View Single Post
Old 12-12-13, 12:33 PM
  #26  
thook
(rhymes with spook)
 
thook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Winslow, AR
Posts: 2,788

Bikes: '83 univega gran turismo x2, '85 schwinn super le tour,'89 miyata triple cross, '91 GT tequesta, '90 yokota grizzly peak, '94 GT backwoods, '95'ish scott tampico, '98 bonty privateer, '93 mongoose crossway 625, '98 parkpre ariel, 2k'ish giant fcr3

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked 745 Times in 546 Posts
Originally Posted by busdriver1959
The part that confused me and some others was the change in seat tube angle without the seat following it. I think most would use seat tube angle to put your butt where it needs to be with the seat roughly centered on the rails. Reach is achieved with top tube and stem length. Changing reach with ST angle is a little bit backwards.
Hmm....

I was just saying as a result of changing the ST angle, I was told by Sam at Singular Cycles that the effective reach would also change so long as my saddle position remained the same as it is on my current set up. I know how reach is achieved, but for me changing the reach is not the ultimate goal by changing the seat tube angle. Although, I do see it as an advantage.

Right now, I can't adjust the saddle to middle of the rails (and sit in the middle of the saddle where it's comfy) without feeling pushed too far over the crank and too much of my upper body weight on the handlebars. Changing the reach isn't going to solve that. Changing the ST angle would. Yes, I need an inch off the reach, but more on that in a minute.

Here's the article by Grant Peterson I read: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...57967247,d.eW0

Another thing, as frame sizes start getting smaller in reach/ETT, they almost always get shorter in height, as well. For me, that's a problem because of my leg length. It forces me to resort to more awkward methods of getting the handlebars up to saddle height. You know, like lots of headset spacers, or extreme rise on the stem, or a really tall quill stem.....like the Nitto Technomic. All well and good, I suppose. Many people do that, but it's kind of a weird way to do it, IMO. It just looks strange. But, it seems someone like me is forced to do that because there's no choice due to off the shelf frame designs.

I would just like to be able to use normal equipment like what most people use to get a good fit. Normal seat post set back, normal/middle of the rail saddle adjustment, normal length/height stem, normal handlebars.....meaning more options that just compact bars with really short reach, no huge stack of spacers, no stem that reaches skyward, and no seat post that looks like it was bent in a wreck and costs $90 unless I can find a great deal on ebay. Even then, good luck finding one to fit a vintage frame.

In the end, my original question was if there would be a problem having a more slack ST angle and steeper head tube angle. And, it doesn't seem that there is.
thook is offline