Bike Forums > Stupid geometry question
 Register All Albums Elite Membership Forum Rules Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 Fifty Plus (50+) Share the victories, challenges, successes and special concerns of bicyclists 50 and older. Especially useful for those entering or reentering bicycling.

 11-23-05, 01:08 AM #1 FarHorizon Senior Curmudgeon Thread Starter     Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Directly above the center of the earth Bikes: Varies by day Posts: 3,856 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 3 Post(s) Stupid geometry question If excessive weight is on the hands and wrists while riding, is it correct to assume that (excluding other issues of fit) moving the seat BACK on the bike will produce less weight on the hands? Looking at it one way, it seems that having the center of body mass behind the support (the seat post) would better balance the rider on the bike thus placing less pressure on the wrists. Looking at it another way, it seems that having greater distance between the rump and the hands would (of necessity) put more pressure from the weight of the upper body on the wrists! I suspect the the first take is more correct because (despite the fact that the bars & seat can be moved in relation to each other) the fixed point of bike contact (and the only immovable one) is the pedals. I've read several online papers on fit, but the ones I've read focus more on power transfer and don't give clear explanations of how position affects wrist pressure. Finally, if my first hypothesis is correct, it seems to me that most bikes have insufficient seat tube rake to minimize wrist pressure (a function of the "racing" angles that are prevalent in design these days?). It also seems to me that seat posts with variable set-back would be extremely helpful, though I find no such designs on the market. Comments?
 11-23-05, 06:57 AM #2 berts Roadie   Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: israel Bikes: kestrel Posts: 370 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s) I suffered from numb hands due to excessive pressure on the handlebars. It seems to me that moving the seat back would create greater weight on the arms- this would be due to the need to compensate for the backward shift in the center of gravity by moving forward with your arms. (An over extended position would also have other negative effects). The angle of the seat is very important, if it is even slightly slanted down at the nose, this would create hand pressure. I found that it helps when I make a consious effort to place greater weight on the seat and take off pressure from my hands. One of the reasons I rode with excessive hand pressure was due to an uncomfortable seat which I loathed putting any more pressure than necessary. Summary: The key elements here seem to be proper fit (not too extended) and a COMFORTABLE SEAT.
11-23-05, 12:20 PM   #4
cyclezen
OM boy

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Bikes: a bunch
Posts: 3,122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Big Paulie http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm Some information on fore/aft saddle positoon that really helped me...
His reasoning for both 'Saddle Fore-Aft Position' and 'Knee Over Pedal' is both flawed and downright dangerous given a rider falls into certain body configs.
Comfort is very important, but primarily a rider needs to 1st guard they don't put their main joints in the 'power' cycle (that being the hips-knees-ankles) into structural jeopardy. Anyone who has ever 'lifted' anything knows how important these relationships are. Having the leg move in an arc while performing 'thrust/lifting' - as in pedaling - makes the relationship and range of motion even more critical, add in the rotational angle of the entire leg, if you use a 'limiting' rotation device, such as toe clips or clipless pedals and it becomes more complicated.
If you can go to a gym and get on a squat machine that allows multiple leg positions, do one squat with a moderate weight with what 'seems' an optimized leg stance (usually balls O feet are aligned with shoulder axis) - better even if its a controlled machine like a nautilus. Press the weight. Then move both feet equally back a small distance - 2 inches most - then just TRY to move the weight, note the difference IMPORTANT - don't actually try the press with the shifted foot position unless you want to blow out your knees !!!!

Fore-aft positioning is CRITICAL to the process of cycling, 1st for safety's sake, then from a power standpoint. The positional relationship of your hips-knees-ankles is fundamental to safe riding. Your desired upper body balance is then achieved by the 'position' of the bars, which also determines how much of your power you're able to apply to the process of pedaling. This offers tradeoffs in power availability, 'perceived' (but often not substantiated) butt comfort, neck and head comfort, bike handling and control.
Given how dangerously off the mark he is with this, the other stuff is not even worth discussing. And We're not talkin racin here, just fundamental proper biomechanics.

 11-23-05, 12:39 PM #5 cyclintom Senior Member   Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Leandro Bikes: Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra, Basso Loto, Pinarello Stelvio, Redline Cyclocross Posts: 2,609 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 95 Post(s) What's this "critical" crap if you don't mind my asking? Cyclists have been riding for well over 100 years without knowing squat about positioning. The loads on a cyclist are significantly lower than on someone walking or jogging so it seems to me to be a bit alarmist to discuss "safety" as if there's some chance of serious damage to a rider from the way he sits his bike. The facts are that KOS is a good rule of thumb and that you don't decrease arm pain by pushing the seat back but rather from forming a more upright posture so that less weight is placed on the ulner nerve in the base of the palm. Since KOS determines the saddle position fore and aft, posture must be set with stem length or top tube length combined with the seat tube angle. All modern bicycles fall into a rather narrow band of geometries because all modern bodies tend to fall within a narrow band of proportions. Outliers might find insufficient adjustment capacity in a stock bike and might require a custom frame but these probably form less than 1% of all riders and most of those can get along without a custom frame since they simply never ride the distances or athletically enough to require the perfect fit. Fit is NOT something that is overly critical. The human body is infinitely amazing in its ability to compensate for less than optimum conditions. Granted, that during the compensation period a person might encounter all sorts of pains and aches but then the new rider sees the same problem. There are pains that indicate true damage is being done but generally speaking you can tell the difference between the pain of a saddle that doesn't fit and one that you simply have to get used to. The same with wrist and arm pain - you can tell the difference between placing too much weight on your wrists and hands and having a position so far off optimum that you're risking injury.
11-23-05, 12:52 PM   #6
berts

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: israel
Bikes: kestrel
Posts: 370
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Big Paulie http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm Some information on fore/aft saddle position that really helped me...
his advice was not completely clear to me and it really didn't contribute a lot for me except to say - find the most comfortable position for yourself.

logically as you move the seat closer to the handlebar your torso position becomes more vertical (thus less pressure on the hands), as you move the seat away from the handlebar the effect should be opposite. Obviously a horizontal position, partly achieved by moving the seat back, is more effective in racing due to improved aerodynamics.

in any event finding the perfect position has been a never ending mystery for me and I probably will never find it to my dying day.

good luck, comfortable riding and happy thanksgiving

11-23-05, 01:56 PM   #7
cyclezen
OM boy

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Bikes: a bunch
Posts: 3,122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by cyclintom What's this "critical" crap if you don't mind my asking? Cyclists have been riding for well over 100 years without knowing squat about positioning. The loads on a cyclist are significantly lower than on someone walking or jogging so it seems to me to be a bit alarmist to discuss "safety" as if there's some chance of serious damage to a rider from the way he sits his bike. ... All modern bicycles fall into a rather narrow band of geometries because all modern bodies tend to fall within a narrow band of proportions. Outliers might find insufficient adjustment capacity in a stock bike and might require a custom frame but these probably form less than 1% of all riders and most of those can get along without a custom frame since they simply never ride the distances or athletically enough to require the perfect fit. ... Fit is NOT something that is overly critical. The human body is infinitely amazing in its ability to compensate for less than optimum conditions. ...
You will have your opinion, of course. I don't 'argue' bike positioning, I've made my point, let it be for each to consider their own situation.
I have, however, met plenty of riders over the years who have 'injured' themselves just by riding. I would hazard a guess that there are plenty of riders on BF who are having problems and not sure were these came from. Some may be due to positioning.
Yes, the range within the population is narrow and most riders can be matched to whats being produced without 'custom'. But so what? If small changes in position can cause a problem or potential or realized injury, then it is a 'critical' aspect for someone who might be a frequent rider.
Not sure which Human Body you;re referring to; I'm discussing the one that is certainly marvelous in its complexity and versatility but is very vulnerable, is not particularly powerful compared to other organisms, isn't particularly well suited for broad environments, yadda, yadda, yadda.
It is what we have, however, and we need to do the best we can with it.
There are plenty of riders of reasonable 'conditioning' who have difficulty doing a 20 mile ride, much less greater distances or saddle times.
I'm a believer in doing the best with what you have and know; and I believe 'positioning' is fundamental to operating a bicycle well, comfortably and with the least opportuity of injury.
The 'Fit' systems, formulas and charts are not the final answer; But they offer an intelligent place to start and derive your personal best compromise. Once a rider knows what each adjustment really does, they can 'try' changes with some understanding of how that change might affect them. Otherwise its like putting together a puzzle within a black box you can't see into.
Quote: "Cyclists have been riding for well over 100 years without knowing squat about positioning." You really don't believe this? For decades that I'm aware of, people have studied, debated, recommended on this topic - and this is prolly true for all the decades from before which my awareness derives.
Do follow what you feel is right. I've offered that Mr. White's recommendations are cavalier and do a disservice to those who will suffer for it.
an online forum is not the place for individual specifics, but if a rider is having issues, then there are good ways to define and address that, beyond just Trial & Error.

 11-23-05, 02:27 PM #8 jppe Let's do a Century     Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: North Carolina Bikes: Pinarello Prince/Campy SR; Cervelo R3/Sram Red; Trek 5900/Duraace, Cervelo P2C/Duraace, Cannondle Tandem/Ultegra Posts: 6,857 Mentioned: 6 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 140 Post(s) Czen-for what it's worth I find myself on your side of the fence-mainly based on my personal experience. I took the "fitters" numbers and made slight adjustments to accomodate my own feel. I even went with a considerably larger frame but wound up with the same reach they recommended which has really helped my shoulders and neck. It's interesting though, when I get too far off the numbers they gave on the fore/aft position I start developing knee pains. I've learned that for me saddle height and fore/aft is really important to overall joint relief. Since I've made adjustments using their numbers, I've eliminated visits to my Ortho getting help with both shoulder pain and knee pain. While I was going to see him, I did manage to talk him into getting a bike and start riding though!!
 11-23-05, 03:25 PM #10 stapfam Time for a change.     Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: 6 miles inland from the coast of Sussex, in the South East of England Bikes: Dale MT2000. Bianchi FS920 Kona Explosif. Giant TCR C. Boreas Ignis. Pinarello Fp Uno. Posts: 19,915 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 1 Post(s) If the hands start causing pain, then several things can be wrong Too long a reach. Too low a stem. Seat too far back. You do have a medical problem. Good gloves with padding normally help, but a grip on the bars that is hard enough and large enough is normally the first thing to look at. I have quite a small hand, but use a large glove. This does not constrict the hand by being over tight. Then the bar grips. The make I use is Yeti and are not the easiest to find but experience has told me that these are the right circumference for my hand and of the right stiffness- not soft and not too firm. Then there is the riding of the bike. I like to ride with my arms just slightly bent. If this is correct then I know the reach is correct aswell. In my "Younger" days (Till 99) I use to adopt the typical Mountain bike riding position of straight bars at least 2" lower than the saddle. Then The by pass and I now use riser bars, that are on a level or higher than the saddle. (See attachment for my positioning) They also bring the bar back to me so I have also shortened the reach. Then The bar ends. They may not be in fashion but they do give an alternative hand position that puts pressure into a different part of the hand. Then there is the final thing to do. When the pain starts coming in- Start flexing the hand until the pain goes away. In fact I always start the flexing as a matter of course at any opportunity to ensure that it does not come on. I know that I ride an MTB. but the same goes for a road bike, Except you will not need the bar ends. What you do have to do before anything else though is get the saddle position right before you start changing the bar positions. __________________ How long was I in the army? Five foot seven. Spike Milligan Last edited by stapfam; 11-23-05 at 03:35 PM.
 11-23-05, 03:31 PM #11 jppe Let's do a Century     Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: North Carolina Bikes: Pinarello Prince/Campy SR; Cervelo R3/Sram Red; Trek 5900/Duraace, Cervelo P2C/Duraace, Cannondle Tandem/Ultegra Posts: 6,857 Mentioned: 6 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 140 Post(s) That's nice looking bike!! By the way, what side of the road/trail you folks ride on?
11-23-05, 03:42 PM   #12
cyclintom
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Leandro
Bikes: Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra, Basso Loto, Pinarello Stelvio, Redline Cyclocross
Posts: 2,609
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by cyclezen You will have your opinion, of course.
Not trying to be argumentative strictly for the sake of it mind you but I don't see your point at all.

For being "not strong compared to other organisms" I'm sure you'd agree that man lives in EVERY ecosystem on the planet. He's climbed the very highest mountains and crossed the broadest seas. Man has stood on the moon and floated in the deepest ocean trench.

Maybe you can suggest another organism that is anywhere near tough enough to do those things?

Of course you can always hurt yourself - just last month I'd messed around with my positioning on the bike and started getting some knee pain since I'd strayed a bit too far from KOPS. But after properly adjusting the seat again the knee pain left as it should have.

But the effect of "hurting yourself" is almost always temporary and a strong motivator to readjust things properly.

Generally speaking the only "normal" injury which is long lasting from incorrect position would be a very serious case of Chondromalacia but you have to be a pretty masochistic to push yourself enough to cause any permanent damage.

Last edited by cyclintom; 11-23-05 at 03:48 PM.

11-23-05, 03:43 PM   #13
stapfam
Time for a change.

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 6 miles inland from the coast of Sussex, in the South East of England
Bikes: Dale MT2000. Bianchi FS920 Kona Explosif. Giant TCR C. Boreas Ignis. Pinarello Fp Uno.
Posts: 19,915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by jppe That's nice looking bike!! By the way, what side of the road/trail you folks ride on?
On the trails, the side where we can get grip !!. On the road it is the left. On the bike. It is now 5 years old, but has evolved from a basic bike into one that works. Don't need the latest gizmo's or Extras. But as parts wore out it has been upgraded. Was thinking about getting a new bike this year, but the Tandem is being used more than the solo now, so no need to spend more money. (Unless the tandem requires it)
__________________
How long was I in the army? Five foot seven.

Spike Milligan

11-23-05, 03:57 PM   #14
cyclezen
OM boy

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Bikes: a bunch
Posts: 3,122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by FarHorizon As I understand youse posters so far, the (best) way to alleviate wrist pressure is NOT to move the seat. Rather, optimize seat/pedal relationship for best biometric efficiency and then adjust the bar length via stem reach for the desired amount of wrist pressure. If this IS the case, then my complaint about racing geometry frames becomes even more significant. The "upright" seat tube angles on racing frames (72.5, 73, 73.5 and even 74 degrees) seem to place my body FAR too forward for best biometric efficiency. I'd be better off with a 72 or even 71.5 degree seat tube angle with my particular body. Instead, I end up having to buy "set-back" seat posts to get my most comfortable (and efficient) position relative to the pedals. ...
to me that would be the best approach
LeMond agrees with you about geometry...
for me 72.5 is an okay mid-point, 72 is nice - 73 is about as far as I like to go, at 5'11" i have legs more in line with someone about 6'2".
it isn't all that cut and dry, adding in leg extension and accounting for shoes, cleats & pedals has a great affect.

jppe - you're a smarter person than I, it took quite some years, as a young guy to, realize this. And always having at least 3-4 bikes on hand at any time, it took a while for me to understand that absolute settings varied based on the frame geometry. I've also had, for some years, my 'numbers' and make sure I adjust each bike position based on them. The bikes 'perform' a bit differently, but my perceived position seems 'identical' on each. Numbers are tweaked as I 'mature'. By the time the 'fit' systems became available, I'd had some years of reaching what are good setting for me. Although, I will do a 'position' session this coming year, to either 'confirm' or maybe come to even better numbers for my current body structure. I reasonably certain my current numbers can be improved upon, and I'd like to 'start' from a complete new perspective, meaning another, different way to come to hem.

 11-23-05, 07:11 PM #15 BlazingPedals Senior Member     Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Middle of da Mitten Bikes: Trek 7500, RANS V-Rex, Optima Baron, Velokraft NoCom, M-5 Carbon Highracer, homebuilt recumbent Posts: 9,935 Mentioned: 5 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 493 Post(s) All this acrimony over simple adjustments! Here is a pic of proper adjustment. Notice there is NO body weight placed on the hands. Also, the all-important shoulder-to-ground adjustment allows putting either a hand or a foot down at stops.
 11-23-05, 09:28 PM #16 cyclintom Senior Member   Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Leandro Bikes: Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra, Basso Loto, Pinarello Stelvio, Redline Cyclocross Posts: 2,609 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 95 Post(s) If you think of this as acrimony I suggest that you're going to learn a great deal about written medium in the future. Probably 98% of people misread intent when they lack the normal social clues such as voice intonation, facial expression and delivery. It's always best to imply that the writer means friendly when reading this stuff.
 11-23-05, 11:04 PM #17 GrannyGear Berry Pie..the Holy Grail     Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Weaving thru the cowpud outside Modesto CA Bikes: Posts: 1,123 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s) Given the tone and intent of BF50+, we can assume no one here intends acrimony--it would be a noticably jarring note if they did. Enough technical stuff above, so here's an anecdote: I bought a bike in the mid-80's when criterium geometry was king--except maybe in Italy. 74 headtube, 74 seat tube. Standover height seemed right. reach to the bars was right. But, rides over 15 miles just weren't "right" feeling. It did turn on a dime--in fact, it wanted to turn all the time. If there were setback seatposts then, newbie me hadn't heard of them. Improper saddle position must have been such a universal problem given the then trendy geometry, that one enterprising manufacturer carved an aluminum block which attached to your seatpost, effectively "setting back" your saddle attachment about 1.5". I bought one. Presto! My geometry got slackened to probably 72 or 73, the bike (with a shorter stem) fit and rode very nicely. The front end even felt better. The bike is now a fine ride for metric centuries... My aluminum setback block is still there. Performance sold them out twice in one season. Imagine that. __________________ ..... "I renewed my youth, to outward appearance, by mounting a bicycle for the first time." Mark Twain, Speeches .
11-24-05, 12:25 AM   #18
FarHorizon
Senior Curmudgeon

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Directly above the center of the earth
Bikes: Varies by day
Posts: 3,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by cyclintom ...Probably 98% of people misread intent when they lack the normal social clues such as voice intonation, facial expression and delivery. It's always best to imply that the writer means friendly when reading this stuff.
Amen, brother!

11-24-05, 10:01 AM   #20
cyclezen
OM boy

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Bikes: a bunch
Posts: 3,122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by GrannyGear Enough technical stuff above, so here's an anecdote: I bought a bike in the mid-80's when criterium geometry was king--except maybe in Italy. 74 headtube, 74 seat tube. Standover height seemed right. reach to the bars was right. But, rides over 15 miles just weren't "right" feeling. It did turn on a dime--in fact, it wanted to turn all the time. If there were setback seatposts then, newbie me hadn't heard of them. Improper saddle position must have been such a universal problem given the then trendy geometry, that one enterprising manufacturer carved an aluminum block which attached to your seatpost, effectively "setting back" your saddle attachment about 1.5". I bought one. Presto! My geometry got slackened to probably 72 or 73, the bike (with a shorter stem) fit and rode very nicely. The front end even felt better. The bike is now a fine ride for metric centuries... My aluminum setback block is still there. Performance sold them out twice in one season. Imagine that.
Criykes! I remember those!
I had the same problem! Same kinda bike! believe it or not itz 75 x 75!
Still have the dang GasPiper... a Limongi, ride it fairly often - looks stoopid though, with the seat jammed all the way back... gonna post a pic on 'Vin-tahge' some time soon
had 3 others spec'd similar to this one, an English MKM, a Bob Jackson and if some remember, the Raleigh Professional (the Silver Grey and Light Blu Campy NR spec'd one) was 74 square, that one seemed almost 'touring' compared to the others...!

Ya gotta post a PIC of that block! Here or 'Vin-tahge' forum... Ya gotta!
gawd, bikies were nutcases back then and as afflicted by 'fashion' as they are now!

 11-25-05, 10:07 AM #21 jazzy_cyclist Senior Member     Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: North Central Massachusetts Bikes: Cannondale R600 Posts: 1,281 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s) This is a good question - my season just ended was one of experimenting with some of these questions, having many "tweaks". I won't say that my butt has reached nirvana after a century, but it's okay. The only real issue I've had was something like the OP - a little more weight on the hands than was comfortable at times. Long story short, I got a shorter stem so that reach was a little less, and this helped the most, because I was keeping my hands on the "corners" of the bars a lot instead of the hoods (I read in the drops fairly infrequently). I've also become extremely conscious of where I place my hands on the bars, and I've also stuffed a couple of pieces of Dr. Scholls pieces in my gloves as well. I never had any numbness - just a few episodes where hands fely "bruised". In my experience, the "fix" is either a shorter reach (e.g., shorter stem) or raising the bars, typically with a stem with a steeper angle since most road bikes with threadless headsets have a more or less "fixed" steerer height. I am looking at building up a frame over the winter, so another approach that I'm working is frame geometry with a shorter top tube and/or longer head tube. It's difficult to get a sense of how big a difference this will make in the end -- right now it's just a spreadsheet of numbers for different frames compared to my current ride. Curious if others have gone this route and what the results were...
11-25-05, 03:51 PM   #22
stapfam
Time for a change.

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 6 miles inland from the coast of Sussex, in the South East of England
Bikes: Dale MT2000. Bianchi FS920 Kona Explosif. Giant TCR C. Boreas Ignis. Pinarello Fp Uno.
Posts: 19,915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by jazzy_cyclist I am looking at building up a frame over the winter, so another approach that I'm working is frame geometry with a shorter top tube and/or longer head tube. It's difficult to get a sense of how big a difference this will make in the end -- right now it's just a spreadsheet of numbers for different frames compared to my current ride. Curious if others have gone this route and what the results were...
On actual seating and riding position, it will not matter if you have a shorter top tube and longer stem on the comfort stakes. What it will have an effect on though is the steering. More weight will be on the front wheel. I know that on a mountain bike, where steering has to be effective, I often have to lean forward on fast corners to weight the front wheel to get just that little extra grip, as I have a short top tube and shortish stem for comfort. When I used to race, I would have the bike set up with a 30mm longer stem to that now fitted, and the bars were also 50mm lower. This in effect gave me a heavier front wheel for the higher speeds. For the XC longer rides that I now do, and an older body of course, if I set the bike up in racing mode, it would not be comfortable for long.

Once again in mountain biking frame of mind, The short tube-long stem were an advantage uphill, but I would have to get my butt off the rear of the saddle for the downhills. With my current set up of short tube-short stem, I do not even think about the downhills (Except where grip will be at a premium so I lift the body forward) and take them in a comfortable position, but have to take a bit of care on the steep uphills, as the front wheel has a tendency to lift and hence losing ALL grip when power is put in.

Then the other disadvantage of smaller frame to give the short tube is that it will normally be a smaller frame. Offroad a small frame is an advantage on handling but the length of seat stem means a heavier grade of seat stem to be used, or higher quality/cost seat stem to keep the weight down Then that tight triangle is very stiff. Ideal for power transmission to the back wheel with no frame flex taking power from the pedals, but gives a harsher ride at the same time.

Hate to say it, but look at and try the frames and bikes around in the shops, and see what is comfortable for you. Look at the reputation of that bike, and see if it is noted as being a flatland bike, a hill climber, or a short distance speed bike. Then work out what you think will be the ideal set up for you.
__________________
How long was I in the army? Five foot seven.

Spike Milligan

11-25-05, 06:26 PM   #23
FarHorizon
Senior Curmudgeon

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Directly above the center of the earth
Bikes: Varies by day
Posts: 3,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by jazzy_cyclist ...the "fix" is either a shorter reach (e.g., shorter stem) or raising the bars...Curious if others have gone this route and what the results were...
I tried both shorter stem & higher bars without significantly lessening the pressure on my wrists. The angle of wrist to bar changed, but not the amount of weight supported by the arms.

What worked for me was moving the seat back. Once my body was balanced on the seat, the pressure on my wrists was so light that I could make significant movements of the bar height and reach without any ergonomic problems.

The fore/aft seat movement needed to balance my body vs having excessive pressure on my arms was about one inch! With a "no setback" seat post, I had too much pressure on my arms regardless of bar orientation. Once I got an inch to an inch and a quarter of seat aft movement, my body "balanced" on the seat, and I could ride with my hands a half inch above the bars without much effort except for lightly flexing my lower back muscles.

I can't say that what worked for me (and with my frame) will work for you, but if weight on the bars (as opposed to wrist angle on the bars) is your major problem, consider my experience. Best of luck with your adjustments!

11-26-05, 08:52 AM   #24
jazzy_cyclist
Senior Member

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North Central Massachusetts
Bikes: Cannondale R600
Posts: 1,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well what works for you is what's important. Did the "saddle back" strategy have any negative consequences for your power stroke (i.e., - knees over pedal spindles)? That's what is usually being adjusted by the fore/aft position in the "traditional" fitting.

Thanks for sharing your experiences - another data point is always welcome.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by FarHorizon I tried both shorter stem & higher bars without significantly lessening the pressure on my wrists. The angle of wrist to bar changed, but not the amount of weight supported by the arms. What worked for me was moving the seat back. Once my body was balanced on the seat, the pressure on my wrists was so light that I could make significant movements of the bar height and reach without any ergonomic problems. The fore/aft seat movement needed to balance my body vs having excessive pressure on my arms was about one inch! With a "no setback" seat post, I had too much pressure on my arms regardless of bar orientation. Once I got an inch to an inch and a quarter of seat aft movement, my body "balanced" on the seat, and I could ride with my hands a half inch above the bars without much effort except for lightly flexing my lower back muscles. I can't say that what worked for me (and with my frame) will work for you, but if weight on the bars (as opposed to wrist angle on the bars) is your major problem, consider my experience. Best of luck with your adjustments!

11-26-05, 09:24 AM   #25
FarHorizon
Senior Curmudgeon

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Directly above the center of the earth
Bikes: Varies by day
Posts: 3,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by jazzy_cyclist ...Did the "saddle back" strategy have any negative consequences for your power stroke (i.e., - knees over pedal spindles)? That's what is usually being adjusted by the fore/aft position in the "traditional" fitting...
The traditional fitting is what said that my seat was too far forward. When I moved the seat back I got much better power transfer AND much less weight on my hands.