Gravelywanger frame options?

[fatbikephil]

High and short stem good (ergotec high charisma!) but counter-intuitively, putting a layback post may help. Tom ritchey wrote a good piece for Sheldon Browns website yonks ago. In brief, the further back your erse, the easier it is to counter balance your arms and upper torso, reducing weight on wrists.

You sure it was by Tom Ritchey? There's a very good article by Keith Bontrager that covers the same topic: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/kops.html

Oops wrong American mountainbike pioneer thats the one!

[jameso]

High and short stem good (ergotec high charisma!) but counter-intuitively, putting a layback post may help. Tom ritchey wrote a good piece for Sheldon Browns website yonks ago. In brief, the further back your erse, the easier it is to counter balance your arms and upper torso, reducing weight on wrists.

This^
Layback seatpost really did make a huge difference for me in terms of comfort. I'm on a large pinnacle arkose d1 and 5'11". I put wider cow chipper bars on too.

Yes, 100%. It's counter-intuitive but it works, was part of Keith Bontrager's Debunking KOPS essay. The example I remember was the downhill skier position and the balance through the feet where reaching forward is possible if you counter-balance. Always get the saddle in the right place first, then the bar position matters a fair bit less than expected.

RE your original post FLV, if you're hardly using the drops it may be that the bar and saddle are already too close as well as low. Balance is difficult to get working. The bike I spend the most time on in the drops is also the longest from saddle to bar - I'd not recommend it as a comfort or gravel fit but it does suggest to me that the length can vary more than +/-10 or 15mm once you're in balance via saddle height and set back and is part of how I cope with the drop. Worth checking the saddle's not too high also?

[FLV]

Interesting, does indeed sound counter intuitive. I'll have a read.

re Saddle height. I do tend to have my saddle a little high. Certainly higher than the old school guidelines from my past.

Back then (this was very old rule of thumb mtb saddle position I used) which was
1, Set the saddle so that your knee centre went through the pedal axle with the crank pointed forwards
2, Set the saddle so that with your heel on the pedal you have a roughly straight leg, giving a slight bend when on the ball of your foot. (I tend to ride feet pointed downwards so have the saddle a little higher.)

I think I'll look this up again

[jameso]

The Lemond Method for saddle height works well for me and many others it seems, one bike fitting formula that does seem to be quite valid or well-tested as working for most afaik. I've seen alternative non-formula methods used but they need a really good understanding of physiology. I've gone +/-10mm from the Lemond result and always ended up back there, +/- a couple of mm based on saddle shape. It actually feels lower than I can cope with but I'm happy that a higher saddle doesn't increase power or efficiency. A lower rider position (saddle, and BB if poss) helps effectively raise the bars if you need that.

Back then (this was very old rule of thumb mtb saddle position I used) which was
1, Set the saddle so that your knee centre went through the pedal axle with the crank pointed forwards

You can ignore this unless you're of average proportions on a 73 parallel race bike. I think it's front of knee also (just under the kneecap), so you may be too far fwd already?

2, Set the saddle so that with your heel on the pedal you have a roughly straight leg, giving a slight bend when on the ball of your foot. (I tend to ride feet pointed downwards so have the saddle a little higher.)

This does seem to work as a start point, for most of us I think the Lemond method might give a similar result, just more accurately.
Adjusting based on how much you angle/'ankle' your feet seems logical (since leg angle is influenced by this) but that's into bike fit beyond my knowledge. One point on that that I'd question is that your calf muscles will tyre (< edit, ha, forum autocorrected) if holding your feet at that angle/ankling under power so it may not be a driver of saddle height. eg I use the same saddle height whether I'm on a bike with 170mm or 175mm cranks, yet 5mm of saddle height is a clear change that I'll spot straight away. The same saddle height between the crank sizes is because power comes from where my legs are when the crank is at the ~2pm to 4pm angle. By the time it's inline with the seat tube or at the bottom (ie when the crank length changes the pedal to saddle dist the most) my muscles are just turning the crank over, not really working as hard. If anything I'd look at saddle setback varying between the crank lengths more than height (by that point though it's all got complicated, inter-linked and I just go on feel..)

[FLV]

Thanks for taking the time to write that, interesting thoughts.
I too end up at feel after the briefest 'set up' checks.

I'm going to have a look into it

[FLV]

Ive got a decent position on the pinnacle now, tweaked the seat a bit. Another stem, etc etc. Feels good.

However.... im looking to get shut of my roadbike. Im keeping the Arkose, which will end up left at work and am looking for another frame. Any ideas on this one?

Proper clearance for 29x2.3
Stack in a large above 610
Reach around 385 to 400
Takes a 480ish axle to crown as i have a set of cutthroat forks

I know of the cutthroat in carbon
Fargo
And the vpace tmx is close in ti, marginally different fork length.

Any more?

650b bikes need not apply

[PaulB2]

A big bro fits all those numbers except reach in large - it’s closer in medium