Fit question stretched out on the hoods

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13224
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Postby 531colin » 18 Mar 2013, 9:23am

IrishBill76 wrote:Because the seatpost is at an angle. the further up the saddle goes, the further back it goes also.


Absolutely correct.

But its exactly the same if the saddle "goes up" with a short seat tube and a long seat post........
......OR a long seat tube and a short seat post.....only provided that the seat tube angle is the same in both cases......... :wink:

User avatar
CREPELLO
Posts: 5558
Joined: 29 Nov 2008, 12:55am

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Postby CREPELLO » 18 Mar 2013, 9:48am

Brucey wrote:It doesn't matter if you have a short seat pin in a large frame, or a long seat pin in a small frame; if the seat angle is the same and the saddle height is the same, the saddle is in exactly the same place w.r.t. the BB.

What can change is the ETT measurement, with different sized frames; but to suggest that the saddle mysteriously ends up in a different place with different sized frames is not an accurate or helpful idea.

cheers
Yeah but the seat tube angle often differs, from frame size to size - as has been widely discussed on this forum. So the saddle does end up in a different position, everything else being equal.

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13224
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Postby 531colin » 18 Mar 2013, 9:49am

Thanks to all for your comments on my earlier post on "rules of thumb" for bike fit.
Some interesting comments, specially on the "reach" rules of thumb.......as I think I said at the outset, this is both the hardest thing to specify on paper, and the last thing to work on.
Re. the discussion about "virtual" top and seat tubes, and the effect of different seat tube angles.......all this disappears in a puff of smoke if the first thing you do is to set your saddle height and setback relative to the BB, before setting the bars (relative to the saddle). When considering which bike to buy be wary of a couple of things.... steep seat tubes mean that some of us have trouble getting our Brooks far enough back, and the top tube length in the geometry table is shorter than a similar bike with a slacker seat angle and the identical riding position...http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=73343&hilit=+reach&start=15
Interesting "units of measurement" we all fall back on for reach.....forearm to fingertips...wasn't that one cubit to the guys who built the pyramids?...and a "hand"....as in measuring horses...? My own bikes have a bit more than one cubit reach, and one bike with particularly compact drops has more again.
For somebody not used to drops, I think a fairly gentle position is the place to start, but as you get used to the idea, there is no reason for a 30 year old to blindly follow recommendations from a 65 year old! (see the comment about walking home from the roundabout!)
Last edited by 531colin on 18 Mar 2013, 10:02am, edited 1 time in total.

Brucey
Posts: 41552
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Postby Brucey » 18 Mar 2013, 9:56am

CREPELLO wrote:
Brucey wrote:It doesn't matter if you have a short seat pin in a large frame, or a long seat pin in a small frame; if the seat angle is the same and the saddle height is the same, the saddle is in exactly the same place w.r.t. the BB.

What can change is the ETT measurement, with different sized frames; but to suggest that the saddle mysteriously ends up in a different place with different sized frames is not an accurate or helpful idea.

cheers
Yeah but the seat tube angle often differs, from frame size to size - as has been widely discussed on this forum. So the saddle does end up in a different position, everything else being equal.


yes of course.... :roll: but other posters were stating that the seat pin length, not the seat angle, was important somehow.

It isn't, not for saddle position.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

User avatar
CREPELLO
Posts: 5558
Joined: 29 Nov 2008, 12:55am

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Postby CREPELLO » 18 Mar 2013, 10:32am

Ok Brucey - I think I got my wires crossed, reading all these conflicting postings :lol: :? :oops:

notlobgp14
Posts: 127
Joined: 25 Jun 2009, 9:33am
Location: Leyland Lancashire

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Postby notlobgp14 » 18 Mar 2013, 11:56am

Whilst we're on about Seat Tube Angle. Being tall and a Brooks user, I really struggle to get far enough back on the saddle (or the saddle far enough back). On our Mercian Tandem I am almost sat on the back rail of the saddle, sorry forgot what it's called (pantle?) So regarding Angle I think I need something like 72 Degrees; this frame ,with 73.5 Dgrees for big frames, is useless for me I think?

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13224
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Postby 531colin » 18 Mar 2013, 12:35pm

This is just the latest of very many threads about long layback seat posts, etc...http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=73868

JohnW
Posts: 6434
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Postby JohnW » 18 Mar 2013, 12:43pm

notlobgp14 wrote:Whilst we're on about Seat Tube Angle. Being tall and a Brooks user, I really struggle to get far enough back on the saddle (or the saddle far enough back). On our Mercian Tandem I am almost sat on the back rail of the saddle, sorry forgot what it's called (pantle?) So regarding Angle I think I need something like 72 Degrees; this frame ,with 73.5 Degrees for big frames, is useless for me I think?


I have this trouble with 74 degree seat tubes. Brooks saddles are notorious for this - trawling through the threads on the Forum will tell you that. Getting a seat-pin with sufficient lay-back and infinite angle adjustment (i.e. not ratcheted) is a nightmare. The old Campag seat-pins from days of yore were the best, but they didn't give me enough lay-back for a 74 degree frame. 73 degrees works just about right for me, but even then, riding a Brooks, someone with slightly longer thighs would struggle.

I'll probably get a response from r2 on this, because we've discussed the point before and I know that he doesn't agree with me, but I get my frames built to measure for me and I believe that I get a better fit - my 74 degree frame was second-hand. Thats was the tradition among clubmen (back to days of yore again), but even when the budget didn't allow for that you could buy an off-the-peg frame for less money, and build your bike around that. You can buy frames for amazingly low prices (comparatively) nowadays - just look at the Spa site for a starter. The problem here is that you don't know what you do want unless you've had the experience of previously having what you don't want.

A decent framebuilder should be able to build the frame that's right for you, and they do last a long time - I'm still riding a 1979-built frame at the moment and it's as responsive and comfortable as my six-years-old Mercian. I occasionally see a chap - a bit older than me - who is still riding his hand-built-to-measure Ellis-Briggs from before Coronation year - it still has it's original paint, but I don't think many of the parts are original.

This thread has said several times that the way to set your bike up is to get saddle position right first - that's the crucial one, and then evolve your handlebars position from that. This could take time and a bit of trial and error and it can sometimes result in a discarded stem or two, until you get it just right. And then you'll find that, by the time you come to build up your next bike, the manufacturers have changed the diameter of the handlebars and your stock of spare stems is of little use - they do it to take more money from you.

Time after time on these threads we see pleas from folk who've bought a ready-built bike from an internet site, and they're having problems like this - even being sold a completely wrong size of bike is common enough. I'm not surprised. A lady I know bought a ready-built bike recently, from a local quality bike shop, and had the saddle positioned correctly. The proprietor fitted a second-hand stem and told her about potential reach problems, and to ride it for a couple of hundred miles and bring it back - he'd change the stem for her until they'd got it right, and then fit a new stem to the same specification as the original. He was as good as his word.

These problems are just so common. The original poster is not alone.

Merry_Wanderer
Posts: 1002
Joined: 31 Aug 2012, 9:33am
Location: North Leicestershire

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Postby Merry_Wanderer » 18 Mar 2013, 1:10pm

I'll second that John.

I've just ordered a Surly Disc Trucker Frame and Forks in a 62cm size to replace 2 bikes that I had in a 58cm size and which ( I know now) weren't the right size for me to begin with. My longer term aim (once I have discovered what it is that I like and don't like) is to have a frame made for me. However, that can wait as I need to save up several pennies for that.

What I would say is that the advice given freely on this forum has been excellent and has helped no end. Good luck with your bike Mark, I'm sure that you'll get there sooner rather than later.

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 10256
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Postby horizon » 18 Mar 2013, 1:20pm

I do find it extraordinary that we are devoting several pages of discussion to a problem that was sorted out 120 years ago. My guess is that good fit and comfort only become apparent well after the point of sale and in fact are incumbent upon the owner to make some adjustments themselves and build up some physical tolerance. This gives carte blanche to the manufacturers to make the their products look attractive for maximum sales, adjust frame sizes to suit stockholding and manufacturing issues rather than ultimate user satisfaction and hide the pitfalls in current trends. The OP will not be the first or last purchaser to be snared in a quagmire of slick marketing, image and fashion that distorts the real needs of cyclists. And my hat off to mark1978 for so tenaciously and openly discussing a topic that a lot of riders would just grin and bear.

The most telling evidence of this is in Trek's own words:

H2 features a slightly higher head tube to put less strain on your back and neck. It's the right way to get most riders, including many of our Pro Team riders, in the right place. With no need for high-rise stems or spacer stacks, the look is nothing but pro.

The higher head tube is a good idea - the motivation though is nothing but image.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher

Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Postby Mark1978 » 18 Mar 2013, 1:41pm

Well thanks to all the advice on here this is what I'm doing:
I've ordered the slightly shorter and angled up stem which according to the calculator should give me 2cm closer reach. I'll have a go installing that at the weekend. And I'll see how that goes. If I still think something is wrong by Easter weekend I'll take it back to the bike shop and get them to look at it. :). Very impressed with the amount of advice I've gotten here, and on other threads I've posted!

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13224
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Postby 531colin » 18 Mar 2013, 2:03pm

Bit of discussion here http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=73343&hilit=madone, before Mark got his bike.
I still have a couple of unanswered questions....."Madone" and "Domane" have either an "endurance fit" or an "H2 fit"(I can't remember which is which) ....both of these "fits" feature a taller headtube (than racing bikes?)....but it isn't clear to me what the difference is between the 2 types of fit, and which one (if either?) Trek would recommend to somebody not used to drops.

2cm closer bars is a sensible sort of difference to try, Mark, I'm sure you will get there.

horizon wrote:............... carte blanche to the manufacturers to make the their products look attractive for maximum sales, adjust frame sizes to suit stockholding and manufacturing issues rather than ultimate user satisfaction and hide the pitfalls in current trends. The OP will not be the first or last purchaser to be snared in a quagmire of slick marketing, image and fashion that distorts the real needs of cyclists...........

The most telling evidence of this is in Trek's own words:

H2 features a slightly higher head tube to put less strain on your back and neck. It's the right way to get most riders, including many of our Pro Team riders, in the right place. With no need for high-rise stems or spacer stacks, the look is nothing but pro.

The higher head tube is a good idea - the motivation though is nothing but image.


But the decision to buy is made by the purchaser....not the manufacturer, and not the bloke in the shop.
I have tried more times than I can remember to get folk to use mudguards, saddlebags, sensible gear ratios and comfortable positions.
Until they have struggled on over-geared bikes, torturing their necks to see where they are going, soaked in filthy spray and rain because they have nowhere to carry waterproofs, THEY DONT WANT TO KNOW.
If Trek don't sell them a sexy bike, somebody else will.

Jezrant
Posts: 734
Joined: 14 Dec 2007, 8:11pm

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Postby Jezrant » 18 Mar 2013, 3:02pm

You look great in the photo climbing up the hill in your tracksters and funky headgear, but a young person today getting into cycling is I'm afraid more likely to be inspired by Bradley Wiggins. Nothing wrong with that IMHO. If they're trying to keep up with their mates on Sunday club runs, granny gears and mudguards and a saddlebag aren't going to help much. But the advice about fit and position can't hurt.

Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Postby Mark1978 » 18 Mar 2013, 3:13pm

One of the reasons I went with Trek is that it has a 34/30 bottom gear which is lower than many other brands. I have a saddle bag (although I could do with a bigger one!) and I'll be getting mudguards shortly ;)

keyboardmonkey
Posts: 769
Joined: 1 Dec 2009, 5:05pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Postby keyboardmonkey » 18 Mar 2013, 3:25pm

Mark1978 wrote:
keyboardmonkey wrote:Hi, Mark1978. I would suggest that if at all possible you persevere with the kit you have for the time being unless it is painful to do so. You have gone from a completely different style of bike to your Madone. I was thinking of getting the 3.1 last year, but couldn’t quite scrape together the money. If you’ve just spent a grand on your best bike I would try to limit any further, unnecessary expense.


I realise that it is a completely difference style, but the main problem is that it *is* painful, hurts my eblows and hurts my hands when braking. I'm not denying I might be able to get used to it, but I stopped at a roundabout a mile or so from home and was thinking - do I really have to ride home, I could walk instead? Which is no good!


Mark1978 wrote:
keyboardmonkey wrote:I am 5’8” with a 29” inside leg. Out of interest, what are your measurements?

5'6" and I wear 29" trousers.

How flexible are you? Can you touch your toes without bending your knees?

No, I'm about an inch, maybe inch and half away from being able to do that.


Hi, Mark. Sorry to have it confirmed that you are in pain rather than just struggling a bit. You’re 2 inches shorter than me with the same inside leg measurement. I’m not surprised you can’t reach the brakes. Did they have a 50cm bike to try in the shop? I can’t seem to find out how long the top tube is on the smaller bike, but it’s a bit late now as you’ve got the 52cm model.

I remember reading about the H2 fit and how it had a taller head tube (than the ‘pro’ fit, I think) so that there was supposedly no need for a stack of spacers. However, you do have a stack of spacers and an upturned stem. Hmm. So, yes, if you have your saddle height and layback sorted the stem is pretty much all you have left to play with. Apart from getting used to the position and working on that flexibility…

Best wishes.