The newer 29'ers are better especially compared to a road frame. A Trek Marlin 5 has 77.7cm for a 62cm effective top tube. A Trek 7.3 FX is 60cm ETT, 83.1 cm standover, and a Trek 1.2 (58cm) is 57.4 cm ETT with 80cm standover. The lower standovers are only found on true mountain 29er frames, not on the cheaper "off-road" frames, which are basically hybrids.

I'm going to summon [MENTION=77814]carpediemracing[/MENTION], if he could post some pictures of his frames. It sounds like you may have similar fit issues. He had custom frames made for reasonable prices.

Your best bet may be to ask around and fit the best fitter in your area, then have them help you find a bike. You'll need to pay up front for the fit (~$200), but it should get you better results.

I completely feel for ya I used to have that issue until i got my new mountain bike.

http://iplogger.org/1VcS3.jpg

The bike was purchased at a garage sale. I don't know the name of the previous owner. It was about 10 years ago. He said that the frame had been made for him (but I don't recall by whom). The bike was painted for the team with its colors & the name of the rider on the frame - no manufacturer listed. I remember that it had Campy Vento wheels & mostly Campy components. It was strictly a road racing bike. The frame was aluminum, but the fork was carbon.

That's the sum total of info that I have on that bike. At the time, I needed the money for another project and parted out the bike on eBay. Live and learn...

Lets see [puts on detective hat] a team road racer with geometry similar to the Kona in the picture. Should be very easy to find -- there could have only been one ever made.

NO! I want NOTHING to do with "geometry similar to the Kona in the picture."

There's always those .....you know.... those recombinant bikes ----> no weight on arms, hands, wrists. And lawnchair seats. Don't think the OP is interested, though.

Maybe try something like:
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=425591

Very low standover and unlimited number of body positions with no weight on the hands.

The ones with recumbent DNA. =)











[This thread just keeps on giving!]

If you are seeking a fairly upright ride, then it shouldn't be hard to get an appropriate fit. Just get a smaller size bike, with a seat tube short enough for your legs. The top tube will be shorter than is typically used by riders with your torso and arms size, but sitting upright requires a shorter reach from saddle to bars anyway. An example of this is the classic "dutch city bike", see how close their bars are to their saddles.

I recall you mentioned somewhere that your pants inseam is about 32 inches. If that is right, you probably want the distance from top surface of saddle to pedal, when pedal is at lowest position, to be around 34-35 inches. So I'd start looking at frames around 52-56 cm effective seat tube.

It is puzzling, to me and maybe to others, why you need so much setback to achieve KOPS. A photo of you on the bike would really help. But anyway, don't worry about KOPS. There is nothing magic about having the knee over the pedal. For example, recumbent bikes completely violate KOPS yet people ride them fast and far. If your fit is very far from KOPS then it may be hard to ride out of the saddle and/or transition from seated to standing may be less smooth. But that problem arises at a lot more than a couple inches "deviation" from KOPS. Also, there is some relationship between torso angle and leg angle, because you don't want to have to fold too much at the waist and hips, with "too much" very dependent on flexibility and fitness. But for upright positions, there usually isn't much folding required.

Now, if you want a more leaned forward position, like torso at 45 degrees, then a frame of 52 to 56 cm effective seat tube will be a problem, because the top tube will be too short, the distance from saddle to bars too short, and your torso and arms will feel cramped. So you'll want a frame with a particularly long top tube, and a long stem. Older mountain bikes, like from the 90s, often had (effective) top tubes much longer than their (effective) seat tubes as well as sloping top tubes, so I'd start there. But I'm not reading that you want that much torso angle.

Responding to [MENTION=341677]gsa103[/MENTION] request for thoughts.

FarHorizon, without a location I won't know but the guy that built my frame used to build frames in the Vista / North County area in CA. He built a lot of frames, all custom, all aluminum (with some bonded carbon stays), mainly for local racers, and since all of them were custom painted they typically had all the team decals etc on them.

Tsunami Bikes

I'm 5'7" but I have a sub 29" inseam. When I sit down in an airplane or a train I'm usually one of the tallest people around, maybe the second or third tallest in a 200 passenger plane, and I never complain about leg room. However when I stand up I'm definitely under the 50th% of height. In some airplanes and the Metro North trains I can stand up full height below the shelves.

Because of my short quads, because I use a 175mm crank (so my saddle is 5 mm further forward compared to a 170mm crank), I decided to go custom. I have a bizarre set of specs, if viewed independently of the rider. 75.5 deg STA, 40 cm ST height (c-top of top tube, about 44 cm to the top of the clamp), 56.5 cm effective top tube, and, now that I've gone with compact bars, a -32 14.5 cm stem.

Because of the long front end I had this frame shortened in the back from a standard 40.5 cm chainstay to "as short as possible" which ended up 39.3 cm. My other frame, with same geometry, has 39 cm stays and a cut out seat tube. I learned that the 40.5 stays stuck the rear wheel out so far that it chattered/skipped/slid even when I wasn't pedaling through corners, and when pedaling I had to consciously move back to weight the rear wheel. With the shorter stays I can go through turns without thinking about the rear wheel, it's always planted.

The front end of both my bikes are normal, 73 deg HTA, 43mm rake, so the bike is normal in terms of initiating turn in when seated. Wheelbase, due to the long top tube, is in the 100 cm range. Because of the short stays the bikes handle like a unicycle when I'm out of the saddle, they really go wherever I want (and since I got to ride the same frame with long and short stays I got to do a one variable change experiment). When doing higher speed stuff like 50 mph descents, they're stable. Really a great mix.

I have a pretty bad back so it's very uncomfortable for me to be leaned over slightly. It's like standing at the sink and leaning forward to turn on the water. Kills me. Stand straight up or bend all the way over, it's fine. After the first hour or so I'm usually in the drops for most of the rest of the ride, even rides that are 5-6 hours long.

Bike by itself. Don't focus on how the contact points get where they are, just focus on the contact points. I got compact bars to replace my almost-20 year old regular bars but I lost 3 cm reach and 3 cm drop. To keep my hands in the same place relative to the BB I had to get a stem that went out 3 cm more and dropped 3 cm more. Now the drops are where they were before, but it's not pretty. I ordered the frames based on a 12 cm stem (based on the new top tube - I used to use 14-14.5 cm stems and they were way too short) plus the crit bend bar set up that I'd literally used for about 25 years prior to that:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-A28N0KMGXn...0/DSC_0657.JPG

With me on it. I tried to find a picture where I don't look tremendously fat (it's tough) but also one where you have some indication of my saddle position, hides the stem so it's less of a red herring, and has at least one other rider for some kind of reference. In this picture I'm under extreme duress (I usually am when I'm racing) so I'm very forward on the saddle, even with the 75.5 deg seat tube angle and the forward position of the saddle on the post. You can see that my hip-back angle is similar to the guy sort of in front of me but that his back points up whereas mine points forward a bit (compare the angle of the rear panel of our shorts). I find that the forward position not only lets me sit over the pedals properly but it also lets me have a flatter back.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.n...8176d0a62ef2ee

I also read this for the first time today, it had to do with forward saddle positions, which I have believed in for most riders for many years. It was interesting to see a same era rider discovering stuff for the first time this year.
Best of PEZ Toolbox'14: The Power of a Bike Fit - PezCycling News

Hope this helps.

Thank you all kindly - MUCH to think about...

FH

Not so. By positioning the pelvis WRT the feet one uses the core muscles, and not just the upper body, to support the rider. I use to think as you do but have learned better after working under a very good fitter. Unfortunately not all bikes allow this pelvis position and also not end up with too much reach. blame the public's reluctance to accept smaller front wheels or "toe clip overlap". Andy.

cdm- Wow! I see all kinds of wrong in your position but if it works for you then more power to you. I will say that it (your position) is so far off the norm that I'd be surprised if many others found it to work. But after 40+ years of doing this stuff I do learn new methods every so often. I will say that with body issues (your back pains) I'm not surprised that some of the fit norms don't work for you though. I hope you keep riding in good health for the new years. Andy.

With a drop bar road bike and a reasonably fit and flexible rider, the best way I know of to reduce weight on the hands is to have the saddle rearward enough, relative to the pedals, that the body is balanced, with its center of gravity more or less over the feet. Like the rider in blue, immediately ahead of cdm in the photo above. His CG is somewhere around his belly button and that is roughly over the bottom bracket which is the center of his foot position. If the rider has some core strength (to hold his torso up) and some flexibility (enough to fold at the hips), then he should be able to take his hands off the bars and ride without any particular strain, for a minute or more.

But it isn't clear if OP wants a drop bar bike.

My experience is EXACTLY that of Mr. Andrew R. Stewart. On the road bike that I liked, I was "balanced" in such a way that I could lean forward over the bars with virtually NO weight on my arms & wrists. Or, as I said before, I could pedal with my hands an inch above the bars with no strain at all. Going to the levers or drops produced an "unloading" of my back.

Yes, I DO want drop bars for their variety of hand positions. I would prefer a recumbent, but WAF prevents me from considering one. Therefore a "road bike" it will be for me. Until my weight recedes some more, I'm reluctant to consider anything with carbon fiber (I started this year at 285, but now am 260). My goal for 2015 is to hit 230, where I plan to stay.

Frame geometry will be critical in finding that "balance" that I seek, but as Mr. Stewart mentions, it is elusive (and even the bike shop kids don't seem to have a clue). For now, "go ride a bunch of bikes until you find one that fits" may be the best recommendation that I've heard. I certainly don't know enough about frame geometry to even consider the expense of a custom frame without knowing how it would fit. Based on my (bad) experiences with the past few bikes (all of which had compact geometry), I was blaming the frames, but it may have just been a matter of fit, instead.

My pants inseam is 32" (actually, closer to 31, but most pants are only available in 30 - too short - or 32 - slightly long). My shirt sleeve length is 36.5 inches (again 36 is slightly short, but 37 is slightly long). Suit size is typically 50L (I have wide shoulders). I am between 6'2" and 6'3" tall. I know these aren't precise enough for bike fitting, but they're the best I have for now.

FarHorizon

Here's the Kona Unit as I bought it (profoundly uncomfortable):

http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/a...1792-small.gif

Here's the Kona after my first attempt at modification (still uncomfortable):

http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps7e421bd3.jpg

Here's where I gave up & tried to make it a cruiser (still uncomfortable):

http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/a.../FB2-Small.jpg

One other fit consideration is flexibility. CDR has back issues but has lots of hamstring flexibility, allowing his pelvis to rotate forward and maintain a flat back. The two riders in front are more typical, and have a more vertical pelvis and some spine curvature.

At first glance, your fit dimensions don't seem that abnormal. I'm 6ft with just over 30in pants inseam, and I can find a decent fit on most frames with a 56cm ETT. For those with short legs, compact frames are essential to getting adequate handover. It's not going to be generous, but you can have a cm or two.

Bike Fit Calculator | Find Your Bike Size | Competitive Cyclist

OP, have you done this calculator? Or taken these measurements at least? Any thoughts on why you require so much setback for KOPS? Did the road bike that fit have an unusual amount of setback, or a very slack seat tube angle?

How is your flexibility and overall fitness, and do you have old injuries or physical limitations? The fact that you felt you needed such a rearward hand position on the last iteration of the Kona suggests that there is something going on that should be taken into account.

No, but I will.

On the Kona? Frame geometry. It was made for climbing & descending, not for road riding.

No.

Poor and poor.

Yes. Lower back neurological damage limiting torso flexibility from the bike accident with the failed rim.

Or maybe not. If the Kona frame were both too small for me AND designed with "ultra compact rear triangle" plus a long reach for descending, then perhaps the positions I needed for a cruiser stance on the frame were to be expected. I think that the Kona is probably a great design WHEN USED FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE and when fitted to the rider. When BOTH of those things are wrong, though, not such a great match... I don't want to cast any aspersions on Kona (whose bikes I respect). I think that the problems I had with my Unit were due to my own misunderstandings of the bike's fit and purpose.

Got it.

I think you should find a used, entry/mid-range road bike, in the 52 to 56 cm effective seatpost c-t-c range, as big as you can stand over. Preferably with a threadless stem, not too-steep seatpost angle, and sloping top tube. Change stem height/length, add a threadless stem extender, change handlebar type/shape, and adjust saddle position to get your torso to a reasonably comfortable position. Don't spend a ton on it. Don't try to achieve perfect KOPS. Don't expect to do long rides from the start. Don't expect long rides to be entirely ache-free. Wear padded shorts and padded gloves, use padded bar tape.

Then ride, work out, stretch, do yoga, etc to get your fitness up, flexibility up, core strength up, and weight down.

Adjust the bike's position as your own condition changes; for example, even if your lower back flexibility is limited, you can improve your hip flexibility, and gradually lower the bar and move it further from the saddle.

When the time is right, get a real hands-on fitting and buy a different bike or consider having a custom frame made. I wouldn't spend the money on fitting, expensive bike, or custom frame right now, because you are not close to the condition that I presume you intend to achieve.

Also, I wasn't clear on why a recumbent is not an option, but they do solve a lot of fit problems.

Thanks, jyi - that would work.

The only reason a 'bent isn't in consideration is because my wife considers them unsafe. Once she's made up her mind, there's no use in trying to confuse her with facts...

No waf on the bent? From a financial standpoint?

For the cost of the Kona, a Brooks, a Thomson, drop bars, bike levers, bar tape, lay back seatpost, chainring, chain, cruiser bars, red tires, gold chain, etc, you could get a pretty nice used bent, I bet.

Kona was just made for flat bars, drops made the reach long.

You may not even be comfortable on that old aluminum race bike after your accident.

I'm 5' 11" with jeans inseam 32", bike inseam 33". My most comfortable road bikes are 58 cm c-t-c. I can just stand over them, with a bit of touchage. The seatposts are pretty low in the seattube, at most a "fistful" of exposed post. I install 130-140 mm stems, sometimes push the saddles rearward. The bars are from level with the saddle or 4" below (level on the commuter, below on the weekend bikes).

Oh, safety concern on the bent. Bummer.

Maybe take her to chat with some bent riders? I think they are safer, because you tend to hit things legs first instead of face first, and you don't fall from as high. The low racers are a little spooky because you are so low relative to cars, but the more upright sort of bent puts you higher than the average car driver. Not my first choice for weaving through dense car traffic, but that is not a very safe activity anyway.

I'll have to FIND some 'bent riders first. There seems to be few to none around here... OTOH, I just joined the local bike club, so maybe on some of their rides... And there's always Critical Mass but somehow I find it unlikely that she'd be reassured.

Tell your wife to take my word that 'bents are as safe as milk.