You have a mom too?!?!

the smallest track bike you can buy would be a tri cycle.

I've got the same problem, and since I've just started riding, I don't want to end up with knee or back problems. My inseam tells me I need a 54-56cm bike, but I keep finding 21-inchers (a tad too small imo.) My friend recommended a 56cm bike to me (i'm 5'9), and I do like the stretch on that better. I'm just concerned about the crotch clearance.

Q: Is it better to get a longer stem on a shorter bike, or a shorter stem on a taller bike?

Waddaya seasoned riders think?

My track bike has a 60cm st and a 59cm tt. Im only about 6'1". Track stem is 100mm and as low in the head tube as it can go, seat is in the middle of the seatpost which is about 7 inches out of the frame.

Sounds like it would be to big, but it fits great.

only if they raced tricycles on track.....still not bike, it's trike...nevermind...

Small frames.
Yeah,thats what 12 years of bmx and MTB freeriding do to you

You mean fixie???

As fasr as height of frame and stand over height, your're thinking of seat posts. The stem/handlebar and frame combo would have to do with reach and cockpit feel.

Keep in mind how you will be using your bike. A smaller frame may be better if you will be mounting and dismounting your bike many times throughout the ride. Y'know like a messenger might. If you're not on and off the bike a bunch through out the ride (swinging a leg up and over) then the benefits of the larger frame make come into play.

I don't think there's any single answer that satisfies every rider/situation. Clearly, bike manufacturers have studied the body-types of their buying public and have developed a 'bell curve', and build frames to meet the needs of those near the center of that curve.....great for them. For those of us that live more on the fringes, fit becomes more of an issue and solutions to fit problems require some extra thought.

Many who believe they are casting aside conventional wisdom by riding a bike larger or smaller than they are "supposed to" are likely to be more fit conscious than even they are aware. That is, they have empirically determined what works for them, and in the 'big picture' fit game they are actually playing solidly by the rules ... just not realizing it. How can I assume this??? Easy, they say their bikes are comfortable.

The problem creeps in when these single reference points (say, what works for me) becomes generalized advice in the forum ... without appropriate caveats. My perfect bike has a slack seattube and a toptube longer than the seattube .... a la my Rodriguez. I know I can all but take a nap on that bike, it's so comfortable ... but that's because of MY body type. It might feel like riding "the rack" for someone else.

Take your case: You like to feel somewhat stretched out but are concerned about the standover height of the frame you would need to achieve it. Well a longer stem is one way to approach it but, if you have a high center of gravity because for example, you have a long torso (like me) or maybe you're built like Mr. Universe (not like me) then the longer stem approach will also shift your weight forward and maybe put undue strain on your hands/wrists/elbows whatever. If this is the case you may want to try moving the seat back instead. You'd get the stretch and the bike would be 100 times more comfortable.

I've harped on this fit stuff before but I feel it is important for a lot of riders. I always recommend buying a proper fit session. It's fun and incredibly enlightening. You leave with a chart that will help you in every bike/frame purchase you'll ever make. For those that live near the center of the bell curve, standover height is a pretty good indicator of the frame you need. For the rest of us it's just a bad joke.

Take care...

Jim

Okay,

But are you simply talking about moving the seat back on the rails? Or actually getting a seat with more setback? How far back would I be able to get it? I have the long torso issue, as well, and I'm going to try getting a longer stem first. But another question, which I asked somewhere else, but which I didn't really hear back about: where is the ideal place to have your handlebars in relation to the fork/front wheel axle? Does a more forward position improve or degrade handling?

Hi peripatetic...

As a first cut, yes, I was suggesting simply moving the seat back on its rails. Seats are a very personal thing but if your chosen seat has long rails, that might be enough, otherwise, a setback seat post may be helpful. My Rodriquez has a 72 degree seattube while my Steamroller is 73 degrees. I ride Selle Italia SLR saddles which have rails long enough for me to achieve the same effective seattube angle with both bikes.

As for the stem length? I've heard that the middle of the handlebar should obscure your view of the front axle BUT I've never seen any analysis indicating the importance of this .... I suppose it might be useful as a starting point, I once had a frame with a short toptube and tried a 150mm stem. It felt awkward to me. Now I try to stay in the 120mm range for drops and about 90mm for bullhorns. Speaking of which, bullhorns tend to stretch you out for a given stem length. Even though it's a forward weight shift it might help with your problem. Are you using bullhorns or drops?

Jim

Drops.

I've been going with the Lemond suggestion for the obscured axle--it seems accurate. My wrists and hands have been getting sore, and my butt always wants to scoot back behind the seat. I figure I need about 120-125mm added length. Getting a new seat seems an expensive proposition at this point, and I've already moved the thing back on its rails as far as it'll go.

If you are experiencing hand and wrist pain and your butt naturally tries to move further back then I'm thinking that a longer stem may not be the solution to your problem. The financial pain of a new seat or a setback seatpost may be easier to bear than the physical pain of long term joint/tendon problems. It sounds like your center of gravity is positioned forward of your feet. Try this. Have a friend steady your bike while you sit on it. Place your hands on the bar tops and position your pedals at 3:00 and 9:00 (i.e. horizontally). Place the balls of your feet on either side of the bottom bracket shell. Now, lift your hands off of the bars and hover them palms down about an inch above the bars. You should have no problem doing this. If your butt comes up out of the saddle as you try to lift your hands then your COG is too far forward.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, this may not be a big deal for everyone. I suspect that a young, light, fit rider has a lot of flexibilty in the setup they ride, and I don't know anything about your age, weight or fitness level so you'll have to decide the best approach for you.

Good luck and keep us posted.... I'd like to know.

Take care...

Jim

Does your butt want to scoot back or are you fighting against sliding down? If taking your hands off the bars mean you slide forward then you need to raise the nose of your saddle so that it's level or even just ever so slightly tilted back.

your frame size is: facepunch cm
not a bad size

I just stumbled on this looking to post a similar ?....

I have a sprint frame with a 55 C-C tt with a slight slope back so I could rate it a 55.5-56cm ...anyway my road bike is 58.5 and fits mint although agressively. When I got the track used the guy said it was a 57...ebay. If I take a measurement from the center of my seat to the tops of the bars the distance is almost exactly the same as my geared bike, only the drop to the bars is about 2-3 inches lower. I don't mind the position in fact I road a fast 20 mile loop 2 weeks ago in SE Mass without any issue...more weight on my arms for sure. I love the track in the city(PRov.) quick and ultra responsive. I can get a nearly identical frame in a 59cm I'm tempted

https://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...e=STRK:MEWA:IT

The guy put 74cm but he screwed up it's 59
Honestly, I dig what I have now but just wanted some input...

I don't dig russ denny's graphics---I put my own menagerie graphics over the stock decals.

I got properly fitted for my track bike and realized after the fact that the road bike I've been riding forever is way too small for me!

No, my butt really wants to scoot back--I get a good grip on the handlebars, bend my elbows, lift my head, and then, in order to stretch out and straighten my back, I have to push my ass way beyond the rear of the seat. This has happened on my same-sized road frame, as well. Both bikes have very short quill stems--they could definitely be a bit longer. And when I look down at the front axle, it does seem awkward that my handlebars don't project further forward.

I would have bought bigger frames originally, but I've been buying used, and it seems like the sizes most in demand are 55/56/57 cm /22 inches. Maybe I'm just a little too tall for a 21 inch frame.

But first, I'm going to try Jim's suggestion about finding my COG. That sounds good. I just have to go find a friend to hold me up...

Okay Jim, all,

So I checked, and my COG is DEFINITELY not far enough back. I can't get myself off of the bars to sit up straight at all. No wonder my hands/wrists are hurting. I'm going to guess part of this has happened because I was not used to the posture on a roadbike/fg bike. But it suddenly makes sense why I haven't been able to do no hands while riding, as I used to, on my mtn. bike. That bike, I bought at a store, and the fit was determined by them beforehand.

So should I go with a new seat/post, or just sell the bike and find something that fits better? I definitely can't go much beyond a 56cm bike as far as standover height goes--I think my inseam is about 31.5 inches, and most 57cm bikes seem to hit my crotch bone a little too tightly.

I just want it to fit right.

Alternative: I have an old 22" frame that I could build up, but that could end up being a fair number of (smaller) parts.

yup. that fits me

I guess I should ask everyone here now:
5'10", 30 inseam, redhead, quasi-statuesque/quasi-modo, sagittarius, spells 'velo5rome' with a 5 (not sure why yet).
what size frame should I have?[/QUOTE]

5' 10" with a 30" inseam?
Sounds to me like you were kneecapped by the mob at birth. I'm 5'8" and wear 32" inseam pants.

The real answer is that we all NEED (not want) custom made lugged frames.

Now tell me how to explain that to my wife. 'Dear, the reason I have four bikes is that none of them really fit me. If I had a custom made frame, then I would only need one bike.'

repeat.repeat.repeat

discourse constructs reality.

Whew, things have been so busy ... sorry. If you like the bike you have, I would try to make it fit. A setback seatpost shouldn't cost too much. For us folks with long torsos, the key fit issues are toptube length (obviously) and seattube angle. If you have a steep geometry frame, you may have a hard time fitting the bike even with a setback seatpost, but if it's a road conversion, it should work out.

Jim