of bike companies want toe clearance with 700C or on occasion 650B wheels. That almost automatically requires a seat tube angle/top tube length that is less than ideal for the shorter rider. This is where a custom frame can be a real advantage. Often on this and other bike forums used bikes are bought and a typical question is "how did it ride?" The problem is that that bicycle may handle right but not be comfortablfe for less than perfect bodies. There is no reason smaller wheels can't be chosen and a relaxed fit might not handle as well as an Italian race bike but will still handle well enough to be more comfortable on a longer ride. This can be a matter of smaller tweaks that actually result in a superior result. For example lowering the BB height, extending the head tube, sloping the top tube using lighter steel tubes. It all adds up.