I have a very long torso- I am 6'2" and my inseam is only 32, and my shirt sleeve length only 35. In the past I have accommodated by getting a frame (25") that I could not straddle, but which felt good once I was moving. What bikes fit well for builds like mine? Is there some desired angle between upper body and seat tube? Does the long torso mean that I need a smaller angle between upper and lower body because I move my center of gravity further forward than an everage cyclist when I lean at a given angle?

I would also bet that those with short torsos and longer limbs face the opposite issues.

What manufacturers use geometry I should look for, and which should I take pains to avoid?

I am 6'2" with a 32" inseam as well. I bought my first road bike since my Huffy 10 speed last summer. I had had a Trek 800 Sport so I had expected to get another Trek for the road. However, when I tried the Trek 1200 it didn't fit well. Felt uncomfortable even just riding around the LBS lot. This bike has a traditional geometry. I then tried the Specialized Allez A1 Sport with a 'compact' geometry. Perfect. Both frames were 58 cm.

Some folks on the forum think compact geometry is a ploy to save money, but it helped me get a perfect fit.

Hope this helps...

Lemond is universally known for fitting torsos such as your and mine. They are designed with a long top tube.

This is the very reason I want a Lemond bike, not to mention steel! I have a Trek 2000 that I have put a seat post on with no setback to move my knees into a comfortable posistion. In turn I have a longer than usual stem to get me streched out like I want, all the while on a frame that I can just barly clear on a level road when I step off!

I only wish I had known the difference before buying the Trek because I would be riding a Lemond now!

why the post w/o setback?

Let's see, The fit kit indicated I needed a 54cm bike, but because of my reach I needed at least a 56cm tt so we went with a 56cm frame. I think the combonation of little larger frame and saddle with short rails I couldn't get quite where I wanted over the peddals. So to get a comfortable fit I probly moved the saddle forward 2cm or so along with the stem. Don't get me wrong, the bike now rides fine, I have no pain, and did a metric century on it Tuesday.
I found the information on the Lemond bike geo. a few weeks ago and I think this would have been a glove fit for me. I also notice the Lemond bikes come with a little longer cranks for given size than a Trek does. Why is this. I ride mtb with 175 and do fine with this, the rb is 170mm.

A compact frame in larger than normal size would give you a long bike with low standover. Giant provide a variety of stems and seatposts to fit.

I wonder about a LeMond for long torso/short legs. This is pure speculation, since I'm no expert on bike fit, and fairly normal in terms of leg/torso lengths.

I'd speculate you want a longer top tube for sure, but not necessarily a laid back geometry. LeMond had long femurs, which would possibly be a factor in him recommending a laid back seat tube angle (like 72-ish degrees) and lots of saddle set-back. (In the hey-day of his popularity, the hot ticket in US bikes was criterium geometry, just the opposite of his preference.) I'm thinking you'd want a long top tube, but more like a 73 degree seat tube angle so you wouldn't have to be reaching way forward with your legs. Short of getting a custom frame, I'd tend to concur with others in that a compact geometry may be the ticket. You get a low stand-over height, and probably more options in stem length, since this is one way they accomodate having less frame size options.

Reynolds steel Lemond seat tube angle, TADA 73 deg!

Busted!
That's what I get for posting w/out checking the specs first. The bigger the frame, the slacker the seat angle (seems like a good thing to me). And, yes, the 55cm frame SA is 73.

Unless my thinking is wrong, and I could be, I think this setup would have prevented some of the rather weird things I have had to do to my frame to get it to ride like I want.