Bike geometry for short-legged woman

nilhg

Chuchote wrote: »

Ah, interesting!

The Ruby does look like a good shape. I wish I could understand the numbers on the geometry, but really that's like wishing I was a six-foot redhead like my grandma!

OP, the two numbers to concentrate on are stack and reach.

Stack is the height of the top of the head tube, with no spacers underneath, so it can be increased a little by using spacers.

Reach is the distance from the bottom bracket to a vertical line drawn through the top of the head tube, there's a diagram at the link below which will make it more obvious

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Bike_Fit/Choosing_a_Tri_Bike_via_Stack_and_Reach/Stack_Reach_Primer_Chapter_One_95.html

If you know the stack and reach figures for the bike you liked it should be possible to match that to any other model using spacers under the stem and varying the stem length.

Not sure I've explained that well if you can get your head around stack and reach it's a good starting point in finding something to fit you.

nak wrote: »

It's a self supported event, so frame bag, bar bag, saddle bag etc.

Lael was riding a Specialised ruby pro with quite a tidy baggage setup.

http://www.bikepacking.com/plog/lael-wilcox-trans-am/

cdaly_

Chuchote wrote: »

I just found the perfect Goldilocks bike in all ways but one - it's a racer, and I'm looking for a light, handy bike to do a little touring.

You could consider a Thorn Audax. Steel frame, suitable for light touring and available in very small (701mm (27") standover). They'll make the bike up to your measurements (they ask for height, standover height and arm span).

Lovely bikes, not terribly light but a joy to ride. Starting price GBP1240 but you'll likely end up spending more. They're in Somerset UK and there's no irish showroom or stockist...

Chuchote

Thanks, nilhg, I'll take a look at the stack and reach. What's a head tube again?

I'm inclined to think you're right about stack and reach being important, but they're the upper body, right? If I could graft long spidery legs on to me, I'd be fine. The main problem is that I'm built like an Eskimo; somewhere in my genetic line a kayaking gene was lurking and came out with me as a sport (in the genetic sense, not the good-at-athletics sense).

cdaly, the bike I'm currently riding is a steel-framed Dawes - I think it's probably a Galaxy, but the name's long since worn off. It was grand when I was younger and stronger - too big for me, but I could cycle it happily enough. It keeps trying to kill me, and clearly hates me, but heck, you can't have everything. But 'not terribly light' is no longer a joy to ride for me, as my muscles are simply not up to what they were. And don't tell me about your 90-year-old mother-in-law doing 99 miles on her 90lb Elswick Ludlow; she's not me. I'm a weak old thing. Heavy bikes are not for me, not any longer.

Chuchote

Hm, looking at some youtubes about Lael Wilcox doing various long-distance races. Wouldn't call her bike heavily loaded, though! A bivvy bag and a toothbrush seems about the height of it, and I'm not sure about the toothbrush! What a brave rider…

Chuchote

Probably the ideal bike for me would be one built for Chinese women tourers, if that's a thing. They seem to have the same build as me - long in body and arms but short in leg (though considerably less flabby and cellulitey).

nilhg

Chuchote wrote: »

Thanks, nilhg, I'll take a look at the stack and reach. What's a head tube again?

I'm inclined to think you're right about stack and reach being important, but they're the upper body, right? If I could graft long spidery legs on to me, I'd be fine. The main problem is that I'm built like an Eskimo; somewhere in my genetic line a kayaking gene was lurking and came out with me as a sport (in the genetic sense, not the good-at-athletics sense).

cdaly, the bike I'm currently riding is a steel-framed Dawes - I think it's probably a Galaxy, but the name's long since worn off. It was grand when I was younger and stronger - too big for me, but I could cycle it happily enough. It keeps trying to kill me, and clearly hates me, but heck, you can't have everything. But 'not terribly light' is no longer a joy to ride for me, as my muscles are simply not up to what they were. And don't tell me about your 90-year-old mother-in-law doing 99 miles on her 90lb Elswick Ludlow; she's not me. I'm a weak old thing. Heavy bikes are not for me, not any longer.

I'm far from an expert, but in your case what I'd be thinking is to find a frame size to fit your leg length then adapt by changing stem height (with spacers) and length, which would lessen that cramped up feeling.

I don't know exactly what it might cost but someone like Brendan from Bicycle Design Centre might be worth a visit, if you could afford a bike built by him that might be ideal but if you just got a fitting off him he'd be able to match you up to some suitable frame sizes, have a look at his fitting page, he's in Naas.

Chuchote

Thanks, Nilhg, I may try a bike fitting.

The only thing that makes me a little cautious about that is a friend who's long and stringy in build, and is invariably told by bike fitters that she needs a particular size and type of frame. In fact, she prefers a couple of sizes bigger, and gets a nice stretchy cycle on that. Her cycling is along some of the back roads of the far west, and she's ecstatic with a new bike which is theoretically a bit too big for her, but actually suits her perfectly.

And heh, a personally built bike is a little beyond my price range!

Chuchote

Nak, I see that this magazine that carried a long interview with Lael Wilcox has no Irish routes on its worldwide bikepacking chart - maybe you could add some: http:// www. bikepacking. com/bikepacking-routes/ (sorry about the spaces, as a 'new user' I can't post URLs).

Kaisr Sose

This is an interesting thread that shows the complexities and importance of getting a bike that fits!! I think it's great that you are getting so many/much technical info here. What is not amazing or surprising is how little help you are getting in retail shops. Hope you get sorted.

Chuchote

Alek wrote: »

It seems that the seat post in the smallest Nature Pro (44cm) is slightly longer in the smallest Axial (43cm).

Alek, which seat post are you saying is longer, please?

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

This is an interesting thread that shows the complexities and importance of getting a bike that fits!! I think it's great that you are getting so many/much technical info here. What is not amazing or surprising is how little help you are getting in retail shops. Hope you get sorted.

Kaisr, what it shows me (apart from the kindness of people here) is the amazing sameness of bodies generally - the people in the shops look at me, see a normally medium-sized body, but shorter than most, and think in terms of the top of the body. It really doesn't occur to them that the short legs should make a big difference - they think either of putting me on a tiny frame that will cramp my upper body, and adjusting it by longer bits here and there, or putting me on a normal-ish-but-smallish frame and adjusting that by higher bits here and there. Neither, unfortunately, seems to work.

Chuchote

Went out to Cycle Superstore and tried out a Cannondale Synapse that was very nearly right; the nice and knowledgeable guy there also suggested a LaPierre Audacio 100, but doesn't have the small size right now - however, he reckoned it would be stumpy enough yet reachy enough. They don't do Specialized there, so I'm going to go and look at the Ruby somewhere else and wait a little before deciding. On the way home I ran into someone cycling a Specialized Sirius, which also looked nice, but of course looking isn't feeling.

As far as I understood him, he said the two most important things for me were the stack - essentially the height of the frame; and the reach.

Chuchote

Oh, and the Dawes Galaxy, he said - the horrible fecking bike that keeps trying to kill me (and which is too big for me in any case) now sells for around €2,000 in its current model. He said the heavy weight of it is probably down to the components as much as anything else, and they've given a new lease of life to several of these by changing the wheels, etc to modern lightweight ones.

Kaisr Sose

Dawes Galaxy model is around a long time. I remember drooling over one backe in the mid 80's. I think it had a Reynolds 531 frame. If you have one of them, they are keepers - just for the nostalgia!

Chuchote

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Dawes Galaxy model is around a long time. I remember drooling over one backe in the mid 80's. I think it had a Reynolds 531 frame. If you have one of them, they are keepers - just for the nostalgia!

If I could get it to stop trying to snap at me as I lock it, it might be! But the frame is a couple of inches too big for me; I think it's a 21-inch frame (in old terminology), when I'd normally be comfortable on a 19" or so. OTOH, it's not generally a bike-thief magnet, and if I could get lighter components, it might be worth using as a runaround, keeping a better bike for any bit of touring.

Ideally I'd get one good bike and keep it. However, Dublin's bike thieves seem to have something against people doing so. Until the thief problem is solved, there's not a lot of point in using a good bike as a general bike.

fat bloke

Chuchote wrote: »

Went out to Cycle Superstore and tried out a Cannondale Synapse that was very nearly right; the nice and knowledgeable guy there also suggested a LaPierre Audacio 100, but doesn't have the small size right now - however, he reckoned it would be stumpy enough yet reachy enough. They don't do Specialized there, so I'm going to go and look at the Ruby somewhere else and wait a little before deciding. On the way home I ran into someone cycling a Specialized Sirius, which also looked nice, but of course looking isn't feeling.

As far as I understood him, he said the two most important things for me were the stack - essentially the height of the frame; and the reach.

Let us hereafter replace the term "stumpy" with "petite"

Chuchote

Petite, though, suggests general smallness; stumpy suggests squashed-down shortness

BremoreDave

If you have the means I would highly recommend a Retul bike fit.
They can provide a complete sizing chart and bike geometry based on your measurements and overall mobility.

Chuchote

BremoreDave wrote: »

If you have the means I would highly recommend a Retul bike fit.
They can provide a complete sizing chart and bike geometry based on your measurements and overall mobility.

Hm, €200. When I hear that I hear my mother's ghostly voice, "There are children starving in India…" Even if it were €150 it might be possible, but €200 would feel really sinful!

Lusk_Doyle

Chuchote wrote: »

Hm, €200. When I hear that I hear my mother's ghostly voice, "There are children starving in India…" Even if it were €150 it might be possible, but €200 would feel really sinful!

Why? Do you use the same logic for other purchases?

Chuchote

Good point; and after all, the labourer is worthy of his hire. I'd feel pretty aggrieved if someone didn't want to pay me my assigned fee on that basis. Maybe I should think about it. It sort of seems like something that a professional cyclist would do, though, rather than a slowcoach moocher-along-roads at an average of 12 km/h.

Chuchote

Goodness, it's stringent!

http:// bikefitstudio .ie /wp-content/uploads/2014/05/sample-fit-report.pdf

BremoreDave

Chuchote wrote: »

Hm, €200. When I hear that I hear my mother's ghostly voice, "There are children starving in India…" Even if it were €150 it might be possible, but €200 would feel really sinful!

Well it is a large outlay for a new bike and considering the problems you quoted trying to find one that will suit it might be worth putting aside some of your budget for that.
I had a fit done only a couple of months ago on my current bike ,and it made a huge difference, after almost two years cycling with the wrong set-up.
It was also suggested that the bike was slightly too small for me and at least now if I am purchasing a new bike I know exactly the measurements to look for.