Is it possible to shorten a bicycle frame?

[Samuel D]

I think I may be similarly shaped to Horizon in that I’m ~5'10" with a ~34" inseam. Into the bargain I have a fairly long neck, so my torso is short for a person of my height (and this is apparent from my lowness when I sit at a dining table or in a car seat).

However, I’ve come to think that our ‘functional’ dimensions as mentioned upthread by amediasatex are more important than anything we can measure with a ruler.

What’s more, flexibility is a funny thing. I can only barely touch my toes with much warming up and discomfort. And yet I can ride in a low-torso position for longer than most of my riding companions who can more easily touch their toes.

I have a 54 cm Spa Audax with a Brooks Cambium C17 slid as far back as it goes in a Ritchey Classic seatpost. There’s a 48 mm spacer on the headset and a 100 mm Ritchey Classic C220 stem with a 6° rise holding a Ritchey Classic handlebar that sometimes feels a bit short in the drops or hoods.

When I ordered the frame I was concerned about reach (coming from a Dawes that was too long), but with increased fitness I found the reach to be fine with common stem lengths. Today I would probably order a 56 cm Audax for aesthetics with identical contact-point positions.

However, most of my rides are fairly brisk. When I meander around the countryside with slower cyclists there’s still slightly too much weight on the hands except in a very upright position on the tops.

I can measure things on the bicycle if it’s any use.

[amediasatex]

You've shared pics of your Spa before Samuel D, and I find it striking what a difference there is between our two setups considering there's ~2.5inches in height between us, but with you riding a 54cm and me riding a 52cm,

ie: only one frame size different 20mm, but with ~60mm difference in our heights and both of us have been able to fit our respective frames to our proportions, even if perhaps you sized down a size and I was borderline sizing up.

People are all sorts of sizes and amounts of bendy

[horizon]

Aren't those bikes quite big for someone who is 5'10"?

Yes and no. I came to the same conclusion and my latest strategy was to buy a cheap second hand tourer and try out a smaller size - until I read up the geometry and realised that the smaller size is achieved by steepening the seat angle (and I would simply push the saddle back to retain the relationship with the BB). There is hardly any change in horizontal dimension between sizes (1 mm in the bikes quoted). A diamond frame with 700c wheels has very little room for manoeuvre without creating toe-overlap. BTW my saddle height with both toes on the ground is 99 cm.

I'm 5'8" with long legs and I ride 50 - 52 cm bikes. I do have similar difficulty getting the saddle back far enough on some of them, but I don't have trouble with reach.

Ah, the joys of the VK adaptor - you can get the saddle back to where you really want it. And that's when the can of worms is opened. And just to say, there's a lot you can just put up with or hardly notice and we could be in Princess and the Pea territory here.

[Bmblbzzz]

I think I may be similarly shaped to Horizon in that I’m ~5'10" with a ~34" inseam. Into the bargain I have a fairly long neck, so my torso is short for a person of my height (and this is apparent from my lowness when I sit at a dining table or in a car seat).

However, I’ve come to think that our ‘functional’ dimensions as mentioned upthread by amediasatex are more important than anything we can measure with a ruler.

What’s more, flexibility is a funny thing. I can only barely touch my toes with much warming up and discomfort. And yet I can ride in a low-torso position for longer than most of my riding companions who can more easily touch their toes.

I have a 54 cm Spa Audax with a Brooks Cambium C17 slid as far back as it goes in a Ritchey Classic seatpost. There’s a 48 mm spacer on the headset and a 100 mm Ritchey Classic C220 stem with a 6° rise holding a Ritchey Classic handlebar that sometimes feels a bit short in the drops or hoods.

When I ordered the frame I was concerned about reach (coming from a Dawes that was too long), but with increased fitness I found the reach to be fine with common stem lengths. Today I would probably order a 56 cm Audax for aesthetics with identical contact-point positions.

However, most of my rides are fairly brisk. When I meander around the countryside with slower cyclists there’s still slightly too much weight on the hands except in a very upright position on the tops.

I can measure things on the bicycle if it’s any use.

Could well be that this is more dependent on torso strength than flexibility.

[Samuel D]

I know a photographer and cyclist whom I hope to enlist one day to get some good photos and videos of me riding, but he lives far away and the logistics have hitherto prevented that.

However, I have a few pictures from various group rides. They tend to be taken from behind and/or from high up and too close with a wide-angle phone lens, which distorts the perspective, exaggerating the torso and making the wheels look small. Of course they were not taken for positional studies. For that, get the photographer to move farther away.

With that disclaimer, here they are.

1. Taking it easy on the hoods, full complement of sandwiches still on-board:




2. Tapping along on the drops with arms nearly straight but not locked. This is my cruising position:




3. Fast cruise in stiff crosswind:




4. Passing a member of another group a couple of weeks ago; note difference in torso angles despite roughly similar speeds at this instant:




5. Doing about 40 km/h in favourable conditions. The guy I’m approaching couldn’t have a more different riding position to me: high (and forward) saddle for his leg length, toes down, bolt-upright torso. I couldn’t do 20 km/h in that position!




6. Still higher effort:

(After this comes my flat-out position, which puts my forearms parallel to the road with hands in the hooks. I use that often at Longchamp. I also use the invisible-aerobars position for high-speed efforts of up to a few minutes, provided I’m solo or pulling.)



7. Out of the saddle, which I often do when climbing whether quickly or gently:




8. Out of the saddle accelerating from stopped:




I post these photos for comparison with photos you may have of your own position that you don’t wish to share. Comments also invited. I did a 220 km ride in late January in excellent comfort with this set-up, and that was a long day because half of it was solo into a headwind – and as you can see I’m not built for windy days!

By the way, I ride in the rain too but no-one takes photos then.



EDIT: numbered the photos for easy reference.

[Bmblbzzz]

What strikes me most from those photos is not your arm position but that you look to be sitting quite far back and high, not only in comparison to the two riders you comment on but eg to the rider in black on the Cube. There's only one photo that shows your leg at "minimum extension/maximum bend" but it looks as if your thigh is still at quite a steep angle, whereas some people's come very close to horizontal. It's my impression this is not only to do with saddle height but the ratio between thigh and shin length.

[531colin]

What strikes me most from those photos is not your arm position but that you look to be sitting quite far back and high, .........

Absolutely not high
Look at Samuel's third photo. The 2 guys at the back demonstrate the currently fashionable riding position....steep seat tube angle, forward saddle position results in a permanent "toe down" posture. The back 2 guys have their pedals just about bottom centre, and are on tiptoe to keep a bit of bend in the knee.
Picture 5 is the best we got of Samuel near bottom centre....... its the wrong foot, but if anything he is heel down, and his near thigh approaches horizontal.....so I'm disagreeing with you there, too.

If you aren't convinced by the photos, have a look here https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=113772&hilit=bullbars&start=45. Its a rambling and variably bad-tempered thread, where Samuel compares the leg length and saddle height of a few forumites.
There are pictures of me pedalling a turbo in my DIY bike fitting paper linked in my signature.

Anybody worked out whats going on with the guy in picture 4?

[Vorpal]

Anybody worked out whats going on with the guy in picture 4?

The saddle is too far forward. The bike looks small, as well, though it's hard for me to tell with the saddle so far forward. He seems to have compensated with a strange set-up for the stem & bars that I can't see clearly in the photo. His weight consequently must about 60% on the front.

[Brucey]

the thing that strikes me most looking at those photos is.....

....no flipping potholes in the road.....

cheers

[Samuel D]

I have to do about 20 km in any direction through traffic jams to get to roads like those, but I’m not complaining! There are proper climbs available to me too, and scenic villages, cathedrals, natural parks, etc. France is still a wonderful country for riding a bike.

What strikes me most from those photos is not your arm position but that you look to be sitting quite far back and high, not only in comparison to the two riders you comment on but eg to the rider in black on the Cube. There's only one photo that shows your leg at "minimum extension/maximum bend" but it looks as if your thigh is still at quite a steep angle, whereas some people's come very close to horizontal. It's my impression this is not only to do with saddle height but the ratio between thigh and shin length.

The photos are hard to read for positional purposes because of subtle perspective effects. For example, in photo 4, my hands look lower than they really are because: (1) the photo is tilted; (2) the camera is high, making my left hand, that is closer to the camera, look lower than it would in a side-on view; and (3) the camera is behind me, as can be seen by my large (and somewhat distorted) rear wheel.

To help your brain read perspective correctly, the angle subtended by the photograph at your eye should be the same as the angle subtended by the scene at the camera. Since phones have wide-angle lenses, that means the photograph must appear large, i.e. be viewed from close-up.

Try this:

• View my photo 4 from across the room, i.e. subjectively small.
• Then make it fill your screen (click for a larger image) and view it with one eye closed from as close as your eye can focus. The perspective (e.g. of my rear wheel) will seem very different.

Anyway, I sit pretty low as 531colin explained, but I do sit quite far back. I find that necessary to reduce the weight on my hands when riding at a moderate pace in a fairly aero position; and I find the aero position necessary to cover ground efficiently.

I’ve noticed I also have a more widely varying cadence than some. One gear does alright for me across a wide range of speed on the flat, because the harder I go, the faster I must pedal. A consequence of this is that I don’t push the pedals as hard as some even when going fast, which may contribute to my needing to have the saddle quite far back.

I’m surprised how low my heels look in these photos because they don’t feel that low. I must try to get some side-on photos or videos.

Regarding horizon’s long bicycles: I found that when I got the saddle back, it became less important precisely where my hands were. And my body very rapidly – within a few weeks – developed the core strength (back strength?) needed to cantilever my torso out over the front. Horizon and I may have an advantage in this in that our short torsos are relatively easy to support. Certainly back pain has never been a problem for me, whereas a (non-cyclist) friend with a visibly long torso suffers terribly from back pain at the age of 40.

[amediasatex]

I’ve noticed I also have a more widely varying cadence than some. One gear does alright for me across a wide range of speed on the flat, because the harder I go, the faster I must pedal. A consequence of this is that I don’t push the pedals as hard as some even when going fast, which may contribute to my needing to have the saddle quite far back.

The position on my fixed/SS bike is notably different than my geared bikes for much the same reason, it's also go a much longer top tube than I normally use as the position is much more varied and I spend more time stood up climbing (obviously) so the extra front centre and room to move is a welcome necessity. And I find I move back and forwards much more over the saddle depending on effort levels and cadence.

Bike fit is as much about the use and type of riding as it is about the rider, I could show you 3 or 4 of my bikes which all 'fit' and yet without me atop them you'd swear they were for different people!

I've been poking through my photo archives and there's very few of me riding, I tend to take pictures when stopped and not many of my friends are mid-ride snappers. The few I do have are from Audaxes and are invariably front on or from behind, the most recent one I could find of me is in the last (prior to the on that arrived this week) copy of Arrivee and is of a bunch of us coming up the last climb, and I know for a fact that all (5) of us have very different positions on the bike especially when climbing, but from the front we all look almost identical so perspective is certainly important when comparing pics.

Perhaps we should setup a riders gallery somewhere for this kind of thing as it actually comes up in a lot of threads as fitting is such a common topic and one which many people need assistance with, Colins bike fitting guide is a great resource and has some good pics of him, but it might be beneficial for others to have a variety of similar pictures to compare to see how much variation there is between 'correct' setups, as well as a few examples of 'bad' setup, what do you think? would it be worthwhile?

[Bmblbzzz]

...
The photos are hard to read for positional purposes because of subtle perspective effects.

Okay, I think that's something we can all agree on! Also (probably!) on your position being quite far back and the other bloke in no. 4 looking as if he's sitting terribly far forward.

As for heels, have you seen the article in the latest Cycle magazine about ankling?

[horizon]

Perhaps we should setup a riders gallery somewhere for this kind of thing as it actually comes up in a lot of threads as fitting is such a common topic and one which many people need assistance with, Colins bike fitting guide is a great resource and has some good pics of him, but it might be beneficial for others to have a variety of similar pictures to compare to see how much variation there is between 'correct' setups, as well as a few examples of 'bad' setup, what do you think? would it be worthwhile?

One of Colin's links (the bike fitter) has an excellent photo set of three riders with differing back "arches". I'll try and find it.

[amediasatex]

One of Colin's links (the bike fitter) has an excellent photo set of three riders with differing back "arches". I'll try and find it.

That'll be on Steve Hogg's site, I was thinking of something a bit more general though, almost a library of various riders and their setups, at different heights etc. To give people an idea of what 'normal' looks like for different kinds of proportions etc.

[531colin]

I held off a bit to see if anybody else joined in......

Anybody worked out whats going on with the guy in picture 4?

The saddle is too far forward. The bike looks small, as well, though it's hard for me to tell with the saddle so far forward. He seems to have compensated with a strange set-up for the stem & bars that I can't see clearly in the photo. His weight consequently must about 60% on the front.

Both riders have their cranks about level, so we can look at the leg associated with the "rising foot" of each rider. (Samuel's right foot, the other guy's left.) Samuel's right thigh looks like it will be approaching horizontal by the time that pedal is at the top......the other guy's thigh will maybe get as high as Samuel's is now by the time his pedal is at the top.......So how can he reach the bottom pedal? he will be rocking his hips and pointing his toes and still over-extending his knee.
My guess is that looking for a "short reach" has led him to buy a tiny bike and shove the saddle all the way forward. (small frames already have steep seat tubes, usually) He is right on top of the pedals. (He looks like a monkey up a stick, as an old clubmate used to say.) The bars don't appear to be just drops upside-down, and I can't imagine how he has got that STI at that angle. Maybe they are aero basebars inverted? Chopped drops? Whatever they are, he has gone to some lengths to get them that high. Maybe he has a knee injury that means he can't flex his knee enough to get the pedal "over the top" with a more normal saddle height? I can't think of another reason to set the saddle that high.