dddd

You and I must be opposites (and yes, others have made similar comments when looking at my bikes).

The relative "steepness" of the saddle's position (virtual seat tube if you will) can be optimized for different riders AND different pedaling intensities.

Longer rides, where the rider's pedaling intensity i.e. torque is relatively low, favors a more rearward position above the pedals, counteracting the rider's mass falling toward the handlebar.

Shorter, more-spirited rides on the other hand, favors a more forward positioning, since the rider's torque output to the cranks is forcing the rider rearward about the bottom bracket, thus requiring the rider to pull on the handlebars.

The two above scenarios are exaggerated in hillier terrain, such that real discomfort and fatigue can result from not respecting an appropriate positioning above the pedals.

As for the rider's proportions, having proportionally longer legs means that for any given taller size of standard frame, the saddle may need to come forward and the bars may need to come back, in order for the rider to not be too stretched. I try to select from production frames where use of a tall stem is avoided, both for aesthetics and for related fit considerations, but I mostly choose from among what randomly turns up locally.

A benefit of a forward saddle also is realized in hilly terrain where perhaps-frequent transitions from sitting to standing are made with less effort, since the rider's mass is already closer to the balance point while standing. This makes for less of a heaving effort getting up off of the saddle, and can really spare sore knees toward the end of a grueling ride in the hills. Having a more rearward saddle in such cases can be very uncomfortable!
There is also the matter of a forward saddle allowing the rider to achieve more of an aero position without having to bend more sharply at the waist, since the entire body rotates forward instead of just the torso pivoting further forward at the waist. Better power output can thus often be achieved.

Also, any forward shift in the rider's sitting position seems to make the bike's steering more stable on descents, as does lowering one's hand position. Some bikes are scary descenders until such subtle changes to the saddle position are made.

Lastly, some bikes will photograph in such a way as to perhaps over-emphasize a forward saddle position, but where a slack seattube angle is perhaps the main reason that the saddle looks to be positioned forward. Low-end bikes for instance often feature such slack seattube angles that only the larger frame sizes can give the rider a proper reach to the handlebars (and may not handle well with much added stem length because of a slack headtube angle).

I've posted the top two of the bikes below many times because they have been the ones that I put more riding time on, very comfortable in other words, making up for their unresponsive sprinting feel (due to long chainstays and lots of weight).
Note from the photos that both bikes use auxiliary "turkey" levers, which affords me a more restful recovery position in a tight paceline while still retaining immediate use of the brakes (for those rare instances). Who woulda guessed(?), but more important on bikes with such long front-centers!

The last of my three photos below shows a bike having much steeper angles, giving me a similar good fit, but with more of a normal look.

RiddleOfSteel

Welcome to the rabbit trail. It's a long one!


Stem length, bar reach, lever position and lever reach all play into the length game. Stem type and length play into feel (shock absorption), and lever body design (bulk, thickness, shape) also influence how a bike feels (certainly when working a bike out of the saddle). I work to have where my hands stop (the webbing between thumb and index finger), the "notch" or "kick-up" point in the lever body, be no further forward than the front axle (when drawing an imaginary vertical line up from the axle). Being tall, with crit bike geometry, that can be a bit tough as bicycle manufacturers just try to cram as much rider into as minimal wheelbase increase as possible. Having the "notch" point forward of the front axle plane makes for wonky out-of-saddle mechanics as the long lever (from headset to hands) swings and dips the front end and it makes for an uncoordinated experience. In the saddle, it's like you and so many of us have experienced, steering is slowed down. I haven't found a man-and-machine issue with having too short of a stem/front end cumulative reach setup. It only looks goofy on a tall bike. It could lead to too little weight on the front end and thus steering/tracking instability.


Further into the weeds, bar width plays yet another noticeable role. I'll notice 10mm in stem length change, and I'll notice 20mm in bar width (if not 10mm) difference. All of this is such an interconnected web of cause and effect. Most of it can fly under the radar if one, IMO, spends time entirely in the saddle. Then it's just down to making sure the fit is good and comfortable, the steering safe/comfortable, and the levers are in the position you want.


I'm in the proverbial rough right now with my Trek 560, which is fresh off a full disassembly, shining up, and rebuild with fancier parts (after observing the condition of the individual original components). Even in the saddle, we're off. Chalk that up to the 175mm cranks replacing the 170s. Femur-to-torso angle decrease at TDC is very much felt, and it, in this case, does not help my efficiency in the saddle. The increased crank leverage is firmly at odds with the narrow bars (out of proportion--too much) and I'll either need to go with wider bars or drop to 170mm cranks. I'll go with the 170s as it solves a few things and gets the bike "back" to it's more magic self. Thankfully the different wheels haven't changed anything there. Saddle angle needs work, and I'll probably angle the bars back a couple degrees. Steering is still really lovely, and now that I have a 53-11 as my top ratio, it will be time for another run up the mountain to go down more fasterer. Looking forward to that (and dry weather).

repechage

I don’t know where to begin to argue with this, so many assumptions are not correct.
‘I will state that one is correct that to really asses one’s position for comfort and efficiency the rider needs to be seen on the bike.
‘and assessed where the hands are most typically on the bars.
‘even with that in mind, a saddle too far forward is masking a bike that really just not a good fit, or a rider who has other problems such as modest flexibility, with the saddle moved forward in an attempt to address.

my position is a bit dynamic, that is one excuse to have multiple bikes, there are some that have a bit less drop to the bars a bit less reach, some longer. Saddle set back varies a wee bit and that is related to crank length.
None have my go-to Cinelli saddle nose less than 45mm behind the bottom bracket. Most 50mm.

repechage

keep in mind the wheelbase differences. Front center in particular. That does effect the awareness if one is behind or on top of the bike.

thinktubes 

This showed up at a local thrift a few years back.

mstateglfr 

Cut the rest of the post because it isn't worth fully quoting and bigging down the thread with all the comments and pics.
Just quoting to mark the point in the thread where the shark was jumped.

dddd

Could you perhaps start with where I made any "assumptions", and which ones?

I certainly don't need anyone to "look" at my position for me to discern how to set up any of my road bikes. The evidence of their comfort and efficiency is only validated in actual riding, in actual hilly terrain, amongst fellow racers, former racers and plain old seasoned riders.

Taking on so many vintage builds over the years, the issue of mis-fit is something I can easily discern, especially as I've had to deal with less than ideal choices of frame size (which perhaps is your point?)
A bike like my Steyr Clubman just wasn't offered in fine size increments, mine is a 61cm seat tube C-T and my other one (branded as Sears) is a 57cm, but their top tube lengths are little different. Frames that are on the small side for me tend to give me much more pronounced fit problems!
And like I said, any front or rear bias outside of "ideal fit" is pretty quickly felt here on any longer ride in these foothills, where sustained steep grades both up and down will impose severe discomfort (as well as a perceived lack of performance) if the fit is far off. I recently sold off a very pretty, chromovelato-finished and fillet-brazed Ciocc because it seemed not to like my needed fit alterations (the steering feel while sprinting became wonky after I swapped the 12cm stem for a 10.5cm stem). Can't win them all, as some taller frames seem to "like" having a longer stem length (and some, like my slack-angled Varsities, definitely do not).

Usually after acquiring a desired vintage bike, I try to do a truly minimal amount of work initially (beyond the "oil can tune-up" and usable tires), because it is unknown how the bike will perform under my personal fit parameter constraints. Once proven to gracefully handle spirited riding in my local terrain, I might follow up with an extra 10 hours or so of periodic maintenance/upgrades spread out over a few weeks of spare time until I'm totally happy with it. If it's fit ultimately presents an issue (as with the Ciocc), I pass it along.

dddd

Assuming it wasn't a joke, that bike's rider was pretty clearly in the territory of a custom frame, but got the bike rideable for whatever his purposes were.
Likely didn't have the money for even a new production bike, much less any sort of custom bike.

We don't know what he was using it for or for how long, so I wouldn't raise issue with his setup especially as he'd be looking down at me already! The ~350mm seatpost clearly didn't fail, but the appearance of tape I think falsely suggests it was possibly sleeved and spliced. My second-newest MTB wears a 27.2x400mm RockShox suspension seatpost longer than that.

Good luck finding a proper fitting bike from a thrift store when you're 6'10" or whatever! Hopefully his setup offered some insight into what his next bike upgrade might consist of.

I've used very tall seatposts for the purpose of test-riding other's very small road bikes, some of which I had just built. They aren't too bad for as long as you can ride on the hoods continuously, but do become torturous when ascending or descending steeper grades.

dddd

There is almost never any point to quoting the full text of longer posts, it clutters the thread (especially as when pages of photos get re-posted over and over again).

mstateglfr 

Well on this we definitely agreed.

There is a special place in hell for people that quote a post with 6 large pictures and just say 'nice bike!'.

dddd

Returning to the OP's topic of the effects of riding too-small frames, I am recalling having an issue with a 2010 Argon18 Crabon bike that I was considering purchasing.

I'd been allowed to take posession of the lightly-used bike for evaluation and possible purchase.
The price was really low for what I was getting, I so much wanted it to work for me, but my knees would hit the handlebar "upper" whenever I sprinted.
So I started a thread about it on another forum, having to do with "the deal" on the bike (a fresh D-A 9100 build on a 56cm, 2010 NOS carbon frame, carbon bars and Mavic R-Sys wheels included).
Initially, I fitted the (unique to Argon18) head tube extender, but which still let my knees hit the handlebar upper when sprinting.
Finally, I tried a longer 110mm stem, which together with the headtube extender made everything work out.

As a now barely 5'9" rider, many might recommend I try a 54cm frame, but for me a 56cm frame needs to have some stack height to it and not shorter than a 110mm stem it seems.
I did buy the bike (the lightest bike I own btw). The photos that I posted to the other forum are shown below, fitted with the original (and inverted) 100mm stem.
The TT length and 73.5-degree ST angle dictated that the saddle ended up positioned just forward of mid-range in the mildly-offset seatpost's clamp. The 110mm stem ended up positioned at (-6)degrees, with 10 or 15mm of spacers atop the already-elevated headset.





With the 110mm stem finally fitted above the headtube extender:

repechage

Might be worthwhile to look at the very recent post in the vintage racing photo thread by PortlandJim aka JimMerz.
look at the leg extension of the peloton of the World Championships in1974 and how Eddy appears pre race on the bike and in the drops.

Mr. 66

This Proteus with the long chainstays and clearance I was hoping to use as a gravel build. However it has a much shorter toptube than realized at purchase. This is how it came to me. I've road it a couple of times. This one has a lot more toe lap on the front wheel than I expected. I could drop the bars some that would have a more natural look. I'll revise this one way or another, this just looks to goofy!


Here the Torpado, this one just works good. Today I would probably use a Nitto stem that runs taller than the 3ttt. This came together about five years ago. The gearing is tight for my location so I keep it like this when I want to do a speed ride of steady risers.

The Torpado is going to get some changes with a new saddle and barwrap this spring most likely. I'll probably rotate the bars up to help me back some then.

Murray Missile 

I'm in the same situation on bikes that are "supposed" to fit me. Ideally a 23.5" or 24" frame is what I should be riding but I rarely come across them in a bike I want. I have one 24" frameset and that's all it is at the moment, a frameset. A 23" should be a good fit but I find myself having to extend the seat post and use a Technomic stem to get comfortable on them. A 25" should be a little too big but even with almost zero standover clearance I am quite comfortable on those with a French fit. Even Big Bird at 26" is comfortable, well, as comfortable as a 45 Lb. behemoth can be.


A 23" set up where I was comfortable (should have kept it):



A 25" where I'm most comfortable:



And right now the best fitting bike I have, I LOVE riding this:

AdventureManCO 

But the bike is too small for you!!


This is why I created this thread - because all common sense and wisdom would say that all the other bikes you posted should and would fit you better and to NEVER even consider something like the bike above. As far as I'm concerned, if the fixed points (relationship between BB-saddle-handlebars) are repeatable and within the realm of adjustability for a bike in question, then it comes down to asking these questions:

1. Is toe overlap acceptable?
2. Is weight distribution acceptable?
3. Is steering acceptable?
4. Are post/stem length creating any safety issues or stress points at the correctly adjusted height?

If all the above are answered acceptably, and one is 'okay' with the look of the bike, then bob's your uncle.

Kontact

All of your fits are so weird, the ideas you glean from doing them are hardly representative of how other people are going to sit on bikes of any size.

dddd

I've fitted, or helped fit, many riders over the years, and I would say that better than half of them benefited from moving their saddle forward and up.
This for use in our foothills terrain where any mis-fitting becomes very unforgiving.
Many riders I've seen who apparently ran slightly too low of a saddle height and then mistook their "contacting the rear edge of the saddle" for the saddle "being too far forward", thus arriving at a the position that I had to correct. Probably started with a slipping seat post, unfortunately leading to rearward saddle and shorter stem.

I've also been in a wind tunnel on a bike while viewing load cell data in real time, recalling a definite trend toward reduced drag as I moved my head and body forward.

One more parameter to be considered has to do with riding in a paceline, where a shorter stem length of course moves the rider's torso further behind the front tire, thus limiting one's safe drafting potential.

But, of course, not everybody's bike ends up looking like mine, and different models of bike can look very different when properly fitted to the same rider.

We're mostly talking about variously scrounged vintage bikes here of course, so it's not like we're starting with custom-crafted frames!

sbarner 

That looks like a surprisingly nice frame.

mstateglfr 

this post is so soaked in irony, it's dripping.

Kontact

Still looking for attention? Too bad.

dddd

Well, first $14.99 bike purchase of the year, figured it might have "Varsity" geometry and fit too small, but thankfully I was almost wrong on both counts.
The bike shows very little signs of usage, though the rear tire got replaced at some point.

The short headtube fooled me, the fork's axle-to-crown height is long, so the frame actually measures 23" or 58+cm C-T.

The top tube came in at a respectable 56.5cm, no longer than on a 24" Varsity, so finally I began wondering about the angles.

Measured 72.5(HT)X72.1-degree frame angles, the reach won't be too short with a 10cm stem (came with an 8cm).
I'm thinking an even longer stem could fit me better and still steer well if a new handlebar choice were wide enough to control flop.

The previous paragraph^^^, that's my whole analysis in real time right there when approaching a possible small-fitting bike purchase, but in this case I won't be struggling to achieve handlebar height, just adding some reach. I would usually start looking for a zero-offset seatpost as well when dealing with a 72-degree seat tube angle and the cheap modern ones from Ebay come in just about all sizes.

I got a very good fit on my 1960's Sears 10 Speed having extremely similar geometry numbers using a 10cm stem, wider handlebar and zero-offset seatpost to correct for the slack seat tube angle. I'm suspecting to do the exact same thing on this one and that it will end up looking the same as the Sears.

Looks like it's a Bridgestone branded as "Canadian Tire". Has die-cast alloy lugs, crown and bb shell, melted over butted steel tubing.
Both of the bb cable guides feature small-diameter rollers that should be bigger for less cable springiness.

Weighs in at a whopping 35 pounds, including an all-steel dual-leg kickstand and with the only alloy parts being the lugs, the stem and the shift levers. Nice Araya chromed rims are both in great shape.

Serial number starts with U6, so possibly a 1976 model (neither Shimano derailer has any date code).
Checking again, ok the stem quill shows a G76 date code.



Fit-corrected Sears 10 Speed having same geometry:

LesterOfPuppets

Had a good time on my too-small frame today!

I need to work on getting more limber, I felt like I could have used a stem with even shorter reach.

AdventureManCO 

It is very nice indeed! Likely a Tano-built (Japan) Novara for REI. Because of the house brand association, Novara bikes fly under the radar big time. Nobody wants a 'Novara', which is unfortunate, since the desire belies the quality. Will probably end up donating this one somewhere since I like riding the Midget just a little bit more.

AdventureManCO 

I'm enjoying these ride reports of 'too small' bikes! Keep them coming!

I'm actually really grateful for this discussion before I start going through the stable and figuring out what I'm going to be letting go of this year. No longer it is a decision based solely upon a comment of 'this looks too small', but more about figuring out which bikes are fun, which bikes challenge me, and force me to grow in my riding (or...shrink? )

jamesdak 

I shared these before but here are comments on my 53cm Fuji Opus III that is in the too small category. It is also the only bike I don't have the saddle set up to my normal 29.9" above the BB with 8 3/8" setback.


"Well, I finally got around to actually gluing up the new tubulars to the 40 year old rims about a month ago. Then for whatever reason other than a short test ride on the new setup I hadn't taken this out. With plans for tomorrow of tackling the local HC category climb I decided to take the Opus III out this morning for a short and easy ride of around 10 miles or so. But, this little beauty felt so good with the new setup, fast, responsive, and smooth. So instead I stayed out for 52 wonderful, carefree miles. Didn't worry about pace or anything just enjoyed the ride. I did notice for most of the ride that my speed was up higher than I expected for the perceived effort I was giving it. I was also surprised at how well it just glided up the hills and such. Even set some of my better times on some hilly sections late in the ride. Had a moment of secret pleasure as I blew by another rider on a modern C.F bike on the last real hill of the ride. I smiled to myself as I crested in front of him, shifter both the front and back with one hand and then blasted away on the descent. Then a few miles later the legs said, "F' you" on the last little incline. That's about when I realized this was too many miles with just 3 cups of coffee and a danish for breakfast, LOL! Fortunately the final few miles had me riding a tailwind where I was able to easily take it back up over 30 mph for about 1 mile of this section, probably never went slower than 24 mph over the final three miles. These ol' Superbe hubs are smooth rolling for sure. The only noise on the whole ride was the freewheel. When I serviced it I did the best I could on it without being able to open it up completely but it does run a little noisy. Another thing I noted on the ride was the smoothness of the front end, more so than normal. I ride this same basic route daily so know all the rough sections where I instinctively unweight my hands on the handlebars to avoid the jolts. Today I noticed I was doing that as usual but the the bike was smoothly sailing over these sections, pretty cool! Very happy that I finally sourced some proper tubulars for this one."

"Took it out this morning for what was supposed to just be a little cruising ride. Cool outside with super messy roads from 70 mph winds last time ripping everything to shreds. Roads and the bike path were covered with all sort of debris as well as still being a bit wet in a lot of spots. Like I said, supposed to just be an easy cruise today so I didn't even bother to put on a helmet. Needless to say, early into the 35 mile ride the ol' Opus refused to just idle along and I found myself flying like normal. Only time I reeled it in was one flat area over in Huntsville were the speed snuck above 27 mph. I've had to many head injures to be that stupid so instead of dropping a gear and going for more I slowed back down. But man this thing is so responsive yet totally comfortable. And with all the crap on the roads I was carving in and out of the mess the whole ride. The handling is so freaking sharp and precise. Credit to the Veloflex Roubaix tubulars. I ran through a lot of crap today with no issues at all. Nobody, and I mean, nobody was on as beautiful of a bike as me today. 36 years old with 40 year old shoes and she still turns my head. Man what a bike!"