Need stretch: stem or seat post?

Raptor said:

I like my new Rockhopper Comp, but it's a bit cramped. On a trail
that's not a big deal but I do ride it on the road, where comfort in
a stable position is nice. I currently have the saddle shoved way
back on the seat post, with commensurate creaking from the slightly
stressed item.

I could get that extra bit of reach with a longer stem or tweaked
handlebars, but I'm more afraid of downhill endo's than uphill
wheelies. I'm also a strong glute-and-quad pedaler with good knees
(so far) and ample upper body weight by which to tweak my center of
gravity on a slope.
So I'm leaning towards moving the saddle back further instead of the
bars forward. I'd like a seat post with some set back, maybe 2" worth.

Your thoughts and equipment suggestions?

General rule of thumb is to adjust reach with the stem, not the saddle
placement. Have someone check your position on the bike?

Sorni

Raptor said:

I like my new Rockhopper Comp, but it's a bit cramped. On a trail that's
not a big deal but I do ride it on the road, where comfort in a stable
position is nice. I currently have the saddle shoved way back on the
seat post, with commensurate creaking from the slightly stressed item.

I could get that extra bit of reach with a longer stem or tweaked
handlebars, but I'm more afraid of downhill endo's than uphill wheelies.
I'm also a strong glute-and-quad pedaler with good knees (so far) and
ample upper body weight by which to tweak my center of gravity on a slope.

So I'm leaning towards moving the saddle back further instead of the
bars forward. I'd like a seat post with some set back, maybe 2" worth.

Your thoughts and equipment suggestions?

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999, Get your hands on a threadless adjustable Stem. Nahbar has um along with a few other companies.

Raptor said:

I like my new Rockhopper Comp, but it's a bit cramped. On a trail that's
not a big deal but I do ride it on the road, where comfort in a stable
position is nice. I currently have the saddle shoved way back on the
seat post, with commensurate creaking from the slightly stressed item.

As Bill S mentioned, you should get the crank-to-saddle position
correct, THEN get the "cockpit length" right, not the other way
around.

It's pretty much a given that you'll have to compromise if you are
going to ride your Rockhopper on the road and off the road
(particularly if "off the road" includes technical riding). The ideal
position for each type of riding is different, so one or both
positions will have to be a compromise.

Quoted message said:

I could get that extra bit of reach with a longer stem or tweaked
handlebars, but I'm more afraid of downhill endo's than uphill wheelies.
I'm also a strong glute-and-quad pedaler with good knees (so far) and
ample upper body weight by which to tweak my center of gravity on a slope.

So I'm leaning towards moving the saddle back further instead of the
bars forward. I'd like a seat post with some set back, maybe 2" worth.

Your thoughts and equipment suggestions?

Get a bike that fits. Figure out a good compromise position, but
start with a bike that'll let you get it all right. Don't screw up
the engine compartment just to get the steering wheel in the right
position.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Per Mark Hickey:

Quoted message said:

It's pretty much a given that you'll have to compromise if you are
going to ride your Rockhopper on the road and off the road
(particularly if "off the road" includes technical riding). The ideal
position for each type of riding is different, so one or both
positions will have to be a compromise.

I ran up against that with my semi-custom FS. The maker spec'd a stem that put
me in the perfect position for road riding - but made me afraid to descend any
sort of steep hill.

I had riser bars on it anyhow, so to avoid buying a shorter stem I just canted
them back an inch or two. Then I put bar ends on - the really long ones that
bend inward - and canted them forwards and slightly down.

Riding half on the bar ends and half on the bars puts me back in the maker's
recommended position, holding the bars normally leaves me comfortable for
descents, and really getting out on the bar ends lets me go more aero that I'd
ever really want/need to.

I like it...
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per Mark Hickey:

Quoted message said:

It's pretty much a given that you'll have to compromise if you are
going to ride your Rockhopper on the road and off the road
(particularly if "off the road" includes technical riding). The ideal
position for each type of riding is different, so one or both
positions will have to be a compromise.

I ran up against that with my semi-custom FS. The maker spec'd a stem that put
me in the perfect position for road riding - but made me afraid to descend any
sort of steep hill.

Just to make sure I'm following along here... Road riding calls for a
more aerodynamic (lower) upper-body profile. This pushes the rider's
center of gravity forward. Descending a steep trail in the same position
thus involves a greater risk of falling over the bars. Are we on the
same page?

Quoted message said:

I had riser bars on it anyhow, so to avoid buying a shorter stem I just canted
them back an inch or two. Then I put bar ends on - the really long ones that
bend inward - and canted them forwards and slightly down.

Riser bars would raise your hands, right? Not as good for road riding.
Why would you be looking to buy a shorter stem? It sounds like you
wanted a "longer" place to put your hands, so you installed long bar
ends, then pointed them down vaguely like you'd see on a time-trial
racing bike. Right?

Quoted message said:

Riding half on the bar ends and half on the bars puts me back in the maker's
recommended position, holding the bars normally leaves me comfortable for
descents, and really getting out on the bar ends lets me go more aero that I'd
ever really want/need to.

I like it...

I just added bar ends to my bike, its only modification so far (other
than pushing the saddle back on the existing seat post). I haven't
ridden it since, so it could be that I can be happy by moving my hands
forward that couple of inches.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

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

Quoted message said:

I like my new Rockhopper Comp, but it's a bit cramped. On a trail that's
not a big deal but I do ride it on the road, where comfort in a stable
position is nice. I currently have the saddle shoved way back on the
seat post, with commensurate creaking from the slightly stressed item.

I could get that extra bit of reach with a longer stem or tweaked
handlebars, but I'm more afraid of downhill endo's than uphill wheelies.
I'm also a strong glute-and-quad pedaler with good knees (so far) and
ample upper body weight by which to tweak my center of gravity on a slope.

So I'm leaning towards moving the saddle back further instead of the
bars forward. I'd like a seat post with some set back, maybe 2" worth.

Your thoughts and equipment suggestions?

I'm not really advocating it but I ride with my seat right back and a short
stem. I just ended up that way from lots of incremental changes and maybe
the fact my legs are slightly short for my height.
I like the quick steering of a short stem and tend to ride with a lot of
weight on the rear wheel (quite often 100%).
Disadvantages include front wheel washout, bent seat rails and bent seat
posts.

Per Raptor:

Quoted message said:

Road riding calls for a
more aerodynamic (lower) upper-body profile. This pushes the rider's
center of gravity forward. Descending a steep trail in the same position
thus involves a greater risk of falling over the bars. Are we on the
same page?

Yes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I had riser bars on it anyhow, so to avoid buying a shorter stem I just canted
them back an inch or two. Then I put bar ends on - the really long ones that
bend inward - and canted them forwards and slightly down.

Riser bars would raise your hands, right?

Not if the stem is lowered a like amount. Hand height is the sum of bar rise
and stem height. If somebody replaced flat bars with risers without moving the
stem down then yes - the bar height would increase. But there's nothing about
risers per-se that means bars are higher... unless, of course, you have a bike
on which the steering tube has been cut off to leave no room for stem
adjustment.

Quoted message said:

Why would you be looking to buy a shorter stem? It sounds like you
wanted a "longer" place to put your hands

Not longer than the maker's spec. The bars were already there.

Quoted message said:

... you installed long bar
ends, then pointed them down vaguely like you'd see on a time-trial
racing bike. Right?

Yes.

--
PeteCresswell

Per Duncan:

Quoted message said:

I'm not really advocating it but I ride with my seat right back and a short
stem. I just ended up that way from lots of incremental changes and maybe
the fact my legs are slightly short for my height.
I like the quick steering of a short stem and tend to ride with a lot of
weight on the rear wheel (quite often 100%).
Disadvantages include front wheel washout, bent seat rails and bent seat
posts.

That's where I was coming from when I ordered my semi-custom FS - except for the
bent seatposts: Incremental changes over time.... wound up with the seat
waaaaay back. Rationalized it based on my size fifteen feet and very long legs.

When I tried riding the new bike, I was pleasantly surprised at how balanced it
felt over the bumps and how well it climbed.
--
PeteCresswell

Raptor said:

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per Mark Hickey:

Quoted message said:

It's pretty much a given that you'll have to compromise if you are
going to ride your Rockhopper on the road and off the road
(particularly if "off the road" includes technical riding). The ideal
position for each type of riding is different, so one or both
positions will have to be a compromise.

Pete did a great job discussing the snipped bits... (annd no, I'm not
talking vasectomy...) ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Riding half on the bar ends and half on the bars puts me back in the maker's
recommended position, holding the bars normally leaves me comfortable for
descents, and really getting out on the bar ends lets me go more aero that I'd
ever really want/need to.

I like it...

I just added bar ends to my bike, its only modification so far (other
than pushing the saddle back on the existing seat post). I haven't
ridden it since, so it could be that I can be happy by moving my hands
forward that couple of inches.

The other thing you might consider is an adjustable stem. Though
pretty much all of 'em are aimed at the road market (and thus have
26.0mm clamps) the Kalloy adjustable has a 25.4mm clamp, and is also
available with a 31.8mm clamp (some MTB bars now come in that spec).
Using this stem, it would be simple to set up a bike for both road and
off-road riding.

You'd simply set the stem at its lowest position for riding on the
road, then rotate it (way) up and back for off-road. To get an idea
of how much "up and back" you can move the bars with a given stem
angle, check out my stem angle chart at:

http://www.habcycles.com/fitting.html

The Kalloy adjustable stem (which is quite nice and still inexpensive)
has a range of 70 to 130 degrees, which on the chart (and on the bike)
would correspond to a range from flat (represented as the "starting
point" on the chart) to a little bit past the last (highest) line on
the chart... essentially, showing a range from the lowest, longest
"road position" to an "off-road" position with the bars about 4.5cm
(1-3/4"😉 further back and 9cm (3-1/2"😉 higher. In other words, the
11cm stem would give you the option of virtually all of the 11cm "way
points" on the chart.

The nice thing about adjusting the height with the adjustable stem is
that you don't have to mess around with the headset bearing preload
every time. You would have to rotate the bars if you went from one
extreme to the others unless you like your brake levers pointing up
pretty severely when riding off-road.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Raptor said:

I like my new Rockhopper Comp, but it's a bit cramped. On a trail that's

Quoted message said:

Your thoughts and equipment suggestions?

Set up your saddle position correctly first.

Stand next to a wall and stick a narrow book between your legs and
crotch.
press it up there pretty good and mark a spot on the wall at the top of
the book.
measure this distance to the floor.
This will be your inseam measurement.
Multiply inseam times 0.883.
That will give you center-of-BB to cusp of saddle measured along c-line
of seat post.

Next adjust your sadlle for/aft position by using a plumb line from
knob on knees when the pedal spindle at 9-o'clock. the plumb should
fall behind (1cm) the spindle for MTB.

Next,
When you're sitting on the bike, look ahead normally, then move your
eyes down and look at where your bars are in relation to your front
hub.

If your bars are behind the hub then your center of gravity is back too
far.
I generally look for my bars to be in line with the hub to one inch in
front.
Buy a stem accordingly.

Duncan said:

"Raptor" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So I'm leaning towards moving the saddle back further instead of the
bars forward. I'd like a seat post with some set back, maybe 2" worth.

I'm not really advocating it but I ride with my seat right back and a short
stem. I just ended up that way from lots of incremental changes and maybe
the fact my legs are slightly short for my height.
I like the quick steering of a short stem and tend to ride with a lot of
weight on the rear wheel (quite often 100%).
Disadvantages include front wheel washout, bent seat rails and bent seat
posts.

If you have short legs for your height, the last thing you want to do
from a biomechanical efficiency perspective is to move the saddle way
back.

The handling effects of a short stem pale in comparison to having your
weight balance wrong on the bike (as you mention above).

The key is to always (always, always) start with a bike that fits.
Trying to force fit the wrong bike means you'll spend all your riding
time having less fun than you should.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

The key is to always (always, always) start with a bike that fits.
Trying to force fit the wrong bike means you'll spend all your riding
time having less fun than you should.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark's right.
A frame has a top tube length designed to obtain a certain
center-of-gravity.
When you go adjusting a saddle way back with a bent seat post you screw
that center-of-gravity up.

If you can't get your saddle back far enough with a regular post then
you need
to go and buy a larger frame with a longer top tube.

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
<snip>

Quoted message said:

If you have short legs for your height, the last thing you want to do
from a biomechanical efficiency perspective is to move the saddle way
back.

The handling effects of a short stem pale in comparison to having your
weight balance wrong on the bike (as you mention above).

The key is to always (always, always) start with a bike that fits.
Trying to force fit the wrong bike means you'll spend all your riding
time having less fun than you should.

I agree with what you say but I did spend a lot of time finding the right
bike for me. I even wanted the smaller size but my LBS talked me into the
next one up (19" frame I'm 6'😉.
It's just what works for me, I'm quite flexable so I have no comfort issues
with the bike even doing 12 hour enduros in a pair. As for weight balance,
when it really matters I stand up and the saddle doesn't play a part
anymore.
So it is a little strange, but it does work well for me.
I think there can be a fairly large margin for personal preference especialy
when you ride a lot and try different things.

Even off the seat I have a tendancy to weight the back wheel:
http://www.ftf.com.au/racegalleries/Statechampsgal2/images/CIMG0640_JPG.jpg

Duncan said:

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
<snip>

Quoted message said:

If you have short legs for your height, the last thing you want to do
from a biomechanical efficiency perspective is to move the saddle way
back.

The handling effects of a short stem pale in comparison to having your
weight balance wrong on the bike (as you mention above).

The key is to always (always, always) start with a bike that fits.
Trying to force fit the wrong bike means you'll spend all your riding
time having less fun than you should.

I agree with what you say but I did spend a lot of time finding the right
bike for me. I even wanted the smaller size but my LBS talked me into the
next one up (19" frame I'm 6'😉.

Normally, a 19" frame would be in the range for your height (depending
on a host of variables though - including how the builder measures
"frame size"😉.

Quoted message said:

It's just what works for me, I'm quite flexable so I have no comfort issues
with the bike even doing 12 hour enduros in a pair. As for weight balance,
when it really matters I stand up and the saddle doesn't play a part
anymore.

Your seated position does have a huge effect on your balance - Mr.
Newton had a few things to say about that. If you're moving your butt
way back, and compensating with a very short stem, your center of
gravity WILL be further back, and that WILL affect handling.

Quoted message said:

So it is a little strange, but it does work well for me.
I think there can be a fairly large margin for personal preference especialy
when you ride a lot and try different things.

Or (as I've seen over and over), a rider can get used to a bad
position on the bike. Yes, everyone is different, but the reason the
"average position" works for most people is because the vast majority
of us have physiologies within a very narrow range. Perhaps you're
outside of this "normal range" - perhaps you've gotten used to riding
with what for most of us would be an inefficient position.

Quoted message said:

Even off the seat I have a tendancy to weight the back wheel:
http://www.ftf.com.au/racegalleries/Statechampsgal2/images/CIMG0640_JPG.jpg

That's an odd position. What can I say? ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Quoted message said:

"Duncan" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even off the seat I have a tendancy to weight the back wheel:
http://www.ftf.com.au/racegalleries/Statechampsgal2/images/CIMG0640_JPG.jpg

Are you sure that's a 19" frame?

It looks too small for you.

CowPunk said:

Mark Hickey said:

The key is to always (always, always) start with a bike that fits.
Trying to force fit the wrong bike means you'll spend all your riding
time having less fun than you should.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark's right.
A frame has a top tube length designed to obtain a certain
center-of-gravity.
When you go adjusting a saddle way back with a bent seat post you screw
that center-of-gravity up.

That's kind of silly when you realize that people are different. I have
several pounds of weight above my waist that many mountain bikers don't.
By bending or straightening my arms, I can move my COG instantly, on
most any bike.

Most high performance bikes are bought "small," the smallest frame that
fits. My bike's seat tube is long enough. The top tube might actually be
optimal for a different rider with my particular build. I've just become
comfortable leaning forward with arms more outstretched than many riders.

Quoted message said:

If you can't get your saddle back far enough with a regular post then
you need
to go and buy a larger frame with a longer top tube.

Seat tube angle and length has more to do with "proper" saddle location
than top tube length.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Raptor said:

Seat tube angle and length has more to do with "proper" saddle location
than top tube length.

So, with your rear saddle position, can you drift both wheels in a
corner,
or does one break loose before the other?

I bet your rear slides out first?

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's just what works for me, I'm quite flexable so I have no comfort

issues

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with the bike even doing 12 hour enduros in a pair. As for weight

balance,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

when it really matters I stand up and the saddle doesn't play a part
anymore.

Your seated position does have a huge effect on your balance - Mr.
Newton had a few things to say about that. If you're moving your butt
way back, and compensating with a very short stem, your center of
gravity WILL be further back, and that WILL affect handling.

Absolutely, my arrangement was as much for handling as it was for comfort.
I tend to ride the back wheel, I like to keep the front light and the rear
planted. For downhills this lets me manual through dips and extend the legs
to drop the rear wheel through after. For climbing it gives lots of rear
wheel traction but I can still lean forward to weight the front as needed.
As I said this is personal choice and I know there are pros and cons. Just
this morning I did a flat track race with tonnes of 'pea gravel' and was
constantly shifting my weight forward for the faster looser corners to
prevent front wheel washout.
On the upside it gives a lot of practice saving front wheel washout that
absolutley saved my skin on the mtorobike the other day.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So it is a little strange, but it does work well for me.
I think there can be a fairly large margin for personal preference

especialy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

when you ride a lot and try different things.

Or (as I've seen over and over), a rider can get used to a bad
position on the bike. Yes, everyone is different, but the reason the
"average position" works for most people is because the vast majority
of us have physiologies within a very narrow range. Perhaps you're
outside of this "normal range" - perhaps you've gotten used to riding
with what for most of us would be an inefficient position.

Well you've definatly given me reason to rethink my setup which is exactly
what a good newsgroup should do. I do occasionaly try something different
so I may well give it a go.
I do also have a 20" on-one frame that is very long and I also have the seat
quite far back on that as well.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Duncan" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even off the seat I have a tendancy to weight the back wheel:

http://www.ftf.com.au/racegalleries/Statechampsgal2/images/CIMG0640_JPG.jpg

Are you sure that's a 19" frame?

It looks too small for you.

Yeah it's definatly a 19", brands vary a lot in shape and where they
measure. Keep in mind the bike is a race bike where agility is quite
important. Our local race courses have a tendency to by quite tight
singletrack where quick steering pays off.