You said a lot more than that actually. Maybe come down off the high horse a little bit and realize that not everyone camps out here all day posting? People are just trying to learn what works best for them, thats it. My saddle is set level right now.

Something worth considering when dealing with numb hands is where you are putting your weight. The weight should mostly be on the heel of your palm (i.e. Where you put your weight when doing a push-up), not on your fingers, or the web of your hand. Often rotating the hoods inwards, or changing the bar rotation angle can get your hands in a better place with no angle between wrists and hands, and no pressure on the nerves in your hand.

...level is a good starting point. You figure out balance from there (by experiment) without adding reach into the mix.
then, when you have a good saddle angle for neutral balance on the bike, lean forward and grab the bar or the hoods (whichever you spend the most time on), and figure out whether you're reaching too far, not far enough, or the perfect length based on how much of your weight seems to be dropping through your hands and arms to the bar.

You can't figure it out in a static position, because the push you're applying to the pedals will translate into pull at the bar. And it can change as your fitness, flexibility, and riding skills improve. It's not a simple thing to figure out, and a lot of "fittings" fail because of this.

IOW, we're doomed. :)

+1 I find both that turning my brake levers in helps and so does rotating them further forward and down than the norm also. When I set bikes up, the first bar tape is cloth because it can be unwrapped and re-wrapped many times to get the hoods and cables correctly located. I go for the early rides with all the tools to mess with the bars, stem and levers and do road-side stops until they are right.

Edited to a typo

Ben

Yet there are plenty of experienced bike fitters (e.g. Cobb & Hogg) who would argue otherwise.

My personal experience (which is ultimately what will work *for me*) is that saddle set-back does affect ones ability to remove weight from the hands, and this is just simple "geometry of levers". You need to get your butt back to offset the weight of your extended torso. This assumes you are trying to find a neutral balance that will allow you to not drop forward if you were to remove your hands from the bars (when actually riding the bike normally - not sitting up, riding with no hands).

Of course you do need *some* weight on the bars to actually control them, particularly when descending, so maybe this is where the disagreement lies. Maybe those who disagree with the "find your balance point" idea, simply like to have more weight on the bars. That's OK if you have strong arms and neck muscles, or are able to support most of your weight with your core muscles.

But I am definitely of the opinion that unweighting your hands and upper body is a lot less tiring on long rides. A TT rider will be super fast with a forward saddle position, but if you removed the aero bars, they won't be riding a century like that :-)

...sure. I wish them well. :)

For those that are trying to set set back with this balance idea. How do you allow for how hard you are pedaling? If you are balanced for cruising you won't be for pushing hard and vice versa.

I honestly don't get what you are talking about. You set the saddle with respect to your legs. You set the reach with respect to your torso length, arm length and preferred torso angle. The weight distribution between saddle and bars is whatever it comes out to be. To say that weight distribution between the saddle and the bars is more fundamental than the reach requirements of your body measurements is absurd.

How do you explain the setback difference between time trial and road positions?

Same legs, right?

Yes, agree. I worked on the weight distribution and noticed a big difference. My bars were also angled to much towards me so it made my wrists bend too much I think. They are more level with the ground and it eliminated the angle you are talking about. Never considered the hoods inwards though, that is interesting.

...seriously ? Google up some photos of each and I think maybe you'll see what's going on with regard to reach.

Ok, I will try this. I see what you are saying. It is like other sports - tennis, golf for example. People set up gear and then get better and it keeps changing and they chase their tail almost.

I think I may have gotten everything set up pretty well, but the balance issue is something I will look at. Maybe my saddle shape is not optimal for me. I have not been measured for one, so I think that is my next step. I'd like to see what size saddle I use and then measure what I am using. I used the same Selle Italia saddle for years. I rode daily, but it was 15 miles.

I am now riding over 120 miles a week and that is going up. I ride with guys who are more experienced roadies than me and like to keep a pace of 22 mph. So the fit and saddle and things like that have started to matter a lot, because it all starts to add up when we tire as you know. The good news is that they look at my technique and form and have helped me there. For me it's about finding that sweet spot of being able to hold good steady power output and also be realistically comfortable (no pain that could be prevented) the entire time.

The balance point is affected by pedal force, as you rightly observe, i.e. if you are putting a lot of force through the pedals you can sustain your balance more readily. These things are not completely static and you can still move around the saddle. I guess the idea is to set the balance for a desired "steady state". For example for endurance riding, you are probably riding in Zone 2 or Zone 3 heart-rate, so you set the aim to be most comfortable at the this effort level.

Perhaps you could expand upon this idea? I don't claim to know a huge amount about bike fit, but it seems to me that you can set your saddle position to a wide range of positions and adjust saddle height accordingly. Different cycling disciplines and personal preference for which muscles are used to power yourself suggest different set-backs. All with the same pair of legs :-)

How do cyclists adapt between Time Trail and endurance / race bikes otherwise? TT bikes typically have steeper seat tubes and saddles pushed forward, yet the same rider might have 3-5cm difference in set-back on their main race bike.

Have you read / seen the bike fit articles and videos presented by people like Steve Hogg? It might not work for everyone, but they certainly seem like a valid option that makes sense to me.

To be honest, I really wish there *were* just one answer to bike fit so that you could look up your height and inseam and be given an accurate answer without having to try anything else. It would save weeks of testing and experimentation :-)

"...no. Tilt and personal anatomy pretty much sets your balance in the saddle"



I posted some in #11. Don't see much difference in saddle tilt.

Here's another heretical idea:

Cleat position affects balance on the bike, and so saddle setback.

...whatever you say, man. If you can't see the relationship between personal anatomy, reach, and how horizontal you are on the bike, who am I to rain on your parade ?

...:) I really wish I had your visual acuity. X-ray vision would be nice to have, too.

You're just absolutely correct on all of this, and I very much regret the appearance of a challenge to your expertise. So long and godspeed.

That is why I asked not for a definitive answer, but for pros and cons for each option ;)

No one said there was just one answer or even one answer for you. What was said is the position is set by how your legs push the pedals and your hands reach the bars, not some notion about weight distribution which is the product of the process, not the input. Yes there are different positions for different purposes, but still it is about pedaling mechanics and reach comfort/efficiency, not about weight distribution. What more can I say?

Different purpose, different position.

Would someone please post a link to an article by Steve Hogg that discusses "balance" as a fitting priority? A cursory look is showing me concepts more like what I am suggesting.

There is no perfect standard for saddle position relative to the bottom bracket.

The most conventional set up involves KOPS and a 30-degree bend of the knee - that is, when at 3 o'clock, you're knee is over the pedal spindle and when at full extension, there is a 30 degree bend at your knee. But that is not ideal for everyone. Some prefer to be slightly ahead of the pedal spindle, some behind. Some like to have a bit more or less leg extension.

Still, it's a good place to start.

Hoag has a different perspective and uses the concept of balance to set saddle position. It is a derivation off the conventional norm and works for some, but not all.

I've ridden with the conventional, and I've also gone way back. I like it somewhere in between. Also, different disciplines may require different positions.

https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...or-road-bikes/

The Q&A at the end worth reading as well.

I read it. It is total BS. How do you unweight the torso by moving the saddle? The whole thing is absurd.

...I did that once on a horse. Never again.

Well, the guy makes his living doing bike fits, & has a waiting list of folks willing to fly themselves and their bikes

to another continent for his services, so he might have things to say worth listening to.