Seat tube longer than top tube?

Girona

I just used the Bike Fit Calculator at competitivecyclist.com. The results puzzled me, as the calculator suggests I need a bike with a seat tube that's longer than the top tube (59 vs 56 cm respectively). Do these results seem plausible? Are there any bikes with this kind of geometry?

The frame I have been able to find that's closest to this is the Cube Agree GTC Pro in size 60. It has a 56 cm seat tube and 57 cm top tube. That seems to be a decent compromise. Would you agree (pun intended...)?

matt-h

Why can't you just have more seat post showing?

Matt

rafletcher

matt-h wrote:

Why can't you just have more seat post showing?

Matt

Because that will just increase the reach as well, as the higher saddle will be further back - from both bars and BB.

I'd suggest that (assuming the OP already has a bike) that a Retul fit or similar would be a good investment. It would appear that you have proportionately longer legs and shorter torso/arms than average, hence the "non-standard" geometry suggestion.

Girona

rafletcher wrote:

It would appear that you have proportionately longer legs and shorter torso/arms than average

I would have thought that 87 inseam is rather short for 189 total body height?

keef66

I have longer legs / short torso and I bought a CR1 for the short top tube (among other things). Fits a treat.

matt-h

rafletcher wrote:

matt-h wrote:

Why can't you just have more seat post showing?

Matt

Because that will just increase the reach as well, as the higher saddle will be further back - from both bars and BB.

I'd suggest that (assuming the OP already has a bike) that a Retul fit or similar would be a good investment. It would appear that you have proportionately longer legs and shorter torso/arms than average, hence the "non-standard" geometry suggestion.

So you move saddle further forward to compensate the Seat Tube angle.
I've had a Retul fit and would recommend as well

Matt

Grill

Is this your first road bike? Keep in mind that the calculator (much like the metrics Retul uses) are just a guide. Don't get hung up on seat tube length as a longer post will do the job (there's a reason inline posts exist and you can move the saddle forward on the rails if necessary). I'd go to a shop with a decent reputation for fitting (Retul is mostly hype and is unnecessary as it will just suggest you buy a Specialized) and have them help you with choosing the right bike in the correct size.

rafletcher

Grill wrote:

(Retul... will just suggest you buy a Specialized)

Rubbish. At least as far as the guy I saw is concerned. Never mentioned Specialized at all. He did mention Argon 18, which is ultimately what I bought.

Grill

rafletcher wrote:

Grill wrote:

(Retul... will just suggest you buy a Specialized)

Rubbish. At least as far as the guy I saw is concerned. Never mentioned Specialized at all. He did mention Argon 18, which is ultimately what I bought.

Specialized own Retul and so the suggested bikes built in to the software are Specialized bikes. The guy you saw probably didn't sell Spec or didn't feel like recommending them, but that doesn't change the software itself.

darkhairedlord

the only sure way of getting equivalence is stack and reach.
Go try out a load of bikes until one fits you, remember what it was and what size.
Look up the stack and reach on the geometry chart.
Use these measurements to compare bikes you like the look of.
Remember, the stack can be altered by adding spacers (not too many though!) and the reach by swapping for a shorter or longer stem.
the "size" of the bike 52,54,56,58 s/m/l etc is largely a red herring and pretty meaningless.

term1te

Seems reasonable, if the bike is the same style as your avatar.

turbo1191

Try looking at 'sportive' type of bikes. Im also on a scott cr1 pro like keef66. Had a defy before that. ive got really long legs and a short torso.