|Seat post envy?||serbski|
Dec 2, 2002 4:24 PM
|OK, here is a completely shallow, image-conscious question hiding a sizing question of sorts: 20.5cm from top of saddle to top of t-t (measured along seat post). Is this enough seat post showing to avoid being ridiculed while hanging at Starbucks post-ride? (I don't think Santiago Botero had near this much showing when he was riding non-compact Looks and he looked rather sharp!) Honestly though, I only ask because every time I turn around it seems guys are running what looks like a *foot* of seat post and I think that it may be causing me to suffer "seat post envy". Is there a trend here? Do more traditional geometry frames (Look/Colnago) tend to necessitate a more traditional/less seat post set-up? Thanks...|
|re: Seat post envy?||The Human G-Nome|
Dec 2, 2002 4:51 PM
|what i wouldn't give to have the time to worry about that. it seems difficult to look very foolish style-wise when you've got camelbacks and mountain bike shoes in your midst.|
|re: Seat post envy?||fbg111|
Dec 2, 2002 7:23 PM
|I don't know, but it seems the only important thing here is leg length and position. Too short a seatpost and you won't extend your knee enough on the downstroke and will therefore not get all the available power out of your leg. Too much seatpost and you'll be in danger of locking your knees on the downstroke, injuring yourself. Seems that seatpost length will be determined by correct heigh for your legs, and if the result is not stylish looking, then you'll just have to live with it. I would hope those guys you're referring to with a *foot* of seatpost showing have used the same rational to set up their own posts. Maybe you just happened to see a lot of guys with long legs or something.|
|19cm from saddle top to top tube!||Justride|
Dec 2, 2002 8:13 PM
|I tried to ask this same question once and nobody posted their measurement. I think there is a trend for people to ride smaller frames than they would have 15 years ago. One way to judge the sizing paradigm used is to measure the distance from top of top tube to saddle top. On my bike I have 19cm from saddle top to top tube. As far as giving a damn about the appearance police, I don't!|
|The guys with long seat posts are the same ones...||hayaku|
Dec 3, 2002 3:06 AM
|who write asking for advice on their aching backs. Either that of we ridicule them for having too many spacers.
Head tubes are too short and intergrated headsets don't help.
If you do want a lot of post showing though, get the SLR. It has a very small distance from the top of the saddle to the rails, meaning that you have to show more seat pillar.
Nothing is cooler than loving your bike no matter how it looks though.
|saddle 17cm above the top tube...||C-40|
Dec 3, 2002 6:16 AM
|My saddle is 17cm above the top tube on my C-40. This allows me to use a Ritchey WCS 84 degree stem with no spacers to yield a 9cm drop from the saddle to the top of the bars. I have about 4cm of standover clear, which is also plenty.
If your saddle in higher than this you must tolerate a larger saddle to bar height difference or use a high rise stem or a bunch of spacers.
|saddle 17cm above the top tube...||mainframe|
Dec 3, 2002 7:19 AM
|Is that 17cm to the top of the saddle or bottom of the saddle?|
|to the top.. (nm)||C-40|
Dec 3, 2002 9:10 AM
|to the top.. (nm)||mainframe|
Dec 3, 2002 12:38 PM
|saddle 17cm above the top tube...||werdna|
Dec 3, 2002 3:44 PM
|From the center of TT or top of the TT?
Dec 3, 2002 6:34 AM
|Works for me|| |