That photo looks like a near perfect seat angle for someone who is spending a good proportion of their ride time climbing 8-17º trails (welcome to the Sea to Sky), add the slackening effect of sag on an FS and the saddle ends up properly supporting the sit bones during seated pedalling whilst climbing. My thumb suck non-scientific guess-timation method is approx 1º of nose down (on a level bike) for every 3-5º of average (long) climb angle - this accounts for different physiology. To be honest I see so many poorly set up bikes that just getting the saddle properly level would benefit most riders before they start whining about STA.
The point about HT STA is bang on however the STA of the early 90's were based on 'truths' that we pulled across from road cycling that were actually not 'true' for how we move about when mountain biking. The more current trend to have the cleat more under the front of the arch rather than centred on the ball of the foot (or even further forward -ouch) is the first contact point change that would move one to a slightly steeper seat angle (even on a hard tail).
Oddly mentioned that a steeper STA requires a longer effective seat tube length as in my experience the steeper STA generally leads to a slightly shorter effective seat tube length. For example I run my Optic (76º STA) at 798 mm and my Sight (78º STA) at 795 mm. Same seat post (AXS Reverb) and saddle stack height (SQ-Lab 611 Active 13cm). I have to have the rails slightly further forward on the Optic to get a better seated pedalling position (more naturally comfortable - subjective and more watts for the same heart rate - objective) whereas the Sight can be run centred.
And yes I am one of those people that can feel 5 mm in the chain stay, 2 mm in saddle height and 1 psi in the tyres - I annoy even myself (but at least I do my pre-ride pfaff-ing at home before I meet up for a ride).
And don't even get me started on bike noise!
Oct. 9, 2022, 7:32 a.m. - AndrewR
That photo looks like a near perfect seat angle for someone who is spending a good proportion of their ride time climbing 8-17º trails (welcome to the Sea to Sky), add the slackening effect of sag on an FS and the saddle ends up properly supporting the sit bones during seated pedalling whilst climbing. My thumb suck non-scientific guess-timation method is approx 1º of nose down (on a level bike) for every 3-5º of average (long) climb angle - this accounts for different physiology. To be honest I see so many poorly set up bikes that just getting the saddle properly level would benefit most riders before they start whining about STA. The point about HT STA is bang on however the STA of the early 90's were based on 'truths' that we pulled across from road cycling that were actually not 'true' for how we move about when mountain biking. The more current trend to have the cleat more under the front of the arch rather than centred on the ball of the foot (or even further forward -ouch) is the first contact point change that would move one to a slightly steeper seat angle (even on a hard tail). Oddly mentioned that a steeper STA requires a longer effective seat tube length as in my experience the steeper STA generally leads to a slightly shorter effective seat tube length. For example I run my Optic (76º STA) at 798 mm and my Sight (78º STA) at 795 mm. Same seat post (AXS Reverb) and saddle stack height (SQ-Lab 611 Active 13cm). I have to have the rails slightly further forward on the Optic to get a better seated pedalling position (more naturally comfortable - subjective and more watts for the same heart rate - objective) whereas the Sight can be run centred. And yes I am one of those people that can feel 5 mm in the chain stay, 2 mm in saddle height and 1 psi in the tyres - I annoy even myself (but at least I do my pre-ride pfaff-ing at home before I meet up for a ride). And don't even get me started on bike noise!