rpenmanparker 

I've raised this question before in other threads but never gotten much of an answer. BITD there were only AFAIK setback seatposts. I know I never saw a zero setbsck post back in the 'early '80s. As I understand it, zero setback posts were introduced when folks started wanting to ride on general purpose road bikes in a manner as if they were TT or tri bikes. This tendency was enhanced by the instant popularity of clip-on aero bars when they were introduced. The zero setback post makes the frame mimic a frame with a much steeper seat tube angle as if it were a TT or tri bike. Fair enough.

But now it seems like nearly everyone wants to ride a zero setback post. What has happened. Our body measurements aren't in general any different than they were years ago. Why are zero setback posts deemed to be right now when they were not before...even with standard drop bars.

rpenmanparker 

Just to clarify: The difference between a zero setback post and a 25 mm setback post is the same as the difference between a 75.5° seat tube angle and a normal 73° seat tube angle. That is very significant.

WhyFi

FWIW, I don't buy the proposition that "nearly everyone wants to ride a zero setback post." I have one and so I notice them, and I would be absolutely shocked to learn that they're in the majority.

In any event, don't people simply buy what they need based upon hip placement relative to the BB? I could never get comfortable on a setback post unless I slid the saddle all the way forward, essentially mimicking a middle-of-the-rails position on a zero-setback but uglier.

rpenmanparker 

Maybe that's it. Folks used to use the whole rails without a care, placing the saddle wherever they needed it on the setback post. Now there is a prejudice against using anything but the center of the rails thereby creating the need for a variety of setbacks built into separate posts.

As far as what is in the majority, I can't really say. I just notice that many folks post comments that suggest very limited tolerance for setback posts.

silversx80

I have two bikes. One has a 73° seat tube angle, while the other has a 73.5° angle. Both have the same saddle. With the steeper angle I use a setback post (and a zero offset post on the other). At my saddle to bb distance, we're talking just under 1 cm difference in horizontal displacement difference, however the zero offset on my 73° angle seat tube means my saddle isn't clamped at the rearmost portion of the rails, and is instead close to center of rail clamping area. With the setback post on the 73.5° seat tube, it's clamped just rear of center, but within the markings.

HTupolev

I'd guess that most people don't care and are cool with whatever's on their bike as long as they can make it work. The manufacturers certainly don't seem to be catering to a zero-setback viewpoint; all 3 of my bikes from 2015 and 2016 came with posts that had some setback (albeit not necessarily a ton).

If zero-setback has an internet fandom, it's probably for the same reason that people photo their road bikes with slammed stems: rotating your posture forward is more aggressive/"pro."

bleui

if you do a quick image search for speedvagen, almost all of them are using straight seatmast (seatpost head), made to measure
and I'm guessing that most of his customers are recreational riders, i.e. not racing
maybe Sascha White knows something that we don't

StanSeven

I never paid attention to zero setback until Thomson became popular. It seemed like the big thing for a while. Other companies started making posts with better adjustability and zero setback I think to copy.

cydewaze

I wish my seat mast had a setback. I run my saddle slammed back as far as it'll go already. (my bike has a 73.3 deg seat tube angle)

redfooj

Dunno, for close to 2 decades and riding with bikes whose vintage predate that...I've always akways always used straight mast with barely any setback on the head. Saddle rail was set to KOPS.

I thought the curved post went almost hand in hand with the modern, compact frame movement....with small everything and tighter and tighter wheelbase that the seatpost needs to compensate for. Along with stems popularly specced at 100-130 rather than 80-120

ckindt

I ride a 32mm SB post with the saddle all the way back on a 72.5 seat tube. Any more forward puts my CoG to far forward.

I'm also 6'4" 230# and have a much higher percentage of lean body mass in my upper torso and arms than the average cyclists' physique.

dvdslw

I've struggled with this decision on my bike for quite some time now wondering if I need a zero setback post to obtain that perfect fit. My bike came with a 15mm setback and in an attempt to make everything match on my bike I settled for a 25mm setback Fizik post which has me even further back and reaching for the hoods which is where I ride 90% of the time. I have a carbon railed saddle so I must comply with the clamping marks as to not damage the rails which is pushed as far forward as it will go. For me I know I should just get a zero setback post and call it a day but I've been led to the conclusion that using one means you must have the wrong size frame so I've been working on flexibility and core strength to compensate instead. Thanks to this topic today, I plan to purchase a zero setback post and see how it goes, thanks Robert.

FWIW, I'm 6'4, 225lbs, and ride a 60cm Caad10 with a 72.5 seat tube angle.

sced

As a purely practical matter the two types offer another way to adjust your position on the bike to the way you like it.

rpenmanparker 

That is a misconception. Compact geometry or traditional makes no difference. All that matters is the STA and the distance of the saddle from the bottom bracket. Whatever is going on in between is irrelevant. As long as two frames have the same STA and you ride with the saddle at the same height, you will need the same type of post. And STAs for specific riding purposes haven't changed much, if at all, over the years.

rpenmanparker 

Yes, but my point is that the two types offer more of a way to center the saddle on the post than to get the riding position you need...for most folks. Setback posts always let you adjust the saddle as needed, but only if you were willing to use the extremes on the rails.

Maelochs

This is of course, all driven by science ... the science of marketing and herd-behavior. For something like this to occur: is almost scary. Here is a guy who knows he is compromising, and instead iof fixing his bike is trying to change himself to fit the bike.

Why? Because someone in a bicycle magazine somewhere said once that some famous cyclist form 50 years ago said once (or so it is rumored) that "Real Hard men only use "XXX" (insert method/style/component of choice.)

The funniest hing is that this guy was probably losing watts constantly as he struggle to fit his body to his frame, all in the name of "doing it like the real racers do" which was and is basically whatever Doesn't waste watts.

I am always glad to see a silly myth deflated, and here I have the added benefit of actually hearing from someone who will personally benefit.

The might keyboard of rpenmanparker---stronger than the pen as the pen is stronger than the sword ... so is the slogan "Rpenmanparker: mightier than the pen"? or maybe, "Rpenmanparker: mightier than the pen of the cycling writer"?

WhyFi

W/R/T to the bolded part, it's a bunch of hogwash. People have different proportions and different margins of comfort within those proportions. For me, moving up or down a frame size wouldn't change the ST angle (or the length of my legs/distance between BB and saddle, obviously), so zero-setback would be necessary either way.

That out of the way, saddle height and fore/aft position should be adjusted respective to your BB/pedal travel, NOT your reach. You don't specify why your fit is a little out of whack, though you do mention reaching to the hoods. You should *not* be changing your saddle position to rectify that; that's what stem adjustments are for (angle, length, spacers, etc).

Fit from the bottoms of your feet upwards - cleat position, then arm length of your crankset, then position your saddle for the appropriate leg extension and fore/aft position w/r/t pedaling, then reach/height of your bars.

chaadster

I also dispute the paradigm suggesting there is a preponderance and preference for zero serback, and an intolerance of setback posts.

Further, the zero setback post undoubtedly came from the MTB world, during the golden era of the indie machine shop in the late '80s/early '90s. Something like the Campy Super Record seatpost, the pinnacle of road seatpost style, was worthless for MTB: too short, didn't hold tight, and not enough adjustment range for what was a wide open world of frame design. Guys were trying to make better stuff with CNC machines, so they made what they could. The design hit the road scene later, as roadies got hip to the innovative, trick, lightweight stuff the dirt kids were into...and their market share vanished into thin air.

That innovative impulse fueled a lightweight race, and saddles got rad materials and shorter rails to save weight, to the point today where we have "designated clamping areas" and limited adjustment range, conditions which did not exist 30 years ago.

So I think that what is going on is that very few factory bikes are spec'd zero setback, but as owners upgrade their bikes, they're focused on weight savings, and so wind up with shorter saddle rails needing a post with less setback, or they get a lightest post, which will tend to be a zero setback.

redfooj

There is no misconception. Geometry isn't that confusing. I'm proposing there is a slow drift towards shorter chainstays, shorter overall wheelbase, *coincident* with compact geo (not causal), that leads to steeper STA to accommodate for tire-ST clearance...and hence more seat back.

rpenmanparker 

I don't see that drift. Mainstream brands still have 73-74° STAs throughout most of their general-purpose road bike size ranges just like they always did. If what you are saying were true, yes, that would explain a migration to more setback, but that isn't what is happening on either side of the "if". Less or zero setback is becoming more and more popular.

rpenmanparker 

Your explanation is likely correct. I just see more and more zero setback posts being offered for sale and folks writing here that seem to think that is all they should be considering. Might be just an oversensitivity on my part. But Thomson is an interesting case where the basic design is zero setback and that stupid bend had to be added to get some setback.

fietsbob

Maybe a Houston Texas thing, you Only see what you have around you.

Carbonfiberboy 

Beats me. The folks I ride with almost invariably ride setback posts. I have setback posts with the saddles almost all the way back on on my bikes.

rpenmanparker 

Me too. Just seemed to me I am always telling someone on the 41 who can't get back far enough to look into a setback post. Like they have no idea.

rpenmanparker 

Actually not since I mostly ride solo. No, I am just reacting to what I read here. Often seeing posts from folks who think they have to be on a zero setback post. Or so it seems.