It wasn’t until this current thread came onto the Forum that I realised this : mentioning no names and not wanting to give identities away, but reading between the lines, I recall that about15 years ago I had the same issue with a frame by possibly the same framebuilder. I was measured for this frame, and believed that all would be perfect. I was told that the seat angle would be 74º. I already had two 73º and one 74º frames and this seemed natural. I don’t buy bikes – ever since I was a teenager (going back to the 60s!) I’ve built my own bikes up around frames and I just built a bike around this new frame. I have quite a stock of components, and I have always built up using used tackle until I got the bike right, and than bought new as necessary.
Also, being aware that no two frames are identical and no matter how we try, we’ll never get two bikes to be/feel identical, I wasn’t phased when it took me some time to get the saddle right. In fact, none of my saddles seemed to be right, even with a new lay-back seat-pin (Velo-Orange Gran Cruz) it still wasn’t right. But for me, at the time, this was no big deal – it was just how it is when building a new bike. It seemed that my sit bone position in relation to the pedal spindle wasn’t right. I couldn’t get any of my Brooks saddles back far enough. The bike was alright – rode well and handled well – but not just that bit extra that I was used to. I had another saddle (I think it was an old suede-covered padded Milremo, with moulded plastic core) – and that was fine. The bike now rode like a dream and I forgot all about the issue. I’ve since bought a Spa leather saddle, which is a bit hard yet! – but gets the right position.
This afternoon, and stimulated by this thread, for the first time I measured the seat angle on this frame, and lo-and-behold it comes out at a little over 76º! I’d had and solved this issue years ago!
It had never occurred to me to check the seat angle – I just sorted it as we do. The bike rides perfectly well and the stem gives the same handlebar position in relation to sit-bone position on the saddle as on my other bikes.
There’s a solution to the OP’s problem.
What would concern me a bit is that the OP has had to have the forks replaced due to manufacturing error, and the frame-builder’s excuse of avoiding toe overlap is invalid, because toe-overlap exists. I think I’d be unhappy about that. I think that the frame-builder has some questions to answer there.
Despite my bike as it now rides, I still think that 76º is not a suitable seat angle for a frame that is going to be used for general road-riding – personally I think of that as pure waffle.
Thank you to Brucey and Colin 531 for your input – that was good stuff – we should all inwardly digest it. Incidentally, consulting the Spa frames information (on their web-site) I find that their seat angle for Audax bikes is 72.5º, which is my opinion is much more appropriate than 76º
srb88 wrote:..................The frame is an 'off the peg', 'audax' model, 21 inch, in their 'standard' geometry....................on the first couple of rides, found that the saddle felt too far forward.........................I contacted the maker, to ask what was going on, and was told that this is correct - that is the intended seat tube angle for that model...................They explained that this is done to avoid toe overlap and is 'common practice'. I found this extraordinary......................The best bit is - I still have toe overlap!
...............NB: The fork I'm using is the appropriate length - very close to the specs of the original fork, which I had to send back for modification as the brake pads sat too high on the at the bottom of the slots - nearly touching the tyre. The company was happy to sort this, though claimed at first it seemed fine to them. (It definitely wasn't)......................
)
)
