I have a Shogun 300 frame built up as my fast road bike, with 9-speed Ultegra stuff on it, and 700C wheels w/ 35mm Paselas. The frame was originally built for 27" wheels. I really like how it handles, but it's just a tiny bit too big for me (I can stand over it, barely, and the TT is only 55cm), and I happened into a 53cm Bianchi Sport SX frame a while ago. It fits me much better than the Shogun, at 53cm square, except for one detail: the seat tube angle is too steep!

I have long femurs and a preference for leather saddles, and most bikes made for people my height (around 5'6"-5'7") have 74º or steeper seat tube angles, making it very difficult to get the saddle back far enough, even when the frame accepts a 27.2mm seatpost so I can use the VO one with extra setback.

So I'm looking for a smallish steel road frame with a 72-73º seat tube angle (at most! shallower is better!) that will accept 32-630 or 35-622 wheels, ideally with an English-threaded BB and 26.6 or 27.2mm seatpost diameter (I have a vintage Campy seatpost that's 26.6mm).

What models should I be looking for?

SR MTE-100 seatpost slides pretty far back. I swapped out the stock SR post on my Shogun Touring bike to give more options and it looks better with it. At least on the touring frame.

Have you considered an easton setback post?

Typically, when I encounter a rider with a long femur, I make the adjustment using a combination of longer cranks and saddle setback. This does not upset the weight distribution and handling as much as relying totally on saddle setback. Given that the OP is riding a small frame, there is a good probability that it is fitted with shorter crankarms and it should be relatively easy to find and fit longer cranksarms that will resolve enough of the issue so that a frame swap or extreme setback posts are not req'd.

1970s Raleigh Super Course.

Lemond's were known for slack seat tube angles and longer top tubes. It was an across-the-product-line characteristic, pre-Trek at least.

Centurion Pro Tour, Lotus Odyssey or Éclair models, Miyata 1000, Specialized Expedition Touring, and 80's Motobecane Grand Touring. Don

My impression is that many English frame builders made frames with 21" ST and 22" TT. So Raleighs, Bob Jacksons, Mercians, etc. might be what you want.

A specific suggestion. A 1973 Raleigh Grand Sport(s), 20.5" frame size. Haven't searched surrounding years, but here's the advantages.

1. It's not an especially rare model or size
2. 531 tubing throughout
3. Good tire clearance and frame geometry that suits
4. Has a nice ride, and has a distinctive look. (a few weeks ago, a gentleman who's about 10 years my senior was overtaking me, and he noticed what I was riding. He said, "its been a long time since I've seen one of those". I turned to look back and saw that he was on a pristine, 1974 Raleigh International)
5. A relative "sleeper", due to demand for Professiionals, Internationals and Competitions from the same year.
6. Comes in the 20.5" seat tube size, vs the Super Course (and other models) in smallest frame size of 21.5.

I believe you have it backwards. My pre-Trek Bilato Brothers Lemond Le Vanquer has seat tube and top tube of equal length.

Trek Lemonds have the longer top tube.

https://classiclightweights.net/wp-co...talogue-11.jpg

Here's one data point from '97.
On sizes 57&59 seat tube angle 72.5 on the volume selling road bikes. 72deg on 61cm.
I would consider the top tube measurements to be ~1cm or more than usual: 57 = 57.5 tt, 59 = 59 tt.

Your experience may be different.

Trek began making Lemonds in 1995.

What about something that doesn't have a long top tube?

BTW, I randomly happened across a 26.8mm MTE-100 seatpost last night! It doesn't fit any of the frames I currently have, but I picked it up anyway....I've been looking for one of those for a long time.

EDIT: Turns out that the MTE-100 actually fits the Bianchi frame I have. Hmmmm