robncircus

In contrast to Pcad's post, here's my bike:



I am all of 5'4 with short legs and a long torso. Notice my -17 110mm stem in an effort to create more drop. My bike is a size small. I've tried the extra small but it just felt way too tiny. I have yet to find a bike that fits me "well". This one is comfy, but I wouldn't say great.

Rob

SteelCan

Wow, That looks like quite a reach for your size when you add in the long reach of those handlebars. If you think you would be more comfortable with an additional 10mm of stem length on your Trek, I would consider going up a frame size if you are looking to purchase new.

BTW, the seat is tilted quite a bit. Do you find yourself using your arms to brace against sliding forward? (I ride with a flat seat but when I was in a modestly steeper drop, I found my arms/shoulders were taking up energy (strength).
I went with a shorter reach handlebar so that I could more comfortably ride in the drops.

DaveSSS 

There's no reason for an XS Giant to feel tiny compare to a size S. The reach is 7-8mm less and the wheelbase is only about 3mm less.

The picture shows another case of a nonsetback post moving the rider a good 20-25mm further forward than is common.

With a long torso, I'd try a further back position for better weight balance.

I'd like to know how people come to the conclusion that a nonsetback post is appropriate. You don't see pro riders using them. Pros have be comfortable enough to withstand 4-7 hour races and put out maximum power. If nonsetback posts and forward positions were beneficial, you'd expect that type of setup to be common, but it's not. A low saddle height for short legs makes the situation even worse, since a 3cm lower saddle is also about 1cm further forward by virtue of the STA.

robncircus

Have you ridden both? I felt very cramped on the XS and less so on the SM. As I'm sure you know, a few mm can make a big difference in fit.

Do tell what is common please. I'm actually comfy on this bike. I do feel it could be a tad more dialed in though.

Ummm for me it was 2 years as a FT bike messenger. 60-80 miles a day. 10 hour days. 2 years. That's a lot of riding. Also, I'm not a pro. If I was, I'd probably be running a -30 stem. So, I don't compare my fit with that of the pros.

FWIW, my next bike has a steeper seat tube angle which will place me even further forward. In the future, maybe you should judge my fit with a picture of me actually ON the bike. Just my $.02.

DaveSSS 

Don't get insulted, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that using one size longer stem would make an XS and an S fit nearly identical. Although the TT is 1.5cm shorter, the STA is 1 degree steeper and that increases the reach by about 8mm, once the saddle is positioned the same on both bikes. I don't have to ride the bike to know that. If there is any other difference in the feel, it's due to something else - saddle position, handlebar reach or stem length.

A position that is too far forward will often cause too much weight on the hands. All I suggest is to have an open mind and try something further back. I've experimented with a fairly large range of saddle positions over 25 years of cycling and definitely prefer a further back position. I don't use KOP to set my saddle position, like a lot of fitters suggest. It's OK as a rough starting point, but from there I's go back if I made any change, not forward. I've got a short torso, with a height of 169cm, inseam of 83cm and saddle height of 73cm. It only makes sense that long torsoed riders will need the saddle further back to get the weight balance that I have.

Food for thought:

https://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm

coasting 

dave

you are a passionate advocate of further back seating but do you advocate it even if it means being significantly behind KOPS. on one of my bikes, i have a set back and on the other i have inline. on the set back i am a good 2 cm behind kops and the inline i am closer to it. i don't think i can get to kops on the setback.

no point comparing the rest of the set up since they aren't the same size.

fa63

A non-setback seatpost is rarely the right choice for road bikes, unless you have very short femurs and/or have a very slack seat tube angle. Smaller bikes also usually have steeper seat tube angles making the saddle-BB distance even shorter.

Just because a bike is made to fit a rider doesn't mean that the rider has achieved the optimal position. There is something to be said for riding a position that you feel comfortable with, but it is good to be open-minded and consider different suggestions as it might make the fit even better.

DaveSSS 

I do NOT advocate using KOP, other than as rough starting point. I do know that my knee is somewhere in the 1-2cm behind range but never bother to check it anymore. I've gone as far as 3cm back but found no advantage to it. Moving 1cm further forward creates an obvious increase in the weight on my hands and leads to discomfort.

Not being balanced over the saddle is a major reason you see so many short stems and high handlebars. It's an attempt to correct a bad weight balance by making the rider sit more upright. One mistake leads to two more.

umd

Yeah Dave, pros never have no setback

fa63

It looks to me that seatpost has some setback (although not much).

robncircus

I appreciate the suggestions but I don't think that's my issue. I have no hand issues, no knee issues, and can ride all day on this fit. I really just want another 1/2 inch or so of drop.

And since some of you assumed I never had a setback, let me present to you my bike prior to it's current form:



As you can see.... setback. I found myself riding on the front portion of the seat most of the time to the extent it would actually lower the nose (also due to a crappy seatpost). So, I went to the Thompson and I like it. I have small legs including short femurs. My inseam is about 28-29 or so.

Again, I don't think it's goot to make suggestions when nobody has seen me on the bike.

Cheers

Rob

Soloist Assassin

Well the seat thing is an illusion from the picture. The whole bike is going downhill if you look close, picture was a fail. It was tilted slightly though. Also I have no problem with feeling like I am sliding forward, it is a small tilt. If it is flat I can't get comfortable in the drops with it. As for me, I have freakishly long arms. That is part of the reason for my setup being how it is. The extra 5mm back I did on the seat felt good, I feel like I have plenty of room now getting in a compact tuck. I went through a few fast tight sections, and it seemed to handle well still after the adjustment.

I still think I am going to go up to a 120cm stem from the 90cm for the new bike. The top tube is 20cm shorter and if I don't like it I can always just buy a 110cm and move the seat back a bit and try it again. I'm always tweaking things and trying new things anyway, so I figure why not have a few to try different setups with?

Thanks for all the advice guys. I'm not totally sold on the seat being way back where it is now, but I'll try it out for a few rides, and give it an honest chance.

DaveSSS 

Great example of a setback post, umd. That is NOT a straight-up post. The front of the clamp appears to be about at the centerline of the seat tube, so your are looking at 10-15mm of setback. Also Cervelo uses a relatively slack 73 degree STA across the board, where another brand, like C'dale might use 73.5 degrees. That moves the post back 6mm further. You need to look at the whole situation, including saddle height, of better yet, know how far the saddle nose is behind the center of the crank. A straight-up post places the center of the clamp at the center of the seat tube, so a 40mm clamp would have the front 20mm ahead of the centerline.

I didn't say you couldn't find a single pro using a straight-up post, particularly those who are mainly riding crits and flatter road races.

Take a look at Euro pro bikes. The vast majority will have setback posts and a lot of the saddles will also be slammed all the way back.

robncircus

Just noticed this line and wanted to point it out. Dave, you claim I must have poor weight distribution on my bike. However, my situation is exactly the opposite of this statement from you. So, I must have good weight distribution then right?

We all know it is impossible to judge fit without seeing someone ona bike and riding it. Even then it can be tough.

bikeM3987

I am a hair under 5'11" with pretty long legs. I am in between a 54 and a 56, but went with the 56 because I would have had spacers underneath the stem with a 54 in most cases. I will say that I didn't notice too much of a difference in handling in a 54 or 56, but I have a 110 stem already on the 56 so that might be why. Here is my current setup, I am not really looking for some super big drop.

umd

Just going back to your original statement. There are plenty of pros out there riding them. Sure it is not the most common configuration, but it has to do with body proportions. You of all people should know that not all people have the same leg/torso ratios. Anyway, I posted that other picture because I had it handy while I was waiting for a movie to start. I was just reading through the current issue of Road and there is a full page ad for FSA with a shot of Rinaldo Nocentini on a zero setback post. I couldn't find the same picture online, it isn't as clear from this one. Unlike the Cervelo, this clamp is centered over the post.

fa63

But again, Nocentini is on a BH G5 which has a slack 72.5 degree seat tube angle (given his height, he more than likely rides a size medium). That seat tube angle combined with his saddle height naturally puts him in a relatively set-back position. But you are right; body proportions dictate fit, and some people have odd proportions.

DaveSSS 

I didn't say you had poor weight distribution, but using a nonsetback post can lead to that problem for some riders. It can also put more weight on the front wheel than is desirable. I wouldn't go over 45% when you're in the hooks with the upper back positioned low.

Here's a practical test. If you can pedal the bike with your hands hovering over the brake hoods, or with just the tip of finger on the hood for balance and not have to over-exert your midsection, then you've got no problem. I can do that, even with the large 11cm drop that I have from the saddle to the bars.

I read a lot of posts from riders complaining about too much weight on their hands, so they put on a short high rise stem, which helps, but the real problem is obvious from looking at their saddle position - too far forward. Most of that comes from using KOP as a "must" and sometimes from improper measurement, with the bike not sitting on a level surface, giving a fals reading with a plumb bob.

You still haven't explained what prompted you to move the saddle forward and whether you increased the stem length by an equal amount to maintain the same reach. That would be the normal thing to do. If not, it would suggest that you were decreasing reach with saddle position. That's never recommended, unless it's only a few millimeters of fine tuning.

Here's another objection I have with a too-far-forward saddle and/or too short a reach. If you're pedaling with your hands in the hooks, it will require a significant bend at the elbow to get very low and that will create arm to knee interference. If you watch the pros, you will notice that most can achieve a low aerodynamic position with little or no bend at the elbow and not have knee to arm interference. That's from using a lot of saddle to bar drop and just enough stem length to produce that arm to knee clearance.

Grumpy McTrumpy

lots of nonsense in this thread.

as if you can look at a picture of some pro rider and then draw three dimensional conclusions that apply to you personally.

DaveSSS 

I think you failed again. You can't tell a thing about the seatpost from that picture, but if you go to the BH website, the post they show has setback and the geometry chart shows slack HTAs in all but the smallest size. Even the 74 degree STA on the smallest is not as steep as many brands.

https://www.bhbikes-us.com/bikes.php#content_top


LOOK used a 72.5 degree STA on all sizes for a long time, but changed that in 2004. I had a KG381 with that geometry and tried both a setback post and a Thomson straight-up post when I was experimenting with saddle position. The new models have a 74.5 STA in the same 51cm size, which moves the saddle rail clamp about 25mm further forward, making a setback post a must, IMO.

Rather than keep posting poor examples, why not defend your position (no pun intended) with an explanation of what creates the need for a forward saddle. My contention is that it can lead to too much weight on the hands and corrections with short high-rise stems as an attempt to correct the resulting discomfort. Those corrections create to an overly cramped setup. I've seen plenty of examples posted on this forum.

If you get properly balanced over the saddle first, most riders will find they can tolerate more drop and reach without discomfort.

You mentioned body proportions. I have a very short torso that should not place as much weight forward of my saddle contact point as the average rider. To be specific, my height is 169cm and my cycling inseam is 83cm. I still keep my saddle nose 6-7cm behind the pedal spindle, with a 73cm saddle height. It is normal of larger riders to have the saddle further back and shorter riders to have the saddle further forward, but the difference shouldn't be radically off the ratio of 1cm more setback for each 3cm of additional height. I would expect a large rider with a 10cm higher saddle to be setback another 3cm or more.

grolby

I am so sick of this stupid friggin meme. Handling is determined by geometry, not stem length. I don't know where roadies get this crazy idea that 100mm or less is "really short," and will cause bad handling. This doesn't seem to be a problem for DH mountain bikers, who rock 70mm or shorter stems on terrain far steeper and sketchier than roadies ever ride. Yeah, steering response is a bit quicker with a shorter stem, but that's not the same thing as "twitchy." You adapt to it. I've ridden 90mm stems for years. No problems.

All respect Dave, but you don't know what the F you're talking about. No setback posts are very popular, mostly with short riders. The major consideration in saddle position is femur length, not "body balance." Yeah, I could slide my saddle back and be beautifully balanced, but so what? Being inappropriately positioned relative to the BB, even by a little bit, let alone 1-2 cm, Fs me up a hell of a lot more in terms of comfort, power and injury risk than possibly having a bit too much weight on my hands (though I don't; this may shock you, but I'm appropriately positioned even with my no setback post). And you know, sliding a saddle forward doesn't somehow preclude me from raising it at the same time. No setback =/= low saddle. Why the hell would it? I don't buy the argument about power, either. Having more setback is beneficial when climbing (though I get as much help as I need by sliding back on the saddle), but otherwise a more forward position generally lets most riders put out more power.

I took my fitting advice from people like Peter White and other retro folks for years, and you know what? They were wrong about what works for me. They make the same stupid assumption that everyone else does, that we are all of fairly typical height and proportions, and that what works for one rider of those dimensions can be safely generalized to all riders. But that's not true. Turns out that I need a forward saddle and bars lower than the saddle. With that setup, I'm happy as a clam. If I, and other short riders with short legs (like, oh, robncircus) were to follow your advice, we would find ourselves slower, less comfortable and more prone to injury. That's not exactly what we want.

grolby

This is most adamantly probably NOT the case for short riders like rob. I can only speak for myself, but my tolerance for drop is greatly improved with a forward saddle position, partly because of flexibility/hip angle issues, partly because rotating forward doesn't squish my perineal artery. In fact, saddle issues (numb junk) could for some riders be a symptom of too much reach, and possibly too much setback. As I've reduced my reach and moved my saddle forward, I've become more tolerant of different saddles.

grolby

Sorry to be effectively spamming at this point, but /thread on this one. Shorter torso, longer legs = more setback. The more these proportions are altered, the less setback required. That's what I'm trying to tell you, and robncircus' self-description of having a long torso and short legs should be all the information necessary to tell that your claim that he should have more setback is misdiagnosis of any fit issues that he's having. The major problem that he has is that he's short, even shorter than me, and getting a bike to fit anyone less than 5'6" gets seriously problematic. Which sucks, but there you go. We need to work harder to get the right fit.

DaveSSS 

Grolby...

Please elaborate on why my short torso requires more setback. If you think it has something to do with femur length, try again. I do not base my setback on knee to pedal position and my knees are well behind the commonly recommended KOP position.

I'm only 5'-6.5" tall (169cm). Even with a short torso I have little problem getting most stock frames to fit me, but there are some brands I would avoid. If I had more average proportions, I could fit on just about any brand.

I totally disagree that fitting people under 5'-6" is problematic. A rider of my size with shorter legs could ride the same 51cm LOOK 585 that I do, but if his legs were greatly shorter, a drop down to the next smaller size shouldn't be a major problem since the reach is only 10mm shorter.

Part of the problem for some people is merely not being able to analyze a frame's geometry and make an informed decision on what to buy. I can anlyze the geometry of some brands and know upfront that it will create a fit problem. Too many people just buy whatever their LBS offers and sometimes in the wrong size, creating their own fit nightmare.

umd

Unfortunately it's hard to find pictures where you can see the seatpost at all. I agree it it is not common, I was never trying to say it was, but it's not none, so saying "you don't see them" is BS. I'm not a pro, I don't care what the pros do, I've found a position that works for me after several iterations and tons of miles. I have good weight distribution, good power production, and no "arm to knee interference".