Is the distance between your seat and bars relatively the same on your bikes like mine? Is the drop relatively the same like mine?

Of course it is relative, but from my perspective, those are the constants and the BB is the object moving fore and aft.

Probably 6 of one, half dozen of another. Either way, I like adapting to that "change" in the BB.

I get that. I'm not telling you what to do with your own bikes, I'm explaining why most other people don't look at it that way.

For most people, butt fore-aft relative to the bottom bracket informs and impacts how aggressive a fit is.

First of all that Raleigh should ride ok no hands. The reason it don't can be mechanical or geometrical.

Attempting to project a line through the headtube to the floor is not going to work. Instead measure fork rake, measure head angle, enter the data here: https://yojimg.net/bike/web_tools/trailcalc.php

A somewhat more accurate way to measure fork rake is to lie the bike down on a big sheet of cardboard and make a tracing. You'll get a much better approximation of where the centerline of the blade is. Unless you have a canted fork crown, in which case remove fork from frame and put it in a fork jig.

All of us, all the time, decide we know things we don't, based on faulty info. In best circumstances none of this is easy.

Besides fit measurements, it's a very good idea to check your frame and fork alignment. Sheldon covers in the article about respacing here, but don't use twine, use thread or fishing line. Old frames are often bent or were never well aligned. This makes them difficult to impossible to ride no hands, and the bike will handle funny even with hands on the bars. If someone else has mentioned it and I missed it in this thread I apologize.

I have a few brews in me, and thus am skimming the latest developments here, but after a while, ditching the numbers and going on feel, letting that inform you of saddle height and position, bar position, handling, etc, is A-OK in my book. I don't and have never run any sort of computer or calculator on my bike as I prefer the organic experience of riding and being away from numbers that analyze my ride while I ride. I dig numbers outside of that, and have said as much, but ride and appreciate the bike that you've built or bought or restored--the one you feel like taking out, and going for it. Often, things (theories) can take time to marinate and work their way through the brain. Don't rush it, and let the evolution throughout time experienced take you on the journey. If you're conscientious then you will iterate to a satisfactory conclusion soon enough. I went from super small bikes being ok to adapting them to eventually working up to 63.5cm bikes that are my proper size. I had a sit-bone-plane-to-hood-notch/kickup measurement of 38.0" shrink to a nice 36.0" over these last five to six years. Things move around and you hone in on things after time. If you can identify a range of attributes and measurements you like to operate within, then that will help a lot. Part human/organic process, part numbers/analytical.

Steeper seattube can allow a small degree of shortening of the chainstays, which in itself shifts weight to the rear wheel, making the steering lighter and quicker.

Moving the rider's body forward has the opposite effect, by putting more weight on the front tire. Charging downhill at high speed, the bike will be more stable with the rider positioned further forward relative to the bottom bracket.

Using a longer stem makes the steering slower, more "solid" and requiring more effort to negotiate tight corners, but it is hard to quantify how much of this is due to the "tiller" effect (described in the next pagraph) of the longer stem versus the added weight on the front wheel.

The center of mass of the rider's upper body can be considered to pivot about the saddle, and with hand contact points being some distance ahead of the steering axis, the rider's mass acts to effect counter-steer and inward-steer in response to each other. So a longer stem would seem to blunt steering inputs by applying some of the pivoted mass's inertia so as to oppose changes of steering direction (either inward or outward).

If the rider's hands were behind the steering axis, as they are on upright motorcycles, counter-steering becomes automatic as the rider simply "throws" the bike to either side without having to counter-steer.

Not bar drop?

As for "quick" handling, wheelbase, weight distribution and trail are probably seem to me as having the largest impact. The bikes I illustrated have wheelbases from 96cm to 108cm with more or less the same trail. The front axles align on the 1959 and 2009 with the extra length of the 1959 coming in the rear triangle. The rear axles align on the 1933 and 1959 with the extra length of the 1933 coming from the front end. The short wheelbase is king when it comes to quickness. As to weight distribution, I can't notice the impact as much.

Hand position usually follows what the legs and torso are doing. I don't say this just as a matter of design philosophy, but as a practical observation. When people slam their bars because they want to get more aero, they frequently just end up using the least-aggressive hand positions on their bars, like riding on the hoods with their arms outstretched all day. (This can ironically sometimes make people less aero, since they can no longer comfortably use arm postures that keep the forearms more level).

"Bar drop" in particular is also an oblique figure that, although easily visualized, doesn't determine much by itself. It means nothing without bar reach, and its implications also depend on the particular handlebar geometry, the components on the bars (including bar wrap), and the positions and angles of all these things. It's simply fuzzier than the crank-to-saddle relationship.

I tend to agree with this. While riding, I adjust my forward lean "on the fly", according to my speed primarily, trying to be more aero at higher speeds.

But my lower body's tilt is defined by the saddle's fore/aft position, and which tends to define how hard of a pedaling intensity most comfortably balances the positioning of my center of gravity ahead of the bottom bracket.

Curiously, on those particular bikes that steer/handle with little effort while out of the saddle, I can even sprint uphill with my hands atop the bars, since my major steering input seems to be limited to little more than left/right forces applied to the bars (very little torque needed). In this case, my higher pedaling effort (torque) is what is holding up my upper body's weight, taking weight off of my hands.

Shifting the saddle forward will rotate the seated rider's entire body in the forward direction (which means down as much as forward at the rider's hands), without the rider having to bend any sharper at the waist. So no loss of the rider's ability to sustain high power levels due to acute bending, just the need to hold one's head up with a sharper upward bend at the neck.
So take care of your neck and choose a lightweight helmet if you want to be a road racer(!), and seriously, perhaps someone needs to market a line of helmets that provide aerodynamic lift.

I have seen and spoken to sporting riders with a visibly rearward saddle position who expressed that they had tended to push and slide off the rear edge of the saddle, and I have suggested that what might have been better would have been to raise the saddle to effect the same remedy, keeping the saddle-to-bars distance tighter without any subsequent need for a shorter and taller stem. Really, rearward saddle positioning sometimes takes over a rider's approach to fit on racing bikes that will then handle quite twitchy with so little weight on the front tire.

Thank you for this. I had a few last night, and then a few more.

Setting my saddle height by feel when I started riding last fall had my knees pretty well thrashed over the course of 3 months and about 2,000 miles. I took time off the bike last winter to figure it out and ended up lowering my saddle from 30 5/8" to 30" (Lemond's math). That was a drastic change and it felt "wrong" at first. A little over 3,000 miles later, knees are starting to feel a little thrashed like last fall but not as bad. Realized that using inseam without shoes would result in saddle height roughly another 5/8" lower, to 29 3/8". So the difference between where I had it set by feel and where a common formula COULD place saddle is 1 1/4". That's just a huge difference for the same set of legs. FWIW my inseam without shoes is 33 1/4". If I lower saddle height by another 5/8"-3/4", it's pointless to try and ride the 25" frame, the seatpost is basically slammed. My uncorrected tendency is to set the saddle too high and too far forward. I just didn't know what riding a road bike (or any bike, really) was supposed to feel like. Pretty sure I still don't. But my knees feel nice after the ride to work this morning at the new height. I think I'm going to lower it again (keep it at 29 3/8"), despite how long it'll take to get adjusted to it. I think my biggest fear has been to hurt my knees by having the saddle too low. Perhaps I've been overcompensating with an overly high saddle. Hamstrings and hip flexors were in pretty bad shape when I started riding regularly, too. It's only been just over a year, but it feels like forever.

I think there is still more to this discussion about handling, but at the moment I think I need to focus more on my knees.

Ah, good ol' knees. I know this battle well. As a tall guy, it is common enough for us to run into issues, especially as we get older. I will still take being 6'5" 10 out of 10 times, though.

I think my sit bone plane+elevation point (on the saddle) to BB spindle was 34" before (add 6.8" to pedal top then) eventually working it down to just below 33.0" and now having it at just above 33.0" after having it at 33.0" exactly for a year or so. The goal is to bias against hyper-extension. From what I've understood, knee/leg pain or fatigue in the aft part of the leg (hamstrings, back of knee, etc) = saddle too high, and knee/leg pain/fatigue in the fore part (quads, knee cap, associated muscles and tendons around the cap) = saddle too low. This is, of course, a very rough method. My sit bone plane to BB spindle distance, when measured horizontally, is 11.5" or so (no more than 11.75", which it used to be).

Another thing not discussed here with regard to your knees feeling back is pedaling style and cadence. I used to be more of a masher, but the strain on the knees was no good, so I spin at 70-80 rpm and just change gears to keep me in that cadence range. I'm still not a true spinner and will never be, but I can do 120 rpm briefly and smoothly. Leg motion is always smooth, no knee flaring or kicking out. Where is the ball of your foot in comparison to the pedal spindle? Saddle fore/aft position is also critical to try and nail down (hence the above 11.5" measurement). You could always experiment with sliding things way forward or way backward and seeing how things are, keep the saddle measurement the same. Some people need a lot of set back, and that plays into bar/hood height etc, which is a whole other discussion.

Probably you should post these results in A&S!

If you were a choo choo as big as this choo choo they would definitely give you plenty of space!

[PS I love these 4000 Class locomotives, and, well, many other cool looking steamers as well]

Sorry, I don't have time to read this entire thing now. But from engineering standpoint.

The Trail (distance from where line through the steering bearings, to the contact patch (which is directly under front axle) determines the dynamic restoring force.
This is the force trying to straighten the front wheel due to forward motion.

The distance of the front axle in front of the line through the steering bearings is a lever arm, the angle of the steering bearings and that lever arm determine how much the frame is lifted by turning the handlebars. That is the static restoring force. It is proportional to the weight on the front tire too.

To make this short. you must have hit a pothole and bent the front fork. Even a tiny 1/8" bend will change both of these.

Moving the axle back by 1/8" lessens the static restoring force. Now the bike seems less stable at low speeds.
Moving the axle back by 1/8" lengthens the trail and increases the dynamic restoring force. Now the bike is harder to steer at higher speeds
.
Your muscles have been trained to expect a consistent behavior from the bike, and now they are messed up by inconsistent and opposite changes to the restoring force a different speeds.
If it was consistent it would not be so bothersome, but I think it is the relation of the low speed behavior to the high speed behavior that is messing with you.
Even if the front fork does not seem bent, I suspect you want to bend it back so the front axle is farther out front.