130 mm Raod Stem + Reversed Seat Post

Quoted message said:

So I'm happy with my Bontrager 130 mm 17° road stem
because it raises the handle bar to a comfortable height.

It also puts the handle bar forward far enough to make it
comfortable for climbing steep grades off the saddle.

I was uncomfortable with the increased distance from the
saddle to the handle bar earlier but solved this problem
by reversing the seat post (rotating it by 180°) so that
I can position the saddle further forward.

Some people may think that I've moved the saddle too far
forward relative to the crank but I don't feel any loss
of power because of this.

So I guess I should just stick with whatever feels good
regardless of what others have to say.

Yep, but if a 130mm stem and a reversed SP are the things that make
this frame fit ya...the frame doesn't really fit you but if
subjectivley, it 'works', then it works...

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So I'm happy with my Bontrager 130 mm 17° road stem
because it raises the handle bar to a comfortable height.

(middle part snipped)

Quoted message said:

So I guess I should just stick with whatever feels good
regardless of what others have to say.

Yep, but if a 130mm stem and a reversed SP are the things that make
this frame fit ya...the frame doesn't really fit you but if
subjectivley, it 'works', then it works...

Speaking of frame fit: how come frame manufacturers (other than custom
builders) don't make a frame that fits me? All of my attempts to find the
"perfect" frame have been for naught. Why do all road frames seem to have
waaaaay long top tubes, in relation to (shorter) seat tubes? I need a frame
built the other way: 57 cm seat tube, with a 53 cm top tube. Yea, yea, I
know frame geometry has some effect on fit, but not to the extent that I
need.

I had a bike like this once, a gas-pipe Puch "Pacifica", that I picked up
garage-sale style for $40. Didn't need a 330mm seat post, or a 70mm stem,
for that ride. Why can't modern frames come in a variety of seat tube/top
tube length combinations, to allow for really good fit? (for us
Neanderthals).

Just a rant. Thanks.

-Jeff

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Quoted message said:

So I'm happy with my Bontrager 130 mm 17° road stem
because it raises the handle bar to a comfortable height.

It also puts the handle bar forward far enough to make it
comfortable for climbing steep grades off the saddle.

I was uncomfortable with the increased distance from the
saddle to the handle bar earlier but solved this problem
by reversing the seat post (rotating it by 180°) so that
I can position the saddle further forward.

Some people may think that I've moved the saddle too far
forward relative to the crank but I don't feel any loss
of power because of this.

So I guess I should just stick with whatever feels good
regardless of what others have to say.

Yep, but if a 130mm stem and a reversed SP are the things
that make this frame fit ya...the frame doesn't really fit
you but if subjectivley, it 'works', then it works...

I'm 5'8" with 33" inseam so I think frame size 58 cm is
right for me. Lance Armstrong also rode a Madone 58 cm
even though he's taller than me.

If I got a frame size 56 cm the handlebar would probably
be too low and too close to my body for hill climbing even
with a 130 mm 17° stem.

I think there are too many variables so you can't always
get a frame that fits (without reversing the seat post).

JJ said:

I need a frame
built the other way: 57 cm seat tube, with a 53 cm top tube. Yea, yea, I
know frame geometry has some effect on fit, but not to the extent that I
need.

Just get a compact frame with a 53cm top tube and flip your stem up if
you need to... perfect fit.

Quoted message said:

Why can't modern frames come in a variety of seat tube/top
tube length combinations, to allow for really good fit? (for us
Neanderthals).

The number of frame sizes necessary to get every possible combination
would be huge. Also, you could fit just fine on an off the shelf frame.
Who cares about seat tube length?

Quoted message said:

Some people may think that I've moved the saddle too far
forward relative to the crank but I don't feel any loss
of power because of this.

Maybe not a loss of power, but that is a bad position for long distance
comfort. The weight should be balanced and centered on your butt, with
very little on your hands.

You sound like you have a short torso, since your inseam is long for someone
5 8.

So, try a women's racing frame for a test. I think a few firms make them.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Quoted message said:

So I'm happy with my Bontrager 130 mm 17° road stem
because it raises the handle bar to a comfortable height.

It also puts the handle bar forward far enough to make it
comfortable for climbing steep grades off the saddle.

I was uncomfortable with the increased distance from the
saddle to the handle bar earlier but solved this problem
by reversing the seat post (rotating it by 180°) so that
I can position the saddle further forward.

Some people may think that I've moved the saddle too far
forward relative to the crank but I don't feel any loss
of power because of this.

So I guess I should just stick with whatever feels good
regardless of what others have to say.

Yep, but if a 130mm stem and a reversed SP are the things
that make this frame fit ya...the frame doesn't really fit
you but if subjectivley, it 'works', then it works...

I'm 5'8" with 33" inseam so I think frame size 58 cm is
right for me. Lance Armstrong also rode a Madone 58 cm
even though he's taller than me.

If I got a frame size 56 cm the handlebar would probably
be too low and too close to my body for hill climbing even
with a 130 mm 17° stem.

I think there are too many variables so you can't always
get a frame that fits (without reversing the seat post).

Ron Ruff said:

Quoted message said:

Some people may think that I've moved the saddle too far
forward relative to the crank but I don't feel any loss
of power because of this.

Maybe not a loss of power, but that is a bad position for
long distance comfort. The weight should be balanced and
centered on your butt, with very little on your hands.

And I thought moving the saddle forward would reduce the
weight on my hands !!!

BTW, I do have a short torso and I'm usually shorter sitting
down than people who are a couple of inches shorter than me.

Quoted message said:

And I thought moving the saddle forward would reduce the
weight on my hands !!!

If your seat is positioned rearward you will be more balanced, and the
action of pushing down with the legs (pedaling) will naturally help to
lift your torso at the lower back and glutes. The weight is supported
by the seat and pedals, and only a little by the hands. When you ride
up an average hill at a good pace, the weight on your hands should
naturally drop to ~zero. If the seat is forward you have to hold up
your upper body with your arms, plus there is a tendency for the
pedaling action to push you forward, rather than being neutral
fore/aft... which is best.

Level to slightly nose-up saddle, and a couple cm behind KOPS is a good
starting point. BB center to top-middle of saddle about 0.88 x inseam.

If you watch any of the pro stage races, you'll see that most of the
riders sit pretty far back, with their arms stretched out. A similar
position with the bars raised to a comfortable height works well for
recreational riders.

Ron Ruff said:

The weight should be balanced and centered on your butt, with very little
on your hands.

This is not true for road bikes. In a typical setup the handlebar is
somewhat lower than the saddle, 1 to 4 inches depending in the rider,
and there will be weight on your hands. Of course you can counter this
by placing the saddle further back and using a shorter stem, but it
makes smooth pedaling more difficult.

On a road bike the rider's weight should be distributed pretty evenly
between the three contact points: handlebar, saddle and pedals. If the
fit is right and the rider used to it, it is the comfortable way to go.

-as

Ron Ruff said:

If your seat is positioned rearward you will be more balanced, and the
action of pushing down with the legs (pedaling) will naturally help to
lift your torso at the lower back and glutes. The weight is supported
by the seat and pedals, and only a little by the hands. When you ride
up an average hill at a good pace, the weight on your hands should
naturally drop to ~zero. If the seat is forward you have to hold up
your upper body with your arms, plus there is a tendency for the
pedaling action to push you forward, rather than being neutral
fore/aft... which is best.

Level to slightly nose-up saddle, and a couple cm behind KOPS is a good
starting point. BB center to top-middle of saddle about 0.88 x inseam.

If you watch any of the pro stage races, you'll see that most of the
riders sit pretty far back, with their arms stretched out. A similar
position with the bars raised to a comfortable height works well for
recreational riders.

Thanks Ron. I've checked out the KOPS using a plumb bob and
found that the bump below each knee (tibial tuberosity) is directly
above the pedal spindle (with the seat post reversed).

Do most people recommend that it's a couple of cm further back ?
I haven't seen this mentioned on Sheldon Brown's web site and
other sites I've looked at.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_i-k.html#kops

In any case don't you think it's more logical for me to adjust
my saddle's horizontal position according to my torso length
and stem length ?

JJ said:

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So I'm happy with my Bontrager 130 mm 17° road stem
because it raises the handle bar to a comfortable height.

(middle part snipped)

Quoted message said:

So I guess I should just stick with whatever feels good
regardless of what others have to say.

Yep, but if a 130mm stem and a reversed SP are the things that make
this frame fit ya...the frame doesn't really fit you but if
subjectivley, it 'works', then it works...

Speaking of frame fit: how come frame manufacturers (other than custom
builders) don't make a frame that fits me? All of my attempts to find the
"perfect" frame have been for naught. Why do all road frames seem to have
waaaaay long top tubes, in relation to (shorter) seat tubes? I need a frame
built the other way: 57 cm seat tube, with a 53 cm top tube. Yea, yea, I
know frame geometry has some effect on fit, but not to the extent that I
need.

Frame builders build to the center of the 'bell curve'...Custom is
ideal for somebody proportioned like you. Why doesn't suit makers make
a suit that fits me? I need a smallish top, larger legs...custom.

Quoted message said:

I had a bike like this once, a gas-pipe Puch "Pacifica", that I picked up
garage-sale style for $40. Didn't need a 330mm seat post, or a 70mm stem,
for that ride. Why can't modern frames come in a variety of seat tube/top
tube length combinations, to allow for really good fit? (for us
Neanderthals).

Just a rant. Thanks.

-Jeff

Quoted message said:

Ron Ruff said:

If your seat is positioned rearward you will be more balanced, and the
action of pushing down with the legs (pedaling) will naturally help to
lift your torso at the lower back and glutes. The weight is supported
by the seat and pedals, and only a little by the hands. When you ride
up an average hill at a good pace, the weight on your hands should
naturally drop to ~zero. If the seat is forward you have to hold up
your upper body with your arms, plus there is a tendency for the
pedaling action to push you forward, rather than being neutral
fore/aft... which is best.

Level to slightly nose-up saddle, and a couple cm behind KOPS is a good
starting point. BB center to top-middle of saddle about 0.88 x inseam.

If you watch any of the pro stage races, you'll see that most of the
riders sit pretty far back, with their arms stretched out. A similar
position with the bars raised to a comfortable height works well for
recreational riders.

Thanks Ron. I've checked out the KOPS using a plumb bob and
found that the bump below each knee (tibial tuberosity) is directly
above the pedal spindle (with the seat post reversed).

Do most people recommend that it's a couple of cm further back ?
I haven't seen this mentioned on Sheldon Brown's web site and
other sites I've looked at.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_i-k.html#kops

In any case don't you think it's more logical for me to adjust
my saddle's horizontal position according to my torso length
and stem length ?

Nope. The crank spindle and it's relationship to the wheelbase is the truly
fixed part of the program, nothing you can do about that. The crank length isn't
fixed, but isn't a part that lends itself to adjustment. Most people can ride
most cranks without trouble, so let's just leave those there.

Given that - you want the saddle and bars a comfortable distance apart
horizontally and vertically. That distance will change a bit depending on how
you're riding. You also want your position balanced fore/aft on the bike for
stability in the saddle, and here's an important part, so that the relationship
between your shoulders and upper body, and hands on the bars and the contact
patch of the front tire are conducive to strong stable riding out of the saddle
and when driving hard in the saddle. Now, back to how far over that fixed crank
position you are: The saddle/handlebar position can be seen as rotating about
the crank spindle. Your ability to apply power to the pedals is affected by how
far over or back you are. There's also a difference in whether you're pounding
up hills, spinning madly, riding casual or time trialing.

So the saddle goes in place relative to the crank - this is the engine, it's
important. The handlebar goes in place to give you balance, control and position
in and out of the saddle. The frame size is selected to allow the previous
criteria to make the bike have the correct front/back weight balance and have
the tire patch inline with your hands and shoulders when standing.

You have excess weight on your front tire. I can't imagine how a short arm/torso
will get over the bars to work efficiently out of the saddle.

By all means ride and enjoy. Don't futz and fuss, but I'd keep an eye out for a
frame that really fits you. Like someone else suggested, a compact frame could
help get the bars up where you want them. If you still want them there after
doing more riding.

Ron

Quoted message said:

Thanks Ron. I've checked out the KOPS using a plumb bob and
found that the bump below each knee (tibial tuberosity) is directly
above the pedal spindle (with the seat post reversed).

I find that hard to believe with your post reversed... unless you have
very short femurs... or your saddle is way too high... or your floor is
far from level.

Quoted message said:

Do most people recommend that it's a couple of cm further back ?
I haven't seen this mentioned on Sheldon Brown's web site and
other sites I've looked at.

Try this one... open "Foundations of Positioning"
http://www.cyclefitcentre.com/further%20reading.htm

Quoted message said:

In any case don't you think it's more logical for me to adjust
my saddle's horizontal position according to my torso length
and stem length ?

Your seat height and horizontal position come first, then the bars. As
I said before, most of your weight should be on your rear, with some on
the pedals, and only a little on your arms. Your saddle should be
horizontally located to facilitate this, and also achieve a "balanced"
feeling ie no tendency to slide forward or back while putting force to
the pedals. You should not need to use your arms to keep yourself from
moving fore/aft.

You can demonstrate this by standing with your knees slightly bent and
torso bent over, and your hands stretched out in front and resting
lightly on a chair or a table. If you lean too far forward you have to
push with your arms to stay upright; too far back and you have to pull
to keep from falling... but in between there is a zone where your body
is well balanced. Note that your arms aren't doing much of anything in
this position. This is what you are trying to achieve on the bike.

When you get your saddle in the right position, then the stem length
should be chosen *mostly* so that the reach gives you good balance
while standing on climbs... this is usually a pretty long reach. Since
you will have little weight on your arms while seated, and no tendency
to slide forward or back, a long reach should be comfortable...
basically you are just stretching out your arms and resting them on the
bars. You can shorten up the reach if it feels better, but make sure
that you don't compromise your balance while climbing too much.

As I said before, look at how pro road racers are positioned. You may
not be able to bend over as far as they do (you'll want your bars a
little higher), but the rearward saddle and long reach make sense for
recreational riders.

Ron Ruff said:

Quoted message said:

Thanks Ron. I've checked out the KOPS using a plumb bob and
found that the bump below each knee (tibial tuberosity) is directly
above the pedal spindle (with the seat post reversed).

I find that hard to believe with your post reversed... unless you have
very short femurs... or your saddle is way too high... or your floor is
far from level.

I can touch the ground with both toes at the same time without
getting off the saddle so I don't think it's that high.

I've put a pic on the web at http://mymadone.tripod.com

It's not a good pic but you can still see the long stem and
reversed seat post.

BTW, if I put the top end of the thread over my knee cap
(instead of the tibial tuberosity) then the plumb bob would
be a couple of cm in front of the pedal spindle.

Antti Salonen said:

Of course you can counter this
by placing the saddle further back and using a shorter stem, but it
makes smooth pedaling more difficult.

I don't see why it would make pedaling smoothly more difficult... it
works fine... and the short stem is unnecessary.

Quoted message said:

On a road bike the rider's weight should be distributed pretty evenly
between the three contact points: handlebar, saddle and pedals.

Why waste effort holding yourself up with your arms if you don't need
to?

Quoted message said:

I can touch the ground with both toes at the same time without
getting off the saddle so I don't think it's that high.

It looks high to me. My thigh is closer to horizontal at that position.
It also looks like you are a bit in front of the spindle in the picture
as well.

I'd suggest lowering your seat and moving it back... and probably
getting a shorter high-rise stem... although I'd need to see your
position to be sure.

Just curious... are you really riding a Madone SL with running shoes!?

Ron Ruff said:

Quoted message said:

I can touch the ground with both toes at the same time without
getting off the saddle so I don't think it's that high.

It looks high to me. My thigh is closer to horizontal at that position.
It also looks like you are a bit in front of the spindle in the picture
as well.

I'd suggest lowering your seat and moving it back... and probably
getting a shorter high-rise stem... although I'd need to see your
position to be sure.

I'll try lowering the seat a bit even though I've been doing a lot
of hills and I've read somewhere that Lance Armstrong used to
raise his seat by 2 inches for the mountains.

I've put a picture of his Madone on my web site too :-)

I would like to try a 110 mm 17° stem too but the person on ebay
who sold me the 130 mm stem for $24 doesn't have one shorter than
120 mm and I would hate to pay 3 times as much for something that
may not work any better.

So if anybody knows where I can find a good deal please let me know.

Quoted message said:

Just curious... are you really riding a Madone SL with running shoes!?

I wear my New Balance 4E extra-wide tennis shoes for just about
everything because it's hard to find shoes that don't hurt my feet.

I have a pair of Shimano SPD shoes too but have only worn them
a couple of times. I also have a pair of Specialized gloves but still
have no cycling shorts :-)

Quoted message said:

read somewhere that Lance Armstrong used to
raise his seat by 2 inches for the mountains.

No way is that true.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Quoted message said:

read somewhere that Lance Armstrong used to
raise his seat by 2 inches for the mountains.

No way is that true.

I guess it's bad info from ForensicNYC
http://www.celebheights.com/s/Lance-Armstrong-3905.html