Weight Weenieshttp://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/ An analysis of setbackhttp://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=110418 Page 4 of 4

 Author: thisisatest [ Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:57 am ] Post subject: Re: An analysis of setback That brings up an idea- we should take a poll of weightweenies to see how their position stacks up, including bike type and saddle model. I'd be interested to know the spread.

 Author: Weenie [ Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:57 am ] Post subject: Re: An analysis of setback

 Author: fa63 [ Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:04 am ] Post subject: Re: An analysis of setback I will start:Height = 183 cmInseam = 86 cmSaddle height = 76.5 cmSetback = 10 cm (Specialized Romin saddle)Tip of saddle to center of handlebar = 56 cmSaddle to handlebar drop = 5 cmBike is a custom job with a 56.5 cm TT, 18.5 cm HT (~21.5 with headset cups), 72.5 deg STA, 73 deg HTA.I am told I have long femurs, for what it is worth.I had a spreadsheet with lots of data similar to above from another bike forum at one point, but I seem to have lost it. I wouldn't mind myself to see the spread and work on another one.

 Author: elviento [ Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:25 am ] Post subject: Re: An analysis of setback Notice everyone in the 172cm-173cm range claim to be 175cm. So the height numbers are not very accurate. For example, Cav is supposedly 175cm and Lance 178cm. We know they are not one inch apart. fa63 wrote:I have been tabulating saddle height of pros (and a couple other things) for a while now; here is the summary:....

 Author: elviento [ Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:40 am ] Post subject: Re: An analysis of setback It has been said that: Cervelo fit = bad fit. MagnusH wrote:djconnel wrote:If you wanted to build a bike which fit the cyclists the best, you'd use a 66 degree STA and offset the seat tube forward by 94 mm relative to the BB. Wouldn't this mean this mean a decreased STA (measured relative to the BB) for higher saddle-heights?And isn't that opposed to the Cervelo fit that dictates equal STA irrespective of rider size?

 Author: Imaking20 [ Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:27 pm ] Post subject: Re: An analysis of setback This was interesting to me so I figured I'd give it a go. I went home last night and tweaked the bike a bit.I'm 180cm tall... and I don't know my inseam off-hand. I'm averagely proportioned though.The position I'd been running on my Felt was 735-740mm saddle height~90mm setback56cm reach54cm stack (and this is up for the winter)The biggest surprise to me with the averages from this thread is that I'd basically need to move my whole position forward 2cm. I'm curious how this might benefit me (I haven't paid for a good fit yet which is why I'm willing to experiment and learn).I raised my saddle 1cm and moved it forward 2cm... unfortunately I'm running a Ritchey C260 stem though so I can't swap it out without unwrapping my bars - so it will have to wait a couple of weeks. I'm already planning on swapping my 44cm bars our for 42cm and will play with 110-120mm stems at that point as well.That leaves my current measurements at:75cm saddle height69mm setback545mm reachWhich felt surprisingly ok during my brief roller spin that followed. I'm very eager to get narrower bars and finish things up.

 Author: djconnel [ Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:21 am ] Post subject: Re: An analysis of setback I put that Aegis up against my plot, scaling the bike to get a 2.1 meter wheel circumference:

 Author: jvanv8 [ Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:49 pm ] Post subject: Re: An analysis of setback fa63 wrote:I will start:Apparently I have a saddle height of a 189cm rider - so it's hard to base things simply with height when leg length/torso ratio is not always a linear relationship.Height = 181 cmInseam = 88 cmSaddle height = 82 cmSetback = 7.5 - 8 cmTip of saddle to center of handlebar = 57.5 cmHandlebar Stack Height = 57.5 cmSaddle to handlebar drop = 14.5 cmA little shocking to see my setback is actually average. I've gotten many comments over the years about not having enough setback. I suppose visually, riding with a zero-setback post w/ rails neutral or slightly forward seems that way if you don't factor in the seat height.

 Author: KWalker [ Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:26 pm ] Post subject: Re: An analysis of setback 1.865M79CM seat height87mm setback12cm drop to top of bars next to clamp. I ride Rotundos, so about 13-13.5cm to the gripsInseam= 34 inches.Reach to bars= 59.5CMAny higher on the seat and I get lower back tightness, but who knows if its in the right place or not.

 Author: euan [ Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:37 pm ] Post subject: Re: An analysis of setback 167.5cm70.5cm seat height5.5cm setback6cm drop29.5" inseam51.5cm Saddle to bar

 Author: metanoize [ Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:17 am ] Post subject: Re: An analysis of setback elviento wrote:It has been said that: Cervelo fit = bad fit. I tend to agree, but Canyon Ultimate CF SLX and the Ridley Helium SL (some sizes) are adopting similar seat tube angles to Cervelo!

 Author: Sjoerd [ Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:35 pm ] Post subject: Re: An analysis of setback 1870 mm total body length910 / 920 mm inseam820 mm saddle height95 mm setback605 mm tip of the saddle - bar105 mm drop

 Author: MattSoutherden [ Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:53 pm ] Post subject: Re: An analysis of setback AGW wrote:Interesting! The only pro that rides more setback than me, as a % of my height, is Tom Boonen. Height: 1.75mCycling inseam: 81.82cmUpper leg: 58.42cmLower leg: 53.34cmSaddle height from BB c-t: 73cmSetback (SMP Evo): 9.7cmWhat can I say? I guess I can't average myself to a pro without the rest of their stats. According to my chart, I'd have to move my saddle forward 2.4cm. I'd be doing pushups on my handlebars with that kind of weight distribution.I would suggest that you actually ride with *more* setback than TB. The SMP saddles position you much further back on the saddle than most, meaning you have to run with much less setback that you would on most perches.