I know that seat-top to handlebar/stem drop is widely variable and based on one's level of fitness, flexibility, etc, but just as a general rule, does anyone have an opinion on whether I am best served with a larger frame (current is 56 cm and I'm 6-6.1 w 35 inseam) and ride this drop ok but sometimes get lower-back soreness when I really ride hard. Or should I do some type of exercises to strengthen core to handle this and keep riding this bike. It really looks like too much seatpost sticking out too.

any suggestions are appreciated, thanks.

56 sounds too small for you. What's the effective top tube and seat tube angle? Post a picture of you on your bike if you can. I'd be interested to see what more experienced folks think.

Normally you might think he would fit a 57cm -. but that leg length may require an even larger frame.

Long arms as well?

Very short upper torso could also influence frame size - with no real info or pictures - me thinks custom. More info needed

ok, so here;s what the website gives, effective T.Tube is 56.3, seat angle 73.25. When I bought it I don;t recally there being as many size options as there are now, I could be wrong. I have a 34/5 inseam (depending on who's measuring) and my torso is a bit shorter than my legs (I think my arms are proportionate to torso). My guess is a size or two bigger would be better (oh no...)

I may be similarly proportioned.

I'm 6'1" and I've got a 34" inseam. I ride a 59cm (C/C) custom steel frame. My seat height is about 31.5" (tape through center of rails to BB center). If you go too high with the seat, you will get lower back pain. Lower it incrementally until it stops. One aspect that is often overlooked with tall people is shoe size. If you have a big foot, You can go a cm higher.

My seat to HB drop is not nearly as drastic as yours.

My Cervelo P2C is a 56cm, but I don't think I would ever go so small on a road frame.

A very general "rule of thumb" is 1 fist of seatpost on a traditionally sized frame or 2 fists of seatpost on a "modern" sized frame.

thanks, that helps. I did lower the seat and rode it for a bit which felt good upper-body wise, but then worried about knee damage and I get much better pedal strokes with the seat where it should be.
Feet are 10 1/2 or so, sometimes 11 depending on shoe maker, someone also recommended using 175 cranks instead of 172.5's, would this make a substantial difference?
I am interested in what you can tell me about Cervelo's geometry for you as I was looking into an R3 as a second bike in a 58 but wondered whether it would be too short vertically and too long over the top tube. I like the bike a lot though. I think yours is different (TT no?) so maybe you have experience on a road frame of theirs too?

thanks

Disclaimer: There's no possible way to answer this question via an internet forum. Any definitive answers given here are by definition wrong.

That said...

Yeah, that's too much drop. Your bike itself shows it with the too-high angle of the handlebars (particularly the hoods.) Even without changes that will result in a positioning difference, less drop will allow that to be corrected.

As a data point, I have the same height and inseam, and ride a 57cm Litespeed that is technically too small - it should be a 59. I chose the slightly smaller size because I wanted a different handling for that bike. I also ride a 63 cm Cannondale, which when all is done fits identically to the LS. Just sayin', bike size isn't a rock-solid number. And while it doesn't matter at all to your situation, I usually have 7 cm's of drop. I usually ride the C-dale with less drop and more extension, so my overall position ends up the same. The differences reflect different purposes for those bikes.

While your bike can probably be made to fit reasonably, a larger size would be easier to work with and would likely result in a better handling and more comfortable bike. Depends on your goals, though. If you are working towards a crit bike, you are closer than if you are looking for a road or century fit. Depends on how a particular brand sizes up, too.

FWIW, if a fitting is done right, drop has relatively little to do with fitness / flexibility. It ends up having more to do with first raw physical dimensions, and secondarily with the bike/rider combination's goals and objectives. In most cases, if you are reaching flexibility limits, you've long since given up significant amounts of power. And while core strength is a good thing for sustained power generation, a properly balanced fit (after managing the aerodynamic / power / handling questions) ends up not requiring all that much core strength to maintain the position. (This paragragh is based on a reasonable amount of fitness. It matters more for the couch tater.)

Finally, drop is an oversimplified measurement. We should be paying attention to the drop into the drops, not to the tops. Since there's considerable variation in bars, drop alone is meaningless. Drop alone only matters if one rides mostly on the hoods / tops, which is giving away a lot of the versatility of the design.

Just guessing, but you probably can't effectively ride with your hands in the hooks, elbows bent and fingers on the brake levers for long periods of time. That answer gives you the answer to your question.

you're right, i can't stay in the drops for a significant amount of time at all, it feels way off.

are you saying that reach/stretch is negligible or equivalent to drop (seat to bars, not bar drop) in terms of bike fit? This matters as a size or two up would result in a longer tt which I thought I should avoid.

I realized this is all theoretical as one needs to be fitted in person, but I guess I'm just looking for "objective" opinions from people who arent trying to sell me a new frame in their shop and from folks with more experience than me.

thanks, that helps. I did lower the seat and rode it for a bit which felt good upper-body wise, but then worried about knee damage and I get much better pedal strokes with the seat where it should be.
Feet are 10 1/2 or so, sometimes 11 depending on shoe maker, someone also recommended using 175 cranks instead of 172.5's, would this make a substantial difference?
I am interested in what you can tell me about Cervelo's geometry for you as I was looking into an R3 as a second bike in a 58 but wondered whether it would be too short vertically and too long over the top tube. I like the bike a lot though. I think yours is different (TT no?) so maybe you have experience on a road frame of theirs too?

thanks

Don't get too caught up in what the calculator spits out. "Where the seat should be" is where it doesn't hurt you. The number is just a place to begin. But as others have pointed out, it seems like your HBs are too far away, so that's going to munge up everything!! You can go with a shorter stem as a fix.

I don't consider 10.5 long. More like 12 and upward....

Sorry, never tried a Cervelo road frame.

+1 on what danl1 said, i'm 6'0 with a 36" inseam and ride a 61cm cervelo soloist and 14cm of saddle/bar drop. Offering only my "internet opinion" i'd think that you need a larger frame judging by the seatpost and handlebar setup. Here is my bike in comparison, i have to run the 61cm with a 110mm stem but the longer headtube of the 61 means that the bars are at a comfortable distance.

Good luck!

cool, nice bike, isn;t that alot of stretch for you to ride with so much drop AND reach? a 61 plus 110 stem on 14 cm drop sounds worse than mine!

It's not that bad, perhaps my wingspan might be longer (198cm) allowing for the increased reach. But given the choice i always go for a larger frame and shorter stem, the 61 has a 200mm headtube, the 58 only 180mm.

I'm 6'2" with a 36" inseam (via LeMond method) and I have a 15cm drop on my race bike.

hardcore... i notice your seatpost is alu, would that much carbon risk cracking?

hardcore... i notice your seatpost is alu, would that much carbon risk cracking?

II don't think so, but I don't want to find out. 'm a big guy and I'm not a big fan of carbon anything (I'm just warming up to carbon forks because they are so prevalent now). I don't want anything that's "glued" together under my fat @ss.

Back in the dark ages I raced a season on a team bike that had been given to me. I typically ride between a 56 and 58 cm frameset. I'm 5-10 with a 32 inch inseam. That team ride I had was a 55cm and I had it set up with about 5" of drop. My testicles were numb most of that season. Back in that day (early 80's) I think we were more concerned with aerodynamics than comfort and that was a huge mistake. If you have a 35" inseam it seems to me you'd need at least a 60cm frameset. If you're so bent over you can't breath properly you've already got 2 strikes against you. You can't give 100% effort on a bike if your mind is focused on how god awful uncomfortable you are on it. Just my 2cents.

13.2 cm is not really that much drop

As far as your handlebars, if you haven't experimented with them I would try the following:

1. Place your ergo levers so that the bottom of the brake lever sits on a straight edge held against the bottom of the handlebars, if that sounds confusing check campy's website for the manual that comes with a set of levers for a pic.

2. Note in the other pictures posted here how the handlebars roughly point at the rear brake, most people are somewhere close to this. I point mine just a bit below my rear brake but its really a matter of what wrist angle feels comfortable. I also have never been able to get my bars where I like them in the drops when using anatomic/ergo handlebars, classic bends seem to be easier but that's personal preference.

Without seeing you on it I couldn't say if your bike is truly too small but it does look to me like a few changes could be made in that particular area.

man i thought 10cm of drop was a decent amount but 13.2 yikes.