Bike fit / correct riding position

Slammed SMP 1 cm forwards on the tourer and put the saddle up by 0.5 cm.

Which means tourer + thomson inline and track bike + setback posts for the same comfy position. Cos seatpost angles.

TL:DR if it doesn't feel like you're sitting down properly and hips getting support, but you know saddle is OK for you, try around. Or do maths.

Left photo still look a tiny bit too high.

I like the idea of using someones shoes size to figure out their frame size.

It is not as absurd as you might think. To the extent that one can correlate bicycle fit with limb segment measures it works out relatively well. Footlength is not just strongly linked to height--- shorter people have smaller shoes--- but comparatively longer feet generally indicate comparatively longer leg bones. Foot length also typically matches the length of one's forearm. Since the elbow is typically at ones waist it is a pretty good guide to both reach and setback. Height is quite well linked to tibia length. Take two people of the same height. The person with the longer feet will probably have both longer legs (shorter torso) but also longer forearms and longer femur, whence more setback..

Which explains why at 6' tall with size 47 feet I need a lot of setback on my saddle.

Is it only for men? The ST/TT size is spot on though...

The factors to correlate foot length to height etc. are gender (and to a certain extent race) specific. Foot length seems to reach mature length much earlier than legs (femur, tibia). Given the impact on growth from estrogen it seems that women can have comparatively longer feet yet shorter legs and whence longer torsos. The reason that women have smaller feet is that they are shorter and there is a social aesthetic trend to wear too small shoes (in its most cruel form as the sexual fetish of Chinese foot bindings)! Woman's bicycle fit is, however, additionally complicated by the gender differences in muscle mass, flexibility etc.

I believe women tend to have LONGER legs and SHORTER upper bodies relative to their height compare to men? (but men on average will have larger feet relative to their height)?

I'm quite happy on men's bikes, but once you go below a 50cm TT a 700C wheel becomes hard to use with non-toe-murdering geo, and that doesn't make it easy, so now 650C bikes are offered by Evans, among others.

Pink and flowers on women's frames are deffo my big fit issues... :P

No. As that would mean I am a woman. 170cm height with 81cm inseam.

No. Because 650b and custom if you are a freak. You cant have it all.

Just no.

... the sexual fetish of Chinese foot bindings...

The what?

Where do you get this rubbish?

My bad, should have said on average woman have. That's based on tables so of course some people are outliers.

Ah, when people are shorter than about 5"3' they're freaks...nice.

Remind me again of all the complaining the the porn thread when you post modern bikes for people that are 170ish rather than the usual mega seatpost showing jobs...??? I'm 165 btw.

Maybe I didnt put it right. 700c small bikes dont always mean toe overlap if you go custom or longer wheelbase bike. 650b will offer more choice than 650c.

Here's what I found.

Women can fit on men bicycle (the majority of "women" bicycles are the same as the men).

The keys issues is poor design, as the frame sizing isn't consistent, like Specialized, whose smallest frame isn't as short as their medium frame.

That's usually why Cervelo is popular with both genders, despite them not offering a "women" version, because their sizing is much more in relation to the fit.

Women specific Cannondales also have different geometry. But yes I agree with Ed most companies including Trek and Canyon just have different colours. Maybe they havent got the memo that its 2016.

Ah, I see. Yes, it's possible do to it without.

Evans Cycles just started offering 650 wheelsizes as part of the off the pegs.

Yes it's a bit of of a guessing game unless you like your maths :)

I'm quite happy with modern shallow narrow drops bars/short reach brakes, that really helps me.

I believe women tend to have LONGER legs and SHORTER upper bodies relative to their height compare to men?

They, in general, don't. Our western aesthetic finds long legs attractive--- linked to preception of youth whence fertility--- so creates the image of longer legs though fashion. Its as they say "smoke and mirrors".

Leg length is particularly interesting amongst elite cyclists since longer legs tend to be advantageous-- just as shorter legs to swimmers and height to basketball players. That means that one would expect the sport to define a certain kind of preference filter towards individuals with comparatively longer legs. I was quite suprized when back in the 1980s the data collected on female elite cyclists did not show this response.

(but men on average will have larger feet relative to their height)?

Again they really don't. Women wear smaller shoes since they are on average shorter and they tend to purchase shoes that are comparatively smaller. Small feet, like long legs, is considered sexually attractive so women's shoes tend to typically be made in patterns to give the impression of a smaller foot. Compare the the court shoe to its female high street variant: the "pump". Women, in turn, tend to try to fit into shoes like Anastasia into those glass slippers--- witness the high frequency of noncongenital foot problems amongst women.

... the sexual fetish of Chinese foot bindings...
The what?

Where do you get this rubbish?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding#Appeal_and_interpretations

http://www.damninteresting.com/bound-by-tradition/

See also
Med Hypotheses. 2007;69(4):938-41. Epub 2007 Mar 26.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17367956

.."Historians of the period have noted that Chinese men viewed foot-binding as conducive to better sexual intercourse because they believed that women with bound feet had vaginas that were more highly muscled and sensitive. We hypothesise that since foot-binding kept a girl's feet small and atrophic, this resulted in underutilisation of the foot areas of her somatosensory and motor cortices. This resulted in cross-activation between the redundant foot cortex and the adjacent genital areas in her brain. Hence women with bound feet devoted a disproportionately large area of the sensory and motor cortices of their brains to their genitalia and pelvic floor musculature, which made them more sensitive and pleasurable lovers. This caused Chinese men to prefer their sexual partners to have bound feet, which resulted in the enduring popularity of foot-binding in China over the last millennium"..

Ah right, tx, I didn't know that. And the women's models often have shorter top tubes to make up for longer legs/shorter upper bodies. You'd think they would base such decisions on population measurement tables...that are quite £££ to buy.

Annoyingly small shoes/high heels for daily life can GTFO.

most companies including Trek and Canyon just have different colours.

Women don't need different geometries than men-- unless we are speaking of roadsters and the need to accommodate long skirts. The main issue confronting short women is not geometry but the availablilty of well designed small frames. It seems that even the shorter professional men cyclists are taller than 5'3" (and tend not to have eyes of blue). The mountain fleas in the peleton-- guys like Nairo Quintana (5'5"), David Etxebarria (5'5"), Paulo Bettini (5'7")-- are not shorter than leading women have been: Jeannie Longo (5'4"), Loentien van Moorsel (5'6"), Barabara Heeb (5'5").

The smallest professional male cyclist I can think of is perhaps Sammy Dumoulin (5'2").

Well, that's me told...

Apologies.

Women don't need different geometries than men-- unless we are speaking of roadsters and the need to accommodate long skirts. The main issue confronting short women is not geometry but the availablilty of well designed small frames.

That's precisely what I said, on the very same pages...

Don't be so surprised Ed, sometimes people may agree with you. It has even happened to me on occasion.

13mm of extra reach is like... negligible, right? I can stretch that, right?

If only there was a qualified yoga instructor/keen cyclist we could ask...