Bike fitting - short legs/long trunk

Not to knock Giant frames, but their limited size availability could
cause problems for in-between people like you. Try taking both sizes
out for an extended ride.

I suggest you check into other brands whose manufacturers measure
sizes differently and have a wider length range available. As an
example, Lemond bikes have conservative (i.e. shorter) seat post
lengths. A 53 cm Lemond fits me the same as a 56 cm Cannondale though
the top tube is about the same length. I've come to the conclusion
that top tube length, effective or real, means more than the seatpost
measurement.

I'm also short legged....for sure get a long extension (& or tall)
stem;
make sure you have adequate crotch clearance 4 safety

Quoted message said:

My legs are shorter and upper body longer than average for my height

of

Quoted message said:

5'10". Are there any rules of thumb or suggested bike brands when
fitting people like me?

I'm looking at a Giant OCR 1. According to my inseam measurement, I
would only need a 53cm frame, however which borderline b/w a Small

and

Quoted message said:

Medium frame. Based on my height, however, Medium is the recommended
size.

What are the advantages/disadvantages to going with the smaller vs.
larger frame? Since pedal reach or top tube clearance is not an issue
with this bike, I'm thinking that the Medium geometry would be more
suitable.

Any thoughts? Thanks!

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My legs are shorter and upper body longer than average for my height of
5'10". Are there any rules of thumb or suggested bike brands when
fitting people like me?

I'm looking at a Giant OCR 1. According to my inseam measurement, I
would only need a 53cm frame, however which borderline b/w a Small and
Medium frame. Based on my height, however, Medium is the recommended
size.

What are the advantages/disadvantages to going with the smaller vs.
larger frame? Since pedal reach or top tube clearance is not an issue
with this bike, I'm thinking that the Medium geometry would be more
suitable.

Any thoughts? Thanks!

I'm built just like you and have dealt with this problem for all my cycling
life. Focus on getting a bike with a top tube (or "effective" top tube in
the case of a compact frame) that fits you. No standard fit technicque is
going to get you on a large enough frame. You'll end up with your seat
jammed all the way back (which is tough on saddle rails) and you'll end up
with a stem that's too long (which can result in handling issues ...
especially if you do much fast descending). How many times have you racked
yourself on the top tube of your current bike ... or any bike for that
matter? Don't worry about stand-over height or things like that. Normal
people can worry about that. We knuckle-draggers cannot. Size the bike so
that the reach is right when you use about an 11 cm stem. That's about the
ideal.

Now, what I've found is that many European ... and especially Italian ...
frames are made for people who are exactly the opposite of us. You'll have
a really tough time getting a conventional (non-compact) Pinarello or
Bianchi or DeRosa to fit you.

If I recall correctly, and if things haven't changed, Eddy Merckx and Lemond
have more "relaxed" geometries that work OK. There are lots of compact
frames that have longer "effective" top tubes relative to their frame sizes
and standover heights. The problem I have with going that route is that, in
sizes that work for me, it can be hard to get anything but a small water
bottle on the seat tube. I live in a hot climate. I need to carry lots of
water.

I ended up on a Trek OCLV. It's a pretty good geometry if you're a
long-torso type. My stem is a touch on the long side and my saddle is a bit
set back ... but it works.

I hope this helps you some.

--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

Quoted message said:

make sure you have adequate crotch clearance 4 safety

Have to disagree.

I have a 29" pants (not bike measure) inseam and am 5'11.5" tall.

If it is a road bike, the last thing you need to worry about is crotch
clearance. Different story of a mtn bike.

I ride a Lemond BA 56 cm so I can get their long top tube (which is one
of the more important measurements, IMHO) with 0.5" crotch clearance.

Never had a problem (said he in his very high voice) 😄

Colorado Bicycler said:

Quoted message said:

make sure you have adequate crotch clearance 4 safety

Have to disagree.

I have a 29" pants (not bike measure) inseam and am 5'11.5" tall.

If it is a road bike, the last thing you need to worry about is crotch
clearance. Different story of a mtn bike.

I ride a Lemond BA 56 cm so I can get their long top tube (which is one
of the more important measurements, IMHO) with 0.5" crotch clearance.

Never had a problem (said he in his very high voice) 😄

I agree. I'm the same build, roughly. 6'1" tall. 29 inch inseam. I ride a
size 58 Trek 1000. They had to do some funky stuff to the stem to get it
to fit right. Thus a fitting is well worth the money spent.

Preston

"Colorado Bicycler" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1112399589.474981.257210
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

I wonder if any of the "compact" frames will fit us long-torso types.
Anyone know?

Some will and some won't. Some compact frames have very short top tubes
and/or too tall head tubes.

In some ways, compact frames are better for us. You can get a larger size
compact frame, have a longer effective top tube length, and still have some
stand-over clearance (if you're worried about that).

--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
"Ken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Colorado Bicycler" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:1112399589.474981.257210
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

I wonder if any of the "compact" frames will fit us long-torso types.
Anyone know?

Some will and some won't. Some compact frames have very short top tubes
and/or too tall head tubes.

Quoted message said:

No standard fit technicque is

going to get you on a large enough frame.

Yes, I get real strange sizes out of WrenchScience and other sites!

They don't have a clue.

psycholist wrote:

<I'm built just like you and have dealt with this problem for all my
cycling
life. Focus on getting a bike with a top tube (or "effective" top tube
in
the case of a compact frame) that fits you. No standard fit technicque
is
going to get you on a large enough frame. You'll end up with your seat

jammed all the way back (which is tough on saddle rails) and you'll end
up
with a stem that's too long (which can result in handling issues ... >
(snip)

What "handling issues" would those be?

(unsnip)
<especially if you do much fast descending).>

Not IME. "Fast" being relative, of course. My current "max" on the
Cateye 7 is only 48+; "erased" high was 62mph. That biggie could have
been an error, but 48mph isn't hard to find here in Austin. I lived in
the Rockies (Independence Pass area) and used a long stem for riding
and touring there, too. Not a problem, at least for me.

<How many times have you racked
yourself on the top tube of your current bike ... or any bike for that
matter? Don't worry about stand-over height or things like that.
Normal
people can worry about that. We knuckle-draggers cannot.>

I rode a 59 c-c ST (Maserati) for awhile. I learned to be careful, so
as not to imitate the Ooo-Ahh bird. Not a graceful solution to the
long-torso sizing problem.

<Size the bike so
that the reach is right when you use about an 11 cm stem. That's about
the ideal.>

This is all personal, but there is nothing "ideal" for me with an 11cm
stem. I got lucky a few years ago and bought a "custom for someone
else" Ti frame that is 53cm seat, 59.5 TT, after being fitted at a
well-known frame maker who "had something used in the attic". I use a
130 stem with 44 c-c "deep" bars, and 165 cranks.

Works great, by far the best-fitting setup I've had since starting this
bike thing in 1968 or so. "Finally one for me", having owned
everything from 54 to 59 seat tubes in order to try to get a fit.

Several times over the years, even on bikes with short-for-me top
tubes, I've been solemnly told "That stem is too long for you". And "44
bars!?!?" I've even had someone heatedly exclaim "165 crankarms are not
for the road!!!" And of course, custom-fit frames are regularly
poo-poohed by people who match off the shelf frames and/or believe one
"shouldn't spend that much money on a bicycle" for some somewhat whacko
reason or another.

Point being: If I listened to people who believe and repeat "myth and
lore", I wouldn't be riding the bike I enjoy today. The 165's? My knees
appreciate that purchase a lot. Wide bars, long reach? I can breathe
and my knees don't hit my elbows when pedaling in the drops, and my
back goes low and flat with hands in those deep drops, too. Besides the
increased "comfort", I look at my position in reflective windows while
riding, and like what I see ("as if he had a normal body"😉. The
components, incl. frame, are just "how you get there".

Not cheap, but IMHO the best investment for a "serious" (dedicated?
loyal? frequent?) cyclist is starting with a frame that fits. The
long-torso people seem to know this best <g>. Custom sized frames are
available in steel and Ti at pretty reasonable prices, esp. compared to
high-end off-the-shelf stuff.

The easiest "test" for the importance of "a fit you like" for me is
climbing back on the old Tommasini SLX (no chopped liver there, but
approx. 55cm, c-c, ST/TT). Yeow. What a difference. Even with 44 deeps
on a 130, and 165's... --TP

I'm getting confused.

I pretty sure that my current bike, a 56cm, is too big and I need a
bike with a shorter top tube (current top tube is 558mm). I am reaching
too far forward and my back is too stretched out on it (my back is
probably at a 38-40 deg angle, as opposed to the 45 deg that is ideal),
which results in neck/back stiffness and headaches.

Yet, when holding the drops, I can see the front hub in *front* of the
handlebars, which would seem to indicate that the top tube is too
short, not too long.

I think the problem is that I have short arms, in addition to short
legs and a long trunk. My sleeve size with dress shirts is 32/33.
Perhaps I could use a shorter/higher stem and move the seat forward.
But then my knees would touch my elbows at the top of the pedal stroke.
If I get a smaller framed bike, I'm also concerned that the bars would
be too, which would also cause neck/back pain.

My "knuckle dragging factor" isn't as drastic as some of the other guys
who have posted in this thread (29" inseam/6'1", etc.). My pants inseam
is 29/30 and I'm 5'10".

Correction to last post:
"If I get a smaller framed bike, I'm also concerned that the bars would

be too low, which would also cause neck/back pain."

plin said:

I pretty sure that my current bike, a 56cm, is too big and I need a
bike with a shorter top tube (current top tube is 558mm). I am

reaching

Quoted message said:

too far forward and my back is too stretched out on it (my back is
probably at a 38-40 deg angle, as opposed to the 45 deg that is

ideal),

Quoted message said:

which results in neck/back stiffness and headaches.

Quoted message said:

Yet, when holding the drops, I can see the front hub in *front* of the

Quoted message said:

handlebars, which would seem to indicate that the top tube is too
short, not too long.

Take a look at yourself while riding past a length of reflective
windows (as opposed to "posing" in front of a mirror); an easy way to
see what kind of position you have. There isn't anything "fixed" about
back angle, or where the hub is when you look down, either. Compare a
racing geometry frame to a touring setup; head angle and offset "move"
the hub, as well as top tube length.

You're only looking for reasonable comfort while doing the sort of
riding that suits you. There are many variations that work. If you are
fairly new at riding, or re-starting after a time away, perhaps you are
"toughening in". BTDT, not much fun. I had to learn and re-learn how to
relax the upper body, and move the hands around to get away from an
uncomfortable "death grip" on the bars (incl. "scrunch"😉. Another thing
that a little "window feedback" can help with. (Don't scare the
secretaries or have a collision while admiring yourself.)

Is there a shop nearby that does fitting for a reasonable fee, as a
service apart from buying a bike? --TP

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Point being: If I listened to people who believe and repeat "myth and
lore", I wouldn't be riding the bike I enjoy today.

I'm not repeating myth and lore. I'm informing the original poster what
I've learned from many years of direct experience. Nobody ever told me
these things and you don't generally find them published anywhere. As the
other posters on this thread have indicated, if you're a knuckle dragger,
you're pretty much on your own.

If the things I've mentioned haven't been your experience, then fine. The
things you talked about aren't consistent with my experience, either.
However, you might note from the other posters in this thread that the
things I've indicated ARE consistent with most of their experiences.

I was only trying to be helpful. I didn't deserve your arrogant reply. I'd
expect it in rec.bicycles.racing, but not here.

--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm getting confused.

I pretty sure that my current bike, a 56cm, is too big and I need a
bike with a shorter top tube (current top tube is 558mm). I am reaching
too far forward and my back is too stretched out on it (my back is
probably at a 38-40 deg angle, as opposed to the 45 deg that is ideal),
which results in neck/back stiffness and headaches.

Yet, when holding the drops, I can see the front hub in *front* of the
handlebars, which would seem to indicate that the top tube is too
short, not too long.

I think the problem is that I have short arms, in addition to short
legs and a long trunk. My sleeve size with dress shirts is 32/33.
Perhaps I could use a shorter/higher stem and move the seat forward.
But then my knees would touch my elbows at the top of the pedal stroke.
If I get a smaller framed bike, I'm also concerned that the bars would
be too, which would also cause neck/back pain.

My "knuckle dragging factor" isn't as drastic as some of the other guys
who have posted in this thread (29" inseam/6'1", etc.). My pants inseam
is 29/30 and I'm 5'10".

How much do you ride? Lots of folks suffer sore necks in the early parts of
their seasons and they go away as the miles and fitness build. Everyone is
different when it comes to riding style. I like an aggressive, racing-style
position. Nobody gets much of a draft behind me 'cuz I'm small and I stay
low. It works for me. Not everybody can ride like that. There are no hard
and fast rules to this ... only general guidelines. I think the general
guideline you should be taking away from the posts on this thread is that
you should worry most about getting a frame with a top tube that suits you
versus one that's sized to work with your inseam length (which is the
typical, no-brainer LBS way of sizing a bike).

But as [email hidden] rudely, but rightly said, you can also consider a
custom frame where you can have your cake and eat it, too. But even then,
you have to have some idea what will work for you and what won't. A good
LBS will swap out stems for you to help dial in the fit. Mine once sold me
a Look Ergostem (adjustable) so I could experiment, then bought it back for
full price after a couple of weeks when I figured out what I needed for a
fixed stem.

Good luck,
--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

Quoted message said:

I'm getting confused.

I pretty sure that my current bike, a 56cm, is too big and I need a
bike with a shorter top tube (current top tube is 558mm). I am

reaching

Quoted message said:

too far forward and my back is too stretched out on it (my back is
probably at a 38-40 deg angle, as opposed to the 45 deg that is

ideal),

Quoted message said:

which results in neck/back stiffness and headaches.

Sounds like you'd feel better with shorter reach, either shorter stem
or top tube or both.

Quoted message said:

Yet, when holding the drops, I can see the front hub in *front* of

the

Quoted message said:

handlebars, which would seem to indicate that the top tube is too
short, not too long.

This is your problem. Forget that hidden hub myth. Say you're in your
theoretical perfect ideal position. There's a range of good head angles
and fork rakes that will put the hub forward or back from view. You
shouldn't change your position just cause your bike may have slightly
different steering geometry.

Quoted message said:

I think the problem is that I have short arms, in addition to short
legs and a long trunk. My sleeve size with dress shirts is 32/33.
Perhaps I could use a shorter/higher stem

May be worth a try!

Quoted message said:

and move the seat forward.
But then my knees would touch my elbows at the top of the pedal

stroke.

So don't move the seat forward.

Quoted message said:

If I get a smaller framed bike, I'm also concerned that the bars

would

Quoted message said:

be too low, which would also cause neck/back pain.

Yeah, you're right about that. Bars too low is no fun!!

psycholist said:

I'm not repeating myth and lore. I'm informing the original poster

what

Quoted message said:

I've learned from many years of direct experience.

Suggesting that a 11cm stem is "about right" and that longer stems
invite "handling problems" sure sounded like "myth and lore" to me. You
could have taken my words as an invitation to relate an incident where
using a shorter stem cured a handling problem on fast descents, if your
experience includes this occurrence. Sorry, but otherwise you sound
like one of those folks who've told me: "that stem is much too long for
your size frame, it means your bike doesn't fit".

If the OP is still with us:

<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/kops.html> --TP

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

psycholist said:

I'm not repeating myth and lore. I'm informing the original poster

what

Quoted message said:

I've learned from many years of direct experience.

Suggesting that a 11cm stem is "about right" and that longer stems
invite "handling problems" sure sounded like "myth and lore" to me. You
could have taken my words as an invitation to relate an incident where
using a shorter stem cured a handling problem on fast descents, if your
experience includes this occurrence. Sorry, but otherwise you sound
like one of those folks who've told me: "that stem is much too long for
your size frame, it means your bike doesn't fit".

It's kinda funny that you post a link to Sheldon Brown. It was years ago
now, but my LBS had put me on a 48 cm frame because of my inseam dimension.
I ended up with a 13.5 cm stem. I was doing lots of mountain riding and was
having all kinds of problems handling the bike on descents. I went to
rec.bicycles.tech and posted to the group about it. One of the replies I
got suggesting I try a shorter stem was from Jobst Brandt. Well, I ended up
making a couple of adjustments ... I did go to a shorter stem and I went to
a seatpost that allowed more setback. Handling of the bike improved
dramatically! In researching for my next bike, I found a number of postings
and fitting articles suggesting that longer stem lengths can contribute to
handling issues. I don't have these at my fingertips. You can search for
them yourself. I'm actually quite happy with my current setup which has me
on a 12 cm stem.

Actually, you're the only person I've ever encountered who disagreed that
longer stems can contribute to handling problems. I didn't say they always
do. I said they "can contribute to handling problems." Obviously, there
are always other variables and, if you've read all my posts on this thread,
I've said there are no rules ... only general guidelines. There are plenty
of exceptions.

But while you're speaking of myth and lore, I find it funny that you're
invoking a link to Sheldon Brown. I respect Sheldon Brown and read lots of
his stuff. But I don't always find it to be beyond question. People invoke
Sheldon Brown like his word is handed down from God. Similarly, they invoke
Jobst Brandt's name -- mostly without knowing what he really says on a
topic.

I've been riding and reading for enough years to have formed my own views on
many aspects of cycling. I offer my own views, my experience and the
synthesis of the many things I've read. As I said, you're experience may
vary. That's no excuse for rudeness.

--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

Quoted message said:

If the OP is still with us:

<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/kops.html> --TP

psycholist said:

It's kinda funny that you post a link to Sheldon Brown.

"Funny?" May we get the "why I don't like Sheldon Brown" story quickly,
please?

Quoted message said:

One of the replies I got suggesting I try a shorter stem was from

Jobst Brandt. >Well, I ended up making a couple of adjustments ... I
did go to a shorter stem >and I went to a seatpost that allowed more
setback. Handling of the bike >improved dramatically!

Yes, you moved your butt back maybe even further than your hands,
pushing the bulk of your weight back and off the front wheel. No
surprise that the handling improved! The point being: If you made more
than one change at the same time, you can't know which change did what.
Don't offer this as any kind of "proof" that long stems lead to
handling problems, much less invoke the name of Jobst Brandt as if he
oversaw your project and rubberstamped your "findings" (this last just
to see if you enjoy others twisting your words and intent; "shoe on the
other foot" as it were).

BTW, "I find it kinda funny that you invoke the name of Jobst Brandt as
an ally while complaining of rudeness".

Quoted message said:

Actually, you're the only person I've ever encountered who disagreed

that

Quoted message said:

longer stems can contribute to handling problems.

Not what I said, at all. I took issue with your "110 stem is about
right" statement. Stuck out like a sore lower back in a thread
concerning folks who don't fit short top tubes! You raised the specter
of "handling problems" (ooooooh, handling problems on fast
downhills!!!! Booga booga! Stay away from long stems, or it could
happen to you, too!!!) based on faulty experimentation; point of fact
and in your words, without the knowledge that your long stem really
caused the problem in the first place. This is "textbook" how myth and
lore is spread.

Still have that bike? If you kept everything else the same as "cured",
and put your old long stem back on, then maybe you'd know something.
Maybe. No apologies for poking at that one, psycholist.

Quoted message said:

I find it funny that you're invoking a link to Sheldon Brown. I

respect Sheldon >Brown and read lots of his stuff. But I don't always
find it to be beyond question. >People invoke Sheldon Brown like his
word is handed down from God. Similarly, >they invoke Jobst Brandt's
name -- mostly without knowing what he really says >on a topic.

Digging at Sheldon again, in the same post? Please: "Why I don't like
Sheldon Brown", short and sweet? Besides falsely having me attribute
infallibility to Sheldon Brown, are you also accusing me of misquoting
J. Brandt?

Hoping you'll experiment with that old bike and report back. --TP

Focus on adequate top tube length, rather than seat tube height. Spend the
money on a professional fit. Once you know what combined tobtube/stem
length you need, you can see what's available. At your height, you will
probably be using a relatively large frame (a 55-56cm) and can probably get
away with a 130 mm stem. I wouldn't recommend going any longer.

"Colorado Bicycler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

make sure you have adequate crotch clearance 4 safety

Have to disagree.

I have a 29" pants (not bike measure) inseam and am 5'11.5" tall.

If it is a road bike, the last thing you need to worry about is crotch
clearance. Different story of a mtn bike.

I ride a Lemond BA 56 cm so I can get their long top tube (which is one
of the more important measurements, IMHO) with 0.5" crotch clearance.

Never had a problem (said he in his very high voice) 😄