Touring bike choice for people with long legs

[22camels]

I recently learnt that I have exceptionally long legs (88cm bare-foot standover) for my height (180cm). Somehow I hadn't been aware of this before, always worn regular length trousers without issues.. I've been looking for a new bike and had a few measurements taken. Also have slightly longer than average arms.

I would like to get a position with the bars level with my saddle. This is partly due a neck pain issue probably due to years of bad posture habits, that I think my body is telling me a more upright position would relieve. I've not been able to achieve this on any of my bikes so far with proper saddle height, now I know why. People talk about bike fits but I am skeptical as they seem mainly for roadies and besides I'd like to do my own analysis first.

So I've compared the geometries for a number of touring bikes, and determined the maximum possible handlebar height I could have if I left the steerer uncut, without using stem raisers, angled stems etc, which I'd rather avoid. The results surprised me. It seems not many bikes are suitable for me. For some of them, even though they are sold with longer steerers (usually the steerer length doesn't change across sizes), it appears its inadvisable in my size to use the full extent of the steerer (guess it's not stiff enough) e.g. Kona Sutra. For many, the combination of head tube, stack and steerer dimensions doesn't allow the bars to go as high as I would want e.g. a Ridgeback expedition 57 would leave my bars a whole 8cm below where I need them at the max extent! (I used 300mm for the uncut steerer tube length for this bike though it could be wrong - these numbers can be hard to source). Bikes that would work are those with a high stack to reach ratio which usually means a long head tube. So, Thorn Sherpa and Surly LHT seem ok, but only just i.e. technically the bar would be 2cm below the saddle according to my numbers but with the right stem/bars that should be fine.

My formula is this. I need my seat to be 780mm vertically above the BB. Max bar height above BB = Stack + (Uncut steerer length - Head Tube Length) * SINE (head tube angle). I know I'm making a couple of assumptions and it might be out by a cm or two but it gives a meaningful comparison between bikes.

Another problem is that shops love to cut the steerers (to make them look pretty?) and even for bikes that would suit me, it's hard to find a test ride with the bars set up level, so I have to guess how it would feel if it were set up for me..

Anyone else have this issue?

[maxglide]

I'm only 177cm high and my standover is 88cm too. I don't see myself as having 'exceptionally long legs' at all. Always though I look quite proportionate.

If it's any help, I've a Ridgeback Tour in a 58cm frame which does me nicely (my LBS owner was of the opinion it was a tad large, but I like it.)

[Bicycler]

Quite a lot of frames don't have a much longer TT as sizes go up. I too have proportionally long legs and have often tended to go a size bigger than other people of my height. As long as you can get the reach correct and can safely standover the TT I'd go for the bigger frame. Nothing worse than trying to get handlebars to a decent height with a cut short steerer and a load of seatpost showing.

The important thing though is that you test ride the bikes before deciding

[22camels]

I didn't see myself as having exceptionally long legs either until I got measured at Thorn.

"Nothing worse than trying to get handlebars to a decent height with a cut short steerer and a load of seatpost showing." - other than aesthetics, what exactly is the reason why this is bad?

[Bicycler]

Nothing much other than expense and the very slightly increased chance of steerer (or extender), headtube, seatpost or ST failure I guess. That's IF you can get the bar height correct. As you have discovered, with the modern trend for short cut steerers, many people have enough problems getting their touring bike bars to the required height even with their saddles set quite low. But why go smaller if you fit the bigger size? Bigger sizes increase the chance of being able to get the bar height right and generally have a longer HT, whilst in many cases not adding much to the reach. As an example the difference between the smallest and largest 700c Surly LHTs is 8cm of seat tube but only 5cm of ETT, which corresponds to a difference in reach of less than 2cms.

The usual advice applies that slightly too small is much better than slightly too big. Don't be afraid of using a shorter or angled stem to change the reach but never buy a bike on which you cannot get the reach correct and never fall for the salesman's "you can just move your saddle forward" line. Your saddle is set relative to the pedals not the bars.

[pjclinch]

Neck pain... ever tried a recumbent? Mine has a boom that extends to adjust for different leg lengths, the rest of the frame isn't relevant to rider size. There is no weight on the arms and for a relaxed, heads-up view of where you're going you just sit there in the comfy chair and enjoy the better aero. Carries luggage better than an upwrong too. http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/tourdiaries.htm has some of what my wife and I have got up to on ours.

Pete.

[22camels]

"The usual advice applies that slightly too small is much better than slightly too big." - I take it you meant the other way round?

Don't think I'm quite yet ready for recumbents, give me a few years though

[531colin]

Errrr....sin (head tube angle)....etc, etc.......?
I would just add head tube length to fork length.

"preying mantis" style bikes have high bars because of "suspension-corrected" forks....

[Bicycler]

"The usual advice applies that slightly too small is much better than slightly too big." - I take it you meant the other way round?

No. I think people with longer legs are generally best getting the biggest size that fits. On modern compact frames a decent number of people will fit more than one size of bike. That is not the same as suggesting that someone buys a bike which is too big to fit them. As above, you don't want a bike where you can't stand over the TT or can't get the reach comfortable. There are things you can do to adapt a bike that's a bit small, but not much with one that's too large.

Those are my views anyway. Colin's the expert though so his count for much more.

[22camels]

agreed, the sine only makes a difference of 1.3cm..

it seems that mountain bikes have a more favourable upright geometry for my dimensions?!

Bicycler - thanks for clarifying, your post was slightly ambiguous as you first said slightly bigger is better than slightly smaller and then emphasised the contrary, but I see what you mean now.

[horizon]

22camels: I spent the best part of last year and bored the forum silly with my quest for a bike that fitted. I too have long legs in proportion to my torso/arms (and short arms).

My conclusions were:

1. As 531colin says, top tubes don't change proportionally with bike size so get the height of the bike right first.
2. Drop bars exacerbate the problem (unfortunately).
3. An uncut steerer really helps, as you know yourself.
4. A very short stem is a great help, even essential.
5. Be prepared to get the saddle back (layback seat post or whatever) to accommodate your legs.
6. Get your feet correct on the pedals.
7. Always buy a bike designed for drop bars then think about fitting straights.
8. Thorn appeared to be the only off-the-peg frame that got the dimensions correct (I still wasn't 100% sure about this in the end - there may be others such as Surly).

But then the crunch (two in fact):

1. I don't think a 700c drop bar frame can really accommodate long legs/short body. 26" wheels and a determined bike builder might do it but not off-the-peg.
2. If you look at these posts by macaroon, viewtopic.php?f=5&t=73840&hilit=ape+index&start=330 you will see that he is saying that the problem is really posture, strength and flexibility, not proportion. I've tried and tried and, yes, I can change my position on the bike but it still doesn't feel right.

So there we have it. My choice would be a Thorn Sherpa 26" short frame fro drop bars retro fitted with straights and short stem.

[horizon]

agreed, the sine only makes a difference of 1.3cm..

it seems that mountain bikes have a more favourable upright geometry for my dimensions?!

No, the top tube is designed for straight bars and short legs - my two MTBs are no better than my drop bar tourers.

[22camels]

1.

[22camels]

thanks horizon, you make some really interesting points, like number (2) and (4) - don't very short stems (under 70mm) give funny steering? I'm actually also undecided about drops vs straights, having being used to drops for a while though I rode straights once, and I'm really tempted to go for straights again as they have way more convenient controls, more accurate steering due to width, multiple positions with bar ends and more options if I don't like them (-> other types of bar ends or the multiple configs of trekking bars) whereas with drop levers you're stuck with drops or bullhorn it appears to me, that's before taking into account reach adjustments. Anyway I'm also most likely going for a Thorn Sherpa, probably pretty soon, and trying to decide my size - I've been there and they told me if I want drops I'm most likely a 600S (based on my standover... I thought the ETT was the most important dimension) but would also fit a 565S, and with straights I'm a 600L or a 565L. My current thinking is the 565L with straights which would give me options if I didn't get on with the straights to change to drops or trekking (though the reach might be 2-3cm too long..). I'm interested why you suggest going for a drop bar spec and changing to straights? It appears to me that the 565S would give me too short a reach for straights.. But perhaps short reach is what I want.

Edit: I'm now even more puzzled why you say drops exacerbate the problem as it seems to me I can get the same reach and and bar height with drops as I can with straights (possibly with different frame sizes), provided I don't use the drop position on the drops. Yet I'm also a bit puzzled about Thorn having separate sizing for drops and straights frames, as it seems they're assuming a lot about how most people will use drops and straights eg if I spent most of my drop time on the tops and most of my straights time on the ergon gp5 bar ends, I would need a shorter top tube on the latter, contrary to the thorn philosophy..

I know custom frames are the ideal solution but they're outside my budget.

I also suspect posture, strength and flexibility are crucial but trying to do the bike geometry first..

(Sorry for double post).

[horizon]

Edit: I'm now even more puzzled why you say drops exacerbate the problem as it seems to me I can get the same reach and and bar height with drops as I can with straights (possibly with different frame sizes), provided I don't use the drop position on the drops. Yet I'm also a bit puzzled about Thorn having separate sizing for drops and straights frames, as it seems they're assuming a lot about how most people will use drops and straights eg if I spent most of my drop time on the tops and most of my straights time on the ergon gp5 bar ends, I would need a shorter top tube on the latter, contrary to the thorn philosophy..

The idea is that you ride with your hands on the brake hoods (comfy, good position, quick brake response). So good in fact that tandems sometimes have false stoker brake hoods. That puts you about 12 cm further forward than you would be with straights at the same level. But yes, if you go a bit further forward with bar ends on straights but ride on the shoulders of the drops it would be reversed. Bar ends give you an extra bit of height though.