grolby

This is nothing new, and as a short rider, I feel your pain.

The reason for both of these design choices is to reduce the chance of toe overlap, which people (and possibly the CPSC) have decided is a big problem. The effect of a slacker HTA is fairly obvious. The effect of the steeper STA is less obvious, but what it does is push the headtube further away from the rider, which of course pushes the front wheel further away from the bottom bracket. This is a particularly annoying element of small frame design, because it means going down a size on a particular frame could result in EXACTLY the same amount of reach to the handlebars as on the bigger frame DESPITE a shorter toptube. Obviously, this negates a lot of the reason to size down in the first place. And a slack HTA is problematic for obvious reasons. A little bit of slackness shouldn't be a big deal, as the short wheelbase of a smaller bike compensates somewhat, but it doesn't take too much before you really compromise responsiveness.

It's frustrating for me, because toe overlap is really a non-issue on a road bike. But most manufacturers feel compelled to reduce or eliminate it, and so compromise the handling in much more serious ways. The only option you have is to pay pretty close attention to the geometry of bikes that interest you. Some manufacturers just don't care and do everything in their power to eliminate toe overlap. They tend to end up with compromised bikes. Other manufacturers try to find a middle ground. One common solution in smaller sizes is to slacken the head tube angle a bit, but add a fork with more offset. This is a pretty smart way to do things, as the greater fork offset contributes to reducing toe overlap but also brings the trail back down. It's worth pointing out that a steeper HTA and greater fork offset both decrease trail, but they do not affect handling in the same way. So, even with the same trail, a slacker HTA and more raked fork will handle differently. Still, I like this combo. My bike has a 72 HTA and a 49mm offset fork. It actually has slightly less trail than my last bike, with a 73 HTA and 45mm fork, but I prefer the way it handles. More rake makes a bike really want to dive into a turn, which feels good to me.

The final approach is to change absolutely nothing, but maintain the same HTA and fork offset across the line. Surly uses this approach for their Cross-Check and Long Haul Trucker. Cervelo mostly does this, but gives in and slackens the HTA in the smallest size. I may have alluded to this already, but it's worth pointing out that there's a case to be made that this is the wrong approach - that maintaining the same angles across all sizes will actually result in the bicycle handling differently at opposite ends of the size range. The argument is that bigger bikes should get steeper angles, and smaller bikes should get slacker angles. I'm pretty agnostic on this, because I'm not a bike designer and don't know. I do know that many small bikes definitely go too far and simply don't want to turn. So I would stay away from really slack HTA bikes in my size. But I would give a fair shot to small differences.

EdIsMe

I'll be using a threadless stem and modern bars. That was key in deciding to go this route. Of course, that means using an adapter, which is by no means light. All-in-all, I'd save roughly a pound going carbon, but it just isn't in the budget this year.
Keeping the steel fork allowed me to spend a little more on components (and those darn French parts that aren't hard to come by, but cost half an arm and your first born (exaggerating of course). I got lucky and ended up with one of the frames with a swiss bottom bracket, so extra kudo points there!

hybridbkrdr

Oddly enough, the bike industry was able to introduce 29ers and 650b to the mountain bike world but why aren't they introducing more 650b or even 26 inch wheel road bikes as well? Given the price on new 29ers and 650b bikes when they come out, wouldn't that give them a way to try to milk more consumers?

StanSeven

I ended up making the switch several years ago with a steel bike. I went with a 1" steerer CF fork, threadless headset, lightweight stem and bars. I forget the bottom line weight savings, but it was substantial. The overall bike now weighs a tad over 18 lbs complete with pedals, cages, and computer. Plus the handling feels so much better with the CF fork.

Campag4life

Demographics and payback...in response to bold above.
Impetus to go with larger wheels off road isn't rider size specific. All riders benefit from larger hoops off road because the larger radius of the wheel rolling over obstacles. Once spooled up, larger wheels are faster. So 650 and 700c wheel mtb's are sold to many different rider sizes.
What you are talking about is road riding and all slightly shorter, medium and tall riders will prefer 700c bikes because of the speed.
But yes, for a very small rider a shorter wheeled road bike makes some sense. But the economics don't wash for such a small cross section of the riding pubic. 650c wheel size road bikes have come and gone btw and you could build a custom one with a bit of research if that is your inclination.

This summer, I encountered something that made me smile out at the park where I ride. It was a family riding together which is always a nice sight...but this wasn't your typical fredly family meandering along. Their youngest son who had to be no more than I would say 10 years old was on a full fledged miniature road bike. This little kid was all kitted out and he could ride. No idea where they got the bike for him.
Wheels were in the 20 inch range. It made me smile.

Campag4life

Carped,
I always enjoy your writings about rider fit. I am intrigued by your fit a bit as I find it to be a bit of an outliar and wonder how you migrated to what works best for you after years of experimentation. I get the long top tube and short head tube you prefer which somewhat works with the upright seat tube angle you prefer. But how did you decide that this was the best overall formula? Speed? Pain avoidance?
A 76 deg sta with straight clamp seat post is almost unheard of for a road bike. I know you are a racer and of course a forward saddle relative to BB promotes easier pelvis tilt which is conducive to getting low and aero and putting a lot of your weight on the pedals, but I would say most would find this position to have too much forward weight bias for a road bike...but not a TT bike.
Can you explain how you developed your penchant for such an upright seat tube angle?
Thanks

Blue Belly

I'm sure race regulations have a lot to do with it. The 650 fad had its day & probably proved itself as an insufficient money maker. Maybe I'm wrong? Those are the two that jump out at me.

rpenmanparker 

Am I wrong or isn't the 75.5 deg seat tube angle that carpediemracing describes even much higher relative to the very common 25 mm setback seat post? Not only are most cyclists riding 73-74 degree seat tube angles (some 72s in smaller sizes like his), but assuming the saddle centered on its rails, they are relatively another 25 mm or nearly 2 deg further back on the circle defined by a 75 cm (nominal, average) radius consisting of the BB to saddle rails distance. So relative to zero setback posts, many if not most riders on "normal" posts are really on a 70-72 deg line to the BB. That is a huge difference (no criticism intended) from what carpediemracing is describing.

I am further interested how his long top tube was accomplished considering such an upright seat tube. The front end of the bike must have been pushed waaaay out if the head tube angle was kept normal. No chance of toe clip overlap there! Slackening the seat tube angle with normal or even increased head tube angle would lengthen the top tube while still keeping a relatively compact overall length from axle to axle and the resulting quick handling, but it doesn't appear that would apply here. It sounds to me like cdr's bike must be very long and all up front, so I wonder how that handles. Apparently okay, but some discussion of this would be interesting.

carpediemracing 

I did a post here on part of it. I think my post wasn't as well written though.

I guess there are a number of reasons but it starts with my physiology. I have short quads so to get my knee over the pedal axle I need to have the saddle pretty far forward. After a few bikes I got used to simply slamming the saddle all the way forward "to start with". When zero setback posts came out I could use one and still slammed the saddle all the way forward.

This has very little to do with riding style etc. It's based on leg length (or not) and for the top tube torso length. For the short head tube that's just a function of my short legs - my saddle is low so I don't need a high bar. I don't have a higher bar position because it hurts my back to have my bars higher. I've mentioned it before but a slight angle is worse than no angle or "all the way over". When I stand at a sink I need to stand upright else my back starts to hurt immediately (according to my doctor I have disc problems). If I lean over a fraction, like to reach the sponge sitting on the far edge of the sink, it's not comfortable, and if I lean over a lot then I'm in a decent amount of pain. On the bike it's similar. I used a slightly higher drop position this year (because a -20 stem and a compact bar didn't get down far enough) and I had back problems. When I got a "deep drop" bar (3 cm deeper but equivalent to my old non-deep-drop bars) my back problems were gone in a week or so, even though I did some 4 hour rides. When I ride longer than an hour I find myself using the drops to relieve tension on my back. Maxing out my back angle is much more comfortable than trying to hold it up a bit.

In terms of fit - I have short quads. In terms of real life I never have problems with leg room on a plane or sitting in the back seat of a car. Based on my leg/quad length I figured I needed about a 76 deg ST angle so the rails are centered, zero setback post, and about a 67 cm saddle->BB height (with 175 cranks, Keo pedals, Sidi shoes).

Likewise my torso is long. I am virtually the tallest person in a room/train/plane when sitting down. I crouch when I'm at the movies because I know I block everyone's view behind me. Yet I'm only 5'7" tall. When I stand up I'm back to being shorter again.

For my torso I need about a 56.5 cm top tube with a 12 cm -17 stem and a "regular" (aka non-compact) bar. With a compact bar, with 3 cm less reach and 3 cm less drop, I'd technically need a 15 cm stem and a -33 degree stem, give or take. I've actually commissioned a 14.5 cm stem, -33 deg, for myself. It sounds really radical but it merely replicates my drops position when I used a normal non-deep drop regular bar with a 12 cm stem.

I understood at some level that I had odd proportions. I could sit on friends' 55-57 cm bikes and feel fine with the reach (but the bars were too high). For height I felt uncomfortable, even on smaller frames, usually because the rider got the smaller frame to get the shorter reach. My wife, who is 5'4", has a higher saddle position than me and even a 9 cm stem is a bit long with the traditional bar she has (I'll put a compact bar on her bike at some point).

I wanted to fit the bike to me without worrying about traditional limits. I used plastic totes next to the trainer. They were already there - I keep my old kits in 5-6 totes and wear them only on the trainer. I also use the totes as a shelf to put a laptop, the remote for the DVD player, and now the baby monitor, phone, etc. Anyway I put the totes next to the bars so they made a platform next to the bars. By stacking stuff on them (books, boxes, etc) I could adjust height and I had literally two feet of fore-aft play. With absolutely no limitations in terms of fit ("oh, the longest top tube I can find in my size is a 53.5 so that's where I'll start") I fiddled with position.

I ended up with my hands in a position that would have required a particular top tube length. I don't remember the exact length but it was relative to the seat tube angle I had a the time. Since fit goes BB->Saddle->Bars I had to determine my seat tube angle before I could get a real top tube length.

For seat tube it was pretty simple. I decided that my current position was pretty close to being right (zero setback, saddle slammed forward). I figured it'd be better if the seatpost clamped the saddle rails in the middle instead of the very back. I simply held a straight edge along the right path and used a protractor to get an angle. I got 76 degrees.

Finally, with a "valid" seat tube angle, I calculated the amount this steeper seat tube would move the top tube. It ended up in the 1 or 2 cm range (but I forget). This new intersection point would be the start point for measuring the top tube. From that point I measured 57 cm to the head tube (effective).

Because of my shorter legs I like a compact style frame. I really liked my size S aluminum TCR (which measured differently from my size S carbon TCR) so I asked to have the frame spec'ed to the rear triangle of that size S alum TCR. This meant a 40 cm c-c seat tube length, 44 cm c-t. This drops the seat tube out of "interference/contact" height, which I had with a 44 cm c-c (carbon TCR) and 52 cm effective (SystemSix).

Finally, after thinking about this for a while (I'd been thinking of it for a couple winters, on and off, plus a very focused few weeks while I was recovering from the first broken bones in my life), I was able to get to a LBS. I was a customer/friend and I asked to use their fit bike to verify some wacky numbers I had. I set the fit bike to the 76 STA, 57 cm TT length, and stuck a 14 cm stem on (the next length they had was something like 11 cm). I brought my own bars also, the regular type (so the non-compact).

Based on the pictures I sent the builder, my conviction that the fit was right, the builder (Joseph @ Tsunami Bikes) recommended that I dial it back a touch. 75.5, 56.5. I agreed and that was that. I had the frame maybe 8 weeks later? I did lose some weight and such but the frame was great, the first properly fit frame I've had in about 30 years of riding.

The bike was so long that at first I felt uneasy at first when climbing out of the saddle. On my old bikes I'd brush the bars with my thighs on each pedal stroke. I'd adjust the impact so it wouldn't affect my line but I definitely felt the contact on my legs. This slight contact was a comfort point for me (apparently). It verified, every half pedal stroke, that my bars were still attached to the bike. On the new bike my legs missed the bars by a mile. I felt like I was holding detached bars, like my stem or steerer tube had broken off. I got my frame and built it up just before going to a January SoCal "training camp" visit I took each year. My first ride on it was out there, warm weather, wide roads, long rides. It took me a couple weeks, maybe a month, before I felt comfortable without that familiar thigh-bar contact on every pedal stroke. I had a really hard time making hard efforts out of the saddle for a while, even during the March and April race Series.

Now it's fine of course. That season I was doing so well that I was afraid of being upgraded out of Cat 3s (I wanted to upgrade but not until the end of the year). I therefore started working for my teammate/friend in races so that I wouldn't place. In the end I did upgrade at the end of that year. It was a combination of stuff but the frame was obviously central in terms of my bike.

Cleave

I'm at the other end of the fit spectrum from CDR. Also, 'new' and 'lately' depend on your relative view of the world. My "perfect" fit was Italian frames from the 1970s and early 1980s (73° X 73°). Back in the days of horizontal top tubes a 53 cm seat tube (C-T) with a 73° seat tube angle fit me just right. Now I'm lucky if I can find a 52 cm frame with anything less than a 75° seat tube angle. Setback seat posts are my friends but even with a 25 mm setback I sometimes use up the allowable seat rail travel. Also top tubes have gotten shorter so I use at least a 120 mm stem and a few years ago had a frame where I needed a 130 mm stem! Back in the good old days I always used a 110 mm stem.

So I sympathize with EdIsMe and yes, to me it seems like 'lately' seat tube angles have gone up and head tube angles have gone down. Also, even back in the good old days, I had toe clip overlap with my front tire. Now it's just toe overlap.

StanSeven

It was a pretty well known fact that 650 wheels just didn't sell on road bikes. Several manufacturers had 650 wheel frames and no one wanted them. I'm not even sure if race restrictions even came into play back then. Schwinn and at least one of manufacturer made the same frames in both sizes and they hardly sold any 650s.

carpediemracing 

There are some women's bikes that use smaller wheels to deal with the overlap problem. Terry started with it. Centurion licensed the concept, although they dropped it after a couple years.

Regular races require two of the same wheel size.

I think for the most part it's that other than overlap there aren't any real advantages to smaller wheels, not in terms of performance on smooth/paved surfaces. It's been tried and found lacking overall by national teams (who seem to be the most interested in minute performance differences).

There would be some instances where a small wheel should (to me) be an advantage, especially in a controlled environment like the track. In the 1984 Olympics the US track team used 24" wheels in the team pursuit - they could draft much, much closer due to the smaller wheel size. I had a 24" front wheel TT bike and in the few TTTs I did (college) I felt my bike configuration gave me much better shelter than when I used a 700c front wheel bike. I think there's something about the increased rolling resistance of smaller wheels plus the added expense of sourcing smaller tires (since it would be a need-driven thing, not a marketing driven one). I've never ridden the smaller wheel bike on the track so I can't vouch for what it's like on there.

EdIsMe

I think the case for 650 is just an example of cons outweighing the pros.

Upsides: Maintaining geometry through size ranges, no toe overlap, shorter draft profile*note below

Downsides: Increased tire/tube expense, tires wear faster due to smaller size, bearings wear faster, brake tracks wear faster, a much larger gear ratio is needed to maintain the same speeds, rotational inertia is significantly decreased reducing high-speed stability with virtually no real benefit to handling, and probably more I can't think of at the moment.

*to the note above, smaller wheels were originally intended to be used for team time trials where bringing the 2nd rider closer to the rear wheel of the first, the draft effect would be increased. There was virtually no difference in aerodynamics from a solo perspective. I think given the highly specialized niche of the application lead to the eventual downfall. It was a solution without a problem and eventually everyone defected back to the standard 700c/27in.

On the geometry discussion, I am also the opposite of Aki. I'm only 5'5" but have an inseam of 30". My proportion difference isn't as great as his, but with today's super compact geometry being so prevalent, it's a problem.

Also, @rpenmanparker, you have it backwards. A higher number for seat angle means a steeper seat tube, bringing the saddle closer to the head tube, theoretically. In reality, the distance between the seat tube and head tube remains relatively constant as the effective top tube measurement, which results in the correlation you mentioned. If you consider the ratio between effective top tube and seat tube, you'll find that proportionally, smaller frames are designed much longer than their larger counterparts. (Larger torso, shorter legs). This is largely due to the industry's "try to fit as many people as best as possible" policy. Most shorter people also have shorter legs, particularly women, hence women's geometry.

To elaborate, a 47-50cm seat tube fits me just fine (on a 74* tube with ~20mm of setback and saddle clamped about center). Typically this will put top tube length for me in the 51.5-54cm range. With a 51.5 top tube, a 110mm stem, very compact (3T Ergonova) bars, and about 15mm of spacers under the stem (on a 100mm head tube) result in a very stretched out position. Any longer than this and I simply can't reach. On the Kilo I have a 47cm seat tube, approx 8" of seat post, saddle in middle, 51.3cm top tube, 100mm stem, 15mm of spacers, and classic ITM Anotomic bars (unsure of exact model) which have 95mm of reach c-c.

hybridbkrdr

While you're talking about fit and geometry, I'm wondering about something. I already had a discussion with people here saying I had long legs for someone 5'8" (32.8 inches). The Schwinn CrossFit has a 50cm seat tube and 52.5cm top tube. That's a sloping top tube so I figure it might be more like a 52cm bike. Usually some people 5'8" or 5'9" use a 54cm. Someone with similar measurements as me said he uses 53cm. But I was thinking if I wanted a Schwinn CrossFit and found it too small, what would be the consequences be? I'm asking because I currently ride a hybrid. Would my neck be bent upward too high?

Campag4life

Technical definition of long legs FWIW is inseam more than half over your height. Summary? You don't have long legs.
Flat bar and drop bar road bikes have different top tube length for a given rider size because of handlebar shape...flat bars sweep back and drop bars sweep forward. Typically a drop bar bike has a 30-50mm shorter top tube compared to a flat bar bike for similar fit.

rpenmanparker 

I'm not sure what you think I have backwards. It is well known that small frames, especially women's, suffer from toe clip overlap, hence the historical attempts to use smaller wheels on tiny frames rather than over-lengthening the top tube. There is no reason to assume smaller normal folks are proportioned differently from larger folks within each gender. Yes, smaller frames have proportionally longer top tubes, but I think it is out of necessity, not preference. But I am interested in hearing your idea in more detail. Thanks.

EdIsMe

You referenced earlier "most cyclists riding 73-74 degree seat tube angles (some 72s in smaller sizes like his." This is what was backwards.

On a completely different note, I was thinking today, elaborating on geometry and the relative positioning of the rider over the pedal spindle. If you were to move the seat forwards and upwards proportionally, would the cyclists knee-over-pedal remain in the same position? Conversely, the same correlation would exist lowering and pushing the seat back. Of course, this shifts the rider's body position along the y axis of the bike, raising or lowering center of gravity. I'm not really sure on the other effects of such a change.

This was spurred by a friend of mine who mentioned my seat seemed to be a little low as we were riding yesterday. To find out if he was right, I raised my seat 2cm and pushed it forward 1cm. My position relative to the bb stayed roughly the same, as did my reach. Overall, the bike felt virtually the same, with the exception of course being my relatively higher seating position. I'll give it a couple more rides and see if anything changes.

Campag4life

Curious what further changes you expected by keeping your knee to spindle in the X direction the same?

rpenmanparker 

Yes, you're right that increasing seat tube angle will shorten the top tube as is usually needed for a smaller rider. I suppose that is a popular strategy as it doesn't affect front end handling like changing the head tube angle. And toe clip overlap doesn't suffer as the crank to front wheel distance doesn't change. Good point.

carpediemracing 

A valid point. My frame history with the customs is Frame1 (orange), Frame2 (black), then have builder modify Frame1 (which was then painted red). Basically if you have a long front end you need to pull the rear wheel in much closer than normal in order to keep weight on it.

Frame1, original: 40.5 cm chainstays. The rear wheel was in the same place relative to the BB as on my Cannondale. I didn't think much about the consequences of this - I didn't feel experienced enough to spec a shorter stay. I should point out that my first bike ever had about a 38.5 cm chainstay, I forget the actual number but it was under 39 cm. I loved the way the bike handled but didn't know why it handled so well. Anyway, on the 40.5 cm stay "long bike" I found that the rear wheel skittered even when just coasting through normal corners. I tend to slide forward to weight the front end in corners so I really, really weigh the front end compared to many others. Sometimes I'm so forward on the saddle I'm sitting on the nose bit that starts to turn down. More front end weight means more traction up front means more options for me in a turn.

Note saddle is slightly forward of center-of-rails. Also note the gap between the rear tire and the seat tube (40.5 cm stay).


Frame2 I spec'ed with "as short a stay as you can make". It ended up 39 cm. Instant improvement in corners. Bonus was the incredible response when out of the saddle - I could point the bike anywhere I wanted (within reason). Incredible response out of the saddle, the best, it was the illusive 38.x cm stay bike all over again. The aero aspect was an attempt to gain some free speed - I upgraded to Cat 2 and was looking for any help I could get. I had an unsuccessful year but it has little to do with the bike and more to do with the fact that we'd decided the prior fall that we wanted to start a family. I fully expected to be a father the year of the black bike. Nature didn't cooperate but I'd already dialed back my expectations/goals/training so my racing went to pot.

Note the tire/seat tube clearance. Also the picture is a bit distorted - it's a still from a helmet cam clip - so the saddle is level. You can see how long the bike is though (original bars which I bought in 1997 or so).


I asked the builder if he could "shorten the stays" on the original bike. He could and did. He got those down to about 39 cm (actually 39.2-39.3 cm). With round tubes he had less room to work with, plus I had clearance issues with the 39 cm stays on the black bike. I had a friend paint the frame when he painted one of his cars. I told him whatever color he was painting his car was fine. Ended up red. He has six? Minis and this was the 4th one he was restoring.


Bike after build up (on the right). Note the small tire/seat tube gap. The (new FSA Compact) bars are way too high due to less drop and actually caused me some back problems (in 2013, this season). At the time of the picture I had just started using the red bike as the primary bike. It has a 14 cm stem to make up for some of the 3 cm less reach, vs a 12 cm with regular bars. (By the time of the picture Junior was a year old).


I've commissioned a stem to place the bar in the right place. I hope that this will solve my back problems while allowing me to use the more commonly available compact bar geometry.

EdIsMe

I've watched every (yes every) video you have on YouTube and never realized just how extreme your setup is. It's a bit impressive. Especially on the red bike where it appears the drops are lower than the top of the front tire.
I'm really interested in your note about handling. I was taught and have pretty much always tended to shift my weight backwards in a turn, lowering the torso, but keeping weight bias on the rear wheel. Steering input comes mainly from the hips and arms are generally kept relaxed with minor countersteer input.

*This is turning into a geometry/handling geek thread and I like it!

**Unrelated: Does anyone know of a carbon fork with a 22.0mm steerer or if a 1" headset can work on a French frame ?

carpediemracing 

The big thing that you can accomplish by raising your body and moving it forward is you can tilt your pelvis forward. This allows you to have a flatter back without doing any kind of stretching etc. A good example of this that everyone can relate to (at least find a picture of) is Jens Voigt. He has a very forward position, very high, and it allows him to get pretty flat on the bike. His set back is significantly less than someone like Tom Boonen. I forget the numbers off hand but the difference between the two is 3 or 4 cm, something like that.

Also for time trials a higher and more forward position works well. It allows a flatter position (more aero), it gives you power, and it doesn't cramp your breathing as much as a lower, more rearward position.

Why flatten your back if you're not racing?

A flatter back gets you a few things. First it is more aero so it's more efficient. Once you're going about 20-22 mph it starts to make a difference and most people can ride that speed on a flat road. Second it puts more weight on the front wheel. That's better for cornering but it also relieves pressure on the saddle, making the bike more comfortable over longer rides. Third it allows you to recruit more leg muscles while pedaling. Your body naturally wants to recruit those muscles - when you're climbing a hill you instinctively lean forward, not for aerodynamics but in order to recruit your powerful glutes and other less used muscles. As a racer of course it's important to maximize available power but as a recreational rider it's simply easier to ride.

I fit a lot of riders in the pre-everything-computerized days. I did it based on experience and feedback. Some of the riders that I recommended a forward/low position were recreational cyclists on hybrid bikes. They complained of saddle discomfort, difficulty on hills, and "too bumpy" a ride. By taking these riders, moving some weight forward, recruiting more muscles, the bikes somehow got more comfortable, easier to pedal up hills, and their butts weren't numb or sore in 5 minutes. As a bonus their knees didn't hurt as much, they had less shock traveling through their backs, and their bikes were more stable overall. Those riders recruited more of their cycling muscles, enabling them to get stronger, creating a great cycle of improvement for a while.

Drawbacks include an initial period of adjustment/conditioning/discomfort in your neck, shoulders, and arms, as those bits have to work to support your head more. You'll also need to condition less-used pedaling muscles - mainly your glutes and different parts of your quads and hamstrings. Another is simply accepting that a lower position isn't necessarily bad for a recreational rider. You'll need to stay with a narrower saddle (wide tractor-like saddles only work with upright positions; many entry level hybrid bikes come with sofa-like saddles not appropriate for a higher and more forward position). Finally you'll want multiple hand positions on the bars (more weight on the hands means having more positions is important).

I fit a friend of mine (racer, teammate, friend) who had been "fit" at a bike shop. He'd just gotten into racing, he had started to develop those cycling muscles (glutes, lower back, shoulders, neck, etc), and he asked me for feedback on his racing, position, etc. He'd been frustrated at the local Tuesday night training race series as he didn't have the power to break out that win - he'd get second or third but he was clearly slower than the guy/s who were beating him. I made some wholesale changes to his position, a couple cm here, a couple cm there (raised saddle 1.7 cm, forward 1 cm, dropped stem 2.5 cm, extended stem 2 cm, so net difference 1.7 cm higher saddle, 1 cm more reach, and 4.2 cm more drop to the bars). Basically he went from low and back to up and forward. Without any time to acclimate (it was one week to another) he won the next three Tuesday night training races he did, each by a clear margin, like by 40 or 50 feet. Fitness-wise he was the same - just his position changed. He found he could turn about one gear higher on the flats. His bike inspired confidence in the corners, with more weight on the front tire. He also placed in one of his goal races, a very difficult race (I did it once, finished off the back).

(On a related note he had a sudden tire failure mid turn later on. He stayed upright without any problems. I attribute his having more weight on his front tire as a factor in him not going sideways at 30 mph since he hasn't done any kind of handling drills.)

So a more forward, higher position has benefits, even if the overall leg extension isn't different.

carpediemracing 

I think so, but I've never converted a French threaded frame to anything. All the ones I worked on weren't worth fixing. Info on the French/English stuff here:
https://sheldonbrown.com/velos.html

rpenmanparker 

Diameters won't be the problem, only finding the metric threaded headset for the steerer threads. As we discussed before, you can avoid that by making the switch to the threadless (really threadless, without adapter) now instead of later. Make no mistake, I understand the economic issues you mentioned, just sayin' finding the French headset and the cost of it may make doing the change now the right thing. There are some good buys on fairly light, carbon, threadless forks for 1" if you look hard enough. I think Wiggle had one. I'm talking $100-200, not $400. Good luck.

EDIT: Here is one you can order (and Wiggle has to order it too). Not as light as cheap as I thought, but not too bad: https://www.wiggle.com/columbus-minimal-road-forks/

If you don't mind a bit heavy with Al steerer, Nashbar has them all the time for just a little over $100.

carpediemracing 

Heh. Thanks on the clips bit. I initially started them for the Missus, who hadn't been involved in any sprints etc (most women haven't, even those that race often, and she's only done one race). It became a learning tool. Since 2010 it's also become a safety thing - in 2009 someone intentionally crashed those around him, including me, and I broke my first bone in my life (in 27 seasons of racing). He escaped serious sanctions only because two of his teammates lied under oath (2 teammates and him said he braked to avoid someone; one of those teammates had been dropped and couldn't have seen the front of the field, and the reality was that he tried to push the guy next to him out of the way and then suddenly swerved across the road while we were going almost 30 mph). Anyway… I was told that if I had video or photographic evidence that it would have sealed the (USA Cycling) hearing. I went and bought the Contour helmet cam after that, have two more (spares mainly), and record every race and every training ride I can. The training ride recordings are for the same reason but more morbid - if a car kills me hopefully there'll be a record of it. Anyway... I try to make the clips entertaining (for me - it's all music by my two brothers and bands they've been in) as well as educational (for others watching). What's interesting is that I've pointed out a couple pinch points on courses and I found that over a year or two racers approach those pinch points with a bit more caution/respect than before (New Britain / Nutmeg, Tuesday Nights, Bethel). I'd like to think they watched my clips but it may just be coincidence. Heh.

I have some thoughts here on my bar placement.

My bars, with a 15 cm drop, are not quite below the tire:


With the compact bars (12 cm drop), they're above. My back hurt with these bars but I really like the drops shape so I'm getting a stem that will let me use these bars:


Side view of my position using the regular bars with 12 cm stem, so old style bars. The bar has 15 cm drop. It's 4 to go and I'm just started to get dropped (M35+, 2011, Red Trolley Crit in San Diego) and so I'm forward, digging deep, hoping the group eases and I can close a 40 or 50 meter gap. Never happened, I stopped the next lap to watch the finish. You can see that it's not an extreme position. I don't have a flexible back - I'm hard pressed to touch my toes and I even have a hard time putting jeans on - but this position works for me. I'm comfortable for however long I can ride - the day after the race I did 6.5 hours on the bike, going up Palomar from my SoCal "home base". On long rides like those I spend most of the last couple hours in the drops - it's the most comfortable position for me once I'm fatigued.


So that's the drop bit.

As far as front end weight, you need weight on the front end. Generally speaking if you lose the front end you're hitting the deck. Therefore weight the front end. If the rear slides, no biggie. It may worry someone that doesn't know (like a non-racer on a group ride) but in a race virtually no one blinks in a Cat 3 field if someone does something like plant a pedal and skip their rear wheel to the side a foot. Not a biggie because nothing happens. Front wheel goes… biggie. It's possible to recover from a front wheel slide but it's very hard and relies on instinctive reactions, not thinking and such.

I put as much weight on the front as possible. I slide forward on the saddle. I'm on the drops. I sometimes find myself pressing down on the bars even though that does nothing to actually change the load on the front tire. Get the front wheel through the turn okay and everything will follow.

I've had some pretty close calls in corners where I've maintained control, not because I'm a great bike handler but because my weight distribution allowed me to do whatever I instinctively tried to do. In one race, on the last corner (acute angle, downhill leading into an uphill, off camber exit line, had been wet earlier) the guy in front of me, on the hoods (a huge no-no - too much weight up high, much less brake control, easy to lose grip), laid his bike down hard. We were going maybe 30 mph? and he was maybe 4th or so in line. I braked, went around him, and sprinted to the line, and although I was keyed up because it was the last lap, his fall didn't faze me. No adrenaline rush, no panic, just "go left, don't hit curb, shift down, go, shift up…"

What I find is that if I get scared going into a turn I push back on the saddle. This makes the front end light, makes the bike harder to steer, gives less traction, it's bad all around. When I don't give in and stay forward, weight the front, I can carve arcs well. I learned this when I did a 35 minute descent that I'd only ridden up just before (Palomar Mountain, SoCal). I only see the road once or twice a year and I can't remember all the corners, yet by the third or fourth time I did the road I was blasting down it fast enough that in a mile I dropped my SoCal host so hard that it took him a minute to catch up (I stopped, worried he flatted or something). There are a bunch of switchbacks and curves, some high speed, and massive drop offs if you go over some of the guard rails. I could corner really aggressively once I kept myself from moving back on the saddle. I had to take confidence in my ability to corner, force myself to take late apex lines to give me the most leeway in the second non-visible part of the turns, and things worked out fine. When I backed up on my bike, unweighting the front end, it lost responsiveness and didn't corner well.