Originally Posted by rpenmanparker (Post 19844409)

Seriously, how do you use scales? Have you seen that done or had it done? How does that work? I mean how is it set up?

Originally Posted by PepeM (Post 19844415)

If more upright is better for technical stuff, why do people tell me to use the drops when cornering?

Originally Posted by seypat (Post 19844432)

I didn't know bike fit was so complicated. But after reading the thread...... http://www.bikeforums.net/vb/cache/ds.jpg

Your legs/feet/torso/skeleton dimensions are not going to change much. The things that can/will change is the size of your butt and gut. Your body type might have as big of an impact on your fit as anything else. I'm a Meso-Endomorph type, so nothing but French or Eddy fit for me. Find a bike in your range, and start pedaling. You can sit up like Jesus on that shirt. Start with the saddle in the middle. Adjust it up or down and fore/aft so that your pedal stroke is good and you won't do any harm to your knees. Tighten up the seatpost/saddle, take a measurement for reference and write it down. My measurement there is center of BB along ST to the top of the saddle. Get back on, start pedaling, hinge at the hips, and continue from there. Find what works for you, take measurements and write them down. The other measurements I record, are BB center to the center of the stem/handlebar and front tip of seat to the center of the stem/handlebar. After that I don't care. Those 3 measurements are the same from bike to bike to bike. Because of the different sizes of frames, some have more/less seatpost showing/drop than the others. If I lose/gain some mass in the butt/gut or change my flexibility, then maybe a seatpost/handlebar stem goes up or down some. Those 3 measurements stay the same. My frames vary from 53-56 ST but all have a TT around 56. The stems are 80-100 and the handlbars are all similar. It works for me. It's really not that hard. If I was a racer, I might make it a little more complicated. I will say that if I go with the saddle forward and a longer stem it moves the center of mass/gravity foreword onto the fork/front wheel. This has a negative impact on handling/feel, especially when climbing.

Originally Posted by Doug28450 (Post 19844285)

What if the road/path is on a side hill and the slope across the road is down?

Originally Posted by seypat (Post 19844432)

I didn't know bike fit was so complicated. But after reading the thread...... http://www.bikeforums.net/vb/cache/ds.jpg

Your legs/feet/torso/skeleton dimensions are not going to change much. The things that can/will change is the size of your butt and gut. Your body type might have as big of an impact on your fit as anything else. I'm a Meso-Endomorph type, so nothing but French or Eddy fit for me. Find a bike in your range, and start pedaling. You can sit up like Jesus on that shirt. Start with the saddle in the middle. Adjust it up or down and fore/aft so that your pedal stroke is good and you won't do any harm to your knees. Tighten up the seatpost/saddle, take a measurement for reference and write it down. My measurement there is center of BB along ST to the top of the saddle. Get back on, start pedaling, hinge at the hips, and continue from there. Find what works for you, take measurements and write them down. The other measurements I record, are BB center to the center of the stem/handlebar and front tip of seat to the center of the stem/handlebar. After that I don't care. Those 3 measurements are the same from bike to bike to bike. Because of the different sizes of frames, some have more/less seatpost showing/drop than the others. If I lose/gain some mass in the butt/gut or change my flexibility, then maybe a seatpost/handlebar stem goes up or down some. Those 3 measurements stay the same. My frames vary from 53-56 ST but all have a TT around 56. The stems are 80-100 and the handlbars are all similar. It works for me. It's really not that hard. If I was a racer, I might make it a little more complicated. I will say that if I go with the saddle forward and a longer stem it moves the center of mass/gravity foreword onto the fork/front wheel. This has a negative impact on handling/feel, especially when climbing.

Originally Posted by philbob57 (Post 19844659)

Going back to OP's question, the problem he cites is that

When I experienced that problem, I tried moving the saddle forward, and that helped a lot more than moving the saddle backwards, counter-intuitive though it was.

Originally Posted by redlude97 (Post 19844439)

i haven't done it but I know some of the mtb bike guys care more
http://forums.mtbr.com/attachments/f...ion-scales.jpg

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker (Post 19844697)

That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about weight on the saddle and weight on the pedals and weight on the bars. Weight distribution of the body, not the bike...with or without a rider.

And no one has said what the right distribution is, even for the two wheels with rider.

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker (Post 19843833)

Right, now so what? Sure there is a right place for feet relative to the saddle, but what does it have to do with balance.

Originally Posted by redlude97 (Post 19844721)

You can presumably infer that in your normal position on the bike that more weight on the front wheel is from more weight distribution on the bike, or you know, just go by feel like i said. Its easy to tell if there is more weight on your hands or not. No one is arguing that there is one perfect weight distribution either, its is all a balancing of priorities for the rider. but you seem to believe that only reach and hip angle affect weight distribution and not saddle setback. Why don't you address all my other points instead of cherry picking?

Originally Posted by f4rrest (Post 19844725)

Your butt has mass. Your feet are like a fulcrum. Move your butt back and your center of mass has shifted back.

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker (Post 19844735)

Nope, I now agree that setback affects weight distribution. I just don't think it is an independent variable that you adjust for consciously. Pay attention to the rest. Weight distribution will take care of itself. Especially since you haven't been able to tell me either what the distribution should be and how it should be measured. If it is in terms of weight on the wheels, then fine, but no one has really said that. And what is the optimum ratio that you are adjusting setback to achieve?

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker (Post 19844748)

Thst's not what I meant. Not how does a position affect balance. Rather what does balance have to do with what is the RIGHT position. I contend if you set saddle position by weight distribution, much else could be wrong. That's all.

Originally Posted by redlude97 (Post 19844755)

well that is because there is no perfect number, just like there is no perfect amount of setback. How much hand pressure can you handle? Shoulders, neck? What about hip angle? For how long? What percentage of time in each position? For what type of terrain? Is an IAB position necessary?Are you racing or mostly solo? These all play a role. Talk to a good fitter and they'll get you close when you tell them the type of riding you do. Your climbing bike would be set up differently than a merkx TT style bike.

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker (Post 19844735)

Nope, I now agree that setback affects weight distribution. I just don't think it is an independent variable that you adjust for consciously. Pay attention to the rest. Weight distribution will take care of itself. Especially since you haven't been able to tell me either what the distribution should be and how it should be measured. If it is in terms of weight on the wheels, then fine, but no one has really said that. And what is the optimum ratio that you are adjusting setback to achieve?

Originally Posted by Fiery (Post 19845016)

I'd just like to say that it is very cool that you did the chair test and updated your opinion based on the results. Regarding the best approach to setting up saddle position, I'm personally not a fan of doing it based on perceived weight on the hands as a primary driver either. However, from what I've picked up, when going by weight on hands, the goal is to be able to hold torso position with hands off the bar, without sliding in the saddle or rounding the back, while riding at a hard but not too hard pace (whatever that might be) and an 80-90 RPM cadence. Some variation of this test is typically used to determine if setback is correct according to this approach. None of this has anything to do with the correct weight distribution between the wheels, of course.

Originally Posted by philbob57 (Post 19844659)

Going back to OP's question, the problem he cites is that

When I experienced that problem, I tried moving the saddle forward, and that helped a lot more than moving the saddle backwards, counter-intuitive though it was.

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker (Post 19840377)

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.

Originally Posted by Fiery (Post 19845016)

I'd just like to say that it is very cool that you did the chair test and updated your opinion based on the results. Regarding the best approach to setting up saddle position, I'm personally not a fan of doing it based on perceived weight on the hands as a primary driver either. However, from what I've picked up, when going by weight on hands, the goal is to be able to hold torso position with hands off the bar, without sliding in the saddle or rounding the back, while riding at a hard but not too hard pace (whatever that might be) and an 80-90 RPM cadence. Some variation of this test is typically used to determine if setback is correct according to this approach. None of this has anything to do with the correct weight distribution between the wheels, of course.