I usually go on the “geometry geeks” website (link below) when looking for a new bike. They have reliable data on pretty much every bike on the planet. You might just find something with a shorter than average reach for the same frame size. I’ve noticed “endurance” road bikes tend to be going in that direction, with shorter reach than their equivalent race bikes. For example the Canyon Endurace has about 10 mm less reach than the Canyon Ultimate in a medium frame size. Same story with most other manufacturers.
You might also be able to get some different bars with less drop/reach, which might be all you need to get that reach under control. I don’t think I would go any shorter than 80 mm on the stem, although it would be a relatively cheap experiment to try a 70 mm and you probably wouldn’t die!
My current (ongoing) COVID project is to refresh my old bike mechanic skills by building a new bike from scratch. This could prove really handy, thanks!
I’ll agree with the no less than 80 mm crew for a 420mm bar. It becomes way to twitchy or hard to get torque enough to move the bars. If you are on a 380mm bar (that means some narrow shoulders) you might get away with a 70mm stem but it still may be too twitchy. I would look for bars with a low depth rather than go short on the stem.
Good insight. Thanks @jmckenzieKOS. By “low depth” you’re referring to depth from bar top to drops? Honestly my bars aren’t an issue, I think. Main issue is top tube length - which is what it is with the current ride (2000 Trek 5500 OCLV USPS edition), as it’s the only bike I have. Effective TT length is 54.5 currently, so in a build I guess I’m going to be factoring in a shorter TT, which would probably mean a tighter triangle and stiffer ride for sure.
So probably will buy a month’s worth of Geometry Geeks so I can search brands by effective TT length, looking for a size with a shorter distance. Will be interesting to see what kind of circus bikes are out there!
I’m talking about the distance from the bend in the bars to where you mount the brake levers. Maybe I used the wrong term here. Reach is what I meant. Drop is the distance from where the bar attaches to the stem to the drops. I prefer a medium reach with shallow drop distance because of back flexibility issues. Road bicycle drop bar geometry | BikeGremlin has a great discussion on handbar geometry.
I would really endorse the suggestion of getting a good bit fit. I did this about four years ago and found that I had been riding with the saddle about 3.5 cm lower than optimal. Fixing this straightened out my back and led to much less shoulder strain at the end of a long ride.
I was also still using the original saddle from when I purchased the bike in 2007. Through the fitting process we found that the seat was now flexing so much that the edge would sometimes touch the saddle rails. We replaced it with a Bontrager Montrose Elite. This works well outside, where short efforts out of the saddle were sufficient to relieve stress on the sit bones on longer rides.
When I first started using a smart trainer last December, I found that the Bontrager was a bit uncomfortable for workouts of more than an hour, since I tended to remain seated even when the workout called for standing (in erg mode, I would encounter too little resistance at the target power and spin out). I replaced the Bontrager saddle with a cushier one with more foam padding from my city/commuter bike. While it was a bit beaten up, it worked fine from a comfort perspective. When the fabric cover started to disintegrate, I replaced it with the Mountain Equipment Co-op “Standard Classic Saddle”. It’s surprisingly comfortable and is a mere $28 (Canadian, no less). It weighs about 100 g more than my Bontrager, so my inner weight-wienie might rebel, but I’d be seriously tempted use this outside, too.
Thinking back on it, I’m amazed that I could be so thick for so long, even after a few of my riding cronies remarked that I looked a bit awkward at that seat height. The bike shop employee just used a straight forward floor-to-crotch measurement to arrive at the seat height and, being relatively new to road cycling, I never thought to question this.
Strangely, I have never had a problem with my knees. But I suspect that the seat height was partly to blame for right lower back pain that I would experience on longer rides. The other part was due to just trying to push too high a gear. This pretty much disappeared when I started using a power meter pedal and focused more on power zone and cadence rather than speed and gear.
Update: this thread motivated me to move one of my Brooks saddles from my little-used “fast” bike onto my Kickr. Today was my most comfortable day in the pain cave since I bought my trainer.
I had a bike fit 2 years ago.The fitter looked down his nose at my position and called it a 1960s racing style. He shorted the stem, turned the brake levers up , and sure enough I look better on the bike, I have almost stopped hunching my shoulders .The trouble is after the 2 years I still feel less comfortable, I still prefer stretched out and low.It looks like I am going shopping now rather than a fast ride
I’m really on the fence about bike fits. There seem to be as many “bad” fits as there are “good” fits out there. It appears that bike fitters vary widely in their competence.
With a bit of research I think you can self-fit pretty effectively. Then maybe a really good fitter could find some further marginal gains. I guess it depends a lot on individual self-awareness and how good your chosen fitter is.
@alchurch I’ve wondered about that. I raced in my younger days (late 70’s - early 80’s), and feel like the riding styles I see now are way different from then. I’ve hesitated to make any adjustments.
