Cannot see how a 1.70 m person (and there are slill lots of them who like cycling) ever can fit properly on a 52 cm Spa Audax TI....
Would they not be better off on the 50cm one?
Weight distribution will be too far on the rear due to the long reach
Why so? An inline seatpost gets you back to a 'virtual' seat angle of 74+deg if that's what you want. The front centre on the 50/52cm bikes is only ~10-15mm longer than other small bikes, and although its personal, many people take great issue with toe overlap, I'm not one of them personally, but I know several who simply will not entertain a bike with it. Oviously it can be overcome to some extent with slacker head angle and more fork offset (like they have done with the 50cm version), but that still leaves your body in the same place between the wheelbase and when you look at a lot of 'small' bikes with short TT measurements you actually find they're not that small at all, they just have very steep seat angle artificially shortening the top tube measurement but not actually shortening the reach (as in horizontal distance from BB to head tube)
I can't help but think you're missing the point about the seat angle, the bikes are not actually that long, but the slack seat angle means the actual physical length of the top tube is longer, even if the 'front end of the bike' isn't.
Comparing to most other small frames with 74-75 degree seat angles means you can take off 20-25mm off the listed length, so the TT of the 50cm goes from 528mm to ~500mm, and ETT from 542mm to 515mm, and that's shuffling a saddle forward on a normal layback post, you could go shorter again with an inline port if you wished and if the riders legs suited such a saddle-BB setback.
A great example is the Dolan I mentioned in the first post, I was looking at one of those as an option but check out the geo chart:
https://www.dolan-bikes.com/tiadx-geometry-chartThe reach is actually longer on the smallest 50.5 size than it is on the 53.5 size!
All due to the steeper seat angle, slacker headtube and lower stack height. The ETT is listed as 8mm shorter, but as soon as you stick a saddle on there you could well be to be back in the same position of longer reach to bars once setback taken into account.
That's just one example fresh in my mind form this week, there are numerous others out there though where the 'small' size isn't actually much smaller at all.
It's one of those situations where slacker angle is generally better as it gives options, ie: running brooks on normal seatposts, or putting the saddle a bit more forward on a normal layback post rather than right at the rear limit, or even as above, using an inline post. If the seat angle is too steep you can't move backwards, but you can move forwards with a slack one.
I'm pretty sure Colin has some pics of the smaller size set up for a (very?) short rider to demonstrate though.
But you can't build a bike to please everyone anyway, for every person that says this tube is too long or that angle is too steep there's another saying the exact opposite, but sensible choices do allow a lot of leeway and adjustment, and likewise poor choices limit it.
