|What is the best frame brand to fit a long torso ?||Big Hoosier|
May 7, 2003 8:34 PM
|I'm 6'4" and have a 32" inseam. So I need a bike to fit my inseam without a 12" stem to compensate for the extra reach required. I know Specialized is supposed to fit those with a "Short torso" better because of shorter top tubes. But, who makes longer than average top tubes. I'm currently riding a 64cm Fuji, which fits my torso but is a little to tall to stand over. I'm currently "tea bagging" a bit too much, which makes the dismount a little risky.|
May 7, 2003 8:41 PM
|Go test ride a LeMond. They are about the longest cockpit bikes you can get.
Test ride one for yourself.
|Yes, you'll look at a 57 or 59 (32" standover) nm||Spunout|
May 8, 2003 3:47 AM
|re: What is the best frame brand to fit a long torso ?||mja|
May 8, 2003 3:48 AM
|Check out not just LeMond but also Trek, Cannondale, and Giant. (I just changed from a 57 c-c LeMond to a 59 c-t Cannondale, and picked up 8 mm in top-tube length while gaining only 3 mm c-c in seat-tube length.) The gemometries of the European models all seem to be of the same design -- shorter top tubes necessitating longer stems. Of course, with enough capital, you could go custom -- e.g., Calfee, Seven, Principia, Orbea.|
|Look at compact geometry||Fez|
May 8, 2003 4:15 AM
|Buy what fits you up top.
Isn't tea bagging a completely different thing that occurs off the bike?
May 8, 2003 5:38 AM
|It is well tailored to those who are more torso than leg. Otherwise, with traditional geometry you'll have to buy too small a frame just to get the right standover... then even if the TT were slightly longer the bars would be too low, etc.|
May 8, 2003 4:50 AM
|I have a hard time believing that you have a 32 inch cycling inseam. Maybe a 32 inch pants inseam, which would be more like a 34 inch cycling inseam.
Check out the fit info at www.cyfacusa.com to see how to measure cycling inseam.
You might get a better fit on one of the compact geometry frames which reduce the standover height. You would probably need the largest available size. There is no reason that you cannot use a 130 or 140 stem if necessary to obtain the desired reach. A 120 stem is not long at all for such a large frame.
|Try Look, Merckx, LeMond, Hampsten or get a pro to fit you.nm||jaybird|
May 8, 2003 5:15 AM
|Merckx do not have long top tubes||tarwheel|
May 8, 2003 6:52 AM
|In mid to large sized frames, Merckx have some of the shortest top tubes around when you take into account the relaxed seat tube angles. Some other stock bikes with long top tubes include Bianchi, Ritchey, Salsa and Soma. A steeper seat tube angle will make a frame fit effectively longer, so you need to take that into account as well. Like C-40, I question whether you are measuring your inseam properly. You need to take a hard object, like a book, and jam it up as far as you can in your crotch to get the right height. Also, it makes more sense to measure inseam with your cycling shoes on, which could add 1-2 cm. |
If you truly do have an inseam that short, you might want to consider a custom frame. You can buy a custom steel frame for reasonable prices from Anvil, Strong, Lyon and a number of other places. For more money, there are tons of custom builders like Serotta, Landshark, Steelman.
|Same for Look frames when you factor in relaxed seat tube angle (nm)||Horace Greeley|
May 8, 2003 7:01 AM
|can someone explain the relaxed seat tube thing...||jaybird|
May 8, 2003 9:26 AM
|I have a 59cm Look381i and it has identical geometry to the same sized Lemond, Hampsten and Merckx which I thought were all known as having relatively long top tubes.
It has been a few years since I've had any geometry so bear with me...
|relaxed is the opposite of "steep"||filtersweep|
May 8, 2003 3:06 PM
|If you consider steep to be nearer to vertical, then relaxed is further... The theory is that the angle sets the seat even further back (particularly the higher the seatpost is raised), vs. from a theoretically vertical seat tube angle where the effective top tube distance never changes.|| |