Yep, other people also have badly fitted bikes. No surprises at all.

Ah ok. Then it seems to me that you just need a vintage or retro bike with a sloping top tube. That’s one of the biggest innovations in bike fit that road bikes have seen. It’s why the Giant TCR is such a big deal.

I understand that you are baffled. But I can't fix that. There are so many variations to bike geometry and human anatomy that trying to stuff a square peg in a round hole isn't always possible.

Answering the Question
 

[MENTION=248524]Kross[/MENTION] wants to know if this bike fit is unusual. One way to find out is to measure it and compare to what other cyclists prefer.

I estimated some measurements from the photo:

Saddle to crank spindle: 68 cm
Saddle to pedal in down position: 85 cm
Top tube stand over height: 72.5 cm
Saddle to handlebar center: 51 cm
Saddle to bar vertical drop: 0

Comparing several other cyclists with 68 cm saddle-to-crank, I estimate that [MENTION=248524]Kross[/MENTION] is around 5'6" in height.

I see two questions:

1. [MENTION=248524]Kross[/MENTION] claims to prefer a low standover height, but a high saddle position. The photo supplied indicates that this is the case.

Since the estimated saddle-to-pedal distance is ~12 cm more than the stand over height, that's a very large stand over clearance. But is it "unusual"? I certainly wouldn't fit anyone on a traditional diamond frame with that much clearance.

2. [MENTION=248524]Kross[/MENTION] claims to need a long stem to obtain the estimated 51 cm saddle to bars distance. To find out if 51 cm is unusual, let's look at other cyclists preferring the same saddle-to-crank measurement of 68 cm:

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...4957e3c033.png

With a 51 cm saddle-to-bars and a 68 cm saddle-to-crank spindle, [MENTION=248524]Kross[/MENTION] is indeed an outlier, with only 3 of the 75 cyclists preferring that distance or longer.

That's an assumption. Do I really need to remind you what happens when you assume things? :)

This is so cool I hate to mess with it. Too bad it's incorrect.

I never claimed I needed a longer stem, as in a long REACH stem. I needed a taller stem to get the bars to seat height.

I moved the saddle back after this photo was taken. So any measurements made from this photo on saddle-to-bar distance are also wrong. I guess I now fall further from the norm. I'm OK with that. Normal is overrated.

When I get a chance I can get you the actual measurements.

I hope I am writing this for the last time. Please pay attention. I DIDN'T ASK FOR ADVICE.

There really isn't that much variation in human geometry. Your physical dimensions are not unusual — your bike fitting preference is.

Your original quote: "I do need to switch out the stem for a longer one."

There's the confusion. Long describes horizontal distance, tall describes vertical distance.

No matter. Bar drop preference runs the gamut, but regardless of how high or low you want your bars, your saddle-to-bars distance is still quite long for your saddle-to-crank length.

I saw your comment and adjusted the dimensions as if the saddle had been moved to center on the rails. Even adjusted, your saddle-to-bars distance is a high outlier.

That would be great. Please include the following:

Saddle top to ground, vertical
Handlebar top to ground, vertical
Saddle top to crank spindle center
Saddle nose to handlebar top center

Ok, you asked a question and are not getting answers that suit what you believe.

OK, but I'm thinking saddle nose is kind of arbitrary. Might want to add measurement from top center of seat tube to handlebar top center. Also, top of top tube to ground.

I do need to be careful about "tall" versus "long".

I didn't say human geometry, I said anatomy. No variation? That's why pants and shirts come in only one size, right?

And, unless you measured me, how would you know what my dimensions are and if they are unusual?

Come on, don't get goofy!

No, I asked a question and I am not getting it answered at all. "Is this unusual, or fairly common?" How does that warrant a full paragraph, or several? That's almost yes or no. Unless you just like to blather on endlessly.

I believe you have.
Not directly, but definitely you are getting answers suggesting that you are not the norm.
But it is hard to say whether anyone is "built like this" when all you have posted that would allow anyone to successfully answer that is a picture of what seems to be a very poorly setup bicycle.
If you really want an answer you should provide a pic of you, maybe a pic of you riding the above-mentioned bike, and probably some dimensions (height, inseam, thigh length, lower leg length, torso length, arm length, forearm length, upper arm length).

And how could anyone answer your question?

"Yes, my bike is set up the same way."

"No, I haven't seen one done that way before."

"I have seen that before, but not often."

"I have seen lots of bikes fitted out like that."

Again, it ain't rocket science.

It's sad that the idea of what is or isn't a "poorly setup bicycle" is so tightly regimented. Are all bike fit enthusiasts prone to OCD?

And I'm not about to open yet another can of worms by posting my photos and dimensions. I am almost certain to be "poorly setup". Because I'm positive there is an arm length and hair color that is or isn't acceptable.

Please let it go.

and yet you have "blathered on", argued back, disputed data, and not provided any additional information asked for.

Here is my answer.
Yes, I have seen lots of people who have badly setup and don't recognise (or don't want to recognise) that their setup is poor.
Again, I cannot answer your original question (and nobody else can either), because you have provided no information whatsoever about how you are built.
At the moment (for lack of any information that tells m otherwise) I am picturing someone with incredibly long legs, incredibly short arms, who is massively overweight and has no flexibility. Given that, my answer is no, I am not built like that, and I don't know anyone who is.

More "blathering on".

Oh god! Make it stop!

Because statistics, that's how.

Anthropometric studies of the human body have been done many times. For a normal person at a specific height, leg length, arm length, hand size, and torso length all fall within a narrow range. Certainly a narrow enough range to fit on a bicycle specified by rider height.

Also, I've personally gathered bike fit information and fitted thousands of people on bicycles. You're not special or unusual (at least your physical dimensions aren't).

Wow, you asked people to answer your question, and when I did, you now want people to stop.
I am now convinced this is a troll post, with the only person arguing being you about a topic that nobody will answer to your satisfaction.
Enjoy your tiny bike.

I have to admire his unshakable belief that his fit is "normal", and that everyone else is just "blathering on".

I get that. There are common ratios. At least to a point. But using a standard bike fitting guide, I have the standover height (29") of a person about 5'3". Instead I'm 5'7". To put it another way, if I chose a bike, as you suggest, "specified by rider height", I'd fit comfortably on a 54cm frame. No way! So it's not an exact science. There are enough variations that need to be considered. There are also personal preferences. Some are happy with a zero gap standover. Someone else is more comfortable with an inch and a half. That will impact frame size. Even hand placement on the bars can affect the preferred configuration.

Remember Mark Twain!

That makes sense. Thanks!