Top tube lengths
GaryGkn
Posts: 1,199
I have been looking at bike fit and it seems to me that a lot of bikes especially traditional steel frames tend to have a top tube around 22" to 22" 1/2. I am just 6ft but I find even with a 90mm stem and seat pushed as far forward as possible my hands don't fall naturally on the hoods unless I stretch. I generally ride 23".
Does anyone know of a traditional steel frame with a short top tube?
Does anyone know of a traditional steel frame with a short top tube?
0
Comments
-
Gios. In relative terms, they've got very short top tubes in their larger sizes, i.e. 55 cm for a 58 cm c-to-c seat tube (if memory serves).0
-
-
Thanks I'll look into Gios and a bit more experimenting with what I have.0
-
The Thorn Audax Mk3 is available in a short top tube version - one size only, 555mm virtual seat tube, 530mm virtual top tube. The geometry is apparently not suitable for the carbon forks that Thorn recommend for most of the range.
Please dont take this as an attempt to be offensive, but if you want to find frames with shorter top tubes you might do well to look for womens versions. As I understand it, a shorter top tube is the principal difference.0 -
No offence taken. I have had the same thought.
[url=hhttp://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2006/7/21/what-does-the-length-of-your-forearm-and-the-price-of-fish-h.html]hhttp://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/b ... ish-h.html[/url]
If you look at the main photo at the start of this article I can just about manage the same on an old Trek which has a top tube of 55cm and the stem at 80mm stem up at 8cm high. My fore arm to the end of my finger tip is 45cm.
I was looking at Rivendell bikes and they recommend putting your bars 2cm above the seat level. This could actually save me as it would virtually shorten the long top tube. I need a long stem to test it out.
What do you think of Moulton's thoughts on the subject?0 -
0
-
I've heard the of size of ones feet being related to the size of other body parts. Curiously, the forearm wasn't among them!
My first impression is that theres a lot of generalisations here. On the other hand, if he's made a living as a frame builder then there must be a useful amount of truth in it.
I would say that much depends on having your saddle in the right position. I'm not absolutely sure that mine is, so I'm not impressed by the suggestion about sliding the saddle backwards and forwards to get a comfortable reach. It might not do any harm, short term, but sacrificing a reasonably correct setting to change another seems illogical. If you try it, and settle upon a "perfect" stem length, it doesnt seem to follow that changing to a stem of this length will actually work when you put the saddle back - for my money there are too many other factors involved at the same time.
The bike I've been using recently has a comfortable reach for me, but the bars are 3" below seat level, and I have too much weight coming onto my hands. I've been trying to assess what length stem I would need if I raised them to, say level. I've given up scratching my head - I'm going to get some stems and try it!0 -
I think experimentation may result in success.0
