hoyc

I have a powder-coated 1985 (or maybe '84) Team Miyata that I've built up with modern drive train that I've been using as my "go-fast" road bike for club rides and training. My intention is to start racing on it as well next season.

I've always been under the impression (and was told so when the frame was sold to me), that my bike was a 56. I've recently discovered that it is actually a 58 cm frame (measured c-t on the seat tube), so it fits more like a 57.

I've never been terribly uncomfortable on it, but I've always suspected the frame is too big for me. I've always felt a bit stretched out, and it never quite handled as nimbly as I would've liked (especially on descents). For reference, I'm about 5'10, with a 31 inch inseam.

I've begun a search for a top-tier 80's (or even early 90's) Japanese race-bike in a size that fits me. (In an ideal world, I'd be able to find another Team Miyata).

Referring to the catalogue's geometry chart, would I fit on a 54 or 56? You'll notice my saddle is slammed pretty far back. Since the tube angles are the same for the 54, 56 and 58, I should theoretically be able to get my saddle in the same position, but just with more seatpost showing? Also, it looks like the 54 and 56 both have the same TT length, so the fit should be the same for both, but just with more potential for bar-drop on the 54, correct?

Your help is appreciated! I'm also open to suggestions for other frames that could be alternatives for the Team Miyata as well!

Chrome Molly

And your dimensions are?

From the looks of it based on your current setup you may want a frame with a more slack seat tube angle and shorter top tube.

nlerner

If you've felt stretched out, then why slide your saddle all the way back?

hoyc

Oops, forgot to mention, I am about 5'10 and have a 31 inch inseam. I think I just have some weird proportions, as the saddle is slammed back on my other bikes as well.

hoyc

I've found this position puts me in a comfortable/correct position for my knees relative to the pedals

Salamandrine 

If you feel too stretched out, why on earth do you have your saddle slammed all the way back? This effectively makes the top tube longer. Did you arrive at this position by plum bobbing your knee, or is it just something you prefer?

EDIT - ok I missed your post. Controversy aside, I'd suggest bobing your knee position first to get a correct starting point if you haven't. It may be that you need a bike with a slacker seat tube angle.

Anyhow, the frame size indicates a typical 70s to early 80s fit, assuming your saddle is at the correct height. It probably seems weird to you if you are used to modern bikes with long seatposts. 56 would be a bit more ideal for a race bike IMO. To some degree it's a matter of personal preference and what works for you.

Chrome Molly

At 5'10 I would go no smaller than a 56 ctc seat tube but would get a more slack angle (73deg or 73.5 deg) and a comparably short top tube.

That said, you may want to try and move the saddle forward a little bit and add a shorter stem on your current bike before investing in a new frame.

USAZorro

I'd consider the shorter stem and possibly raising the bars a bit.

I don't see the smaller size being any better, since the distance between the cranks and seat would be the same, and the top-tube is the same length.

hoyc

Thanks all for your suggestions. I think the 56 would actually be the way to go, as a 54 might be TOO small for the amount of bar-drop that i'd need.

I have measured more fore-aft using a plump-bob, and I am definitely in the right position. I'll consider a shorter stem as well, however I was worried that I'd actually make the handling of the bike worse, especially since I am already using fairly short-reach handlebars.

Any other suggestions for top-tier, but accessible 80's era bikes? I have been thinking something Japanese. I am not looking for anything exotic or collectible, but rather my goal is to have a unique, lugged steel frame that will let me keep up with my clubmates.

old's'cool

FWIW I'm probably a freak of nature, but I'm smaller than the OP by about 1" but prefer a frame about that size, set up for riding on the drops, which is what I do.



I could use a slightly longer stem on the bike shown, but with french bars, that's not so easy to come by!

Andy_K 

If you aren't having a problem with standover then you can get about the same position on the bike you as you would on a 56 just by switching to a smaller stem. In addition to shortening the top tube the 56 would also lower the top of the top tube which, if you didn't compensate by raising the stem, would counteract the effective top tube shortening.

I suggest you try a shorter stem and raise the bars a little.

FWIW, I'm 5'9" with about the same inseam as you and while I'd choose the 56 (with a tall stem) I suspect I could make the bike you have fit with a shorter, taller stem.

RiddleOfSteel

The quest for the optimum setup, I know it well. BTW, beautifully set up Miyata. The silver Shimano groupset looks quite natural on this bike--also helps that your wheel choice was what it is. As someone who is concerned about the looks as much as the proper function of a bike (because I can when I build it myself), I really like your 'composition' of it.

Looking at the 1985 Miyata catalog, the Team Miyata in the intermediate sizes has a 73° HT angle and a 74° ST angle. That explains your saddle rail setback situation (to me at least) as I do that on my steeper ST-angled frames. Your seat post looks like an older Campy type (gorgeous finish) which means the set back isn't as much as many modern units (20mm or so).

An unwanted stretched-out feeling is no fun, and I echo some of the suggestions previously stated. Since fit is/can be an iterative process, the easiest and cheapest experimental step (i.e. free) is to angle up the hoods (and, well, bars too) by loosening the bars at the stem clamp. A few degrees up can help that feeling noticeably and not seem like you're "falling downhill" when you are gripping the hoods (ask me how I know).

Next experimentation is, of course as people have suggested, is to try a shorter stem (a hassle, I know as your bar setup and wrap job is already done, and so nicely). 10mm perhaps? Dunno. Some amount of length (noticeable) that will 'sit you back' in your saddle a bit more, taking the weight off your arms and hands, which is what you are going for. In RoS's land of Fluid Bike Fit Theory, being 'hung out over the front axle' makes for weird out of saddle sprint motions (until you figure out how to counter them) and can make for sluggish tiller-like steering in the saddle.

My thinking goes something like: drop a bob (or similar) from the forward-most part of your hand when it is gripping the brifter (pretty much where the hood turns from horizontal to vertical at the 'knob'). Where does that vertical string line up in relation to the front axle? Is it ahead of it? Behind it? Yours, to me, looks like it's about 20mm or so ahead, from the picture. I've taken to observing this in my fleet and have found that the vertical string lining up with the front axle is the furthest I want to go. Preferably, I'd rather have that point be 10-15mm aft of the axle. The twofold benefit of 1) setting me back in the saddle for comfort and rear 'steering' influencing and 2) less weight on the front, thus aiding a lighter, freer, and livelier steering feel.

I think you can make this frame work. I'm battling a fitment issue with my modern Trek. Steering is good (74° HT and appropriate rake) but the rest of it has me shifted much too far forward. I have a 105mm stem, and am looking to go to a 90mm unit and go from there. My vertical line (front of hand to axle) is dead on the axle, so there's some room, in my logic, to shorten the front of it and help my situation out. Best of luck!

sumgy

Why are you measuring on the ST?
Worry more about the top tube (which is likely 56cm C-C).
The correct saddle setback is one where you do not engage your hamstrings or quads more than each other.
Saddle height should be based around finding a position where your pedal stroke is round and smooth rather than jerky and up & down.

Lazyass

As far as the seat tube, it looks like you have the right amount of seatpost showing. Try a 90mm stem. Yours looks like at least 100mm. You'll be surprised as how big a difference a slightly shorter stem makes.

Scottybigs 

I'll echo the opinion of how much a 1-2cm change in stem length can make. Keep your saddle where it is--if it's comfortable for your legs, then it should be left alone. Don't use saddle fore/aft to change your bar reach--that's why they make stems in multiple lengths.

Swapping your stem is a WAY cheaper option than finding a new frame. How can you be certain what size frame to get if you haven't dialled in your current bike? Go to your local bike co-op, find an 8cm or 9cm stem, and take the bike on a long ride.

I ride 57/58cm bikes (5'11.5), but use 8cm+9cm stems. I have long legs but a very short torso--all bodies are different, including yours, so do some troubleshooting on the bike you have before acquiring another.

TimmyT 

Start by measuring your body. Get a friend or significant other to help you. You'll need a measuring tape of some sort, a wall, and a good stool.
The competitive cyclist tool is a good place to start: Bike Fit Calculator | Find Your Bike Size | Competitive Cyclist

Once you've done that, you can start adjusting your Miyata. Do one thing at a time to see what the difference is. Too many adjustments at the same time will make it feel all wonky.

FWIW, it looks pretty close based on your pictures.

bulldog1935

Note that stem difference in the two photos on this thread.
If you're feeling stretched out, you need a shorter reach stem.

Vintage bikes tend to have nice short top tubes compared to modern frames. As long as you can stand over the frame, it's probably a close-enough fit. Scottybigs is exactly right about saddle position. Adjust reach with stem and bar shape.

Modern "fit science" is really just a way to sell fewer frame sizes to more people.

TimmyT 

As @nlerner pointed out, the saddle is the place to start. It's the easiest thing to move, and it depends on which muscles the OP is actuating.

Sort of true: 80s Japanese bikes tend to have short top tubes. Short 70s frames made out of 531 tend to have long tubes because Reynolds most common tube set had a 57mm for all sizes. Post-90s frames are a wash as it depends on the company and builder.
Pythagoras might have something to say about that. It's geometry of a frame relative to body shape. Generally, bone length won't change for an adult. Muscle mass, ligaments, and tendons will change depending on exercise routine and flexibility. There's also a habituation increment here: humans are fairly adaptable to comfort.

There's no harm in measuring, as that provides a baseline for understanding frame geometry. It's not "magic."

Bandera

Yep, this is the basis for all sizing requirements.

A modern fit calculator can be quite useful in choosing the correct size in a modern bike.
A Classic bike fit in either the Guimard/Lemond or Merckx systems can be properly calculated as well.
This is how we would have started the process of setting up a Team Miata or any pro bike "back when": with the rider's body measurements and the calc'd data of base fit.

The pdf download that @TimmyT provided has the basics of the Lemond fit calculations.
Go thorough the process using both systems to be thorough and get the facts of fit from two viewpoints.
Now you have the data for a "base fit".
Compare to where you are and take it from there w/ incremental adjustments or realization that you have the wrong frame size and can't get there from here.


-Bandera

repechage

Without seeing you on the bike and pedaling, I think it is near impossible to make any comments. Besides biometrics, your flexibility, posture, all play a part.
Humans are very adaptable, even a wrong position can "feel" right.
The only comment I can make is that the saddle setback indicates to me one who prefers a bigger gear when given a choice. That and a frame that allows you to use a 10-11 cm stem, (with Cinelli bars, other brands, especially some French and some Japanese bars really have a long forward throw) is often cited as providing good geometry for steering control.

I disagree with the comments about 70's frames being short in the top tube, the author needs to review more brands and sizes, if he did there would be a different conclusion. Production and "safety" concerns often triumphed good fit, the front center of bikes was often kept long to avoid toe clip overlap, the way to achieve that varied, some did better than others.

bulldog1935

Carlton and Italian geometry pretty much ruled in the 70s, and those frames tend to be square or shorter than square.
No doubt exceptions exist.
Long top tubes become predominant in the 80s/90s, particularly on touring and CX frames (and of course MTN frames). Now everything has long top tubes for keeping inventories small.

It makes a whole lot more sense for him to fit that bike if possible than find another bike.

Certainly no reason to attack one's knowledge and experience base.

Did anyone else notice his brake hoods are in front of his front axle? That's a long reach.

arimajol

The best way to find out what fits you best is to try them. Don't get hung up on numbers and calculations. Make adjustments to the Miyata, or better yet, ride some frames in other sizes. You'll feel the difference and you'll like it better or you won't.

Salamandrine 

Yeah, while I agree with others that you should do a complete measure and fit, 56 is most likely right. That stem is a bit too slammed for that size frame. Other than that, Centurion, Nishiki, or whatever you can find in the right fit in a top race model.

AFA the fore-aft measure, long femurs happen. I have them. Still, I would recheck it. That position seems rather extreme even for a 74º seat tube. FWIW the old way that I was taught was to start the plumb line at the base of the knee -- not from the most forward part as seems to be common now. Naturally as a retro grouch I consider the new way wrong. At any rate the difference is about 1cm typically.

Other bikes to look for? Most obvious is a Univega Superstrada, which is basically the same exact bike as a Team Miyata, and usually sold at a lower price because of the perceived value of the decals.

Falcon3

A 56 would likely fit great, but I can't find fault with how your bike is set up now. It's got a reasonably long stem, just swap that out for a 60mm and you'll make up the same effective top tube length that a 56 would.

Check out Cockpit Length measuring. It's the true measurement of bars to seat and probably the most important measurement.

SJX426 

One of the reasons I enjoy coming to this site is all the view points and explanations offered for a given issue. I can't nor will I argue any of them. I have not had a professional fit done, but have taken input from a wide variety of sources and experimented.


This thread caused me to reflect on my Pinarello riding experience. I purchased it back in the spring of 2014. It is a 60 CTC square, I think. I thought the stem was too long and felt way to stretched out. The saddle was not a Brooks but I had experience with another of a different color.


After 3000 miles plus, I like both! My body has changed in weight and strength. I was "heavy" on the bars initially but now, with stronger legs, the weight distribution has changed because I am able to consistently apply pressure to the pedals. My hands can "float" on the hoods when pushing hard.


Talk about stretched out TT and stems, my '97 RockHopper defined this description. It was so bad I changed the stem to a much shorter one. Now it is too short and I no longer have the original stem. (I thought I was a hoarder!)


Having said all that, your stem is too long. My gauge for bar location differs in that I like the front hub hidden by the bar where my hands are most frequently positioned when riding. For me, it feels more neutral than any other bar/stem location.


I know I am adaptable, I think I am effective, but I don't know if I am efficient with the "fit" on this bike. Maybe it is time for a fit assessment!