Ah, I understand.

Less than a quarter inch. Actually, for all intents and purposes... none.

The sloping top tube makes it hard to determine standover. I'm leaning in the photo above. If I stand straight up, right in front of the saddle nose, I have zero standover clearance.

FWIW - may be a different definition for everybody (probably is) but when I think about standover clearance I'm talking to my pubic bone, not counting all the "dangly bits" and clothing.

Understood. Zero clearance for the dangly bits. Uncomfortably close to the pubic bone. I have a 30" inseam.

Ok. No point in you posting your question here then I guess.
Seems you are happy with your fit and nothing that is posted will help, or sway that.

Cycling Shorts...

Keeps the Dangly Bits from Dangling.



One really doesn't need much clearance. I have a habit of sitting on my top tube at traffic lights. It is less comfortable to do with smaller frames.

Agree 100%. Also in absence of cycling shorts, it's not real hard to pull everything up and out of the way before riding, I assume most men are proficient at rearranging, even though it sometimes is hard to do discreetly.

Yeah I'm not complaining about my fit on the Jamis, the standover is fine for me. Sometimes I feel like the bike could be just a bit bigger and I would be fine. Sitting and pedaling in the saddle though, it feels perfect.

Like I said, I was asking a simple question. I don't think posting it here is a mistake. I just thought people would answer it, or ignore it. Worth a shot.

At 6' tall, I rode 25" frames for a while. Zero clearance. It was fine. 2-3" of seatpost exposed.

Don't give up yet. The thread is young. There are experienced cyclists here on BF with a lot of fit knowledge, but they're not online every day. They might tell you your saddle is too high. It'll be fun to see what transpires! Good thread.

The OP's bike fit looks pretty typical for a recreational or endurance cyclist. Handlebars are just slightly higher than the saddle. That's why sloping top tubes are used on nearly every bike produced today.

I've got a feeling it's the geometry of my body. I have a standover height (true inseam) of 29". So I should be perfect on a bike of 50cm. And I am. The 50 cm frame fits fine, but to get the right pedal length I need the seat fairly high. Maybe my pelvis is deep. Who knows? And then, if I want the bars equal to the seat, the standard quill stem on an older road bike doesn't allow enough adjustment. I hope that explains it better.

I'd be curious to know top tube length of that beautiful tiny Fuji frame.

I rode a 23" frame for a while and although it was awkward starting and stopping, once I was in the saddle it felt great. No need for a tall stem!

It's the "right" size frame that causes me problems.

On the bright side, smaller frames are lighter.

When I get a chance I'll measure it.

I would be truly interested to see you actually sitting on that bike.
I cannot understand how you need that small a bike, with the seat so high, and then the bars in that position.
By having the bars so high, you have effectively shortened your reach even more.
So in my mind I am thinking, "this person has short legs (hence the need for the standover), but has the seat high so that does not compute, and then has the bars very high and the saddle slammed forward so needs a shorter effective top tube".

The saddle position is misleading. I had just mounted it in this photo and I ended up moving it back. As for the rest, that's what it is!

I could probably get away with a 20-20.5 frame instead, but that size is rare. Most are either 19-19.5 or 21. I have one bike that is 21 and did not require a tall quill stem, except it is a bit oversize. I prefer the smaller frames.

I'm not sure why you think having bars level with the seat is "very high".

Sorry I missed this. Yes, my dislike for the bike had nothing to do with fit. All I can say is it was not a pleasure to ride, as my vintage road bikes are. I never got down to analyzing why.

Here's a suggestion going the other way. Maybe if some folks rode a smaller (and more appropriate) frame, they wouldn't need cycling shorts or rearrangement. Just a thought...

Have you actually ever been fitted for a bike?
And bike shorts have nothing at all to do with the size of your bike.
Perhaps get some decent advice instead of believing that your bike fits you and that nobody knows better.
You can very easily get a 51-52cm frame without such a tiny head tube, and with a sloping to tube that satisfies your desire for standover.

Wow. Don't get your panties in such a bunch. I mean, this is a converstaion about bike fit, not a discussion on global warming or world peace. Frankie say "relax"!

Actually, the bike short business is the "decent advice" I got right here. I didn't make it up.

The way I look at it you can either find a bike that fits you "as is" even if you don't like it, or modify a bike you like to fit you perfectly. I went the second route. It ain't rocket science. Don't hate me for it.

I mean, if it feels great to me pedaling, standing, and every other way, is the fit wrong? I say no. And not once did I ask for suggestions on bike fit. But I've been getting lots anyway. When I don't agree with them - which is kinda my right - I get attitude. I don't want this to dissolve into one of those internet exchanges where people argue just to vent anger. I suggest folks take a step back and drop the hostility.

I asked a simple question. So, either give it a simple answer or scroll on by.

Have a great day!

Just to confirm that I'm not THAT crazy, I did a quick search and found quite a few photos of similar forum member's bikes. I'm not alone!

This is where I am at. I'm baffled at the concept of a bike giving one standover issues, but has half a foot or more of seatpost sticking up. I don't get it.

Which is probably why nobody is giving him the good advice that suits what he believes.