Page 4 of 4

Re: An analysis of setback

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:57 am
by thisisatest
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.

Re: An analysis of setback

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:04 am
by fa63
I will start:

Height = 183 cm
Inseam = 86 cm
Saddle height = 76.5 cm
Setback = 10 cm (Specialized Romin saddle)
Tip of saddle to center of handlebar = 56 cm
Saddle to handlebar drop = 5 cm

Bike 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.

Re: An analysis of setback

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:04 am
by Weenie

Re: An analysis of setback

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:25 am
by elviento
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:....

Re: An analysis of setback

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:40 am
by elviento
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?

Re: An analysis of setback

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:27 pm
by Imaking20
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 setback
56cm reach
54cm 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 height
69mm setback
545mm reach

Which felt surprisingly ok during my brief roller spin that followed. I'm very eager to get narrower bars and finish things up.

Re: An analysis of setback

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:21 am
by djconnel
I put that Aegis up against my plot, scaling the bike to get a 2.1 meter wheel circumference:

Image

Re: An analysis of setback

Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:49 pm
by jvanv8
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 cm
Inseam = 88 cm
Saddle height = 82 cm
Setback = 7.5 - 8 cm
Tip of saddle to center of handlebar = 57.5 cm
Handlebar Stack Height = 57.5 cm
Saddle to handlebar drop = 14.5 cm

A 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.

Re: An analysis of setback

Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:26 pm
by KWalker
1.865M
79CM seat height
87mm setback
12cm drop to top of bars next to clamp. I ride Rotundos, so about 13-13.5cm to the grips
Inseam= 34 inches.
Reach to bars= 59.5CM

Any higher on the seat and I get lower back tightness, but who knows if its in the right place or not.

Re: An analysis of setback

Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:37 pm
by euan
167.5cm
70.5cm seat height
5.5cm setback
6cm drop
29.5" inseam
51.5cm Saddle to bar

Re: An analysis of setback

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:17 am
by metanoize
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!

Re: An analysis of setback

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:35 pm
by Sjoerd
1870 mm total body length
910 / 920 mm inseam
820 mm saddle height
95 mm setback
605 mm tip of the saddle - bar
105 mm drop

Re: An analysis of setback

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:53 pm
by MattSoutherden
AGW wrote:Interesting! The only pro that rides more setback than me, as a % of my height, is Tom Boonen. :lol:

Height: 1.75m
Cycling inseam: 81.82cm
Upper leg: 58.42cm
Lower leg: 53.34cm
Saddle height from BB c-t: 73cm
Setback (SMP Evo): 9.7cm

What 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.