short stem/forward setback - or high seat..

djhnz

So i seem to be a mutant...

My proportions seem wack, i must have long legs/short torso. On my old bike i went with the super high seat, and new bike i have switched up to an 80mm stem (didn't notice the twitching people warned me of) and a somewhat normal seatpost height. Still feeling a little stretched out.

What the verdict when between sizes, i generally like to be pretty aero. I'm 5'11" riding a M/L TCR right now, previously had a M Tarmac. Thinking of a new bike and not sure which direction is generally the preferred one..

Doesn't seem to matter what brand, i'm always in the middle. I figured since Giant have a size between M and L i would give that a go, but still doesn't seem quite right.

imposter2.0

Not sure what you mean by 'super high' seat and 'normal seatpost height' - would it not make sense to simply have the 'correct' seat height and go from there?

djhnz

Imposter wrote:

Not sure what you mean by 'super high' seat and 'normal seatpost height' - would it not make sense to simply have the 'correct' seat height and go from there?

Sorry, by super high i mean i'm using a lot of the seatpost, but its the correct height. You have 2 options, smaller frame more seatpost, or larger frame and shorter stem.

dstev55

I could have easily created this thread. Your circumstances are exactly (other than the bikes) the same as mine. I feel my body isn't made cycling as I always suffer with a bad back as I can't find a position I'm happy with due to my lanky long legs.

trailflow

Those are two options but it doesnt necessarily achieve the same thing. A bigger bike isn't designed to have a short stem on it. So you are going to get negative effects.

Whats is your torso and legs and arm length ?

What was the top tube length of your M Tarmac ? What stem length did you have on and how big was the spacer stack underneath ? What negatives did the position have ?

''Medium/Medium Large/Large'' means nothing comparing between brands. The effective top tube length in mm's the key measurement. And they differ and vary from brand to brand/model to model.

Believe it or not, you are not really meant to put an 80mm stem on a road bike unless on a size XS/S and the rider is very short in height/reach. at 5'11 there is no good reason to do it on a M/L TCR other than to fix a sizing error. By your own confession you are feeling stretched out. Its because your bike is too big. And your saddle positioning theory is wrong. And a short 80mm stem hasn't fixed anything

a 100-130mm stem is the ideal length for a road bike. Because when you stand out of the saddle you will have more room to shift your bodyweight towards the front and over the crank helping you turn the pedals over. And it give you more room for your knee's to move and not hit the handlebar. This is even more apparent when climbing a steep hill out of the saddle and the front end and handlebars are tilted towards you as the space becomes even more limited.

When sitting and climbing steep hills the secondary negative result of a 80mm short stem will be the front wheel feeling light,unweighted and it raising of the ground.

It's not a good idea to have a longer top tube frame to make up for any of that. Because when sat in the saddle (most of the your time riding), you are then using your arm reach to extend and compensate hence being/feeling stretched out.

You can acheive the same position on a smaller frame with higher/further setback seatpost (giving you more leg room) and a higher and longer stem, but your weight distribution will be more equally balanced across the bike (how it was designed to be) And the front end will handle better because there will be more traction/grip of the front tyre.

400mm seatposts exist for a good reason. If indeed your legs are longer than average, a higher/further back seatpost is the key thing to adjust and change first. Not change the front end of the bike/stem length/top tube length. Basically you dont change the reach if there is an issue with your leg length. Unless you also need more reach i.e a bigger longer frame.

a smaller sized bike with higher/further back seatpost and a higher/longer stem (if needed) is a better compromise all round. Sitting,standing,climbing,weight distribution and front end handling. But will also will give you more flexibilty to fine tune the stem length to match your arm reach in a neutral sitting position which is where you are feeling stretched out.

mugensi

In general its easier to make a smaller framed bike fit you than it is a larger frame so go with the smaller of the two sizes and change to a longer stem if necessary.

onionmk

Go with the smaller frame i.e more exposed seatpost. Unless the saddle to bar drop becomes too extreme for your fit.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Maybe look at road bikes that are more endurance orientated, that will have relatively long head tubes for their size. For example, you might fit a 56cm Cube Attain GTC Pro Disc 2016 pretty well.
https://www.paulscycles.co.uk/m7b0s6p66 ... -DISC-2016

https://www.cube.eu/uk/products/road-ra ... hred-2016/

rolf_f

trailflow wrote:

Believe it or not, you are not really meant to put an 80mm stem on a road bike unless on a size XS/S and the rider is very short in height/reach. at 5'11 there is no good reason to do it on a M/L TCR other than to fix a sizing error. By your own confession you are feeling stretched out. Its because your bike is too big. And your saddle positioning theory is wrong. And a short 80mm stem hasn't fixed anything

a 100-130mm stem is the ideal length for a road bike. Because when you stand out of the saddle you will have more room to shift your bodyweight towards the front and over the crank helping you turn the pedals over. And it give you more room for your knee's to move and not hit the handlebar. This is even more apparent when climbing a steep hill out of the saddle and the front end and handlebars are tilted towards you as the space becomes even more limited.

Really, 80mm stems on big bikes aren't a problem - I suspect the handling thing is more a theoretical than real world risk. .

The issue about your knees not hitting the bar shouldn't make much difference. The correct reach is the correct reach however it is achieved and the length of your legs doesn't come into it. So if you have the correct reach, and your knees hit the bars out of the saddle, then that will happen whether or not you achieve that fit by small frame, long stem or vice versa. Imagine someone with ludicrously long legs and normal arms - they wouldn't be able to ride any bike no matter what fit because their knees would always hit the bars whether in or out of the saddle.

If your proportions are odd, you just don't fit frames as well as others do. NitrousOxide is right - go for the endurance oriented bikes. It's what I do and it works.

trailflow

Rolf F wrote:

Really, 80mm stems on big bikes aren't a problem

When climbing steep hills out of the saddle, the bike tilts upwards, you move forwards to stay balanced, the space up front becomes more cramped, a longer stem will give you more room and it also allow you to shift further forwards more towards the front end and over the front wheel. This will reduce the weight from the rear (where most if it is) and allow you to use your body weight as an advantage to help you turn the the cranks over, so a longer stem will give you more maneuverability and will aid your climbing and make it easier.
a longer top tube with a short stem wont achieve the same thing because the longer top tube would only help up to where the stem begins. Not after. with a short stem there is only so far you can position yourself over the front wheel.
a shorter stem will reduce that frontal space while standing and and restrict how far you can shift forward.
And it will keep your weight towards the rear (where you dont want it) when climbing standing.
Road bikes with long stems always climb better than short stems.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

trailflow wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Road bikes with long stems always climb better than short stems.

Unless rear wheel traction is an issue.

trailflow

NitrousOxide wrote:

Unless rear wheel traction is an issue.

An 80mm stem isnt going to make much difference of the rear wheel traction while standing.
If the ground is loose or the surface is slippy, and your rear wheel slips ,that will happen whether the stem is 60mm or 140mm. Because the rear end becomes unweighted (while standing). Sitting down will stop your rear wheel slipping no matter what size your stem is.

daniel_b

I likely have the same, or very similar dimensions and subsequent issues to yourself.

What is your inside leg measurement, and not the length you buy your trousers in?!

I am 5ft 10, with a 34" inseam - another by product of these dimensions is that I have to buy bib shorts in a size smaller than might otherwise be ideal, to get the straps to be tight enough.

Anyway, I bought my first bike based on height - a 56cm Felt, and this was way too big, I fudged it with an inline seatpost, and a short flipped stem, but it was far from ideal.

I also have, or had a bit of a back issue, though this is mostly cleared up now, and repeated riding, has also improved my flexibility and ability to endure, or cope with the riding position, be it on the hoods, or in the drops.

So my best bike is a 54, and I used to ride this with an inline seatpost, but as my flexibility improved I have since migrated to a setback seatpost - this is paired with a 90mm stem.

My eureka moment was buying an Endurance bike, in this instance a Cannondale Synapse - shorter top tube, and critically a taller headtube.
This was the first time since coming back to cycling, I experienced real comfort on a road bike.
In theory it's a fairly uprihgt position, but for the likes of me and you, there is plenty of seatpost showing, and plenty of spacers to slam the front end as you, hopefully, become more flexible.

alan_sherman

Do you run Shimano? Their stis seemed to add 2cm to reach when they went to internal cables.

animal72

alan sherman wrote:

Do you run Shimano? Their stis seemed to add 2cm to reach when they went to internal cables.

...and another 2cm for Hydraulics

rolf_f

trailflow wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Really, 80mm stems on big bikes aren't a problem

When climbing steep hills out of the saddle, the bike tilts upwards, you move forwards to stay balanced, the space up front becomes more cramped, a longer stem will give you more room and it also allow you to shift further forwards more towards the front end and over the front wheel. This will reduce the weight from the rear (where most if it is) and allow you to use your body weight as an advantage to help you turn the the cranks over, so a longer stem will give you more maneuverability and will aid your climbing and make it easier.
a longer top tube with a short stem wont achieve the same thing because the longer top tube would only help up to where the stem begins. Not after. with a short stem there is only so far you can position yourself over the front wheel.
a shorter stem will reduce that frontal space while standing and and restrict how far you can shift forward.
And it will keep your weight towards the rear (where you dont want it) when climbing standing.
Road bikes with long stems always climb better than short stems.

So I guess that a bike with a long stem will descend less well than a bike with a short stem! Seriously though - I doubt it makes much difference in terms of perception after the first few minutes. I've got up 1 in 4s with a short stem and it wasn't a problem. Occasionally, if riding clumsily, the front wheel has lifted off the ground - maybe that happens slightly less if the stem is longer but as long as the front wheel is planted, which it mostly is, I don't see a problem

You don't have more room with the long stem bike - the "room" is exactly the same as the bars are the same distance from the saddle in both cases assuming the fit is correct in both cases (aside from slight differences when the bars are turned). The difference is just that the front wheel is a little further forward on the bigger frame. Move to a smaller frame and you need a big stack of spacers between the stem and the frame to compensate. Whether that matters beyond aesthetics I don't know.

rolf_f

alan sherman wrote:

Do you run Shimano? Their stis seemed to add 2cm to reach when they went to internal cables.

When I had my fit, I was told that my preference for Campag was handy in terms of the more compact units. Compact bars were also necessary.

sopworth

To the OP:
Have you not considered just visiting a good bike fitter and seeing what he/she thinks and take it from there? You may be throwing good money after bad by just trying to stick a plaster over issues that could be resolved by a professional looking at you on the bike.
I know there will be many on this forum that think a bike fit is a waste of money, but a good fitter is certainly not, and by the sounds of it, you could do with some sound advice from someone watching you on the bike.
Good luck sorting it out.