# long seatpost, stem. small frame?



## duder (Feb 25, 2004)

Anyone ride XC riding or racing with a size too small hardtail frame with the seatpost jacked way up and a long stem? I am asking because I want to know if it causes a bad endo factor, or any other funky issues.

I am 6'3'' 175lbs, XC racer
Okay, here is the potential build I might try out. I have the chance to get a deeply discounted full carbon hardtail frame but its a size 18'' or M, with a 588mm effective top tube length and measures out from center of BB to top of TT as 17.4'', and a HT length of 115mm.

To get this frame to work for me I need a 140mm stem and a thomson 410mm seatpost, near maxed out (taking into account minimum insertion of the seatpost). I will run a riser bar as well, to keep the saddle-handlebar drop from getting extreme.

I can get to the position I want to be in, but weight distribution will be messed up. On the plus side, wheelbase will be short and will make the bike really snappy in tight twisty singletrack. often common with XC race courses in midwest.

Your thoughts?


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

Sounds fu cking horrible.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

I am so sick of hearing about people running 'too small' frames looking for some sort of improvement. A frame is too small for a reason. A properly designed and sized frame is ideal for almost any application.

Also, seatpost extention means absolutely nothing with regard to fit.

A 6'3" rider on a medium frame is just stupid. It just doesn't fit.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Horrible idea*

Let me be the third to pile on here - there is a reason we all aren't riding circus bikes. That frame is at least 2 sizes too small for you - you'll be tipping over and losing traction on both ends constantly. Snappy? Try twitchy, endo-prone, and looping out a lot. 140+mm stems aren't common anymore because tucking the front wheel that far under you sucks.

But hey, it's carbon, and it's deeply discounted! Let's all run out and buy one!

Final thought - you'll be faster on a heavy frame that fits you than a super light one that doesn't. Seriously. You need an XL, not a medium. Carbon be damned - either keep riding the bike you've got or look into something that will fit.

-Walt


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

I've got a 150mm Tioga T-Bone I will sell you.


----------



## duder (Feb 25, 2004)

Walt said:


> Let me be the third to pile on here - there is a reason we all aren't riding circus bikes. That frame is at least 2 sizes too small for you - you'll be tipping over and losing traction on both ends constantly. Snappy? Try twitchy, endo-prone, and looping out a lot. 140+mm stems aren't common anymore because tucking the front wheel that far under you sucks.
> 
> But hey, it's carbon, and it's deeply discounted! Let's all run out and buy one!
> 
> ...


Yeah, I think I am going to let this one go. By deeply discounted I meant FREE, but I can't sell it or anything, I'd have to race it. And I actually have a almost complete groupo of parts for a 26er (but no frame) so it had me considering it.

I remember when 140+mm stems were as common as can be back in the day, it got me thinking that it can't be that bad. Why was that the norm in the early mtb days?

If there actually is anyone running a circus bike setup and has experience with a proper fitting bike, give me your experience. But yeah I think the consensus is that its just stupid.

-dude


----------



## duder (Feb 25, 2004)

pvd said:


> I am so sick of hearing about people running 'too small' frames looking for some sort of improvement. A frame is too small for a reason. A properly designed and sized frame is ideal for almost any application.
> 
> Also, seatpost extention means absolutely nothing with regard to fit.
> 
> A 6'3" rider on a medium frame is just stupid. It just doesn't fit.


As I stated I can get to the position I want with a too small frame, without even throwing the seat fore/aft back further than I would normally, which is why I would need 140 stem. The only issue I foresee is weight distribution being way far forward. I am quite skinny in my upper body and thicker lower body so I was thnking its doable for me. What do you mean seatpost extension means nothing with regard to fit? thats one of the critical areas of fit, that along with overall reach, seat fore/aft, saddle to handlebar drop, and headtube angle.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Drop bar geometry.*

Way back in the day, long stems were the norm because short toptubes were the norm - and short toptubes were holdovers from drop bar bike geometry. A lot of folks weren't sure how to build mountain bikes, so they basically stuck a flat bar and a long stem on a road bike with fat tires.

A few people did ride drop bars on their mountain bikes then (and they've made a minor comeback now) but the long stem/short TT geometry mostly died out in the late 80's/early 90s. If you can find one to ride, you'll be amazed how terrifying it is.

Remember too that the rear wheel is going to be WAY too far under you. You're also talking about using a setback post to get the reach dialed in, which is a sign to me that you need to read up on bike fit - saddle position fore/aft relative to the BB should NOT be used to adjust the reach.

-Walt



duder said:


> Yeah, I think I am going to let this one go. By deeply discounted I meant FREE, but I can't sell it or anything, I'd have to race it. And I actually have a almost complete groupo of parts for a 26er (but no frame) so it had me considering it.
> 
> I remember when 140+mm stems were as common as can be back in the day, it got me thinking that it can't be that bad. Why was that the norm in the early mtb days?
> 
> ...


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

duder said:


> The only issue I foresee...


That is what we are all talking about. Fit for power and fit for handling are two different things and to get things right require making lots of informed compromises. I think that if you do a little more digging about the different types of fits you will be able to answer many of your own questions.

Basically, right now you are way off the mark.


----------



## Margaritaman (Aug 25, 2008)

My setup:


----------



## duder (Feb 25, 2004)

Walt said:


> Remember too that the rear wheel is going to be WAY too far under you. You're also talking about using a setback post to get the reach dialed in, which is a sign to me that you need to read up on bike fit - saddle position fore/aft relative to the BB should NOT be used to adjust the reach.
> 
> -Walt


Hey I don't recall mentioning using a setback seatpost to get a longer reach. Maybe you skipped over this sentence: "without even throwing the seat fore/aft back further than I would normally". I realize the importance of fore/aft seat positioning, and planned to keep it exactly the same (i.e. not adjust backward to get more overall reach). Using a plumb bob helps me get that dialed in.

You ever seen that hellbent seatpost made by Titec that has an incredible amount of setback, I think they market it for use on a frame that is too small for a rider, how stupid. I can't imagine anyone having femurs long enough for that thing.


----------

