Yet another saddle shape post

[Grarea]

Thankfully it always seems to check out OK apart from I don't think I've experienced the pulling back on the bars in quite the same way as his description.

I am curious about that.
Do you mean you don't pull back at all when you push a gear or just not how he describes it?

Many short riders (of either sex) are toe-dippers, but I think there may be more than one reason. Certainly setting the saddle too high or too far forward are common mistakes among short riders whose bikes may effectively be too big, but another problem area is crank length. At 5' 10" I am comfortable on 170mm cranks, but the shortest cranks commonly available for a rider say 5' 0" tall is 160mm, not much different to mine, and small bikes may be fitted with 170 cranks anyway. So a short rider may be faced with an unpleasant choice when trying to set their saddle height; have their knees come up level with their hips, or pedal toe-down to reach the pedal at the bottom.

This is another thing on my list.
It seems that a lot of people leave this to the end.
Also it seems to be a bit of a contentious subject.
I suspect that it is more important to some than others.
Especially if one is on the cusp or has short legs. I guess the shorter the leg, the bigger the difference % wise.
I am wondering whether to make this a priority.

I threw on a set of cranks that I had so that I could achieve the lowest gear I could.
I was down to 2.5 mph on my hill at the beginning
However, they are 175mm cranks which do feel too long, but have only compared to 170mm.
And never like for like.
I want to compare cranks but it isn't a cheap thing to do is it?
My question is about understanding the mechanics of why people suit different length cranks.
Because I see "short legs this" and "long legs that" and "taller riders this" "shorter riders that"

Surely it is either long or short femur or long or short lower leg that matters?

I ask because I am 5'8" but I think I have short legs but I think the shortness is in the lower leg and 'normal' length in the femur.

[531colin]

......... check it with Colin's advice. Thankfully it always seems to check out OK apart from I don't think I've experienced the pulling back on the bars in quite the same way as his description............

If you fancy a play, (obviously, mark everything first) try your saddle 5 or 10mm further back, you might have to lower it just a few mm. I would be interested in what you find...

[Grarea]

If you fancy a play, (obviously, mark everything first) try your saddle 5 or 10mm further back, you might have to lower it just a few mm. I would be interested in what you find...

Yes, me too.

Well, Colin, you have completely set me free. Thank you so much.
Rarely does a guy come this happy smelling of manure.
I am reporting in.

I did a 16 mile ride today (including my hill a few times) and am not in agony.
I have some discomfort, but who cares?
The sit bone agony has gone and the pressure on the back of the legs is greatly diminished. I would now call it more 'interference'.

I feel like I am now in the 'normal' bike fit areas.
Especially when you take into account that I gave them no rest from wednesday.

I am astonished at the difference that 10mm can make.

As soon as I slid my foot back 10mm on the pedal, instant discomfort.(I suspect I have moved my foot forward more than that)
It seems like 10mm at the pedal is multiplied at the saddle end. Although, I suppose 10mm of saddle pressing into your leg is quite a lot.

I seem to have also shifted what muscles I am using so probably need to do a few miles to strengthen those up.
It seems to have shifted away a bit from the calves and the quads and is using the glutes and the lower back more.
(I will need to look up if that is a good thing or a bad thing)

I have also generally gained strength and speed.
Before I was dropping down to my lowest gear and struggling up, this time I could either push it up in third or ease up it in 2nd.
Great stuff.

I picked these shoes up cheap second hand and had to grind the old fittings off.
I managed to bodge one together to see what it is like. I tried all sorts of tightening and loosening of the pedal but my foot kept coming out.
I think the cleats are (well, 'is' as there is only one) worn. I shall get some more to try.

I think I might fancy it just a tad forward of where it was but I shall play.



I need to decide what bit to approach next. Bike parts or continue with position.
Now that I can do a couple of miles, I can start to feel the hints as to what needs doing.



I am just logging my thoughts here really. Feel free to ignore:
Glutes feeling a little discomfort. Change of position has probably shifted to them away from other areas so need to work on them.
Lower back discomfort.
Mild shoulder discomfort.
I think possibly a little too much weight on my hands still.

Other things that I think:
I think one leg is possibly slightly longer than the other.
I think I want shorter cranks.
I think I need new cleats.
Does a slightly too big shoe make the foot sit further back when it comes to cleats?

I should change the stem to make it less twitchy, but I have to remember that it is a flat bar frame and so the top tube is long.

[531colin]

Gattonero.....You have told me more times than I can count that its fashionable to have a seat tube angle steeper than 72 degrees.
I don't disagree with that, its fashionable. What you haven't given me is a single reason why it works better for any rider to have a steep seat tube angle. (on anything other than a low-profile bike) I assume that you don't know a reason, and I am therefore going to stop responding to your posts which simply repeat what seat tube angles are common on modern bikes.
You say I am talking about "only" 15mm different saddle position.....well, 15mm is quite enough to get your saddle from "too far forward" to "just right" so 15mm will do nicely. IF anybody needs their saddle further forward, in-line seatposts are cheap and plentiful.
What are you trying to tell me about frame construction? It doesn't make sense to me.
If you want to argue with somebody about using the "falling forward test" to set saddle setback, argue with this man....https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/bikefit/2011/05/seat-set-back-for-road-bikes/
for many riders, KOPS is a reasonable proxy for the falling forward test, but it takes no account of flexibility, functionality, and core strength.
Saddle setback is about balance on the bike, its not about pedalling dynamics. Sitting too far forward has consequences..https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/articles/sensitive-issues/
You don't know anybody who would use only saddle setback to get the right reach to the bars.....neither do I.....whats your point?
If you look at the Spa Tourer, Audax, and Elan, you will not find any bike in any size with a seat tube angle steeper than 72.5 degrees.
All of those bikes have been reviewed in magazines. If you can find me a single review that says the slack seat tube angle caused any difficulty to any of the test riders, I will donate £100 to any charity of your choice.

[Mick F]

Fashionable?
My Mercian is 73deg parallel and was built in 1986 from an off the peg design.

Here's the catalogue piccy from 1986 for my Vincitore.

[531colin]

Ok, Mick......where is your saddle currently in its fore/aft range of adjustment?
Would it inconvenience you at all if your seatpost was 10mm further back (ie. can you slide your saddle 10mm further forward in the seatpost clamp?)

[Mick F]

Yes I can.

It's where it is because that's where I want it, and it's been there since I fitted it. I got Moulton to be the same and I use the Team Pro on that too.

I've measured them before. The nose of the saddles are 58mm behind the BB centre.

[Paulatic]

......... check it with Colin's advice. Thankfully it always seems to check out OK apart from I don't think I've experienced the pulling back on the bars in quite the same way as his description............

If you fancy a play, (obviously, mark everything first) try your saddle 5 or 10mm further back, you might have to lower it just a few mm. I would be interested in what you find...

Ahh I'm stuck there...On the bike currently mostly used it's a Brooks Team Pro rammed back as far as it will go.
In the interest of experiment I'll have a look at my saddle collection for one I can put back.

[Mick F]

Mine are as far back as they will go, but I wouldn't describe them as "rammed".

If I have one single comment about the Pro, is that there's little adjustment fore/aft available. Maybe only an inch or so total - only. Where is sits, is where I want it, so it matters not a jot to me.

When I built Mercian up in 1986, I was riding a stock Raleigh Clubman. I'd changed the saddle for a Maddison G14, but I fitted it exactly where the Raleigh saddle had been. The stock Raleigh saddle was a bit cheap and nasty, so the Maddison was a touch of luxury.

When I bought the Mercian and set it up, I used the Maddison, and fitted it exactly in the same place that it had been on the Raleigh. My Mercian was basically a clone of the Raleigh, so I had no issues changing from one bike to the other. From what I remember of the Raleigh, it was 73deg parallel ............. just like my new Mercian. The Raleigh was bought by me in Glasgow in 1983, so I don't agree that 73deg seat tubes are "fashionable".

[Grarea]

......... check it with Colin's advice. Thankfully it always seems to check out OK apart from I don't think I've experienced the pulling back on the bars in quite the same way as his description............

If you fancy a play, (obviously, mark everything first) try your saddle 5 or 10mm further back, you might have to lower it just a few mm. I would be interested in what you find...

Ahh I'm stuck there...On the bike currently mostly used it's a Brooks Team Pro rammed back as far as it will go.
In the interest of experiment I'll have a look at my saddle collection for one I can put back.

Or for a setback seatpost? Do you have a collection of those too?
Would be interesting to keep your saddle you are used to perhaps?

[Mick F]

Here's a closeup of my Mercian in 1994 in Helmsdale on my way south on JOGLE.
Maddison G14 on a Campag Victory seatpin ................. the same seatpin I still use with my Team Pro.

[Paulatic]

If you fancy a play, (obviously, mark everything first) try your saddle 5 or 10mm further back, you might have to lower it just a few mm. I would be interested in what you find...

Ahh I'm stuck there...On the bike currently mostly used it's a Brooks Team Pro rammed back as far as it will go.
In the interest of experiment I'll have a look at my saddle collection for one I can put back.

Or for a setback seatpost? Do you have a collection of those too?
Would be interesting to keep your saddle you are used to perhaps?

I've 4 bikes and every one has a different size seat post! Whereas the same saddle can fit all bikes, hence a saddle collection.

[531colin]

Mick, I describe steep seat tube angles as "fashionable".
You say that steep seat tube angles have been around since 1983, so they can't be "fashionable".
Now, we could have a semantic discussion where I say that proves that fashions in bicycle design are longer-lived than fashions in popular music, or we could look for a different word that means commonplace but at the same time pointless, having no function.....answers in a post, please.

Why pointless? Because if I understand Mick correctly, with his existing seat tube angle of 73 deg, his saddle is at the end of its adjustment, as far back as it will comfortably go....maybe he could squeeze another few mm of adjustment out of it.
If his seat tube angle was 72 deg, he could simply slide his saddle 10mm forward, and it would be approaching the middle of its range of adjustment. (Isn't that what to aim for when you draw up the specs. for a bike? Would you set out to design a bike where something had to be at its limit of adjustment in order to be able to actually ride the thing?)
If his seat tube angle was 74 deg, he would either be unable to get his preferred riding position, or he would have to seek out a special seatpost, or he would have to forgo his favourite saddle.

[531colin]

......... check it with Colin's advice. Thankfully it always seems to check out OK apart from I don't think I've experienced the pulling back on the bars in quite the same way as his description............

If you fancy a play, (obviously, mark everything first) try your saddle 5 or 10mm further back, you might have to lower it just a few mm. I would be interested in what you find...

Ahh I'm stuck there...On the bike currently mostly used it's a Brooks Team Pro rammed back as far as it will go.
In the interest of experiment I'll have a look at my saddle collection for one I can put back.

Same question for Paulatic. Wouldn't this bike be easier to live with if it was comfortable with the saddle somewhere near the middle of its adjustment range? Isn't it bad frame design when you have to seek out a special saddle or seatpost in order to get comfortable?
.....whats the seat tube angle?

[Mick F]

Mick, I describe steep seat tube angles as "fashionable".
You say that steep seat tube angles have been around since 1983, so they can't be "fashionable".
Now, we could have a semantic discussion where I say that proves that fashions in bicycle design are longer-lived than fashions in popular music, or we could look for a different word that means commonplace but at the same time pointless, having no function.....answers in a post, please.

Why pointless? Because if I understand Mick correctly, with his existing seat tube angle of 73 deg, his saddle is at the end of its adjustment, as far back as it will comfortably go....maybe he could squeeze another few mm of adjustment out of it.
If his seat tube angle was 72 deg, he could simply slide his saddle 10mm forward, and it would be approaching the middle of its range of adjustment. (Isn't that what to aim for when you draw up the specs. for a bike? Would you set out to design a bike where something had to be at its limit of adjustment in order to be able to actually ride the thing?)
If his seat tube angle was 74 deg, he would either be unable to get his preferred riding position, or he would have to seek out a special seatpost, or he would have to forgo his favourite saddle.

I took your "fashion" statement to be a recent fashion.

If my seat tube was 72deg, I would indeed need to move the saddle forward. Someone with better mathematics than me could work out how further forward it would need to go to be in the same position as before.

I said earlier, that there's a lack of fore/aft adjustment on a Pro, so I'm not sure that there would be enough. As I say, someone could calculate it. For the record, the saddle top to BB length along the line of the seat tube is 750mm. Saddle nose is 58mm behind the BB measured vertically.

As it happens, the position of my saddles allows a saddle pouch to be fitted. I have an Ortlieb saddle bag as well as three different Topeak wedges. Unless the saddle is as far back as it is, I wouldn't be able to fit any of them.