# Bike brands that fit shorter legs / longer torsos?



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

I'm shopping for my next bike and I started out with a fresh sizing at a local shop. I'm 6'-1/2" tall with a relatively long torso / relatively short legs. (My inseam is 35"). The shop guy suggested that some brands fit that type better than others, but the problem is that he spoke for four brands only (yes to Tommasini and Carrera, no to Colnago and Olmo). I'd like to have a broader look at options.

First, it is reasonable to generalize the fit of brands based on their stack vs. reach?

If so, how might I assess which brands I should consider and which should be overlooked? I'm trying to work out their geometry charts but as intended there is just enough specifics left out to make this unclear. Or does it boil down to careful measurements with a tape measure?

The brands I'm considering so far include:
Cervelo
Cannondale
Tommasini (sloped frames only)
Carrera
Wilier
Canyon
Blue
Pinarello
So if any of these are a poor fit for my body type then that would be good to know.


----------



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

After reading some other posts on the subject, I figured it couldn't hurt to include my actual measurements:
Height 184cm
Inseam 88.5
Torso 61.3
Arm Length 64.5 (both arms equal)
Shoulders 42
Weight 91kg


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

The general answer to you question is bikes that have the lowest head tubes for a given top tube length. You legs want the bike to be low for saddle, standover and handlebar height, while you torso needs top tube length to not feel cramped.

A Cervelo, for example, is going to have a fairly tall head tube, which will make it difficult to lower the handlebars to a point where they are a good match to the lowish saddle height you need. The Dogma, for instance, has a head tube that is 2cm lower than the similar sized Cervelo S5.

Stand over is less important, but you'll get the most stand over from the lowest head tube with the most top tube slope. Focus, for instance, tends to have fairly sloped top tubes and not very tall head tubes, so they might be a brand to look at.

I won't try to turn all those numbers into a fit, but I'd probably put you on a 58cm (575 to 582mm TT) in most brands and look for "lowest" bikes in that size.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

You are not that far out of the norm and should fit most bikes. The biggest thing to look for is a steeper seat tube angle and a shorter head tube length (if you like a lot of drop from saddle to bar).

Pretty much...most bikes with a 73.5 degree STA in a 56cm - 58cm size will be able to fit you with some tweaks here or there (-17 degree stems, 0 degree posts, etc.). 

If you want hard to fit, I'm about 1.5" shorter than you but my inseam is nearly 3" shorter than yours and I have a short femur on top of that. I ride a 56cm Cannondale CAAD 10 with a 0 degree post, -17 degree stem and a top cap from (Slam that stem . com) that gives me the shortest possible bar height for this bike. I'd still like another 1.5cm of drop in my bars, but with 170mm cranks it fits fairly well.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Wookiebiker said:


> You are not that far out of the norm and should fit most bikes. The biggest thing to look for is a steeper seat tube angle and a shorter head tube length (if you like a lot of drop from saddle to bar).
> 
> Pretty much...most bikes with a 73.5 degree STA in a 56cm - 58cm size will be able to fit you with some tweaks here or there (-17 degree stems, 0 degree posts, etc.).
> 
> If you want hard to fit, I'm about 1.5" shorter than you but my inseam is nearly 3" shorter than yours and I have a short femur on top of that. I ride a 56cm Cannondale CAAD 10 with a 0 degree post, -17 degree stem and a top cap from (Slam that stem . com) that gives me the shortest possible bar height for this bike. I'd still like another 1.5cm of drop in my bars, but with 170mm cranks it fits fairly well.


Why would he need a steeper seat tube angle? People with shorter legs don't have different proportioned legs from everyone else. It is only people with short femurs that benefit from steep seat tubes.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Kontact said:


> Why would he need a steeper seat tube angle? People with shorter legs don't have different proportioned legs from everyone else. It is only people with short femurs that benefit from steep seat tubes.


True...but a steeper STA will give him more options. Generally speaking though, those with short legs proportionally to their upper body tend to have shorter femurs.

Regardless...with a 35" inseam he shouldn't have much of an issue fitting most bikes out there.


----------



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

Kontact said:


> The general answer to you question is bikes that have the lowest head tubes for a given top tube length. You legs want the bike to be low for saddle, standover and handlebar height, while you torso needs top tube length to not feel cramped.
> 
> A Cervelo, for example, is going to have a fairly tall head tube, which will make it difficult to lower the handlebars to a point where they are a good match to the lowish saddle height you need. The Dogma, for instance, has a head tube that is 2cm lower than the similar sized Cervelo S5.


Thanks for your input.

Going by my current bike, I still have a spacer under the stem and the 110mm stem is inclined upward. And my current bike has a 19cm head tube on a 57.2 ETT. So I have plenty of room to go lower now on a bike that's not very "low" in the first place.

It seems the most important parameter is top tube length and/or frame reach. And that finding a "low" frame geometry is secondary. In fact, if a normal frame puts the handlebars low enough, finding a lower frame adds no real benefit in my case. Would you agree?

David


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

dgeesaman said:


> Thanks for your input.
> 
> Going by my current bike, I still have a spacer under the stem and the 110mm stem is inclined upward. And my current bike has a 19cm head tube on a 57.2 ETT. So I have plenty of room to go lower now on a bike that's not very "low" in the first place.
> 
> ...


Mostly. But if you wanted a Cervelo S5, for instance, the 206mm head tube of the size 58 would require a turned down stem slammed to the headset top cap. That may be just fine with you, or it might be a limit - which is what I was getting at.

But I do agree that your current position shouldn't put any special restrictions on looking for a bike, if you like your current fit.


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

dgeesaman said:


> Thanks for your input.
> 
> It seems the most important parameter is top tube length and/or frame reach. And that finding a "low" frame geometry is secondary. In fact, if a normal frame puts the handlebars low enough, finding a lower frame adds no real benefit in my case. Would you agree?
> 
> David


No, A shorter headtube increases your reach, given you are using the same spacers, bar and stem. By dropping the stem, your handlebars are farther away from your saddle which = longer reach. As long as you can still see up the road without neck pain or other discomfort (like eyestrain) having a shorter headtube will be beneficial to your fit.


----------



## SBard1985 (May 13, 2012)

I heard people with short legs benefit from bikes with compact geometry, just try some bikes and see what feels good to you.


----------



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

I hadn't looked at the S5 but compared to the S2 that I was considering, there's a pretty big difference.

S5 Stack / reach / headset = 605/396/206
S2 = 580/403/180
Current bike (Trek 2.1) = 595/396/190

The S2 is one of the lower frames I've found so far and the S5 is relatively the tallest.


----------



## gordy748 (Feb 11, 2007)

**sigh**

Any of the following will fit:
Pegoretti
Formigli
Independent Fabrications
Seven
Winter Bicycles
Waterford
Seven
Calfee
Moots

Or other custom builder.


----------



## climbinthebigring (Mar 13, 2011)

A 35 inch inseem at 6'1/2'' isn't really all that weird. I'd say it's quite normal and with the way bikes are sized nowadays you should be able to fit on most bikes. Although if your in good shape I would stay far away from any "endurance" bikes. The short top tubes and huge head tubes make achieving some positions impossible. I could never ride one of those bikes as it wouldn't allow me to drop the bars enough. Even with a lot of the new bikes coming out companies, cervelo being a major culprit, are going with taller head tubes as they know most riders are keeping a tower of spacers underneath their stems to stay comfortable, really screwing us who can ride a "pro" position. It's making it really hard for the actual pros as well. Cannondale made Sagan a custom bike so he could get his position right.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

AlexCad5 said:


> No, A shorter headtube increases your reach, given you are using the same spacers, bar and stem. By dropping the stem, your handlebars are farther away from your saddle which = longer reach. As long as you can still see up the road without neck pain or other discomfort (like eyestrain) having a shorter headtube will be beneficial to your fit.


Not really. If you set up the same bar height, the head tube length has absolutely no effect on reach. Lowering the stem with no other changes slightly increases reach as it greatly increases drop, but that isn't the same position.

In other words, a 190 head tube with 1cm spacer is identical to a 200 head tube with none.


----------



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

gordy748 said:


> **sigh**
> 
> Any of the following will fit:
> Pegoretti
> ...


Sigh, can I get a custom frame for $1500 or less? (As in, if it costs more I assume you'll cover the spread)

David


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

dgeesaman said:


> Sigh, can I get a custom frame for $1500 or less? (As in, if it costs more I assume you'll cover the spread)
> 
> David


None of the bikes you listed are less than $1500 for a new frame, either.

But you can buy a custom steel frame or aluminum frame for less than $1500. Less than $1000 even made out of high end tubing.


----------



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

I wrote that list as I began my research. I have found that many of the brands above do not have framesets under $1500. However framesets are not uncommon on closeout or for sale new/unused, so if a major brand has something near my price range I'm including it for now.

David


----------



## jeepseahawk (May 30, 2011)

Bianchi have a longer top-tube, one to consider.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Look at the Felt F series. I have proportionately shorter legs than you and got dialed in on one easily. 

I'm now on a Cervelo s3 and I need a -17 stem to get down where I need to be.


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

Kontact said:


> Not really. If you set up the same bar height, the head tube length has absolutely no effect on reach. Lowering the stem with no other changes slightly increases reach as it greatly increases drop, but that isn't the same position.
> 
> In other words, a 190 head tube with 1cm spacer is identical to a 200 head tube with none.


From my quote "given you are using the same spacers, bar and stem." Note the word "spacers."
The whole point is if you lower your bars, it will increase your reach - and it's easier to lower your bars (or raise them) if the head tube is the right length for your fit. We are arguing the same point.


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

dgeesaman said:


> I'm shopping for my next bike and I started out with a fresh sizing at a local shop. I'm 6'-1/2" tall with a relatively long torso / relatively short legs. (My inseam is 35")...


I am 5' 7 1/2" tall with a 30" inseam. Based on your sizing, we have equal length torsos, and only the inseam length is different. I would say your torso is short for your height.
Actually, I would say you're very average, and could fit on any number of bikes.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

AlexCad5 said:


> From my quote "given you are using the same spacers, bar and stem." Note the word "spacers."
> The whole point is if you lower your bars, it will increase your reach - and it's easier to lower your bars (or raise them) if the head tube is the right length for your fit. We are arguing the same point.


Given what you were responding to, your post didn't make sense. The OP didn't say "given the same spacers", but you replied "No." The answer to his question was "yes."


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*short /long torso and reach*



turbogrover said:


> I am 5' 7 1/2" tall with a 30" inseam. Based on your sizing, we have equal length torsos, and only the inseam length is different. I would say your torso is short for your height.
> Actually, I would say you're very average, and could fit on any number of bikes.


You've got a long torso and I'm an example of short torso, being an inch shorter (169cm) with a 32-5/8" or 83cm cycling inseam. Be sure that you're quoting cycling inseam, not pants inseam.

The ratio of overall height to cycling inseam is the thing to compare, like mine a 169/83 is 2.04, while yours would be 2.25. The OP would be 2.07, which is certainly on the short torso side. He can return Colnago to the list of bikes that should fit.

Comparing reach values can lead to errors. Reach values can only be compared directly at ONE stack height. If the stack height is not the same for all frames being compared, corrections need to be made, on the order of 3mm for each 10mm of stack height difference. It's common to see a 56 and a 58cm frame from the same company, with the same reach. The reach is really not the same because the 58cm frame should have a 20mm taller stack and the reach at the same height on the 56cm would be 6mm less.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

C-40 said:


> You've got a long torso and I'm an example of short torso, being an inch shorter (169cm) with a 32-5/8" or 83cm cycling inseam. Be sure that you're quoting cycling inseam, not pants inseam.
> 
> The ratio of overall height to cycling inseam is the thing to compare, like mine a 169/83 is 2.04, while yours would be 2.25. The OP would be 2.07, which is certainly on the short torso side. He can return Colnago to the list of bikes that should fit.
> 
> Comparing reach values can lead to errors. Reach values can only be compared directly at ONE stack height. If the stack height is not the same for all frames being compared, corrections need to be made, on the order of 3mm for each 10mm of stack height difference. It's common to see a 56 and a 58cm frame from the same company, with the same reach. The reach is really not the same because the 58cm frame should have a 20mm taller stack and the reach at the same height on the 56cm would be 6mm less.


To clarify this post, C-40 is talking about "Stack and Reach", a formal set of measurements provided by some, not all, bike manufactures. That type of Reach is different from the informal reach used generally when talking about fitting, which doesn't require reference to stack height.


----------

