|Seat tube angle affecting climbing efficiency.||hayaku|
Nov 17, 2002 4:50 PM
|I have heard that a shallow seat tube angle is good for climbing. Why is that?
I am putting together the "Ultimate race bike" on a budget and have found a nice carbon seat post for a good price. The post doesn't have any setback though so I'm a little worried that I wont be able to get my saddle far enough back, and waste energy while climbing.
|Other things more important||Kerry|
Nov 17, 2002 6:19 PM
|Like a stiff rear triangle and BB, plus light weight. Many people find that they want to slide back on the saddle to climb, thus engaging different muscles at the lower cadences typically used in climbing. Lance may have a different view at 90 rpm. Generally, unless you are doing mountain time trials, you should get your position right for "all" riding, which typically means it should be right on the flats first. When you're climbing, you often stand, and are all over the bike to deal with changes in pitch and your own muscle fatigue, so position is less an issue than for regular riding. If the lack of set back doesn't work on the flats, the post is not a good deal.|
|re: Seat tube angle affecting climbing efficiency.||allervite|
Nov 20, 2002 12:32 PM
|You are correct that a slack seat tube is preferred by a lot of climbers. The reason for this is that you are supposed to be able to generate more power in this position (I find this works for me). However, as you slide your seat back, you sacrifice efficiency. You can test this for yourself by slididng your seat forward and spinning the pedals as fast as you can, then slide the seat back and try again. I can spin much faster in the forward position. So you'll have to as the other poster said and find a good compromise.
If your frame is the right size, your no-setback seat post should work fine. There should be plenty of room on the rails of your saddle to slide it back even farther than you would want to go.