which road bikes...

[elk]

can accomodate short legs and longer torsos?

I keep finding that the bikes that fit my top, don't fit my legs....as I posted in another thread....I went to look at the Jamis Aurora and the 47 was too small and the 50 too tall...even with the seat tube down almost all the way....( I tried the Coda which they said they could almost make into an Aurora...and I liked the ride..but the bike didn't please my eye... )

(Happily, every LBS I've visited has concentrated the most on reach. )

My Specialized I got in a 53, but we had to switch out the seat posts so I could get one that went low enough. And this is a step through.
( I probably ride a little higher than I did 2 months ago...but I want some standover height!)

So if the Jamis Aurora is out...what other steel (man I liked that steel ride..it was awesome!!) road/touring bikes should I try? The Salsa Caseroll looks worth a try, but the top tube seems short?

HAS to be steel.

[silver]

I'm no expert (long legs with normal torso) but Mr. is a Short leg/Long Torso (SLLT: pronounced S l u t )

He was advised to get a Lemond by Fred at the Bicycle Garage. It really does seem to fit him well and he's pretty comfy. He has a 49cm. His inseam is probably 27 inches ?

http://www.lemondbikes.com/bikes/roa...minum/reno.php

Seems there might have been a thread about this. hmmm...

[silver]

Whoopsie! I missed the steel requirement on the OP. Sorry!

Lemond does have a Steel bike that I think looks great! But the geometry is different. It does come in a 49cm, so maybe it's worth a try.

http://www.lemondbikes.com/bikes/roa...eel/sarthe.php

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

can accomodate short legs and longer torsos?

I keep finding that the bikes that fit my top, don't fit my legs....as I posted in another thread....I went to look at the Jamis Aurora and the 47 was too small and the 50 too tall...even with the seat tube down almost all the way......
My Specialized I got in a 53, but we had to switch out the seat posts so I could get one that went low enough. And this is a step through.
( I probably ride a little higher than I did 2 months ago...but I want some standover height!)

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying the bikes are too tall for you because you cannot stand over the top tube when standing over the bike without the tube mashing your crotch?- or are you saying they are too tall for you because you want a certain amount of standover height? Exactly how did you decide the 50 was too tall?
Are you by any chance trying to get a bike that will allow you to balance both your toes on the ground while you are still in the saddle? That is what I am hearing between the lines. Is that what you mean when you say: "we had to switch out the seat posts so I could get one that went low enough, and this is a step through" ?? My question is: low enough for what?

I'm just guessing here-
Elk, if a road bike fits your reach well and has adequate standover space (1-2" space between your crotch and the top tube) and you are trying to lower the seat on it enough to keep your toes touching the ground when you come to a stop and stay in the saddle, then that is not the right way to fit a road bike and you will likely not have adequate length for your legs to extend between your seat and your pedal. If you put your saddle too far down like that for a feeling of security when stopping at lights, then your legs are not going to be able to straighten enough as you pedal, which will lead to knee pain. Plus, most road bikes are not designed to be able to adjust this way.
How was the 50cm bike "too tall"?
When seated on the saddle of a road bike, you should not be able to touch either foot to the ground at all unless you really slant the bike way to one side, or get off the saddle and stand over the bike top tube.

When I first discovered this on my new road bike (after having started riding on a friend's too-small hybrid) I felt freaked out and scary, balanced way up in the air like that. It felt I was on one of those 1800's highwheeler bikes teetering in space! I whined about it, and we set my saddle an inch and a half or so too low so I could slowly get used to this odd giraffe feeling. But once I rode for a few weeks, it began to feel normal. A few more weeks, and it felt I was too low, so we started raising it. That continued until my saddle was the "right" height for my legs to be at optimal extension while pedaling- any higher and I'd start rocking my hips. Any lower and I get sore knees. The right height feels good now!

Perhaps I am jumping to the wrong conclusions anyway here- correct me if I am!

[Mr. Bloom]

Mr. is a Short leg/Long Torso (SLLT: pronounced S l u t )

Hmmm, I walk in the door after being gone for a week, and this is the thread I see up on the computer screen...NOW, I know what she really thinks...

But, notwithstanding this, I am VERY pleased with my 49cm Lemond

[Eden]

I'd suggest looking at touring models as they generally have longer than average top tubes.
Like the Trek 520, or the Kona Sutra (both steel) - the Sutra in a 49cm has the same tt length as the Jamis in a 50, but 5cm less stand over.

Remember also that you can tweak the fit too. Most small bikes come with a fairly short stem. You should be able to put on a slightly longer one without messing up the handling, but remember that it is complex. You also want to be sure you can get good knee position, so the length of the cranks makes a difference too - smaller bike w/ shorter cranks means you'll have the saddle further forward - moving you closer to the handlebars again. If you are a hard fit, try to get the store to work with you and swap out components until you've got it ALL right.

I have to say I almost wish I had that problem - few bikes have a short enough tt for me..... (longer inseam than Mr. Silver on me, but only 5' overall)

Also cyclocross bikes usually are a bit longer too - but are often fairly tall as well. You can make them fine road machines with a swap of tires though.

[KnottedYet]

Sounds like a WSD would be right out...

I still vote for trying a Surly Cross Check and Surly Long Haul Trucker, but I loved the Jamis Aurora. If you felt the reach was too short on that, well, maybe the Cross Check will still feel a little cramped, but try it anyway! Cyclocross bikes will likely feel a little too tall, even when the reach is good. They lean toward having the bottom bracket higher from the ground than the average bike (more ground clearance). The most noticable effect is it makes standover higher, but that wouldn't be too much fun if you already feel you need a short standover.

I feel great on all 3 of my cyclocross-geometry bikes, but I've never tried the Long Haul Trucker or Kona Sutra or Casaroll or Trek 520. Let me know how you like them!

More steel, more fun!

[boy in a kilt]

Knot, I believe you currently own nearly as many bikes as I have in the 25 yeras I've been cycling. To make this post a little more pointless, here's a list:

Schwinn LeTour (25 pound tank, steel rims, stem shifters, etc.)
Raleigh something or other with aero things on it. I was 15, of course it was cool.
Peugeot Canyon Express (broke my leg on this bike)
Fuji- nothing special about this bike, don't even remember what happened to it
Faggin (First bike with campy!)
Bridgestone MTB
Cannondale road bike (last bike with down tube shifters)
Davidson Stiletto
Trek 540
Co-motion

Ok, that's a few more than Knot has, but not many. And I've never owned more than two bikes at once.

[KnottedYet]

I've only ever owned 2 at once. Sort of...

Elk, the more I think about it, the more I think you'd like steel touring geometry better than the steel cyclocross geometry you tried. (it's that raised-bottom-bracket-so-higher-standover thing that keeps popping into my mind)

[elk]

Okey Dokey

Lisa. No. I mean low enough to get the right bend in my knee with foot on the pedal...and it had ZERO standover height...to my mind, if you're standing over the bike and you're touching the tt...it's high.
My 53" Globe is a step through and we had to swtch out the post so I could be comfortable on the saddle. Fit me on the top...had to mess around to get the bottom to fit.
I don't expect to be able to touch the ground from the saddle. And I like being up high...I just don't want to bang myself on that tube if I need to jump off.

Silver...thanks for the tip...if I see a used one in my size...I'll try it! ( $$)

Eden...I'll check out the trek and Kona...if you mean that the Kona has a little MORE SO room. (the Jamis 50 was too big)

KNot... I think i'll go find the Surlys next. The woman at the shop explained that high bottom bracket deal to me...Touring sounds good.
There is a a sage green 46cm (which is my guess for size for the LHT ) all decked out for touring on the craigslist in alaska....( what have YOU been doing, elk???) I'll try to find one maybe tommorrow to try.. apparently they sell out fast.

and the Casseroll has a sloped top tube which might help. I read somewhere that the Casseroll is the closest you can get to a Riv for the money...

But the sad part is that when I got home and went out for a ride..I thought my bike was kind of....gulp...dull. That slim steel frame felt so strong and light...

[Eden]

yes - the Kona has a smaller stand over height (the top tube is lower) than the Jamis

FYI- the thing about cyclocross frames- It isn't really the fact that the bottom bracket is high that makes the top tube any higher - what it really does is make the seat tube measurement smaller...... so a "bigger" bike measures out to a "smaller" size. A 44cm cross bike is really about the same size as a traditional geometry 48cm bike if you are looking at stand over and TT length.
Seat tube is just kind of a convenient thing to measure a bike with, but it causes a lot of confusion..... compact frames and cross frames tend to measure smaller than traditional geometry frames. Which is why I have a 47cm bike, a 44cm bike and a 48cm bike that all fit me.....

[elk]

eden
makes sense....I LIKE that Trek 520...I'll check it out..Plus I love shiny black bikes...

[KnottedYet]

shiney black bikes like this one?



My Surly Cross Check. For what it's worth, I ride a 52 cm Cross Check, 53 cm Waterford, and 56 cm Kona Dew. Sizes do vary!

Edit: Hmmm, I just took a look at the 2008 Trek 520. I see they noticed how popular the Surly color scheme was last year. One year the 520 looks like a Jamis, the next year it looks like a Surly... sigh. (but my Surly was a lot cheaper than the 520) http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/2008/road/520/520/

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

OK, I get it now....sort of.

The Jamis Aurora *is* a touring geometry. But maybe the Kona will have a lower top tube like Knot said. There are road bikes that have slightly slanted top tubes (which would give you more standover clearance) but which are not "mixtes". ...Anyone can suggest these? And yes, I would try the Casseroll too.

[KnottedYet]

If you have an REI nearby, maybe check their touring bike out:
http://www.rei.com/product/744804