I think my current saddle is a good width for me.

It may look like it in the photos, perhaps my seat is a little high to compensate for 175mm cranks arms instead of closer to 185-190 like I need.

But with my feet inside the strap in pedals, id say I'm actually just shy of optimal leg extension (a little more than just a slight bend in the knee)

With the way i ride, I guess saddle sorness on long rides is inevitable.

How would you guys suggest I go about getting a slightly more stretched out position on a future bike build? When I was using a 60mm stem instead of my current 40mm I didn't like it. So by playing around with chainstay, top tube and reach angles, i should be able to lower my stem a little and get more streamlined. Right?

(I've asked this before when you are carrying on about how "perfect" your bike is, and I will ask again: what is your frame of reference? How many other bikes have you ridden? What bikes have you ridden? How did they differ from this one?)

Not enough experience with other bikes to have any half decent baseline.

Youre right, the larger crank arms won't help you sit lower. Your legs will just move in a full circle an extra x mm more in every direction.

I am basing my fit in the bike mostly based on the bikes handling when pushing the tires to the limit of adhesion. Right now I get a balanced response front/rear and the bike will eagerly yet controllably oversteer in the right circumstances.

In terms of power trasnfer, while I can definrtly put out some serious power on this bike, its too upright from an "optimal" perspective. But like I've said before, I don't want to be leaning forward (or backwards) any differently than I am in this photo.

While I dont think my Norco is a "bad" fit, something about it is just shy of being perfect (ie. Streamlined but with the balance im looking for)

There's the key.

If you don't have a "half decent baseline," then you have no basis AT ALL for all of the claims you make about your bike's near-perfect fit, it's sublime ride qualities, "the perfect shift," and all of that. Sit back, read, ride, ask questions, and stop pretending to be an expert.

The only way for me to learn is by having access to a broad variety of different 61cm road bikes and getting to tinker with all of them to my hearts desire.

Not releastic. I make due with what I have.

Will keep my ideas to a minimum. Im here to learn, which is why I don't get offended to complain to mods.

What prevents you from leaning forward like normal? Back, wrist, seat pain? Anxiety about handling? Why do you want weight further back when you are already halfway to a wheelie?

Your saddle is too high.

That's an interesting fit I think quite like what was considered normal for a regular Dutch or British bike some decades ago.

There's a guy called Nick Maclaren who used to post to uk.rec.cycling.moderated, possibly still does, who is always complaining about the fit of modern bikes. I think he's very tall and also likes his seat super high, so toes down, and quite upright, but I may have remembered wrong. He has all kinds of reasons why this is better which I didn't always entirely follow but he seems like he knows what he's talking about.
​​​
This is the sort of thing :
​​​​​https://groups.google.com/g/uk.rec.cycling.moderated/c/zsxCng-Mf40/m/XqqqpKaoZIUJ

I don't know the full theory but I think it's very high and laid back saddle with a straight back. He says you can ride for 10 hours like that in comfort.

With proper bike fit, almost anyone can ride for ten hours without having to look like Mrs. Doubtfire.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...54e89ff314.jpg

Yeah, Moisture's not-Unique Frame Fit

Below is a typical Amsterdam cyclist, including the pretty girl part and earbuds. One of the more useful aspects of this position is that it's so much easier to text. But seriously, this is the preferred transportation fit. Note the pedal in the instep - that's normal. There seem to be two fit choices, like below and with a slightly lower saddle to allow both feet on the ground while sitting. Otherwise, everyone not wearing a jersey looks like this. Visibility is excellent, both seeing and being seen, and one can wear a skirt or a greatcoat with no impediment.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DKbRL6Opifg/maxresdefault.jpg

The downside of the transportation position vs. the recreational position is that the cockpit is cramped and your weight is forced well back. It's hard to get your weight over the downstroke pedal while seated, and there's no room to stand. The above bike is perfectly suited to Amsterdam transportation, no climbing, heavy bike traffic, and lots of stopping. There's little glute or hamstring involvement. Grab a glute or hamstring and try doing a half-squat, first with torso upright and then bent over in the road bike position. The whole posterior chain, including back muscles, is missing in the transportation position..

Recreational riding is about having fun, and having fun includes going fast and covering distance. If we had to ride like the above for sport, I don't think many of us would be doing it. There's just nothing like hammering up a hill, out of the saddle and in the drops. Plus, it makes you stronger. It's not just going faster, it's also becoming fitter and staying fit.

this is what I was getting at when I said...

so Moisture, you are, of course, free to do whatever you want, but if you're going to suggest that your specific style of bike fit is worthwhile, for what is it worthwhile? fitting a bike for going short distances on city streets at low speed is probably best optimized in the way you did it. but you make a bunch of claims about the performance characteristics of that fitting that don't gel with the reality that everyone else experiences. for most of the people who spend time being concerned about optimizing the way their bike fits, a bolt-upright, Dutch cruiser style fit is not of much use to them because they need a bike that can be fast, comfortable, and stable for long hours in the saddle. if all you're doing is zipping a few blocks across town with a latte in one hand, it really doesn't matter how your bike fits, so it might as well be laid back like you're sitting in a desk chair. but for the people who read this forum and are recreational riders, we need something totally different. the priorities are different, so the results are different. presenting your perspective to the general audience of this forum as if it's universally awesome is like telling someone to use a table knife to perform (recreational) brain surgery when what they need is a precision made scalpel. (it's a metaphor, don't read too much into that.)

I challenge you to keep pushing the limits of what you can do on that bike. try riding 50, 75, and 120 km on it at one time. monitor how long you can hold a 30km/h pace. think about what muscles are sore after a longer ride. you will probably then start to understand why the rest of us are confounded by the conclusions you think are so profound, and why we do the opposite of what you're doing to keep riding bikes fun for us, and not a chore.

Moisture described his fit as follows: "This fit is extremely effective from a power transfer and handling perspective..."

It's very difficult to take him at all seriously.

I really think it’s more a matter of inexperience/naïveté rather than trolling here.

When I first met my wife, she hadn’t been on a bike since she was a kid. Her words.

But she took to cycling very quickly.
Got a couple different bikes now, with favorites and everything.
Does tours, centuries. Commutes to and from work.
Before the pandemic, we used to do this nightly loop from my apartment in Manhattan’s financial district onto the Brooklyn bridge, through downtown Brooklyn and back into Manhattan on the Manhattan bridge. If she was feeling sassy, we’d extend our ride up to prospect park or Central Park or the GW bridge. Sometimes we’d head up to Coney Island.
Anyway, pretty strong cyclist, especially now. We’re still out there putting down mileage, only on Staten Island/NNJ/the Jersey shore until the city comes back.

Thing is, back when she was just getting a feel for cycling, she insisted for like a year that her bike had to be set up just like Moisture’s. Didn’t matter what kind of bike, it could have been a cruiser, a mountain bike, a road bike. She had to be in that exact same position on whatever bike she was riding.

Took a lot of time in the saddle but she eventually figured out the proper fit for specific bikes. That upright cruiser type style for her English three speed, in the drops on a road bike, and so on.

She’s progressed to the point where she will now advise her friends on proper saddle height and such when they’re out riding together.
She’ll say stuff like, “I did it like that when I started too but...”

Pretty sure Moisture will eventually come around as well.
In the meantime, it might be a good idea to not come off like an authority on the subject all the time. Just saying...

I feel like I have a lot of weight in my upper body, particularly on my left side. Compared to many of you, I can clearly feel that I need to lean forward to weigh my front wheel much less. I only "need" a short cockpit to otherwise weigh the front end the same amount.

It is a combination of those different factors. My back gets sore, I feel too much weight in my wrists (only if my stem is substationally lower than it is now), and worrying about the front tire slipping prematurely, yes.

The biggest reason here really, is that it becomes difficult for me to subconciously keep my weight off the saddle/ bars and into the cranks the entire time I am riding. When I am mindful of the way my weight is biased, I can definetly ride with a lower handlebar, although nothing significant.

I will begin to gradually lower my stem and focus on keeping weight off the wrists.

As I have said before, while my riding position may look very cruiser ish, that's not the way I feel or handle on this bike, at all. Leaning forward, such as during a climb or when sprinting quickly gives me enough leverage over the cranks to active my posterior chain

The left side of your upper body weighs significantly more than the right side? wtaf?

The second statement that I put in bold font indicates that your fit is all wrong. As has been pointed out repeatedly to you.

Your fit makes a cruiser look like a race bike.

He doesn't need to hear from the best fitters in the field. He needs any average bike sales guy. Or just read or watch any average bike fit guide like this one


He also doesn't need to try a variety of frames, because the one he's got is perfectly average and inoffensive... if it were being treated normally.

Oh c'mon folks. This is interesting to me. Something's going on here.

OP, I'm curious about how you got this bike. It's obviously an older bike and you're a big guy. It's not easy to find a just-right used bike. Or have you had this bike since you were a kid? Anyway, the fit you've come up with might very well be the best that can be done on that bike. I'm curious to know if this is the case, so . . .

Try this:
Go to an online bike fit website, this one: https://www.competitivecyclist.com/S...ulatorBike.jsp
Specify that you want a road bike fit in inches.
Put in all your dimensions. You may need to have someone help you get the measurements. Choose the competitive fit.

You'll get a long series of measurement for your prospective bike. You're really only interested in top tube length, which is really effective top tube length as many bikes now have sloping top tubes.. Everything else can be modified.

Compare that top tube length result to the length of the top tube on the bike you have. That length is measured along the center of the top tube, between the centers of the seat tube and head tube.
How does it compare? Report back.

2mm! hahaha, more like three inches