Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

pctloper

· Registered
Joined
·
1,039 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
I have been riding a large Pivot 429T and have the seat pushed all the way back to it get my knee properly over the pedal spindle. I am 6 foot and have a long 34.4 inseam----so pretty leggy.

The Pivot has a slack seat tube---72.8

I wonder with new GEO and seat tubes around 75 degrees that it will be an issue for anyone with long femurs------we may not be able to get the knee over the pedal spindle like we want when seated.

The longer reach is enticing for me but I do not think reach has any bearing on this fit element.

I have yet to seriously try to fit a large bike with new GEO

Anyone with real experience on this???
 
Some, including myself love steep STAs, some don't. Not all new bikes have steep STAs, so there is probably something out there for you, and there are set back posts. Keep in mind that the longer the travel, the more the rear sags on climbs, while the front extends. The steep STA ends up being more normal while climbing, but steep on the flats. Seat tubes these days are not straight, and/or do not intersect the BB, so the higher the saddle, the slacker the actual STA is. 75° for me may be 73° for you. I suggest demoing a few new geometry bikes to find out. You will get a lot of opinions, which may have little bearing on you personally.
 
KOPS may be bunk, but OP is obeying it, yet still has his saddle max rearward on a bike with a slack STA (and I think it may be slacker than Pivot lists). That indicates his bodily proportions are extreme. Not just the leg/torso ratio (mine is more extreme), but the femur/tibia ratio, too.

OP, definitely get out and try the new geo. Assuming your final saddle doesn't change, I'd guess your challenge will be getting enough weight over the front end without having to hold your torso nearly vertical all the time. What kind of saddle-to-bar drop do you currently have?

Have you ruled out getting the saddle a bit more forward? Does that produce knee pain?
 
Discussion starter · #6 ·
Mack_turtle----thanks for responding but seriously just saying something is BS is not helpful for the person asking--all we know is you think it is BS ---do you have any info on how a bike fit should be done these days with the new GEO and having some out of the regular body type?

I am actually very interested in the right way of thinking of this so please share what you have found to be a more useless approach. This could be especially useful as many of the smaller brand bikes are hard to find a place to demo----Transition/Guerilla/Canfield as examples.
 
I generally ride setback posts with the seat as far back as recommended and 175mm cranks. With all these steep STAs and zero offset droppers I can already feel my knees aching at the thought of buying a "modern" bike.

I'm only 6' with a 32" inseam so I either have freaky long femurs or have just been doing it wrong for 15+ years.
 
Mack_turtle----thanks for responding but seriously just saying something is BS is not helpful for the person asking--all we know is you think it is BS ---do you have any info on how a bike fit should be done these days with the new GEO and having some out of the regular body type?
sorry, I was brash with my initial response. I read too much of this kind of stuff and I assume everyone has read all the stuff about the irrelevancy of KOPS that I have. that's in indication that I need to read less and ride more.

KOPS has been debunked by many cycling gurus for decades. do a quick search online for "knee over pedal" and you'll immediately find Keith Bontrager's "The myth of KOPS," which should have put the last nail in that coffin almost 20 years ago. it sticks around because of memetic inertia. it provides a simple solution to a complex problem, so people like it. unfortunately, the knee-over-pedal position only has a corelative relationship with pedaling dynamics and bike fit. (how to people set speed records on recumbent bikes, KOPS on a bike that has you basically lying on your back?)

I encourage people not to get too caught up on it. I was caught up on it for a long time too, but the alignment of your knee over your pedal means nothing as soon as you stand up, ride up a hill, steer, or ride down a hill. throw suspension in the fork and frame into the mix and you might as well fit your bike by reading tea leaves. it was a useful way to approximate balancing a rider's CoG on a road bike at one time, but I have little faith that it's even useful for that on most modern bicycles.

if you have fit your bike by the KOPS method because someone told you to do that in the past, you've probably become accustomed to riding with your saddle in that position. I, too would like to hear from the collective wisdom of the forum whether they have been able to adapt to new positions. I would also be curious to hear from a frame designer what they think about it. I was also worried when I bought my last frame as I started looking at all the steep STAs on newer frames.

I would like to hear from a frame builder. obviously different designers take different approaches and have their reasons. Jeff Jones seems to put some crazy-slack seat tubes on his frames but most others are OK with 74-75 degrees.

I have found that it's more important to get the effective stack and reach (horizontal and vertical distance between the BB and the handlebar) than the saddle offset to fit any bicycle, but my experience in this regard is limited.
 
I'm only 6' with a 32" inseam so I either have freaky long femurs or have just been doing it wrong for 15+ years.
I have reason to believe that you've been riding frames that are a size too small for you. you could be shoving your saddle way back to un-crunch your spine and relax your shoulders, not put your knees in an ideal pedal position. just a theory based on my experiences though. I had to buy a bike that is considerably longer than what's recommended by most manufacturers to fit me and I still have an on offset seatpost for some reason.
 
I have reason to believe that you've been riding frames that are a size too small for you. you could be shoving your saddle way back to un-crunch your spine and relax your shoulders, not put your knees in an ideal pedal position. just a theory based on my experiences though. I had to buy a bike that is considerably longer than what's recommended by most manufacturers to fit me and I still have an on offset seatpost for some reason.
If my seat goes forward my knees start to hurt, even if I move the bars forward too.
 
Ok, so I have a 34" in-seam, very long femur, build my frames with 75 degree seat tube, run ultra short chainstays - 405mm on MTB and 385mm on Gravel Grinder. To cap this off, I really like the ISM saddles so this puts me a further 50mm forward. My knees never hurt. My weight is well forward but, the front-end never lets go. The TT is over 600mm and is the correct fit length for me. And the most important part, my back no longer aches. When I go past a reflecting shop window and take a side look at myself, I actually look 'right' even though the numbers might suggest otherwise.

But that is me, not you, so my extreme position as the laid back riders might describe me as is really meaningless.

I'm with mack_turtle with his over-view, clearly explained. KOP nearly killed my cycling pleasure.

Eric
 
OP, your problem is not that the STA is not slack enough, I'm 6'2" and your inseam is an inch shorter than mine and I have size 13 shoes and there's no way in hell I could ride a Large Pivot, it isn't even as big/long as a Medium Banshee or most other brands mediums, the XL isn't even as big/long as most other brands Larges.

You are compensating for a much too small Reach and trying to gain more room by moving your saddle so far back. With my 35.25" inseam, I like mt knee to be about 2cm behind KOPS, and with a STA that slack, I'd run a straight post with my saddle about centre on the rails to get there.

As to fitting to newer geo bikes with steeper STAs, that's why they make offset seatpost heads, it's why I own a FallLine dropper which has the ability to use either a normal or offset head.

As to slacker vs steeper STAs, I believe that if you're the sort of person who does a lot of pedaling on both up/down and flat/rolling and like to do more than just spin the easiest gear, then a slacker STA makes sense, bio-mechanically you can put down more power the further behind the BB you are.
 
I have to wonder if putting a "slack" STA on a modern FS bike or even a short-chainstay hardtail is even possible at a certain point. where is that big, fat tire going to go? bent/offset seat tubes help, but they might go too far for the frame dimensions.

you need the saddle to go where it needs to go. however, I fear that continually pushing the saddle back, back, back is embracing some bad spinal/ muscular issues. my knowledge on this topic is pretty basic, but it seems that pushing your saddle back more and more means engaging more quads and ignoring your hamstrings. the more you do this, the more you depend on this position. eventually, you're going to be on one of these:



relevant post

On that note, I paid for a bike fit where the fitter used a plumb bob to check my KOPS position. I am 5'9" and was on a medium ROS 9, which has a pretty steep STA. I had an offset post on it with the rails pushed pretty far back. he found that my knees were a little bit in front of the KOPS position, so he took my cleats and pushed them all the way forward on my shoes, nearly under my toes. that put me in a position of riding on my tippy toes all the time.

that's how dumb someone who has been brainwashed by KOPS nonsense can be. I rode the bike like that for ten minutes and my calves started cramping. I regretted paying for a "bike fit" immediately.
 
How are you guys measuring inseam? Usually, with bike fit, anatomical inseam is used which is typically several inches greater than pants inseam. I'm 69" of average proportions and have a 34" anatomical inseam.
 
OK, you're what 69" tall, 69 years old or 6'9"? :D

Cycling inseam is measured with a large spined book, such a big dictionary or phone book crammed up into your crotch to replicate sitting on the saddle. Feet ar about as wide as if you were on the bike, on the pedals. If you're really only 69", i.e. 5'9" and you have a 34" inseam, you must have some fitting "normal" bikes with that short a torso. Are your arms proportionately as long?
How are you guys measuring inseam? Usually, with bike fit, anatomical inseam is used which is typically several inches greater than pants inseam. I'm 69" of average proportions and have a 34" anatomical inseam.
 
Hey guys,

I'm no professional bike fitter and like many of you have based my experiences off of feel and years of "what works for me". Overall, unless there is an unusual physical condition or out-of-the-ordinary body symmetry I think we can all get comfortable in a certain "area" if presented depending on your type of riding style. I have another thread that maybe you would be interested in.....at the most maybe we can gather some data that "may" work for you..?

http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/peets-bike-fitter-not-professional-but-diyr-1069105.html
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts