Why all the straight seatposts?

[caleb]

Seems that there's a race among manufacturers to produce more straight setposts. Nearly all of the lightweight offerings released in the last year or so are straight or nearly straight.

Given trends in frame size, the move to straight seatposts makes no sense to me. A few years ago, a 5"10" guy was likely riding a 56cm frame with a 72.5-73 degree seat tube angle. Today, if that guy is racing, he's likely on a 52-54cm frame with a 73.5-74 degree seat tube angle.

The seat tube angles have effectively gotten steeper (via riding smaller frames), so it would seem that the seatpost should have gotten more setback to keep the rider in the same position over the bottom bracket.

Why, then, are seatposts actually getting less setback?

Just to complicate things a little more, how does one get their saddle 50mm behind the bottom bracket (to meet the UCI geometry regulation) with a straight post? I just measured, and I'm using a setback post to get my saddle 53mm back. Do people just hope they won't get checked?

Here are a few shots from the Gallery that illustrate this trend toward straight setposts:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=38746&stc=1

http://forums.thepaceline.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=36602&stc=1

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2262/2271735914_f7bfa9173e.jpg

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/8062/dsc5606sz4.jpg

None of this is to try and take a shot at anyone or their choice of setup, but rather to understand a new trend.

[caleb]

I'll state this a little more personally: If you ride a straight seatpost, why do you do it?

[Chad Engle]

My fitter did it, blame him...

[michael white]

one answer:

some modern seats, like the fiziks, have very long rails compared to the past. The seat goes back farther. This makes it possible for me to use a post with almost no setback, and it's comfortable. Aliantes are really comfortable to me, so that's reason right there. It's not about liking one style of post over another for me. If you want to use a Brooks, you really need setback, though.

[swoop]

to put the saddle in the right place.

[caleb]

one answer:

some modern seats, like the fiziks, have very long rails compared to the past. The seat goes back farther. This makes it possible for me to use a post with almost no setback, and it's comfortable. Aliantes are really comfortable to me, so that's reason right there. It's not about liking one style of post over another for me. If you want to use a Brooks, you really need setback, though.

Kinda makes sense - people are using longer saddle rails to get the same setback.

Still, it seems that then you end up clamping on the front ends of the rails, which puts bad stresses on them. Some companies refuse to warranty their product if you clamp the rails at the ends.

[caleb]

to put the saddle in the right place.

K Swoop, explain.

[caleb]

My fitter did it, blame him...

Did he tell you why?

[TAW]

I ride a straight seatpost, as Swoop said, to get my saddle positioned correctly. I have a short distance from hip to knee, and I like my seat positioned in the center of the rails. If I get a setback post, my seat has to be nearly all the way forward on the rails. So I ride a straight post.

[caleb]

TAW,

Makes sense for you.

Yet, unless the average femur length of the population is rapidly decreasing, leg proportions don't account for the trend.

[sg8357]

Long railed plastic saddles have replaced short railed Brooks saddles.

[Louis]

Does anyone have historical data on trends in seat tube angles?

If they've been going down (which I doubt) that might be an explanation.

[swoop]

its not just seat tube angles. its rails and saddles changing in the modern era (look how forward the rails put your brooks saddles, its longer cranks, its bikes in less sizes (small sized bikes have anywhere from 73 to 75 degree sta).... its also the fashion of kops ... and cleat placement.

i have one bike with a setback post and one with a straight.. same position, diff geo.


it just doesn't merit the thought... you put the post in that lets you put the saddle where you like it. bikes tend to come in less sizes or some design a bike around the look of it.

[Tobias]

Why, then, are seatposts actually getting less setback?Maybe sit more upright?

[swoop]

Maybe sit more upright?

no.. bikes in less sizes and fashion.

[Tobias]

no.. bikes in less sizes and fashion.More upright position requires saddle forward and bars back. Notice stem on some bikes above. Hard to tell on photo, but look short.

[swoop]

yeah.. i understand what yer sayin.. i'm disagreeing.
bikes come in less sizes than they used to.. look at the 73 degree seat tube angle on cervelos... that's on the slack end for most shorties...


the punters do tend to sit upright... but that's not about the seat post.
and then some guys like the look... or argue lamely that its stiffer.

[keevon]

Here are a few shots from the Gallery that illustrate this trend toward straight setposts:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2262/2271735914_f7bfa9173e.jpg

None of this is to try and take a shot at anyone or their choice of setup, but rather to understand a new trend.

The above seatpost (that's my bike) actually has 10mm of offset. Not your classic 25mm or so, but definitely not straight either.

For me, I think it's a function of being tall and riding large frames. The above is a 60.5mm effective TT with a 72.5 STA, so definitely not 'steep', while the stem is 135mm. I think the tip of the saddle is roughly 85mm or so behind the bottom bracket, so no concern there. While I have no idea if my femurs are dimensionally challenged, nor have I ever had a fitting, I've found through trial and error that this is a comfortable position.

I think Cervelo has something on their website about tall riders and sizing trends in large frames... basically they seemed wary of using offset posts with a typical 72-ish degree STA due to the large amount of offset that results.

[michael white]

Kinda makes sense - people are using longer saddle rails to get the same setback.

Still, it seems that then you end up clamping on the front ends of the rails, which puts bad stresses on them. Some companies refuse to warranty their product if you clamp the rails at the ends.

no, the flats of the rails are not only longer but the actual mounts are positioned ahead of older style seats. That means I have my Aliante centered on an almost straight post, and it feels fine. nothing is stressed, it's all good.

[avalonracing]

I think STA have gotten a little more slack (at least over the last decade). I ride a 57cm frame and I like a 74ºSTA (even with a no setback post). I use to be able to find a few stock frames with a 74º (Klein, Coppi, Gios) and it was pretty easy to find a 73.5º in my size. Now it seems that stock frames in my size are all 73º or 72.5º.

[znfdl]

My fitter did it, blame him...

+1

[soulspinner]

to put the saddle in the right place.


Thats how it is 4 me...

[OtayBW]

Short Femurs!

[bnewt07]

My Parlee fit was about the position I wanted (and my fitter advised) on the bike. The CAD plan they produuced assumed a straight post-perhaps it is easier than factoring variable amounts of set back according to my post choice however I'm sure they could have rejigged the fit for a set-back post if I wanted. I would have ended up sitting in the same place relative to the BB whichever way.

The saddle is clamped pretty much in the middle of the rails incidentally. I'll measure how far behind the BB it is when I get a chance. I vaguely recal 55mm from the fitting session but might be wrong.

Perhaps another reason for the trend is because it is easier (or better) to engineer a straight post if you are using carbon?

[Ti Designs]

It's all about rider position on the bike. The same concept of rotating the rider forward that works for aero position works for road position as well. I don't use a zero offset seatpost, but I do run a 74-1/2 degree seat angle on a 56cm bike, with lots of drop to the bars. Keeps my center of gravity over the pedals, good weight balance between front and rear wheels and a balanced sprinting position. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but fit is based on the individual.


For younger forum members, a record is a vinyl disk that music was stored on. A broken record is one that skips back to the same part of the song over and over again. A broken Campagnolo Record is a reason to buy Dura-Ace...

[PoppaWheelie]

A broken Campagnolo Record is a reason to buy Dura-Ace...

Ah, but that's where you're wrong. A broken Campagnolo Record is actually rebuildable. ;)

[Dave]

What seatpost manufacturers offer has nothing to do with the needs of riders, unfortunately. A straight-up post design just happens to be the simplest one that can accomodate the best 2-bolt rocker design. The only time I was ever able to use one was with a frame having a 72.5 degree STA. Most frames in my size have either a 74 or 74.5 degree STA these days.

It's rare for anyone to really need a straight-up post. Most are the result of some fitter blindly following KOP on a short femured rider. If I had short femurs and followed common fitting practices, my hands would probably hurt and I couldn't tolerate the 9-10cm drop to the handlebars that I use. I tend to ignore KOP, and go more for rider balance over the saddle. That places my knees more like 1cm back, but it depends on how KOP is measured. There are several publicized reference points and they won't all produce the same saddle position.

[caleb]

Lots of personal stories (thanks), but thus far nobody has offered a general explanation for what I take to be a general trend.

So, I'll restate the question: What set of circumstances caused seatposts to, on average, become straighter?

[Dave]

Lots of personal stories (thanks), but thus far nobody has offered a general explanation for what I take to be a general trend.

So, I'll restate the question: What set of circumstances caused seatposts to, on average, become straighter?

They haven't, unless you've got some sales figures to back up that supposition. Are you forgetting that MTBs need seatposts too? With smaller diameter tires and less desire for short chainstays, the STAs can be 71 degrees with no problem and a straight-up post makes perfect sense.

[Frankwurst]

Lots of personal stories (thanks), but thus far nobody has offered a general explanation for what I take to be a general trend.

So, I'll restate the question: What set of circumstances caused seatposts to, on average, become straighter?

I can't comment. I still spin vinyl and ride straight seatposts. Somethings just work for me. :beer:

[Sasha18]

I can't explain the parlee, but I suspect it has something to do with the shrinking number of size options offered by major manufacturers and the move to compact geometry. For some riders a "traditional" setback post would work. For many others, however, we're left to ride 0 offset posts or massively offset posts to compensate with less than ideal STA's.

If I were to have something custom built, I would ask to design around a 0 offset post. The lightest of the light posts are 0 offset, and like someone said above, it is the best design for two-bolt rocker style, which I've come to like quite a bit.

That's a stab, but I would like to hear from some of those who really, truly understand these things.

[caleb]

They haven't, unless you've got some sales figures to back up that supposition.

So, you're thinking that people are producing seatposts but not necessarly selling them?

[Dave]

I can't explain the parlee, but I suspect it has something to do with the shrinking number of size options offered by major manufacturers and the move to compact geometry. For some riders a "traditional" setback post would work. For many others, however, we're left to ride 0 offset posts or massively offset posts to compensate with less than ideal STA's.

If I were to have something custom built, I would ask to design around a 0 offset post. The lightest of the light posts are 0 offset, and like someone said above, it is the best design for two-bolt rocker style, which I've come to like quite a bit.

That's a stab, but I would like to hear from some of those who really, truly understand these things.

Compact geometry has no effect on fit, since it only means the TT is sloped, which had no effect on fit. For awhile, some brands tried to get by with as few as four sizes, but now most offer six or seven, in approximately 2cm increments.

Setback posts allow the STA to be steeper and the chainstays shorter, without the tire touching the seat tube. Using a straight-up post requires 1.5-2.0 degrees less STA to get the same setback. The chainstays have to be longer. Not always a good thing. There will be more weight on the front and a longer wheelbase. There is a good reason that setback posts have been the norm for a very long time.

[swoop]

sorry dave.... you're wrong.

there is no seatpost cabal to save money on manufacturing clamps. zinn just wrote about this at velonews..
bikes come in less sizes. so sizes have to accommodate a greater range of riders. the tt slope or compact is to reduce standover... and oftentimes shorter riders that fit a size end up with a slacker sta.
you're missing that the same seat tube angle is offered to cover a broader range of people... and that's facilitated by the lower standover.

this is the flaw in the concept of selling bikes in small, medium, and large.

there was just a 1980's schwinn paramount posted on the forum with a 53 top tup tube and a 75 degree sta.. perfect for me. these days that bike in similar size would have a 73 sta if it were a cervelo and the only way close for me to find a fit would be a straight post.
read my posts in this thread..

and then some argue that a straighter post might be stiffer... and with longer seatposts because of lower toptubes... some argue it makes sense to go no-setback (i think its bs, but.. ) and then, some like the look.

its not personal..but you just couldn't be more wrong. i'm sure there's plenty of stuff you're dead right about that i'm clueless on....

if you don't believe me ... believe the tech article in velonews.

[Z3c]

All,

Thomson, Ritchey, AX-Lightness, Syntace etc.. all offer their posts in set-back. I may be wrong, but I don't think AX makes a straight post. Maybe the trend towards fewer frame sizes yields more need for positioning options. Making two seatposts; the same shaft and 2 heads, is a lot cheaper than numerous frame molds.

Scott

[Dave]

sorry dave.... you're wrong.

there is no seatpost cabal to save money on manufacturing clamps. zinn just wrote about this at velonews..
bikes come in less sizes. so sizes have to accommodate a greater range of riders. the tt slope or compact is to reduce standover... and oftentimes shorter riders that fit a size end up with a slacker sta.
you're missing that the same seat tube angle is offered to cover a broader range of people... and that's facilitated by the lower standover.

this is the flaw in the concept of selling bikes in small, medium, and large.

there was just a 1980's schwinn paramount posted on the forum with a 53 top tup tube and a 75 degree sta.. perfect for me. these days that bike in similar size would have a 73 sta if it were a cervelo and the only way close for me to find a fit would be a straight post.
read my posts in this thread..

and then some argue that a straighter post might be stiffer... and with longer seatposts because of lower toptubes... some argue it makes sense to go no-setback (i think its bs, but.. ) and then, some like the look.

its not personal..but you just couldn't be more wrong. i'm sure there's plenty of stuff you're dead right about that i'm clueless on....

if you don't believe me ... believe the tech article in velonews.

I said nothing about saving money with straight seat posts. I just said that it produces a light post with the best 2-bolt rocker design, quite easily. That's why Thomson bends their post rather than go to all the trouble of making a proper setback, like the ITM Millenium, Selcof, or several FSA models.

Don't take this personally either, but I don't think you understand what I've written and YOU are wrong about the effect of compact geometry.

No brand that I know of currently sells frames only in small, medium and large. Most have 5-7 sizes these days.

While it's true that Cervelo's have some odd geometry in some sizes (I posted my complaints two years ago), their choices do NOT reflect those of most other brands. If you read the Cervelo literature more carefully, you will find that the geometry charts "normalize" all sizes of frames to a 73 degree STA, but the actual STA may not be 73 degrees. I owned a 51cm Cervalo R3 frame for 200 miles, tore it down and sold the frame because the geometry was so odd, but it wasn't the STA that bothered me, it was the short front center and steep HTA, plus a rough ride.

Of course you can always find a brand where the size of frame that fits you doesn't have the exact STA that you want, but I can say that about just about any brand.

You mentioned a 53cm TT with a 75 degree STA. Current models of LOOK frames have a nearly identical 74.5 degree STA with a 53cm TT in the 51cm c-c size, which I ride, by the way. Their STAs change in .75 degree increments from 74.5 to 73 degrees, across the size range. Regardless of the seat tube angle chosen by a manufacturer, there will be some people who want something steeper or shallower. That's where custom frames might be desirable.

In case you don't understand the effect of variations in the STA on the fit of the bike, here's a few facts. The difference in the seatpost offset is calculated with the simple formula of (cosA-cosB) times the saddle rail height, where A and B are the two STAs. Multiplying the c-c frame size times (cosA-cosB) will give you the difference in the reach, which affects the stem length required.

Bike frames have simple geometry and there is nothing about them that a mechanical engineer can't comprehend. I'd be glad to read and critique the velonews article, if you'd post a link to it.

[Dave]

So, you're thinking that people are producing seatposts but not necessarly selling them?

You guys are a tough crowd. All I said is I didn't understand how your conclusion was reached. A lot of posts are offered with the same clamp design in 3 different offsets, like 0, 20 and 35mm. The zero offset is real common for MTBs, for the obvious reasons I explained. I'm sure a lot of them are sold, but few to road bike riders.

[avalonracing]

The difference in the seatpost offset is calculated with the simple formula of (cosA-cosB) times the saddle rail height, where A and B are the two STAs. Multiplying the c-c frame size times (cosA-cosB) will give you the difference in the reach, which affects the stem length required.

No duh.
Tell me some thing that every bike shop employee doesn't know by heart.
:D

[Dave]

No duh.
Tell me some thing that every bike shop employee doesn't know by heart.
:D

You've got sharper shop folks in your area than I've ever met. What they should know by heart is one degree approximately equals one centimeter of reach. It's accurate enough for most sizes, except the really small ones, where 8mm per degree is more appropriate.

What I wonder is whether some frame manufacturers understand this. It's still common to see frames, where two sizes have the same reach because the larger one shifts from a 74 degree STA to a 73, with a 1cm longer TT. The longer reach of the extra TT length is offset by the slack STA and both end up with the same reach. Maybe that's what was intended, but the result is a 2cm taller frame that is not longer.

[handsomerob]

...In case you don't understand the effect of variations in the STA on the fit of the bike, here's a few facts. The difference in the seatpost offset is calculated with the simple formula of (cosA-cosB) times the saddle rail height, where A and B are the two STAs. Multiplying the c-c frame size times (cosA-cosB) will give you the difference in the reach, which affects the stem length required.


Can you give a "for example"? I am very good at logical thinking and math, but my memory has faded on geometrical equations.

Say the STA and HTA are both 73.5. ST and TT are 55cm CTC.

Is saddle rail height measured from the ground straight up or from the center of the BB?

[swoop]

5 to 7 sizes is not 15. a wider range of people have to fit on a lesser range of sta's.. hence the increase in popularity of non setback posts.
as i've stated before, some feel the nonsetback is stiffer than setback and with longer posts (the side effect of sloping tt).. folks started using non setback where once they would use setback, and finally.. some people prefer aesthetic.

here... talk to zinn.... he seems to agree with my sentiment.

http://velonews.com/article/72395

[Dave]

Can you give a "for example"? I am very good at logical thinking and math, but my memory has faded on geometrical equations.

Say the STA and HTA are both 73.5. ST and TT are 55cm CTC.

Is saddle rail height measured from the ground straight up or from the center of the BB?

Saddle rail height is measured along the center of the seat tube. The equation is only used when comparing frames with two different seat tube angles.

For example, if one frame has a 73.5 degree STA and the other a 74.5, then it's 55cm x (cos73.5 -cos74.5) = .92cm.

This shows you how the rule of thumb 1cm per degree came about. It's an accurate enough approximation, except for real large or real small frames. The same formula can be applied to differences in the HTA, but the multiplier is only the distance from the HT/TT intersection point to the center of the stem, so result is usually quite small.

[Dave]

5 to 7 sizes is not 15. a wider range of people have to fit on a lesser range of sta's.. hence the increase in popularity of non setback posts.
as i've stated before, some feel the nonsetback is stiffer than setback and with longer posts (the side effect of sloping tt).. folks started using non setback where once they would use setback, and finally.. some people prefer aesthetic.

here... talk to zinn.... he seems to agree with my sentiment.

http://velonews.com/article/72395

You're right that 7 sizes is not 15, but 15 were only available from a few brands offering 1cm increments, like Colnago and many other Italian brands. A lot of brands never offered frames in less than 2cm increments. Colnago geometry has not changed for a very long time. 9 of the 15 sizes have the same 73 degree STA. The smallest 6 sizes vary from 73.5 to 75 degrees, and three of those are 74. Cutting out half of the sizes would virtually no effect effect on the STA angle or the seatpost setback required.

A non-setback post might flex less in the clamp area, but that has nothing to do with the additional post exposed with a compact frame. If the desire is to increase stiffness, the area to make thicker/stronger is where the post meets the frame, not at the top.

Zinn's broad-brush comments might be accurate in some cases, but there is no excuse for poor fit, other than the buyer's ignorance or poor advice from the seller/fitter. I can usually take any given frame size and tell you exactly what it would take to make the next size larger or smaller fit exactly the same. There is rarely a good reason to sacrifice a proper fit. Good looks and optimum handling are another story. I want my saddle relatively well centered on the seatpost, very few steering tube spacers and a relatively low rise stem (84 degrees or less) with a 100-120mm length. I have no problem meeting these criteria with a large number of brands.

[michael white]

I've very rarely met a shop employee in the US who could fit him or herself, much less anyone else. Europe is different.

You've got sharper shop folks in your area than I've ever met. What they should know by heart is one degree approximately equals one centimeter of reach. It's accurate enough for most sizes, except the really small ones, where 8mm per degree is more appropriate.

What I wonder is whether some frame manufacturers understand this. It's still common to see frames, where two sizes have the same reach because the larger one shifts from a 74 degree STA to a 73, with a 1cm longer TT. The longer reach of the extra TT length is offset by the slack STA and both end up with the same reach. Maybe that's what was intended, but the result is a 2cm taller frame that is not longer.

[swoop]

.

[swoop]

a post with no set back is not always an indicator that a bike doesn't fit. just like a post with setback is not an indication that a bike does fit.
its really case by case.

[Dave]

a post with no set back is not always an indicator that a bike doesn't fit. just like a post with setback is not an indication that a bike does fit.
its really case by case.

I can agree with that, but I'm always skeptical if someone has a frame with a steep STA and a non-setback post.

LOOK used to make nearly all of their frames with a 72.5 degree STA. I had a 51cm KG381 with the 72.5 STA and a 54cm TT. The reach of this frame is actually about 7mm shorter than the current model 51cm 585 which has a 74.5 degree STA and 53cm TT. I used a non-setback post with the KG381 to produce the same saddle position as my current 585. There was nothing wrong with it, but the adjustable rear dropout could be pushed forward enough to make the rear tire hit the seat tube, with 405mm chainstays.

[Spicoli]

I doubt theres even that much thought going into it. I think its fashion with most and the fact most people I see have there seats way too high and need help getting to the pedals so they jam there seats forward. But if I had to guess most folks didnt even think about post setback, they just went with what they thought looked cool and hoped they could find there sweet spot without having to get a setback post. Just my jaded take on it, whack that thing back and use the big muscles, not just your thighs. Remember layback BMX post of the 80's? Now they were the coolest!

[Grant McLean]

What I wonder is whether some frame manufacturers understand this. It's still common to see frames, where two sizes have the same reach because the larger one shifts from a 74 degree STA to a 73, with a 1cm longer TT. The longer reach of the extra TT length is offset by the slack STA and both end up with the same reach. Maybe that's what was intended, but the result is a 2cm taller frame that is not longer.


I think that's exactly what's intended. If you want you bicycle to handle well,
you can't add all the reach to the front end of the frame. Larger riders need
their saddle further back to balance their weight between the wheels. The
simplest way to do that is a slacker seat angle on larger frames. That angle
helps keep the front center from getting too long.

Cervelo make a backwards assumption - that you can set up two size frames
the get the same reach - but that's beside the point - if you set up them as
intended - higher saddle, more set back, longer stem, higher bars - on the larger
frame size, you create two very different fitting bikes.

The point of changing the angles isn't for the single purpose of fit - it's to make
the frame ride correctly for the size of the intended rider.

(but i know you knew all that....)

-g

[Dave]

.

I hope that picture isn't thought to be the result of a compact geometry problem. Obviously a very small/short legged rider who needs a 650C wheeled bike to get a decent looking setup.


http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39825

[Dave]

I think that's exactly what's intended. If you want you bicycle to handle well,
you can't add all the reach to the front end of the frame. Larger riders need
their saddle further back to balance their weight between the wheels. The
simplest way to do that is a slacker seat angle on larger frames. That angle
helps keep the front center from getting too long.

Cervelo make a backwards assumption - that you can set up two size frames
the get the same reach - but that's beside the point - if you set up them as
intended - higher saddle, more set back, longer stem, higher bars - on the larger
frame size, you create two very different fitting bikes.

The point of changing the angles isn't for the single purpose of fit - it's to make
the frame ride correctly for the size of the intended rider.

(but i know you knew all that....)

-g


I agree that STA angle changes are needed as the frame size changes. It's far more common for each size to increase in reach, at least by a small amount, as the vertical size of the frame increases. If not, then Serotta also has a problem with their stock geometry. When STA changes are made, they don't cancel out all of the increase in reach.

[caleb]

I'll throw out two ideas, both of which are a function of the riding public rather than frame design.

1) A broader spectrum of the population is getting on a bike than ever before. In 1975, the population of high end bicycle consumers had a lower standard deviation in their physiology from an elite pro rider than that population has today. The increase in straight seatposts is a reflection that cyclists, on the whole, are shaped less like elite riders than they have been in the past. Here’s an analogy: racing flats and light trainers were the only running shoes necessary pre-1970 because "runners" had nearly perfect biomechanics. To be a runner was effectively to be an elite (check out the average marathon times from 1960 if you don’t believe me). Motion control shoes and the like only emerged in response to a decidedly non-elite body type when the sport became more democratic during the ‘70s and ‘80s. In the same way, straight and super-layback posts (and super short and long stems for that matter) only became necessary when people with non-elite proportions became part of the cycling community, primarily within the last decade.

2) There are more people with guts (paunches, bellies) riding high end road bikes than ever before. To avoid knee-in-the-gut discomfort, the rider wants a very open hip angle. With carbon steerers you can only raise the bars so much. So, you move the rider forward with a straight post. It's not a perfect fit, but the entire situation is far from perfect (unless, of course, you're selling bikes).

[swoop]

nonsense.
you attributed my point to david and you're making correlations that make no sense. the pseudo-science concepts have nothing to do with it.
blame the mtn. bike industry.
the fundamental flaw here is the search for too much meaning.

[Dave]

At least now we know that Caleb doesn't understand what I've posted. There is absolutely no correlation between compact geometry and the need for straight seat posts.

Just because a couple of manufacturers have added non setback posts to their offerings means nothing about the trends in sales or useage of these posts. What I said is most of them are probably being used by poorly informed buyers.

The idea that non setback post can improve comfort for the less fit is a real stretch. When the saddle is moved forward, more weight rests on the hands, often resulting in major discomfort.

Caleb, haven't you noticed the increase in frames offered with extended head tube lengths? Just about all of the major brands have jumped on that bandwagon, with "comfort" fit frames, permitting higher handlebars.

[regularguy412]

At least now we know that Caleb doesn't understand what I've posted. There is absolutely no correlation between compact geometry and the need for straight seat posts.

Just because a couple of manufacturers have added non setback posts to their offerings means nothing about the trends in sales or useage of these posts. What I said is most of them are probably being used by poorly informed buyers.

The idea that non setback post can improve comfort for the less fit is a real stretch. When the saddle is moved forward, more weight rests on the hands, often resulting in major discomfort.

Caleb, haven't you noticed the increase in frames offered with extended head tube lengths? Just about all of the major brands have jumped on that bandwagon, with "comfort" fit frames, permitting higher handlebars.


....and higher handlebars generally means 'more' setback is needed as the rider rotates backward around the BB.

At least, that's how my bike fits me.

:beer:
Mike in AR

[dirtdigger88]

why straight post- because the effin companies all quit making nice SETBACK posts

Jason

[caleb]

the fundamental flaw here is the search for too much meaning.

Okay: both consumers and manufacturers are irrational and cannot be understood.

[caleb]

Caleb, haven't you noticed the increase in frames offered with extended head tube lengths? Just about all of the major brands have jumped on that bandwagon, with "comfort" fit frames, permitting higher handlebars.

Sure, but I still see many fat old men trying to ride "race" frames.

[AgilisMerlin]

my post:

i cry every time i think of its discontinuation.................... :no:


:eek: http://i14.ebayimg.com/02/i/000/d9/95/3e5c_1.JPG



"i am a skinny old dude trying to ride a race frame"................ :D

[Frankwurst]

Sure, but I still see many fat old men trying to ride "race" frames.

Not Me. :beer:

[paczki]

Sure, but I still see many fat old men trying to ride "race" frames.

Dude, where would the industry be without us? Who do you think buys race bikes. Praise us! :banana:

I need an Altoid.

[alancw3]

initially i went to a zero setback post for fit but now having used one for two + years now i would never consider a setback post again. the zero setback post makes the bike feed so much more solid even thought the saddle position is in virtually the same position. now the saddle sits in the middle range of the rails and not all the way forward. granted i am a big guy 6'4' and 215 and the effect may not be as noticable on smaller riders.

i have to agree with what another forum member stated in that if i were having a new bike built the geometry would definitely be designed around a zero offset post. as a sidebar i personally feel that the zero offset looks better also.

[Dave]

why straight post- because the effin companies all quit making nice SETBACK posts

Jason

I find plenty of choices in setback posts, that work well. I always insist on a 2-bolt "rocker" design, to permit fine angle adjustments and fore/aft adjustments without losing track of the saddle angle. With the rocker design, fore/aft adjustments can usually be made by loosening only the back bolt. Count out 4-5 half turns, adjust the position, then retighten by the same amount. Small angle adjustments are equally simple - loosen one bolt by 1/4 to a half turn and tighten the other by the same amount.

I've had good luck with the FSA K-force, ITM Millenium and similar models made by Selcof, including the Colnago seatpost. Of course Thomson makes a great clamp, but the bent setback post is too ugly for me.

http://www.redroseimports.com/rri_selcof_sp3.html
http://road.fullspeedahead.com/fly.aspx?layout=product&taxid=116&pid=178
http://txcyclesport.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=ITM-MSP-CB&Category_Code=SP_seatposts_1

[swoop]

PMP makes em in 3 setbacks.

[Chad Engle]

Originally Posted by Chad Engle
My fitter did it, blame him...


Did he tell you why?

No, I wish he would have, but I probably wouldn't have understood. Ignorance is bliss. Bike fits good, I'll agree that it doesn't look "fast", but neither do I.

He also put on the pump peg without asking, he's a genious. Wish I would have gotten the head badge vs. the sticker though. Now I'll have to get me another one. Sorry for the drift.