PERVERT!!!
Saddles that can make up for slack seat tube angles?
- Thread starter djjohnr
- Start date
Shouldn't on flat terrain a bike have pretty neutral weight distribution F/R when in the saddle?
I've found that with my saddle in the right position, I have better weight distribution for climbing without too much shifting for flat. Everything out here is rolling- there's virtually 0 time that you aren't climbing or descending (even if it's 5 feet). I find that having a steeper seat angle allows me to climb better than trying to shift my weight every 5 seconds.
I think if you're doing hour long climbs you may need a more bio-dynamically efficient position, but when I need to weight the front and don't want to stand for a climb, getting the right saddle position is essential.
Weight distribution should still be slightly rear of centre even on flat terrain. You're still moving that bicycle forwards at speed
Steep STA on short travel bikes are stupid IMHO. But mid to long travel bikes it makes sense, because when sagged the STA gets slacker by a lot.
If your bike frame engineer got the anti squat right then there is not much sagging.
I blame Pinkbike. They always succeed in getting the muppets all riled-up. People really do believe whatever they read, it's amazing.
74/75-deg STA is proper for bikes racing WC cross-country, where pedaling efficiency is quite literally paramount, but all of a sudden it's blasphemy if found on a trail bike.
Makes perfect sense.
But what happens when you put that bike on a really steep up hill
Why should it not be 50 50. So a small movement of the upper body can shift from forward to rearward weight distribution.
On corner entry standing flat turn i bet you there's a point where you signifigantly exceed 50% front weight
Set it up to slide forward and back while pedaling.
And ride standing perfectly vertical with your hands to your side to get your COG directly over the BB.
That does sound horrible.
True, but a 120 bike at 25%-30% changes the STA less than a 160mm bike does.
Well, a 75 degree XC bike seat angle is pretty much gonna be 75º when climbing. On a 150mm bike, it drops back to less, with sag and rearward weight bias for climbing. So if you want to climb with anything resembling the seat angle that is "proper for WC cross-country", you need to start off with a 78º angle.
The good news is - if you don't give a shit there's plenty of big brands bringing out trail and enduro bikes that still have 74-75 seat angles. Or better yet 77 degree seat angles that change to 63 once the saddle is at climbing position.
Something else to take into account is the difference between clipless and flats. I'm 100% flats these days which puts my feet ~2" farther forward, so the seat angle feels slacker right off the bat.
Both firmly in the silly camp
but westy is thinking........
90 degree seat angles are the future
with a virtual 0 degree head angles
and really short stays
That's what I'm hearing these days.
I see. So after all these years we're just now learning this.
I wonder what took so long?
Oh right, bikes need to be sold.
That is only like 87°. I am holding out but cockpit adjustable seat tube angles. 95° uphill and 59° downhill.
Replace every tube on a frame with a dropper post and have fully adjustable geometry on the fly.
Counter-intuitively, my trail/XC bike is slacker than my enduro bike and I don't really feel fussed by it mostly. For the enduro bike though a normal ride profile looks more like this, so I'd kinda prefer to not wreck my lower back by climbing with a silly seat angle.
That kind of goes back to the old thing where you need some seriously steep and nasty terrain to make the most out of an enduro/DH type bike. I like those steep descents, but I’d be lying if I said most of my rides look like that. I immediately thought of deep valleys in WA and BC.
The new Meta TR and AM models look spot on for winching back up. I'm sort of toying with the idea of getting a 29er for racing next year, but I have legs like a dachshund so I'm wary of a dual wagon wheeler. Commencal did a mullet option on their 29er DH bike so I'm hoping they do the same for the Metas. Otherwise, will just stick to lil wheels.
Last edited:
I'm 179cm with a 78cm inseam and wasn't sure about the 29er rear. I smacked myself with the rear tire off jumps several times the first few weeks but after some geo tweaks that's not an issue anymore.
and he cant line up the rim and tire graphics... idiotblame our favourite stiff styleless hurdy gurdy goon Chris Porter
Has custom geo frame made
Still runs the saddle pushed forwards past the limit of retardation.
Circling back, I wound up digging the Specialized Power Arc Expert. There's 3 versions of the Power Arc, but for some reason only the middle level Expert version has the tail farther forward on the rails. The Fizik Thar had the position right, but it felt like I was sitting on a 2x4.
www.specialized.com
Power Arc Expert
The new Power Arc Expert expands on the success of our original Power saddle. It features the same channel and length as the original but with wings tha...
Interesting. I picked up a couple of closeout Astute saddles that I will be trying on the MTB eventually, but for now I still have the THAR, which I never really loved (aside from the position). Weird that the expert version has less setback than the others- I thought that the only difference in trim levels was rail composition. There is a difference between the power Arc and "power" saddles, so could that be it?
Both the Power and Power Arc have separate levels ($/$$/$$$). If you look at all of them only that one model has the change in position.
Actually, that Power Arc Expert is the ($) version...at $160. Fecking lizards.