Sliding off back of saddle.

[AugustusWindsock]

Thanks for the further comments @MikeF and @CyberKnight.

I do accept that the Marin might be a bit small. I still have very little stand-over clearance though so it seems that I either have to put up with a rather small bike or potentially mashed taters in the event of a clumsy dismount.

I have been thinking about getting a new bike, which was probably my main reason for joining here. However, I get easily overwhelmed by the choices and specs, particularly as I'm somewhere in the freak zone size-wise. I've no idea whether to go for another hybrid (I've loved the Marin and it's always seemed nice to ride to me) or something like a commuter-oriented drop bar bike.

The whole sizing thing is a major can of worms. I've been dipping into Grant Peterson's "Just Ride" (he runs Rivendell Bicycle Works in the USA) and he claims that nearly all bikes sold are too small for the rider. I was drawn to the Marin as it's the only bike I've ever been able to have a significant bit of seat-post visible above the seat tube, which makes the bike look like everyone elses. In contrast, my adolescent self had a 10-speed Puch Cavalier that had the seat fully lowered, presumably in the expectation that I'd grow a bit. I didn't. Or at least my legs didn't.

It's reassuring that, if the members here are anything to go by, I'm not a complete-and-utter outlier in terms of physique. There seem to be blokes on here who are not a million miles away from my diminutive height. I do think my leg length is somewhat to the left of the bell curve though and this would seem to limit my choices.

It's not helped when one is casually browsing the push-iron builders websites and you see this sort of thing:
https://www.boardmanbikes.com/gb_en/products/1568-asr-8.8.html

Small size on the Boardman is for just under 5'8" to 5'9.5" with minimum inseam of just under 32". Guess that's them off my list then!

[horizon]

According to my figures (but please check them) your inside leg (if crotch to barefoot on the floor) is 44.7% of your overall height. Mine is 49.34% which is on the high side and I'm a devilishly handsome fellow. That makes you about average - not sure why that is freakish.

Here's another thread:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=120275

[Freddie]

I do accept that the Marin might be a bit small. I still have very little stand-over clearance though so it seems that I either have to put up with a rather small bike or potentially mashed taters in the event of a clumsy dismount.

Unless your legs are quite overextended (given the setup in your picture), then you have a good 3 or 4 inches more seatpost showing than someone riding a traditional (non-sloping top tube) frame would have had in the 1950s or 60s. Someone here comments about having a 1/2" longer leg and riding a 54cm frame, from looking at your bike you could ride a 52cm frame without issue.

To learn to dismount properly is a habit that can be learnt. The only true problem is negative standover, which is when the frame is too tall to standover at all (it pushes up hard on the perineum). You are very far from the position.

Small size on the Boardman is for just under 5'8" to 5'9.5" with minimum inseam of just under 32". Guess that's them off my list then!

It also has a steep seat tube, which is likely a significant part of the 'sitting off the edge of the saddle' problem you have now. You'd be better off buying something with a more sensible seat tube angle (72 degrees or shallower).

[CyberKnight]

I am 5 foot 7 " with a 77.5 inside leg and ride 2 small boardmans, both with the same saddle height and reach , top tube is only 5 mm shorter than the bike you quoted and again quoted for 5foot 8 " +

[MikeF]

Out of interest what is your top of saddle to pedal distance measured along seat post? I find mine is between 65 and 67cm. Is that comparable to you? I can ride a 54cm diamond framed bike but one with a sloping top tube of that size is too big for me. With sloping top tubes that are the fashion nowadays the slopes vary considerably so bike measurements tend to become a bit meaningless.
Another problem is that many manufacturers increase the seat angle as sizes become smaller, which of course pushes the rider forward - often very noticeable on women's bikes. As you like the Marin I would suggest you try to improve the your riding position first rather than buy something else when you may have the same problems all over again.
Set your saddle to the right height - if you can put a heel on the pedal at its furthest point with an extended but relaxed leg it should be somewhere near right. Buy the saddle extender from SJS to try and maybe try a longer stem - some sell for silly prices though beware. 531Colin explains it much better.

[JohnW]

............Another problem is that many manufacturers increase the seat angle as sizes become smaller, which of course pushes the rider forward................

That's a problem that's been discussed quite a lot on these threads - you're absolutely right about that Mike. This can be a particular problem if you're choosing Brooks saddles - which to me are wonderful, but they don't have enough front-back positional adjustment. I submit that the problem is due to framebuilders' ignorance. Let the buyer beware. Spa leather saddles have significantly more adjustment.

[CyberKnight]

Out of interest what is your top of saddle to pedal distance measured along seat post? I find mine is between 65 and 67cm. Is that comparable to you? I can ride a 54cm diamond framed bike but one with a sloping top tube of that size is too big for me. With sloping top tubes that are the fashion nowadays the slopes vary considerably so bike measurements tend to become a bit meaningless.
Another problem is that many manufacturers increase the seat angle as sizes become smaller, which of course pushes the rider forward - often very noticeable on women's bikes. As you like the Marin I would suggest you try to improve the your riding position first rather than buy something else when you may have the same problems all over again.
Set your saddle to the right height - if you can put a heel on the pedal at its furthest point with an extended but relaxed leg it should be somewhere near right. Buy the saddle extender from SJS to try and maybe try a longer stem - some sell for silly prices though beware. 531Colin explains it much better.

Was that for the OP or me ?
Assuming me the lemond method gives me 65.5 cm to BB based on a 175 mm crank , the bikes have 170 mm crank so that gives me 69 cm . which as it happens matches my heel on pedal .Thats using KOPS to give me 4 cm of setback from saddle tip ( 29 cm saddle ) from BB

[531colin]

...........
Was that for the OP or me ?
Assuming me the lemond method gives me 65.5 cm to BB based on a 175 mm crank , the bikes have 170 mm crank so that gives me 69 cm . which as it happens matches my heel on pedal .Thats using KOPS to give me 4 cm of setback from saddle tip ( 29 cm saddle ) from BB

Doesn't 65.5 + 0.5 give you 66cm?
Lemond's "method" is inside leg times his particular magic number....but I believe his original measurement was from BB axle to the dent in the top of the saddle where your bum bones go.....lots of people seem to measure "along the seat tube" which will give you a higher saddle.
....its deja vue, all over again.....https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=113772&p=1129370&hilit=lemond#p1129370

[MikeF]

Out of interest what is your top of saddle to pedal distance measured along seat post? I find mine is between 65 and 67cm. Is that comparable to you? I can ride a 54cm diamond framed bike but one with a sloping top tube of that size is too big for me. With sloping top tubes that are the fashion nowadays the slopes vary considerably so bike measurements tend to become a bit meaningless.
Another problem is that many manufacturers increase the seat angle as sizes become smaller, which of course pushes the rider forward - often very noticeable on women's bikes. As you like the Marin I would suggest you try to improve the your riding position first rather than buy something else when you may have the same problems all over again.
Set your saddle to the right height - if you can put a heel on the pedal at its furthest point with an extended but relaxed leg it should be somewhere near right. Buy the saddle extender from SJS to try and maybe try a longer stem - some sell for silly prices though beware. 531Colin explains it much better.

Was that for the OP or me ?
Assuming me the lemond method gives me 65.5 cm to BB based on a 175 mm crank , the bikes have 170 mm crank so that gives me 69 cm . which as it happens matches my heel on pedal .Thats using KOPS to give me 4 cm of setback from saddle tip ( 29 cm saddle ) from BB

It was for the OP and out of curiosity and comparison. I wrote Out of interest what is your top of saddle to pedal distance measured along seat post? I meant Out of interest what is your top of saddle to BB measured along seat post? Cranks are common 170mm. Presumably if I were to use 165mm cranks my saddle would need to be 5mm higher. All the saddles are B17s, cos I like them, so no variation in saddles.

OP and I seem to be about the same height although body dimensions could still vary though. I don't regard myself as being diminutive even though I'm below average male height. Maybe I'm used to it by now.
I've set my saddle height for what seems right and not by any formula. It turns out they are all very similar. I'm undecided as to the relevance of KOPS.

[CyberKnight]

...........
Was that for the OP or me ?
Assuming me the lemond method gives me 65.5 cm to BB based on a 175 mm crank , the bikes have 170 mm crank so that gives me 69 cm . which as it happens matches my heel on pedal .Thats using KOPS to give me 4 cm of setback from saddle tip ( 29 cm saddle ) from BB

Doesn't 65.5 + 0.5 give you 66cm?
Lemond's "method" is inside leg times his particular magic number....but I believe his original measurement was from BB axle to the dent in the top of the saddle where your bum bones go.....lots of people seem to measure "along the seat tube" which will give you a higher saddle.
....its deja vue, all over again.....https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=113772&p=1129370&hilit=lemond#p1129370

I cant type i meant 68.5 + 5 mm for cranks .
Anyway seems right for me