Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

Math Question involving frame geometry

Search
Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

Math Question involving frame geometry

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-29-05 | 07:51 PM
  #1  
53-11_alltheway's Avatar
Thread Starter
"Great One"
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,463
Likes: 0
From: Might as well be underwater because I make less drag than a torpedoE (no aero bars here though)
I've got a question for you guys.

I have a seat that is 76cm (measured at rails [top of saddle measurement would be greater]) from my BB spindle. If I went from a 72 degree seat tube to a 73.5 seat tube angle how far forward would that move my saddle if I kept it on the same position on the rails.

Does anybody have a scientific calculator handy? (simply a matter of plugging in cosine right?)

It may very well be a 72.5 STA so could somebody do the math for that too.

Last edited by 53-11_alltheway; 03-29-05 at 09:16 PM.
53-11_alltheway is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 08:03 PM
  #2  
LordOpie's Avatar
Senior Member
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,698
Likes: 0
From: Denver

Bikes: 2006 custom Walt Works roadie, 2003 Fuji Finest (road), 2002 Giant Iguana (mtb), 1986 BMW K75 (motor)

almost 2cm for 73.5*

2/3 cm for 72.5*
LordOpie is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 08:04 PM
  #3  
53-11_alltheway's Avatar
Thread Starter
"Great One"
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,463
Likes: 0
From: Might as well be underwater because I make less drag than a torpedoE (no aero bars here though)
I've figured out my prefered cockpit length= center of seatpost measured to brifters. That length includes a 16cm drop to the bars.

Now if I go to a bike with a steeper seat tube angle I need to take into consideration how much more rearward I've have to move my seat back in comparison. I can easily reduce stem length from 130mm to compensate , but how much length are we talking about?
53-11_alltheway is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 08:05 PM
  #4  
LordOpie's Avatar
Senior Member
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,698
Likes: 0
From: Denver

Bikes: 2006 custom Walt Works roadie, 2003 Fuji Finest (road), 2002 Giant Iguana (mtb), 1986 BMW K75 (motor)

you want a more than 6" drop from saddle to bars? Whatcha gonna do with your testicles. (Oh boy, that joke never gets funny)
LordOpie is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 08:08 PM
  #5  
53-11_alltheway's Avatar
Thread Starter
"Great One"
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,463
Likes: 0
From: Might as well be underwater because I make less drag than a torpedoE (no aero bars here though)
Originally Posted by LordOpie
almost 2cm for 73.5*

2/3 cm for 72.5*
2 cm going from 72 STA to 73.5 STA.

1.3 cm for 72.5 STA to 73.5 STA, right?

Thanks that really helps me figure out the math.

That means I can probably use a 110 mm stem with the same 57cm top tube if all I do is change the STA 1.5 degrees. (assuming I keep the same reach handlebars).

Or I can use a 100mm stem with a 58cm top tube and 73.5 STA.

Originally Posted by LordOpie
you want a more than 6" drop from saddle to bars? Whatcha gonna do with your testicles. (Oh boy, that joke never gets funny)
I just like it that way.

Last edited by 53-11_alltheway; 03-29-05 at 10:51 PM.
53-11_alltheway is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 08:12 PM
  #6  
53-11_alltheway's Avatar
Thread Starter
"Great One"
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,463
Likes: 0
From: Might as well be underwater because I make less drag than a torpedoE (no aero bars here though)
Originally Posted by dexmax
no change..... you measured your 76cm w/ the BB as a reference point.


I understand you would like to keep the saddle height, right?
I measured from the center of the BB to the saddle rails (not the top of the saddle)

Yeah the saddle height would be exactly the same.

All I would do with the new frame is use a 2 cm setback seat post.

The BB to saddle height and the fore-aft relationship would be the same.

I just don't like the aesthetics of having my saddle moved slightly forward on my straight clamp which is bound to happen since I have it jacked up pretty high. The higher I have it jacked up the more rearward the saddle moves, thus the forward compensation.

Last edited by 53-11_alltheway; 03-29-05 at 11:13 PM.
53-11_alltheway is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 08:25 PM
  #7  
climbo's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
From: Australia

Bikes: a few

what about at the back part of your pedal stroke? By pushing the seat forward, you're now further away from the pedal spindle at that point. Crank length should be about your leg length, not your seat position.
climbo is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 08:28 PM
  #8  
53-11_alltheway's Avatar
Thread Starter
"Great One"
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,463
Likes: 0
From: Might as well be underwater because I make less drag than a torpedoE (no aero bars here though)
Originally Posted by climbo
what about at the back part of your pedal stroke? By pushing the seat forward, you're now further away from the pedal spindle at that point. Crank length should be about your leg length, not your seat position.
It's not really that forward though. (seat is actually in the middle of the straight clamp)

The seat tube angle is slack and it's 76cm ( probably more like 80+ cm if you measure from the top of the saddle) from the BB. So if you draw a line from that point you can see that it's pretty far rearward without forward compensation.

My 180mm spindle is also a little more forward in the 3'oclock position also.

This set-up makes the most power yet for me (subjective feeling)

Last edited by 53-11_alltheway; 03-29-05 at 10:50 PM.
53-11_alltheway is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 08:30 PM
  #9  
baxtefer's Avatar
Cornucopia of Awesomeness
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,847
Likes: 0
From: not where i used to be
Originally Posted by 53-11_alltheway
That length includes a 16cm drop to the bars.
16 cm to the hoods or the drops?
baxtefer is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 08:35 PM
  #10  
53-11_alltheway's Avatar
Thread Starter
"Great One"
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,463
Likes: 0
From: Might as well be underwater because I make less drag than a torpedoE (no aero bars here though)
Originally Posted by baxtefer
16 cm to the hoods or the drops?
Somewhere around there. I have a quill stem so I'm always playying with it. That's how I rode today (seemed nice)
53-11_alltheway is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 08:39 PM
  #11  
LordOpie's Avatar
Senior Member
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,698
Likes: 0
From: Denver

Bikes: 2006 custom Walt Works roadie, 2003 Fuji Finest (road), 2002 Giant Iguana (mtb), 1986 BMW K75 (motor)

Originally Posted by 53-11_alltheway
This set-up makes the most power yet for me.
Is this another one of your hypothetical exercises or are you actually trying to maximize? If you want more power, perhaps get on a fit cycle hooked up to power meter and computer? I'm doing that in eight days
LordOpie is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 08:39 PM
  #12  
Nessism's Avatar
Senior Member
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,152
Likes: 557
From: Torrance, CA

Bikes: Homebuilt steel

I suggest you measure how far up and back your saddle is using your current bike. You can do with by droping a plumb-bob off the nose of the saddle and measuring how far back it is from the centerline of the crank. Measureing how high the saddle is can be done with either a tape or ruler.

Calculations are a good way to compare different frames, but no substuite to set up the bike. Remember, "To measure is to know".

Good luck.

Ed
Nessism is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 08:41 PM
  #13  
53-11_alltheway's Avatar
Thread Starter
"Great One"
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,463
Likes: 0
From: Might as well be underwater because I make less drag than a torpedoE (no aero bars here though)
Originally Posted by LordOpie
Is this another one of your hypothetical exercises or are you actually trying to maximize? If you want more power, perhaps get on a fit cycle hooked up to power meter and computer? I'm doing that in eight days
That really is the best way. It just feels fast this way.


Who offers those services? I would mind it if they could test crank length too. When you change the crank length it screws up all the adjustemnts though.

I really can't afford that kind of test though, but it's neat know that it can be done.



Originally Posted by Nessism
I suggest you measure how far up and back your saddle is using your current bike. You can do with by droping a plumb-bob off the nose of the saddle and measuring how far back it is from the centerline of the crank. Measureing how high the saddle is can be done with either a tape or ruler.

Calculations are a good way to compare different frames, but no substuite to set up the bike. Remember, "To measure is to know".

Good luck.

Ed
I'll do that too. Nothing better than real world measurements.

Last edited by 53-11_alltheway; 03-29-05 at 11:06 PM.
53-11_alltheway is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 08:43 PM
  #14  
biker7's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,850
Likes: 0
Hi 53...yup that's right,
...for posterity here is the simple trig:
sin (change in angle) X 76cm = change in setback
sin (1.5 deg) X 76 = 1.99 which is ~2.0 cm
sin (1.0 deg) X 76 = 1.33 cm
for what its worth the net setback difference for small angles are proportional to the angle change, i.e. 1 deg/1.5 deg = 1.33cm/2.0 cm

As to your comments about set back and seat clamp attachment...its worth noting
that it is more than aesthetics in terms of clamp attachment without a set back seat post...its best to use a setback post to attach the seat in the middle of its rails for best load distribution for the seat itself as well...more critical with heavy riders.
Also since you and I are close to the same size...I of course would like to see you in a bigger frame with shorter stem...but I am likely older

HTH,
George
biker7 is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 08:50 PM
  #15  
53-11_alltheway's Avatar
Thread Starter
"Great One"
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,463
Likes: 0
From: Might as well be underwater because I make less drag than a torpedoE (no aero bars here though)
Originally Posted by biker7
As to your comments about set back and seat clamp attachment...its worth noting
that it is more than aesthetics in terms of clamp attachment without a set back seat post...its best to use a setback post to attach the seat in the middle of its rails for best load distribution for the seat itself as well...more critical with heavy riders.
Also since you and I are close to the same size...I of course would like to see you in a bigger frame with shorter stem...but I am likely older

HTH,
George
I like the seat to be in the middle of the clamp for those reasons.

I think I want about a 100mm stem too. Just for weight balance.


Thanks for the info (everybody)
53-11_alltheway is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 08:59 PM
  #16  
biker7's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,850
Likes: 0
I am running a 100mm stem on my 61 c-t-t frame with 586mm virtual top tube and think for a tall guy with long legs running a bit bigger frame with a nominal stem size like you are targeting is a good ticket especially if doing some touring.
Good Luck...may be moving my campy brifters up a tad on my Deda bars per your tip the other day. Does anybody know how to remove the rubber hood covers on a Campy brifter (Veloce)? They may just peel off. Need to get at the bar tape which runs under each hood cover. There is a little button on the inboard wall of each brifter hood cover and not sure if this is a pin to hold the rubber hood cover in place or not.
Thanks,
George
biker7 is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 09:13 PM
  #17  
baxtefer's Avatar
Cornucopia of Awesomeness
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,847
Likes: 0
From: not where i used to be
Originally Posted by biker7
Hi 53...yup that's right,
...for posterity here is the simple trig:
sin (change in angle) X 76cm = change in setback
sin (1.5 deg) X 76 = 1.99 which is ~2.0 cm
sin (1.0 deg) X 76 = 1.33 cm
for what its worth the net setback difference for small angles are proportional to the angle change, i.e. 1 deg/1.5 deg = 1.33cm/2.0 cm

HTH,
George

i hate to be a math nazi, but your trig is wrong.

you've kind of, but not really, calculated the change in height of his saddle given a change in seat tube angle. even if you were trying to do that you did it wrong.

the proper formula is
76*(cos(72)-cos(73.5)) = 1.9cm forward
76*(cos(72)-cos(72.5)) = 0.63cm

if you were trying to caluclate the change in height:
76*(sin(73.5)-sin(72)) = 0.59 cm higher
baxtefer is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 09:37 PM
  #18  
53-11_alltheway's Avatar
Thread Starter
"Great One"
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,463
Likes: 0
From: Might as well be underwater because I make less drag than a torpedoE (no aero bars here though)
Originally Posted by climbo
Crank length should be about your leg length, not your seat position.
Crank length is about your seat position. (not saying that's ideal, but that's how the cycling industry deals with a lot of different leg lengths and token adjustment in crank length)

Basically all cyclists ride one length crank (170mm to 175mm is a token 3% spread). All the adjustment for the huge spread in leg length is done by altering seat tube angles. That's why you have guys with 29" inseams riding 172.5 cranks and a tall guy with 37" + inseam riding 175mm cranks.

That's why 50cm frames have 75-76 STA's and 62-64 cm frames have 72 STA's.

Sorry for the late response I just reread your post.

FYI , I just looked at my seat again--it is approx in the middle of my straight clamp. On my new bike I want less stem and more top tube for better balance.

Last edited by 53-11_alltheway; 03-29-05 at 09:51 PM.
53-11_alltheway is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 09:42 PM
  #19  
LordOpie's Avatar
Senior Member
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,698
Likes: 0
From: Denver

Bikes: 2006 custom Walt Works roadie, 2003 Fuji Finest (road), 2002 Giant Iguana (mtb), 1986 BMW K75 (motor)

Originally Posted by baxtefer
i hate to be a math nazi, but your trig is wrong.

you've kind of, but not really, calculated the change in height of his saddle given a change in seat tube angle. even if you were trying to do that you did it wrong.

the proper formula is
76*(cos(72)-cos(73.5)) = 1.9cm forward
76*(cos(72)-cos(72.5)) = 0.63cm

if you were trying to caluclate the change in height:
76*(sin(73.5)-sin(72)) = 0.59 cm higher
Biker7's posted formula is correct for very small changes on an isoceles triangle. Since sin(89) is almost = 1. I'm not saying your's is wrong, just that there are different ways to get there.

Sin(a)/A = Sin(b)/B and all that
LordOpie is offline  
Reply
Old 03-29-05 | 10:33 PM
  #20  
drink slinger
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by LordOpie
you want a more than 6" drop from saddle to bars? Whatcha gonna do with your testicles. (Oh boy, that joke never gets funny)
I've noticed that it occassionally pisses off female forumites, however. It apparently indicates that we men believe that only men cycle.
__________________
Five is right out!
theopowers is offline  
Reply
Old 03-30-05 | 06:16 AM
  #21  
biker7's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,850
Likes: 0
Thank you Lord Opie. I guess baxtefer missed class that day and why the Nazi's lost the war.
George
biker7 is offline  
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.