Originally Posted by
DaveSSS
You've missed the whole point of this discussion, that KOP is not considered to be relevant by many well-regarded fitters who pay NO attention to femur length. It's mostly about weight balance. Longer torsos will require more setback to achieve a proper weight balance and femur length has nothing to do with it. My saddle setback preference has nothing to do with femur length. My point is that I use a lot of setback even with a short torso and a long torsoed rider would need even more to be properly balanced.
Using a further back position can also help recruit the use of the glutes, rather than being so dependent on the quads - very important if you do a lot of climbing like I do.
Dave, with respect, I think it is you who is missing the point of my post. You seem to fail to recognise the difference between KOPS as a riding point and KOPS as a reference point. The former has no validity other than as an empirical solution for a relatively harmless beginning bike fit in the absence of a proper fit. I never claimed otherwise. The second is an absolute and a useful means of comparison between different frame geometry, seatpost etc. for a given rider.( The only way to avoid KOPS as a reference point is to get off the bike.) I even used the term "the KOPS easy-to-measure reference point" to forestall this misunderstanding. Obviously I was unsuccessful.
I fully agree with your point about longer torsos requiring a more rearward position (in relation to the dreaded KOPS!) to improve balance.