Does a setback post change seat angle or only seat position?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 40 of 40
  1. #1
    dmo
    dmo is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    977

    Does a setback post change seat angle or only seat position?

    And does it even matter for a single speed if spend alot time standing?

    I was going to try a setback post to get a bit more reach while seated without putting on an unneccessaryly long stem.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,935
    Saddle setback is a horrible way to increase reach. Increase reach with
    Wider bars
    Longer stem
    Lower stack/ lower stem
    Longer frame.

  3. #3
    dmo
    dmo is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    977
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    Saddle setback is a horrible way to increase reach. Increase reach with
    Wider bars
    Longer stem
    Lower stack/ lower stem
    Longer frame.
    What's wrong with doing it that way?

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,983
    Yes. A setback post will make the effective seat angle slacker.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sturge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    978
    Ok so being 6'4" and 220lbs on my new XL Heckler back in 2012 I had issues with breaking seatpost hardware because I had to slide seat back to far end of rails. Rode technical/boney trails which pounded seat rails until seats or mounting hardware continually failed over the first year. Bought Thompson set back seatpost and chose a seat with titanium rails which allowed me to put seat rails in MIDDLE where they belong.
    Problem solved and nothing but great rides on Heckler for over 4 YEARS.

    Saying it's a 'horrible way to increase reach' is not true in all cases. For me a setback seatpost was a realistic and cost effective alternative to achieve proper fit. Way easier than new bars, longer stem, or 'go buy a new frame'.
    12 Santa Cruz Heckler
    18 Kona Process 153 AL/DL (27.5)...

  6. #6
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,983
    If you need a setback on a mountain bike the frame is too small for you. It is a band aid for an improper fit. At 6'4" myself I have used setback post for the same reason. My new bike is an XXL and it climbs so much better not having the seat over the rear axle.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  7. #7
    755872
    Guest
    I think seat position needs to be considered in the balance of what you're trying to accomplish overall. If you stand a lot, you could consider the relationship between your legs/handlebars/center of gravity... If you climb sitting, moving the seat back will add weight over the rear wheel. It's all a matter of individual fit. I bought a large framed Lynskey Urbano but could have used an XL too. I wanted the bars nearer to the seat but I also wanted them high (bad neck) so I used a 45 degree stem. I get lots of 'WTF' looks but I don't care, it fits well and I like it.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,935
    I am not promoting a KOPS approach to fitting, but some riders on some frames need a little eatra setback. But that is for the angles of your your legs as you pedal and your CoG on the bike, not to increase reach.

    Unfortunately, you have to a lot of factors to consider, but slapping a seatpost with more offset on a frame with a reach that is too short is not a good solution. Frame design still needs a lot of re-thinking.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,935
    Quote Originally Posted by dmo View Post
    What's wrong with doing it that way?

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

    If that worked, a 6'4" rider could ride a 13" frame by means of super long seatpost with a ton of setback. The rider's CoG would probably be so far behind the rear axle that the bike would loop out instantly.

    That's an extreme example, but it illustrates the point.

  10. #10
    Stateline Falls, Watauga
    Reputation: JeffL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by alexbn921 View Post
    If you need a setback on a mountain bike the frame is too small for you. It is a band aid for an improper fit. At 6'4" myself I have used setback post for the same reason. My new bike is an XXL and it climbs so much better not having the seat over the rear axle.
    That may in fact be true, but it's never worked for me. Anything larger than a medium sized frame has not enough standover clearance for me. But on medium frames I find a setback post plus a seat slid back on the rails is the fit I need, with about 100mm stem for correct reach. Any larger frame would be too tall for standover height. BTW, I determine that rearward seat position is needed using the "balance" method described here:
    How to Fit a Bicycle
    It never gets easier, you just go faster. -Greg LeMond
    I'm not as fast as I think I am. -JeffL

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,881
    OP, yes it will move the saddle back, which in tern effectively slackens the STA. Moving your saddle back to help increase reach while seated is not a good idea if you're already in your "ideal" pedaling position, if however you're not sure, worth a shot to see how it feels and what it does to your pedaling style/cadence and the ability to spin.

    To put it as politely as I can, you sir are an a$$! It is not a band aid, people need to get where they need to get relative to the BB and with the trend of much steeper STA, for people with longer legs who aren't hamsters, getting back to where they want is a challenge and a setback post is sometimes needed. I need a setback post if a bike has a STA steeper than 74 degrees to get my saddle to where I like it, simple as that. If all you do is climb, then steep STAs is great, but if you do more than go up to go down, not so great.

    Quote Originally Posted by alexbn921 View Post
    If you need a setback on a mountain bike the frame is too small for you. It is a band aid for an improper fit. At 6'4" myself I have used setback post for the same reason. My new bike is an XXL and it climbs so much better not having the seat over the rear axle.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  12. #12
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: JonathanGennick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by dmo View Post
    I was going to try a setback post to get a bit more reach while seated without putting on an unneccessaryly long stem.
    No harm in buying a new post and having a go at it. If you like it and are comfortable, it's all good. For me these days, it's all about what helps you to feel good on the bike.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sturge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    978
    Bingo...many variables. Find what works for you and RIDE.
    12 Santa Cruz Heckler
    18 Kona Process 153 AL/DL (27.5)...

  14. #14
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    To put it as politely as I can, you sir are an a$$! It is not a band aid, people need to get where they need to get relative to the BB and with the trend of much steeper STA, for people with longer legs who aren't hamsters, getting back to where they want is a challenge and a setback post is sometimes needed. I need a setback post if a bike has a STA steeper than 74 degrees to get my saddle to where I like it, simple as that. If all you do is climb, then steep STAs is great, but if you do more than go up to go down, not so great.

    How am I an ass. Fit is very specific to the individual. Getting your bike setup the way you want is very important and if your tall on an XL with a setback post, then 9 times of of 10 the bike is too small. Having been riding bikes that where too small for the last 20 years I have tried all sorts of things to get the fit right.

    If you need a setback to get into the proper pedaling potion then get one. If your looking to get a new bike and the reach is forcing a setback, get a different bike.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by JonathanGennick View Post
    No harm in buying a new post and having a go at it. If you like it and are comfortable, it's all good. For me these days, it's all about what helps you to feel good on the bike.
    This....it's a cheap experiment. Give it a try first, see for yourself. Forums are great for info; yet no substitute for experiencing firsthand. Many things are cost prohibitive to try, and this one is not.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,035
    wouldn't sliding the seatback make a frame behave more like the shortest chainstay possible bikes everyone is lusting for?

    I have a stache with short stays, wheels slammed as far forward as they can in the dropouts, plus setback post.... best bike EVAR!!!! YMMV. Not very stable on super steep climbs (but i gladly give that up for playfulness everywhere else)

    To me proper fit is for roadies and bikes you'll be riding many hours many days in a row. For going out and having fun on the weekend i say ride what feels good and don't over think it.

    Especially if your tall like me you gotta make some compromises to fit on a production XL. I used to think proper fit was a deal breaker but now after adjusting to my new bike i am perfectly comfy on a bike that should be much too small if you compare it to my old custom 29er. Short story; I got used to it and have zero regrets.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by max-a-mill View Post
    wouldn't sliding the seatback make a frame behave more like the shortest chainstay possible bikes everyone is lusting for?

    I have a stache with short stays, wheels slammed as far forward as they can in the dropouts, plus setback post.... best bike EVAR!!!! YMMV. Not very stable on super steep climbs (but i gladly give that up for playfulness everywhere else)
    Not entirely. It'll move your CoG back a bit while seated, but not while standing. A setback post doesn't move the BB.

    To me proper fit is for roadies and bikes you'll be riding many hours many days in a row. For going out and having fun on the weekend i say ride what feels good and don't over think it.
    That's short sighted. Lots of us liking riding our MTBs for many hours, I've done a lots of 50+ mile MTB rides. Good fit matters.

    Saddle setback shouldn't be about reach - it should be about putting your butt where it belongs over the BB for appropriate biomechanics when pedaling. TT length, stem length, and bar width are ways to play with reach. Bike fit is all about balance, you have several goals:
    1 - biomechanically efficient position - putting your body in a position that's most effective for putting out a lot of power with minimum effort
    2 - comfort - you should be able to stay in the position for a long time - doesn't matter how much power you can put out if you can only do it for 10mins
    3 - balance - putting your weight in the right place between the wheels for good handling, and, putting yourself in a position so you're not using much energy to maintain that position. Sitting on the bike shouldn't take a lot of effort.

    Your own proportions (arm length vs torso length, femur vs tibia vs foot size, etc), flexibility, riding style and goals all effect where your *perfect* fit is.

    Bike fit is complicated. I know just enough to know I don't know much haha.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,935
    In my experience, fitting a mountain bike means balancing two different aspects of riding pedaling and wrangling:

    1. set the saddle up for seated pedaling. this is done with saddle height, tilt, and setback. regardless of STA, some riders are going to need the saddle back a little further than others based on what works for them. each rider might have more than one position that works for them as well. Hanging a plumb bob from some artirary point on your knee to another arbitrary point on your foot to find the right position is as useful as reading tea leaves. KOPS is dumb so don't waste your time.

    2. set the handlebars up in a position that gives you control and confidence for standing and wrangling the bike around. this has nothing to do with where the saddle is relative to anything else. this position is what some call "effective stack and reach" because it's where you hands end up relative to the BB. some positions will work better for some parts of a ride better than others- fast and flat, stomping through the chunk, climbing, decending, etc.

    these are hard enough to find an ideal position, but then you have to find a compromise between the two for a seated pedaling position that allows for efficient pedaling and confident handling. not an easy task and there are no easy answers, but it is fair to say that using saddle fore/aft position is a lousy way to make the reach of a bike fit you.

    I feel that many frames are too short. I bought my current frame because the reach is longer than most frames I have ridden in the past.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    I feel that many frames are too short. I bought my current frame because the reach is longer than most frames I have ridden in the past.
    Jabberwocky riders unite! Still riding the one I bought in Dec of '09. Complete with a 100mm stem and a setback post with the saddle slammed all the way back.

    Does a setback post change seat angle or only seat position?-pirkcl5h.jpg

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,035
    Quote Originally Posted by dgaddis1 View Post
    That's short sighted. Lots of us liking riding our MTBs for many hours, I've done a lots of 50+ mile MTB rides. Good fit matters.
    not to get in a pissing match but i have done hundred milers on "badly" fitted rigid singlspeeds and on a custom properly fitted singlespeed. so... i like riding my bike for a long time sometimes too.

    But i don't do it for a living and i am busy as hell so i don't have time to futz with bikes. if i have a few hours on saturday i'd rather ride than worry about proper reach adjustment. if the reach or whatever bothers me during a ride i'll mess with it and tweak it until i am happy.

    it's really all about whatever makes you happy.

    don't pretend you need proper fit to have fun on a bike; that is complete horsesh!t. if you ride bikes enough and listen to your body you can do quite well once you learn what works for you and what you like. if you have no idea maybe get fitted for a good baseline from which to should tweak things to your own preference. think about it; if fitting were gospel you'd walk into a shop, they'd measure you and you'd walk out with a perfect bike, no adjustment necessary ever. life ain't like that as i have found....

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by max-a-mill View Post
    whatever makes you happy. but don't pretend you need proper fit to have fun on a bike; that is complete horsesh!t. if you ride bikes enough and listen to your body you can do quite well once you learn what works for you and what you like.
    Agree 100%. Some folks can ride whatever and it doesn't bother them, but others it does. I know if I do a lot of miles and my butt isn't in the right place over the pedals my knees start to hurt. I know after adjusting my fit, I have more fun when the bike fits than when it doesn't. Setting it up right doesn't take much time, and only has to be done once, so for me, it's worth the effort.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    120
    Riding rigid has some other variables factored into position, too. I absorb the rough stuff best when my weight is on my feet; minimal weight on bars. The arms are kept loose as I can keep them. The relaxed arms can soak up the bumps. When my weight is forward on the bars, I can't keep my arms relaxed enough, bumps are super jarring, and hurts the wrists after a short while.

    So yeah, layback is good for me. Even if I stay seated over some mildly rough stuff, more weight is on my feet rather than the hands. With the weight further back, there is less on the front wheel and this is good for rigid riding. Plus, easier to lift the front end over stuff when the butt is further back. When I need to put weight into the front wheel for aggressive turning, I'm out of the saddle anyways. Heck, I'm out of the saddle most of the time on my SS, unless peeling off road miles.

    I think the current trend of a more roadie type, forward and stretched out position makes more sense for if you have suspension to soak up the bumps for you. It's a better position for high speeds, at the expense of all other riding. I don't like all that weight on my hands, so layback posts are great.

    Bottom line, find what works for you. Get a cheap offset post and see how you like it. There is no substitute for trial and error, trying a bunch of different setups for your own experience rather than relying upon internet forum advice. Stems and posts, handle bars are relatively cheap. Try a bunch of different stuff and don't be afraid to buck the current trends or try something unconventional.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,935
    Riding a bike that did not fit right took me off the bike for about two months last year. Excrutiating back pain after one hour of riding is not fun. If your bike fit is not 100% ideal for speed, that's one thing. But if your bike fit results in pain and injuries, yes, bike fit is crucial.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,035
    mack - pretty sure the problem was not the bike there... it was you not listening to your body? i could ride a 12" kid bike for an hour and ride again the next day it wouldn't be fun but i would stop before i did any damage. there must have been somethin else going on. over exertion combined with bad fit? you racin that ill fitting bike mebbe? an hour on bad fitting bike shouldn't cripple you for two months.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,935
    It was an hour of riding, then go home an recouperate for a few days, then modify the bike and try again. Not just one single hour ride, but several rides that only last an hour because the bike was so uncomfortable.

    It got worse and worse until I put a stupid-long stem on my bike and slammed my seat back. That solved the problem, but the handling was crap for anything other than pedaling on the road. Then I got a different frame. Both the ROS9 and the new Jabber I am on now were "medium" frames, but the reach on the Jabber is two inches longer. More reach = no more back pain.

    Physical therapy helped, but getting a bike that fit was at least half of the solution. If you can ride a bike that is 2" too short or too long for hours pain-free, I envy you. That sounds like torture to me.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/bike-frame-di...n-1041741.html

  26. #26
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    The complexity of bike fit is one thing, and maintaining a well-balanced centering of rider mass on the bike for handling is another. I'd be less reluctant to suggest a lower bar than setback post, stem length change, crank length, etc. I just know people, for some reason, think higher bars and shorter stems are better, and are F'ing up their cockpit making their position too upright, and trying to find other ways to fix their reach. There's some bias that the low saddle, upright, "cruiser" style position is more comfortable for some reason, and people try to create a compromise between that and a traditional low-forward mtb position.
    We're all on the same ship, and it's sinking.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    19
    I use a 40mm stem and 785mm bars and can't imagine using anything else because I like the handling. I use a 20mm setback seatpost with the seat as far back on the rails as possible because I'm only ever sitting when I'm feeling lazy on some smoother sections of decent and want to be positioned back a little. If it is a climbing section, I have to stand. I guess if there was any flat it would matter more, but all the trails I ride are pretty much up and then down. I like a smaller bike just to keep things fun. Also I am 6'4" and wanted a slopestyle frame to run single speed with no tensioner and the Morpheus Vslope long was about as big as I could get.

  28. #28
    dmo
    dmo is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    977
    Quote Originally Posted by inclinelongboards View Post
    I use a 40mm stem and 785mm bars and can't imagine using anything else because I like the handling. I use a 20mm setback seatpost with the seat as far back on the rails as possible because I'm only ever sitting when I'm feeling lazy on some smoother sections of decent and want to be positioned back a little. If it is a climbing section, I have to stand. I guess if there was any flat it would matter more, but all the trails I ride are pretty much up and then down. I like a smaller bike just to keep things fun. Also I am 6'4" and wanted a slopestyle frame to run single speed with no tensioner and the Morpheus Vslope long was about as big as I could get.
    This was basically my motivation for wanting to try it.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    7
    Don't forget about fork length too, if building a bike from scratch, for getting the right feel in the bike for climbing / jumping/ downhill etc.

    Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    ... for some reason, think higher bars and shorter stems are better, and are F'ing up their cockpit making their position too upright, and trying to find other ways to fix their reach. There's some bias that the low saddle, upright, "cruiser" style position is more comfortable for some reason, and people try to create a compromise between that and a traditional low-forward mtb position.
    I bought into that at one time. I had a bike with a short stem, SLACK seat tube angle, and a seatpost with 25mm offset. my saddle was waaay back there and my handlebar was above my saddle. basically, I was slowly turning my mountain bike into a beach cruiser.

    if that works for some people, fine. but be aware of it. I think most frames have a top tube that is too short for the me, so I feel crunched on top of the bike during seated pedaling. for several legitimate reasons, I didn't want to put a stem that would be long enough to appropriately stretch me out, so I shoved the saddle back. a frame with a longer top tube solved this.

  31. #31
    aka "SirLurkAlot"
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    549
    OP,

    I wasn't going to respond because of some of the mud slinging but here's my 2 cents.

    Try it. It may work. It may not. I have used a Thompson Layback post with zero issues in the past.

    My current setup is anything but traditional and I've run it for a long time. I run a very long steerer tube with Mary bars that are inverted. In the end, the bars aren't really as high as the steerer tube might lead you to believe. The Mary bars have a rise but obviously that's a negative rise (drop) the way I run them. I also ride with a Thudbuster LT (3")

    People would tell you, or more specifically me, that I need to cut the steerer tube and run them right side up. Doing so aggravates multiple injuries (cervical, lumbar and hand). This setup works best and I have tried a plethora of traditional and alternative bars. I spent a small fortune on them. So, it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks.

    One other thing to keep in mind is how much standing you may do while riding a single speed. I stand a lot and only sit if I'm spinning easy. I can't put a lot of power down seated so I hammer standing for most of my ride. Because of this, setup is most critical for me given this parameter.

    I've been riding mountain bikes for 28 years. I have listened to my body and adjusted as necessary and it's allowed me to keep riding.

    Give it a go, try some things and let us know how it all works out. Best of luck.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by alexbn921 View Post
    If you need a setback on a mountain bike the frame is too small for you. It is a band aid for an improper fit. At 6'4" myself I have used setback post for the same reason. My new bike is an XXL and it climbs so much better not having the seat over the rear axle.
    Just would like to say how this is completely false and itís sad that people will read this and get misinformed. The only way this statement can be true is when the frames seat angles change between sizes. I just went through this buying my new Fuel EX with an experienced fitter. Guess what? Every size had the same seat tube angle. Measuring KOPS on each size (medium and a large) My legs/lower body was in the same exact position over the bottom bracket. The only thing that changed between them was reach. I would need the same setback on both sizes as I have long femurs/legs.

    So, no... it does not mean youíre on a bike thatís too small. Unless the seat angles change size to size... but even then it would only be an INDICATOR of improper size... OR maybe the person just has long legs.

  33. #33
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by ejewels View Post
    Just would like to say how this is completely false and itís sad that people will read this and get misinformed. The only way this statement can be true is when the frames seat angles change between sizes. I just went through this buying my new Fuel EX with an experienced fitter. Guess what? Every size had the same seat tube angle. Measuring KOPS on each size (medium and a large) My legs/lower body was in the same exact position over the bottom bracket. The only thing that changed between them was reach. I would need the same setback on both sizes as I have long femurs/legs.

    So, no... it does not mean youíre on a bike thatís too small. Unless the seat angles change size to size... but even then it would only be an INDICATOR of improper size... OR maybe the person just has long legs.
    A lot of factors go into fit. If the seat angle is the same on all frame sizes you are correct that you will be in the same place on every size.
    Your Fuel has a virtual angle as does most modern bikes so each size has a different angle, each larger size getting a steeper actual angle.
    I like to size bikes by reach as this doesn't change and put my seat in my prefered pedaling position. The main problem with doing this on a bike that's too small for you is you end up with an extra long stem. For example I rode an XL Ibis Mojo with a 95mm stem and the reach was still to small. I ended up sliding my seat back to get a more comfortable setup. I also have a XL Cannondale Super V with a setback post and a 170mm stem.
    For most people, modern frames are not designed for setback post and long stems. if you need to resort to either or both of them, then you are on the wrong size. If your an outlier or are on a oddball frame then it might be the best solution to your fit.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,881
    All that that seemed to give some hope that you understand and then that last paragraph that then proves, that sadly no, you do not Today's frames and gearing are catered mainly to those who want to get to the top, with as little effort as possible and then the fit is geared for the descent, if you do more than that and actually pedal on flat, rolling trails, as well as climb, descend and like to actually put in some effort and not spin the absolute easiest gear, then a 76* STA is just plain stupid and doesn't work, you need a setback post if you're tall. Absolutely nothing to do with being on the wrong size, NOTHING!

    Quote Originally Posted by alexbn921 View Post
    I seem to get it, but then I don't ........................
    For most people, modern frames are not designed for setback post and long stems. if you need to resort to either or both of them, then you are on the wrong size. If your an outlier or are on a oddball frame then it might be the best solution to your fit.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  35. #35
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,983
    Name one bike that has a actual or virtual 76 STA at full extension.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: targnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,880
    No...

    Line saying, sliding your seat forward increases steepness of STA o_0

    Only thing changed is weight bias.

    'We'll all make it to the top... Some of us, might not make it to the bottom'
    "Mountain biking: the under-rated and drug-free antidepressant"

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by alexbn921 View Post
    Your Fuel has a virtual angle as does most modern bikes so each size has a different angle, each larger size getting a steeper actual angle.
    Although some manufacturers effective seat tube angle does change between sizes, Trek lists both the actual and effective (virtual) seat tube angle in their geometry... and they are all the same. If you think about it, the only thing that changes is the seat tube length. All that does is dictate how much seat post sticks out. But if the seat heights are the same, the same exact angle is measured. I had my fitter verify this when I sat on both the 18.5 and 19.5 sizes with a laser level. My KOPS and overall position was identical over the bottom bracket between those 2 sizes.

    For most people, modern frames are not designed for setback post and long stems. if you need to resort to either or both of them, then you are on the wrong size. If your an outlier or are on a oddball frame then it might be the best solution to your fit.
    Again, this is just not true as a blanket statement. The guy who sold me my Trek Saturday is a 25 year veteran to bike fitting both road and mtb. He explained there is a bike fit, and bike positioning. Bike fit is getting the right size down. Positioning is tweaking little things to get you in the best position. This includes MINOR stem and bar changes and/or saddle setbacks. The point is, get the right size, THEN adjust accordingly.

    Fast forward to him helping me decide between 2 sizes on the fuel. I was right in between sizes. After watching me on both, he literally said I could go either way depending on my intentions with the bike and style. He thought if I went the smaller size that I was a tad short on seated reach but not bad at all. But if I sized up, I'd sacrifice the maneuverability I wanted and the standing reach was too long. So, he said after seeing me ride both, that he recommends going with the smaller of the 2, and if I really needed to, increase stem length by 10mm for a little more comfortable seated reach. Again, a MINOR change. So, is this bike too small for me now after being watched by a professional bike fitter and recommended? Thats a rhetorical question

    Another thing I believe you aren't understanding is adjusting the saddle on the rails has nothing to do with reach. Its a hack if you use it to adjust reach. Its about femur/leg length and your position over the BB. So again, it does NOT indicate you're on a bike thats too small. Even if I got the fuel in the larger (basically slightly too big for me) I'd still have to slam the saddle back and possibly get a setback saddle.

    I'm assuming with your old XL bike, you had to throw super long stems and setback posts to make it work. All because you needed more reach. In that case, then yes it indicates the bikes too small. However, if you only had to throw a 10mm longer stem on but otherwise it was perfect... that wouldn't mean the bike was too small. People and their proportions are not one size fits all!

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,881
    What's "full extension"? As to naming, I think without even trying I can name 4, Ibis Ripmo, Transition Sentinel, Patrol, Scout, Smuggler, Pole, Mondraker.

    Quote Originally Posted by alexbn921 View Post
    Name one bike that has a actual or virtual 76 STA at full extension.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,530
    I think what he means is when the saddle is higher than the head tube. Most are measured at head tube height, and because there are almost no seat tubes that are straight up from the bottom bracket, the real seat tube angle gets slacker as the saddle is raised. The longer your legs the slacker the real STA.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for ďI suck at brake control.Ē Hereís a free tip: get better."

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    I think what he means is when the saddle is higher than the head tube. Most are measured at head tube height, and because there are almost no seat tubes that are straight up from the bottom bracket, the real seat tube angle gets slacker as the saddle is raised. The longer your legs the slacker the real STA.
    This is correct, but as I measured 2 different sizes with a fitter, I was in the same position KOPS-wise. Same exact saddle position and heights. So if it changes at all.. its within millimeters.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-29-2014, 02:28 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2013, 05:30 PM
  3. 2011 575 Setback Seat Post Impact
    By baha_boater in forum Yeti
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-14-2011, 07:50 PM
  4. Lightest seat-post setback
    By monstruo_ in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-13-2011, 07:16 AM

Members who have read this thread: 15

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.