Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Galleries NEW FAQ Contact About Impressum
It is currently Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:19 pm
Recently the board software has been updated and there are some known bugs/failures:
- Avatars are currently not being displayed ✔ FIXED
- Tapatalk connection is currently broken ✔ FIXED
- Avatars cannot be uploaded ✔ FIXED

Please note that we will soon do some changes in WW board template design in case to get a fully mobile/desktop responsiveness board!
If you find more errors please post it here: http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=139062


All times are UTC+01:00





Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 3:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:33 am
Posts: 23
Hello everyone. Im a 5'2" guy who rides a 1999 Trek 2000 WSD 47cm. Im in the market for a carbon seat post that will take my seat tube angle from 75 degress down to an effective 72 degrees. My seatpost diameter is 27.2mm and seatclamp diamater is 35.0mm.

The reason for this is my Retul fit coordinates and fitter said that ideally, I should be on a 72 degree ST. Most racing/training bikes in my small frame size are 74 or 75, So buying a different frame might be difficult to find and costly.

I also dont want to overspend. Im not too concerned with weight or brand. I just want something that is a good value and will relax my ST angle. Going from aluminum seatpost to carbon on an alloy frame should be the way to go, right? Any suggestions? How good are the cheap chinese eBay seatposts?


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 9:30 am
Posts: 569
I've never heard of a bike fitter recommending a different seat tube angle. It's more straightforward to recommend more saddle setback, which is what it sounds like you need. If your saddle is already as far back as it can go on your current seat post, find out how much setback your current seat post offers, and buy one that offers more. There are potentially hundreds of options out there.


Top
   
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:29 am 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 8:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:26 pm
Posts: 258
Location: LA
Your fitter should have all that info, as well as suggestions to achieve the fit you need..

Basically, what the dude said above. Find out your seat height from the center of your bb, then calculate and adjust the amount of setback to achieve around a 72STA. Basic trigonometry, SOH,CAH,TOA will help. I'd go for a cheap alloy until your fit is perfected, then go carbon.

Also consider that while your frame's "reach" won't change, your "seat to bar" reach will change depending on the amount of setback you use, so you may need a shorter stem.

_________________
2014 Cannondale CAAD10 | 2013 Scott Foil | 2008 Cannondale CAAD9 CX | 2013 Cannondale Evo | 2012 Look 586 UD


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:21 am
Posts: 221
You will need a seatpost with the setback in the 30-35 mm range, if the ideal 72 degree angle is projected with a zero setback post. The one seatpost I know with this sort of setback is FSA K-Force.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 3739
How much confidence do you have in the fitter you went to? Have you always needed such extreme setback? Seat tube angles in the 72 degree range usually will accommodate the 6'+ kind of guys, whereas a seat tube angle in the 74-75 degree range is pretty normal and generally works well for someone your height. So unless you've got some real abnormal dimensions I might just want a second opinion about your fit.

_________________
Colnago C60 - PR99
C59 Five Years Later
My Special Colnago EPQ
Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:26 am
Posts: 2056
Location: Atlanta, GA, US
Fiery wrote:
You will need a seatpost with the setback in the 30-35 mm range, if the ideal 72 degree angle is projected with a zero setback post. The one seatpost I know with this sort of setback is FSA K-Force.

This. The rule of thumb is roughly 1 cm per degree, so 3 degrees would require a 3 cm more setback seatpost.

_________________
My Bikes

My Photoblog


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 2:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 564
Location: Switzerland
fitters should just determine where the contact points should be, and stay away from frame design


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 3:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm
Posts: 2366
eyedrop wrote:
The reason for this is my Retul fit coordinates and fitter said that ideally, I should be on a 72 degree ST. Most racing/training bikes in my small frame size are 74 or 75, So buying a different frame might be difficult to find and costly.


As stated, the easiest thing would be for you fitter to talk to you like a normal person and tell you how far back in mm your saddle needs to go, then you can just work it out. Although obviously if your seatpost already has some setback it simply won't be possible to achieve that much change.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:47 pm
Posts: 216
I agree with others that 30 mm of setback will correct the effective seat tube angle to 72 degrees...more or less. It is easy to find posts with 25 mm setback. That is where the greatest choice lies. It is much harder to find any selection in 30-35 mm setback posts. Assuming your fitter meant that with a 72 degree STA you could center your saddle rails on the seat post clamp with a zero setback post, I would just go for a 25 mm post. So in that case you would still have to push your saddle back another 5 mm in the clamp, but so what. Being off the center that little amount is totally insignificant.

_________________
Robert


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm
Posts: 923
Seat tube angle typically goes hand in hand with the length of the top tube of the frame. A steeper seat tube angle counter-intuitively counteracts a shorter top tube to provide a longer reach for a given top tube length. That said, achieving a specific seat tube angle is determined by both the frame AND the seatpost, so to know what is an appropriate angle is requires the specifics of the frame your trying to fit it to. So is the 72 degree requirement specific to the frame in question that you've mentioned? Or is there a specific stack/reach requirement that you're trying to make?
If you have a particularly short torso and long legs, you might find that women's specific frames may fit you better because the larger women's frames typically have a shorter reach for a given stack.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm
Posts: 2366
You're thinking about it backwards. Smaller frames have steep STAs so that you can get a shorter saddle/bar reach for a given BB/HT reach. There's a limit to how far the headtube can come back while leaving clearance for the front wheel (unless you use a super slack HTA or 650c wheels) so to make the bike feel shorter the STA comes forwards. The trade off is that the saddle may end up too far forwards for weight distribution and pedalling efficiency.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:31 am
Posts: 539
kulivontot wrote:
you might find that women's specific frames may fit you better


The original question asker already has a " I'm a 5'2" guy who rides a 1999 Trek 2000 WSD 47cm." This is Trek's Women Specific Design. WSD. I think the 47cm may be the smallest one they made/make. My mother has one of these from the mid 1990s I think. Just overhauled it a week ago. It came with 650C wheels. Not sure about the bike the question asker has. 650C wheels?

For the original question. look for an Easton EC70 or EC90 seatpost. They are from 10-20 years ago. I measured the center of the seatpost to the center of the clamp at 4 cm. Lot of setback on this post. Carbon too.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 1:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:52 pm
Posts: 221
Location: eNZed
I love this site! Everyone's chimed in with their knowledge, and the OP keeps quiet. Some one has actually answered the question, but if anyone else has a similar situation and trigonometry isn't their forte I find this website really helpful http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html
Input your seat-height (for me, I measure centre of bb straight up to the centre of saddle) into Box C, and frame seat-tube angle Box a.

And yes, I'm short (5'6") and find that new frames have too steep a seattube at 74-75deg. My 2003 Look 381i is 72 or 72.5.

_________________
Less is more.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 2:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm
Posts: 923
@wingguy,
check any frame geometry chart out there. Between frame sizes, the top tube length will decrease by around 15mm, yet the reach will only change by less than 8mm or so. How does this make sense? It's because the seat tube angle will become about 0.5 degrees steeper, meaning that a lesser percentage of the top tube will be behind the bottom bracket (where the reach is calculated). For an individual to obtain the same knee angle between frame sizes (TT fitting excluded), the height and horizontal offset from the bottom bracket should be the same between frame sizes, meaning that even if the seat tube angle is steeper and puts you closer to the handlebars for closer reach, you have to sit back with further horizontal offset to set the knee angle back where it should be.
Check geometry for specialized Tarmac:
You'll note reach does not change between 47cm-54cm, meaning that a smaller frame does not necessarily improve the fit.
Now compare to geometry for specialized Amira
same top tube lengths, different reaches.

tl;dr,
frame sizes are really weird and single measurements in isolation can be misleading.


Top
   
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 2:26 pm 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm
Posts: 2366
Yeah, so just like I said they didn't want to reduce the reach / front-centre any further so they cheated it with STA - by a full 1.5degrees between a 49 and 52.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Seatpost setback and aerodynamics

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

TomColnago

19

831

Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:44 pm

kgt View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Suggestions for a light, 31.6 seatpost with < 25mm setback?

in Road

loudtiger

11

631

Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:17 pm

duvivr6 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Quill stem angle

in Road

eyedrop

4

357

Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:27 pm

MikeDee View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Colnago C60 - why is HT angle a secret?

in Road

RedRacer

6

721

Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:43 pm

RedRacer View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. q Angle on 2010 Sram red crank

in Road

Juanmoretime

5

274

Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:48 pm

mythical View the latest post


All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AJS914, bikerjulio, dynaserve, glepore, motty89, MSNbot Media, Toto76 and 41 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited