Touring - How does the amount of seat stem showing affect ride.

I like to have as little seat stem showing above the seat tube as possible, maybe 2 or 3". I look at bikes like the Thorn Exxp etc and wonder just what having so much seat stem showing does to the ride.

The amount of stem showing does virtually nothing for ride comfort or handling. The bike pictured is designed with a sloping top tube for 26" wheels. This makes for a more compact frame (saves a bit of weight) but needs a longer seatpost for a given rider than a traditional frame with a level top tube and 700C wheels.

The longer seatpost might flex a bit more and reduce road shock a tiny bit, but the effect would almost certainly be negligible.

The amount of stem showing does virtually nothing for ride comfort or handling. The bike pictured is designed with a sloping top tube for 26" wheels. This makes for a more compact frame (saves a bit of weight) but needs a longer seatpost for a given rider than a traditional frame with a level top tube and 700C wheels.

The longer seatpost might flex a bit more and reduce road shock a tiny bit, but the effect would almost certainly be negligible.

+1 - I have very little seatpost showing on my LHT and a ton on my Thorn Sherpa - both bikes are setup with nearly the same cockpit dimensions. The only practical difference is I have a lot more stand over clearance on the Thorn.

The longer seatpost might flex a bit more and reduce road shock a tiny bit, but the effect would almost certainly be negligible.
I agree that it would be negligible. If that was not the case you wouldn't see racers with so much seat tube showing. They need a stiff frame that doesn't deflect under pedaling stresses and they seem to universally go for a small frame with a sloping top tube.

I prefer a smallish frame and an aggressive riding position much like that of a road racer for touring, so I may be a bit out of sync with much of the touring community.

I like to have as little seat stem showing above the seat tube as possible, maybe 2 or 3". I look at bikes like the Thorn Exxp etc and wonder just what having so much seat stem showing does to the ride.

Lots of seat post showing is only a problem with smaller diameter posts.

I would say that having only 2" or 3" post showing indicates to me a frame that is too large for the rider. All of mine have at least 6" of post showing. Mountain bikes, of course, have more.

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/cyccommute/IMG_0168.jpg

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/cyccommute/IMG_0181.jpg

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/cyccommute/IMG_0175.jpg

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/cyccommute/FSR-whole.jpg

The saddle, by the way, is supposed to support you but it shouldn't be like a chair that you sit on.

Nice looking bikes cyccommute.

Lots of seat post showing is only a problem with smaller diameter posts.

I would say that having only 2" or 3" post showing indicates to me a frame that is too large for the rider. All of mine have at least 6" of post showing. Mountain bikes, of course, have more.

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/cyccommute/IMG_0168.jpg

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/cyccommute/IMG_0181.jpg

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/cyccommute/IMG_0175.jpg

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/cyccommute/FSR-whole.jpg

The saddle, by the way, is supposed to support you but it shouldn't be like a chair that you sit on.

I like the racks on the Cannondale.
What make are they?
Steel or aluminum?

I like to have as little seat stem showing above the seat tube as possible, maybe 2 or 3". I look at bikes like the Thorn Exxp etc and wonder just what having so much seat stem showing does to the ride.

What you should be concerned about proper height of the saddle above the bottom bracket for correct leg extension.
The distance between the top tube and the saddle isn't something to worry about (other than strength of seatpost).

Some might look at the flip side of the coin and claim that lots of seat post showing is indicative of a bike that's too small. :)

In the old days (70's), they used to say that a properly fitted road bike would have a "fistful" of seatpost showing, but hey, if your fist is 6", the women must love ya!

I noticed in the pics that the handlebars were also considerably below seat level on some of those bikes. Perhaps you just prefer a lower, more aggressive riding position? Most tourers like to have the bars level with or above the seat height. I know I do, and I'm showing about 4" of post.

Some might look at the flip side of the coin and claim that lots of seat post showing is indicative of a bike that's too small. :)

The bike is only too small if the distance req'd between the saddle and bars cannot be achieved without a stem longer than 110-120mm and/or a set back seat post. In general terms the only thing lots of seat post demonstrates is that you've got a lot of stand over clearance - the frame could be too small, too big or just right, having a lot of seat post isn't going to be the determining factor.

Some might look at the flip side of the coin and claim that lots of seat post showing is indicative of a bike that's too small. :)
Undoubtedly some would, but I wouldn't.


I noticed in the pics that the handlebars were also considerably below seat level on some of those bikes. Perhaps you just prefer a lower, more aggressive riding position? Most tourers like to have the bars level with or above the seat height. I know I do, and I'm showing about 4" of post.
Just a bit of a point of reference...
If you look at the bikes on the "Fully Loaded Touring Bicycles - On Tour" web page you will find that a not insignificant portion of folks there have the same preference. They aren't the majority, but they aren't a completely insignificant percentage either.

I think that if you are used to riding in an aggressive position and comfortable with it, then it makes sense to have your touring bike setup that way. It is efficient and comfortable unless you either aren't flexible enough or just haven't been conditioned to riding in that position.

Different strokes though...

http://www.pbase.com/canyonlands/fullyloaded

I like the racks on the Cannondale.
What make are they?
Steel or aluminum?

Steel. Tubus Cargo on back, Tubus Tara on the front.

Some might look at the flip side of the coin and claim that lots of seat post showing is indicative of a bike that's too small. :)

In the old days (70's), they used to say that a properly fitted road bike would have a "fistful" of seatpost showing, but hey, if your fist is 6", the women must love ya!

I noticed in the pics that the handlebars were also considerably below seat level on some of those bikes. Perhaps you just prefer a lower, more aggressive riding position? Most tourers like to have the bars level with or above the seat height. I know I do, and I'm showing about 4" of post.

I fit my road bikes like I always have...standover height on a road bike is about an inch. Mountain bikes have about 3". The saddles are set so that my leg has a slight bend to it. I can't...and never have been able to...put my foot on the ground from the saddle. If I ride with my saddle that low, my knees hurt!


I think my bars are set kind of high. I use to run them lower but I just can't bend like that anymore.;)

Nice bikes. Which Salsa model is that. Did you build it up or buy it complete?

My new Sherpa has lots of post showing.
But it also has a sloping top tube. If your bike has a straight acroos top tube you will have 2 inches less of post visible over the sloping bikes.

Steel. Tubus Cargo on back, Tubus Tara on the front.

Those are the racks for my new bike then.
I will begin the search!

Those are the racks for my new bike then.
I will begin the search!

Search no further (http://www.thetouringstore.com/);)

Nice bikes. Which Salsa model is that. Did you build it up or buy it complete?

Las Cruces. I built it up. I didn't buy it because it was a cross bike but because it was orange...i.e. not black or white;);)

cycco, two questions:
1. Do you find the "dale" at all uncomfortable or rough when she's not loaded down? I almost bought one in the late 90's but it beat me up so badly when not fully loaded, I decided against it. I was told that the ride has been improved upon over the last several years. And yes, I understand it is a dedicated tourer and it should be stiffer than other bikes when unloaded.

2. How much clearance do you have on that third bottle, is that a standard or full length bottle because it appears it could clip that front tire with a good bump? Or is a 1/2" as good as a mile?

BTW, nice stable of steeds

OK it should have been 3 or 4 inches showing, not 2 or 3. But I still have to say that 6" plus unrestrained lever arm seems as if it would vibrate like a tubing fork and apart form that the bike looks too small and, well, ugly- all out of proporton, but each to his own, the wonderful thing about cycling is that you can do it your own way.

Once you've got the proper seat height and reach (position you're most comfortable in) dialed in, it really doesn't matter how much post is showing. As long as you have enough standover clearance, ride and enjoy. :)

OK it should have been 3 or 4 inches showing, not 2 or 3. But I still have to say that 6" plus unrestrained lever arm seems as if it would vibrate like a tubing fork and apart form that the bike looks too small and, well, ugly- all out of proporton, but each to his own, the wonderful thing about cycling is that you can do it your own way.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_vUEhS0lU3eU/R2XcFNtQHKI/AAAAAAAAD3E/zzAdUWLjJ5w/s400/tikit+snow+6.JPG

I just got a Bike Friday Tikit so I'm not afraid of a little seat post showing....:eek::p

Besides mtn bikers have had tons of exposed seat post for years and I have never heard of tuning fork like problems...;)

I've got bikes with next to no seat post showing to 7" on my Thorn to - well a lot on my Tikit...there is no noticeable difference once you are on the bike pedaling.

If you prefer the look of less seat post cool, but let's not make up problems that don't exist...:o

OK it should have been 3 or 4 inches showing, not 2 or 3. But I still have to say that 6" plus unrestrained lever arm seems as if it would vibrate like a tubing fork and apart form that the bike looks too small and, well, ugly- all out of proporton, but each to his own, the wonderful thing about cycling is that you can do it your own way.
Obviously aesthetics are subjective, but I think the opposite. When I see a bike with 3" of seat post showing I think of either some old guy with a tweed jacket with suede patches on the elbows or of old fading pictures from 1976 of smiling young people riding Bike Centennial.

Maybe it is because I was involved in racing before I was in touring. The better performance riders that I have ridden with/against all seemed to have what looked like a foot of seat tube showing and that may have affected my sense of aesthetics.

Now if we ignore aesthetics...
1. I think that small frames are stiffer.
2. You could never get the bars low enough to suit me with a frame as large as you prefer, but you can always get the bars higher with a different stem.

Three things are important for comfort on a bike: saddle height, bar drop, and cockpit length. If those three things are dialed in with precision, the bike will be comfortable.

The best fitting road bikes for me have a saddle height of 30 inches (bottom bracket bolt to top of saddle), and a bar drop of one inch, and a cockpit length (from the back edge of the saddle to the front of the stem) of 31 1/2 inches.

So, all of my road bikes provide precisely the same fit and riding position, although on the size 56 there is about five or six inches of seat post showing, and on my size 62, there is only about two inches of seat post showing.

What does NOT work is the modern style of buying frames that are two, or three sizes too small, which results in having eight or nine inches of post showing, and a bar drop of four or five inches. That fit results in a "pretend racer" riding position that shifts the rider's weight forward onto the hands, resulting in pain in the hands, wrists, neck and shoulders.

Especially for touring, the riding position should be the cyclist's head up, to see surrounding traffic, and enjoy the scenery. For a touring cyclist to ride with his nose down against the front tire would be to miss the point of touring.

Three things are important for comfort on a bike: saddle height, bar drop, and cockpit length. If those three things are dialed in with precision, the bike will be comfortable.

The best fitting road bikes for me have a saddle height of 30 inches (bottom bracket bolt to top of saddle), and a bar drop of one inch, and a cockpit length (from the back edge of the saddle to the front of the stem) of 31 1/2 inches.

So, all of my road bikes provide precisely the same fit and riding position, although on the size 56 there is about five or six inches of seat post showing, and on my size 62, there is only about two inches of seat post showing.

What does NOT work is the modern style of buying frames that are two, or three sizes too small, which results in having eight or nine inches of post showing, and a bar drop of four or five inches. That fit results in a "pretend racer" riding position that shifts the rider's weight forward onto the hands, resulting in pain in the hands, wrists, neck and shoulders.

Especially for touring, the riding position should be the cyclist's head up, to see surrounding traffic, and enjoy the scenery. For a touring cyclist to ride with his nose down against the front tire would be to miss the point of touring.

Wow I just rode 4,244 miles across the country in 73 days and didn't even know that I had "hands, wrists, and neck pain" or that my bike setup didn't work. I was deluded enough to think I was comfortable and having a wonderful time. I will know better next time :)

Search no further (http://www.thetouringstore.com/);)

Just dealt with Wayne. What a pleasant, helpful gentleman. Good prices too. I see why you reccommend his business.

By the way, very nice stable of bicycles.

Now if we ignore aesthetics...
1. I think that small frames are stiffer.


So you could argue that shorter seat stems are stiffer too

So you could argue that shorter seat stems are stiffer too
They absolutely are, but I never found possible flexibility there to cause any handling or load carrying problems for me at least. The time that I have seen frame flexing is standing on short climbs and I have not seen much of that on my newer bikes, which may or may not be related to the fact that they are smaller frames.

cycco, two questions:
1. Do you find the "dale" at all uncomfortable or rough when she's not loaded down? I almost bought one in the late 90's but it beat me up so badly when not fully loaded, I decided against it. I was told that the ride has been improved upon over the last several years. And yes, I understand it is a dedicated tourer and it should be stiffer than other bikes when unloaded.

2. How much clearance do you have on that third bottle, is that a standard or full length bottle because it appears it could clip that front tire with a good bump? Or is a 1/2" as good as a mile?

BTW, nice stable of steeds

It's a little stiff without a load but all of my bikes are aluminum so I used to that anyway. It's not as plush as my old steel touring bike but not that bad. And it's ability to handle a lot more then makes up for the stiffness unloaded;)

The bottle is a full length bottle. I've never had a problem with it hitting the wheel.

My only beef with the T800 is that there is a slight problem with toe overlap on the wheel. On slow speed tight turns you can bump the tire with your foot. I'm used to it but it can be a little annoying.

So you could argue that shorter seat stems are stiffer too

Not necessarily. The seat post spec'd for a bike with 3" of exposed post can and should be thinner wall thickness than one that is spec'd for a bike with 7" of exposed seat post.

The more important questions are:

1) is there any noticeable flex?

2) is there any negative impact on how the bike rides?

If the answer is no to either question then some theoretical difference is irrelevant.

Personally I put a brook champion flyer on both my touring bikes - one with 2: of exposed seat post and the other with 7" of exposed seat post. I can't tell any difference.

Traditionally touring bikes had maybe 3 to 6 inches of post sticking out. The smaller post diameter on many older bikes could be wippy if sticking out too far. The older bikes had smaller diameter tubes as well, which contributed to the wip effect if the post was out to far. also, having a bit more post out offers more clearance over the top tube, which is nice on a touring bike to a point.

Sloping top tubes have changed all this. The reason for sloping top tubes is for manufacturers and stores to have to carry fewer sizes . . . period, IMHO. The problem with todays XS, S, M L & XL sizing, instead of 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62 & say 65cm is wheelbase. With fewer sizes, using a sloping toptube and more slope in the seat tube, you can raise or lower the seat to fit, even get the distance to the handlebars right, but you can not change the wheelbase . . . a critcal part of bike handling.

In my opinion, if you want a properly fit and handling touring bike, these days you need a custom or something like a Co-Motion Americano: http://www.co-motion.com/singlemenu.html While certainly not cheap, these are possibly the finest touring bikes on the market. Bruce Gordon is another great touring bike. He slopes his tube a bit and has a high rize stem, but he keeps classic geometry and has many sizes so you can get the right wheelbase for a given size.

Dick Powell, www.outfittertours.com

Traditionally touring bikes had maybe 3 to 6 inches of post sticking out. The smaller post diameter on many older bikes could be wippy if sticking out too far. The older bikes had smaller diameter tubes as well, which contributed to the wip effect if the post was out to far. also, having a bit more post out offers more clearance over the top tube, which is nice on a touring bike to a point.

Sloping top tubes have changed all this. The reason for sloping top tubes is for manufacturers and stores to have to carry fewer sizes . . . period, IMHO. The problem with todays XS, S, M L & XL sizing, instead of 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62 & say 65cm is wheelbase. With fewer sizes, using a sloping toptube and more slope in the seat tube, you can raise or lower the seat to fit, even get the distance to the handlebars right, but you can not change the wheelbase . . . a critcal part of bike handling.

In my opinion, if you want a properly fit and handling touring bike, these days you need a custom or something like a Co-Motion Americano: http://www.co-motion.com/singlemenu.html While certainly not cheap, these are possibly the finest touring bikes on the market. Bruce Gordon is another great touring bike. He slopes his tube a bit and has a high rize stem, but he keeps classic geometry and has many sizes so you can get the right wheelbase for a given size.

Dick Powell, www.outfittertours.com (http://www.outfittertours.com)

I disagree with this.
When I did my research and eventually bought my new Rocky Mountain Sherpa 30 I found a variety of wheelbase sizes.
The wheelbase ranges from 1036mm to 1054mm in the 46.5, 50, 52.5, 55.5 and 57.5 frames.
Trek 520's also have many different wheelbase sizes.

too much seat post out looks goooofy, but it doesnt matter as long as there is enough seat tube still in the frame.

First off, I will agree with some of the posters (and Sheldon Brown) that the main reason for compact geometry frames and the longer seatposts that accompany them are do to the increased sizing flexibility and the fewer frame sizes manufacturers must make. There are definitely some other effects though. Here's an extreme example of a long seatpost:
http://www.bike-alog.com/bikepedia/Helpers/thumb2.aspx?w=800&h=800&filename=2006-Gary-Fisher-Ziggurat.jpg
My Gary Fisher mountain bike (similar to the one pictured) has about 16" of seatpost and seat tube extension once it was set up correctly. It looked extreme to me but I've been assured the frame was designed with this much extension in mind. The Marketing on this design is that it: 1. Weighs slightly less. (Maybe a dozen grams.) 2. More stand-over clearance (Definitely, but I tend to hit my groin on the stem riser, not the top tube, so its kinda moot.) 3. Lowered frame center of gravity for better handling. (Yeah right, that's noticeable...) 4. Better power transfer because of the smaller triangles. (I didn't notice a difference and doubt it's consequential.) 5. Better Shock absorbtion from the increased seatpost length. This one I did notice when I swapped frames (same parts) from a similar GF frame with maybe 5" less seatpost extension. When I hit a big bump on the trail while seated I could feel the seatpost flex. Kinda unnerving at first but I grew to like a frame that was just as stiff as any other when I was really pumping but had more give if I was ever caught off guard with my butt on the seat when a bump came. (I suppose a suspension seatpost or frame would accomplish the same thing but I like the low weight and simplicity of the long seatpost.)

All that applies to road and touring bikes as well. Take it for what you will, but IMHO differences in seat tube extension are inconsequential for bike ride characteristics in on-road applications but can make a noticeable difference in the off-road setting.

Lots of seat post showing is only a problem with smaller diameter posts.

I would say that having only 2" or 3" post showing indicates to me a frame that is too large for the rider. All of mine have at least 6" of post showing. Mountain bikes, of course, have more.



Yeah... but you have more rise on your stem than most stems allow, and the stems aren't short - so you can get that riding position with the size frame you have, or you could go 2cm bigger and have a shorter stem with less rise. If you have short legs (ahem) then a bigger frame with less seatpost showing may fit better due to the relatively longer top tube (expensive lesson learned by yours truly :( )

I think a bit of standover height is good, but as long as you can straddle the frame 2-3" of seatpost shouldn't be a problem on a tourer or other road bike with a low BB.

The most important consideration to me is comfort. The seat must be high enough to give my legs proper leverage. Once that is determined, I worry about the stretch to the bars and the amount I'm bent over when grabbing the bars. The amount of seatpost showing doesn't concern me (although I agree that if you have either too much or too little seatpost showing it may indicate that you bought the wrong size frame.)

A crucial factor for bike tourers, in my view, is the relationship between seat height and bar height. I had some problems with hand numbness after a two-week tour down the Oregon coast. It was only my left hand, but the numbness took about a month to completely disappear. I did some asking on this forum and decided to buy a taller stem, which raised the tops of my drop bars almost as high as my saddle - probably an inch lower. That pretty much cured my numbness problem.

I don't know about others, but I always suffer pain and discomfort in my hands, wrists, and forearms for the first two or three days of a tour. But it always goes away after that - it pretty much disappears completely. That's one reason I limit my mileage for the first few days. Has anyone else had a similar experience?

That is a blast from the past. What caused this thread to be revived after languishing for a year?

At least it is interesting to see that I haven't changed my mind on this issue.

Like a couple other people have said if you can get the seat the right height, and the bars the right distance and height thats basically all that matters. I think the stiffness and weight and all of those other things they currently tell you are better about compact frames are pretty much imperceivable, especially for touring. I will say yes maybe the frames are lighter by a small amount, but you gain some of that back with the extra foot of seat post, and also if you need a longer or higher stem that adds a bit back. Also does this matter unless your racing? I would say probably not. Maybe the thing about the seat post bending is, but thats not the frame. If you haven't read Rivendell's article on this thats basically what I agree with, but everyone has their own opinion.

If you haven't read Rivendell's article on this thats basically what I agree with, but everyone has their own opinion.
I try very hard to not agree with anything they say :) So far this has stood me well. I do like to use their frame sizing chart, but I drop two or three sizes.

I guess it was my fault for resurrecting this old thread. I really couldn't tell you how I stumbled upon it. Um...Happy New Year!

I guess it was my fault for resurrecting this old thread. I really couldn't tell you how I stumbled upon it. Um...Happy New Year!
No problem, I just thought it was odd when it suddenly popped back up.

That thing the seat is attached to the frame with = seat post.

That thing that connects the handlebars to the frame = stem.

The reason for sloping top tubes is for manufacturers and stores to have to carry fewer sizes . . . period, IMHO. The problem with todays XS, S, M L & XL sizing, instead of 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62 & say 65cm is wheelbase.

I've heard this "fewer sizes" thing before but wasn't it already common to see only four or five frame sizes from the mass-producers (i.e. non-custom) well before the compact geometry came in? I have an '85 trek 600 and the sizes available were 19", 21", 22.5", 24", and 25.5". The same year, Cannondale was offering their racing frames in like 8 sizes, but only four sizes each for their touring and mountain bikes.