Posted by: Sethsg
Anyone know of any good mtb trails near Arrow Lake and Nakusp, BC? Going to be going on a vacation to a cabin by Arrow Lake and wondering if it would be worth taking my bike. (Sorry for the random interjection in the discussion)
Can't comment on how good they are:
Posted by: eriksg
On saddle heights, I typically see the opposite. People of all ages riding around with saddles far too low for good pedaling, presumably so they can touch the ground without getting off the saddle.
I understand the draw for someone who isn't so comfortable starting and stopping, or just doing a trackstand . . . I just can't imagine trying to ride like that for any period of time.
0.883 is my starting point http://veloptimum.net/Velop/documents/1-choisir/RBR15juil10.htm (as the Lemond method). I can't believe saddle height isn't more of a topic in mtb. We obsess about reach to the millimeter but have no idea what our pedalling seat height is.
I've recently switched back to flats after a long stint on clips and have noticed my seat height is about 1/4" to high*. The fact I haven't dropped my seat is another matter.
* I do my seat height in inches.
Posted by: fartymarty
We obsess about reach to the millimeter but have no idea what our pedalling seat height is.
I think it's really funny when people are so focused on Reach and don't mention Stack. You literally can't know what the Reach number means if you don't also know what the Stack on that bike is. When it comes to saddle height one thing I have learned is I have a max and min saddle height. Not only do I not want the saddle too high for obvious reasons, but I don't want the max drop of my dropper to set the saddle too low. With the new crop of internally adjustable "travel" droppers this isn't too big a concern though.
Vik - For me there are a lot of things that feed into bar height (stack) as it relates to front wheel grip. As such a simple number doesn't work due to all the factors involved - terrain steepness, rider position, pedal type*, tyre size and type, fork setting, bar roll, bar rise, etc... * clips allow you to roll your feet forward resulting in more weight on the front wheel cf flats which need a heels down riding style.
Posted by: eriksg
On saddle heights, I typically see the opposite. People of all ages riding around with saddles far too low for good pedaling, presumably so they can touch the ground without getting off the saddle.
That's my experience as well.
Personally I'm super sensitive to saddle height due to a damaged left knee. If my saddle height is off by a few mm the knee injury flares up.
To determine saddle height I use exactly the method that Andrew describes in his blog post (although I think with 30-35 degrees knee bent he probably meant 145-150 degrees?). Any change (new saddle, new shoes, etc.) I redo it.
Since starting yoga 7 years ago I've also been gaining flexibility and have had to adjust my saddle height for it a few times.
Posted by: fartymarty
Vik - For me there are a lot of things that feed into bar height (stack) as it relates to front wheel grip. As such a simple number doesn't work due to all the factors involved - terrain steepness, rider position, pedal type*, tyre size and type, fork setting, bar roll, bar rise, etc... * clips allow you to roll your feet forward resulting in more weight on the front wheel cf flats which need a heels down riding style.
I agree with the above ^^^, but my comment was about the fact geo chart Reach is defined by the Stack of the frame [ie. top of HT]. So you can say I like Reach 465mm, but that's meaningless without stating what Stack goes with that. Two bikes with the same Reach and significantly different Stack values can be a whole frame size apart. Hence people getting fixated on Reach alone is silly.
Posted by: [email protected]
To determine saddle height I use exactly the method that Andrew describes in his blog post (although I think with 30-35 degrees knee bent he probably meant 145-150 degrees?). Any change (new saddle, new shoes, etc.) I redo it.
No, I very clearly meant 30-35°. It's the angle between a straight line drawn through your femur and where it bisects with your tib-fib at the 6 o'clock pedal position. It's not going to make any difference if you'd prefer to measure the larger inside angle (180°-145° = 35°) but the fit systems I've used at work have always relied on the first measurement.
-----
I find the fastest way to ballpark a new mountain bike is to adjust the saddle for a full extension (straight leg / no knee bend) with the rider's heel on the pedal at bottom dead center (inline with the actual seat tube angle from the BB). I've been setting up new bikes for test rides and sales for riders for twenty years now using this method and it consistently delivers usable results.
Posted by: eriksg
On saddle heights, I typically see the opposite. People of all ages riding around with saddles far too low for good pedaling, presumably so they can touch the ground without getting off the saddle.
I understand the draw for someone who isn't so comfortable starting and stopping, or just doing a trackstand . . . I just can't imagine trying to ride like that for any period of time.
I don't disagree with your observation if we're talking about road and commuter bikes (even on high-end road bikes I often see riders with saddles much too low).
I'm surprised if that's your observation of folks riding dropper posts. I can't go for a ride, or a couple of days in the shop, without seeing setups where the dropper post is slammed to the seal-head and clearly extends too long for any range of optimum pedaling height.
I rarely see riders with dropper posts where their climbing height is on the too-low side of the optimum window for most cyclists.
Posted by: fartymarty
I can't believe saddle height isn't more of a topic in mtb. We obsess about reach to the millimeter but have no idea what our pedalling seat height is.
Handlebar width is the one that really shocks me. Especially for riders like myself who went to wider-than-optimal handlebars to work around issues with bike geometry (steep HTA / short Reach / low Stack). But I like to go back to this Richard Cunningham quote:
"To set the record straight, personal preference is reason enough to defend your favorite width. I'm not going to dictate which bar you should ride." (I used it here)
The fact is the 'right' saddle height range, even on a road bike with all the geometry static, ranges wildly. On a mountain bike with sag, geometry optimized (steeper or slacker STA) for different terrain or to accommodate different frame features (tire clearance, chain stay length) and then flats v. clip-in pedals and where a rider's foot interfaces with the pedals the optimum height is wild. Even whether a rider drops their heels or rides more toe-down can make a notable difference in height.
And that number, saddle height, is one of the few variables of mountain bike fit that's infinitely adjustable (at least in one direction) so it doesn't really play into most folks purchasing decisions like getting the right Reach/Stack ratio does. Even then between headset spacers and some 3"+ of variable bar rise just in production handlebar options plus stem length, there is a lot more tune-ability than I think most folks consider. Reach is just a simple number to shop.
Strong agree on personal preference weighing more heavily than a lot of people want to admit.
Heck, I find I use different saddle heights across many of my bikes depending (mostly?) on usage. My "gravel" bike has a slightly lower saddle height than my road bike, which is different from the fixed gear, which is different from the etc etc etc. And that puts aside the difference in height between different varieties of pedal/shoe systems.
My general rule is this: I don't comment on people's saddle height- or, for the most part, their riding position- unless I am specifically asked about it. If they're out enjoying themselves riding, I will not, under any circumstances, be the cyclist that starts giving unsolicited advice on the very personal choices they've made on their bike.
Posted by: AndrewMajor
Posted by: [email protected]
To determine saddle height I use exactly the method that Andrew describes in his blog post (although I think with 30-35 degrees knee bent he probably meant 145-150 degrees?). Any change (new saddle, new shoes, etc.) I redo it.
No, I very clearly meant 30-35°. It's the angle between a straight line drawn through your femur and where it bisects with your tib-fib at the 6 o'clock pedal position. It's not going to make any difference if you'd prefer to measure the larger inside angle (180°-145° = 35°) but the fit systems I've used at work have always relied on the first measurement.
Yes we mean the exact same thing but measured from opposite sides so to speak. I can see yours makes more sense when I think about it, mine is just how I've thought about it intuitively until now.
Carry on ;-)
1. Anybody else notice that a flat pedal rigid fatbike seems to enforce good technique, but not in a try to kill you kind of way? As in it doesn't really turn without weighting the front and leaning the bike first, but corners aggressively when you do, bit of bounciness with the flats strongly encourages heels down, and the rigid fork plus bounce reminds you to consider you lines when you do something dumb. I feel like I improve every time I ride the fatty, then get sloppy and lazy after spending time clipped in with suspension.
2. The fatbike market needs a good tire insert, take some of the fear of bike damage out of drops or coming up short on a jump.
3. Nobody mentioning that tire in the "Free doesn't mean value" post? As a guy who came to MTB as a cheaper alternative to race cars, that's a lot worse than worn out. Yes alignment was off, and it looks chronically under inflated too, but that big flat spot doesn't occur without a tire lockup. Either ABS no longer works, or somebody has been doing handbrake turns.
Posted by: nothingfuture
My general rule is this: I don't comment on people's saddle height- or, for the most part, their riding position- unless I am specifically asked about it. If they're out enjoying themselves riding, I will not, under any circumstances, be the cyclist that starts giving unsolicited advice on the very personal choices they've made on their bike.
That's ^^ a good approach. I follow that as well. If someone is riding strong and having fun. I don't care what their bike/gear/clothing/technique choices are. If someone asks and wants to get into the nitty gritty we can grab a post-ride beer and split atoms about bike geek details for hours. If someone is struggling and/or uncomfortable/injured due to easily fixable issues I'll broach the subject unasked, but I'll also STFU if they don't welcome the discussion.
Posted by: nothingfuture
My general rule is this: I don't comment on people's saddle height- or, for the most part, their riding position- unless I am specifically asked about it. If they're out enjoying themselves riding, I will not, under any circumstances, be the cyclist that starts giving unsolicited advice on the very personal choices they've made on their bike.
Agreed when it concerns strangers. But with friends I do try to cautiously slip in some comment if I think it may help them.
Posted by: nothingfuture
Strong agree on personal preference weighing more heavily than a lot of people want to admit.
Heck, I find I use different saddle heights across many of my bikes depending (mostly?) on usage. My "gravel" bike has a slightly lower saddle height than my road bike, which is different from the fixed gear, which is different from the etc etc etc. And that puts aside the difference in height between different varieties of pedal/shoe systems.
My general rule is this: I don't comment on people's saddle height- or, for the most part, their riding position- unless I am specifically asked about it. If they're out enjoying themselves riding, I will not, under any circumstances, be the cyclist that starts giving unsolicited advice on the very personal choices they've made on their bike.
My concern (hence the article) isn’t saddles that are too low or even a bit too high versus an optimal range (that even the world’s most experienced road bike fitters don’t agree on). There’s personal preference, there’s just blissfully riding a bike not knowing what you don’t know.
[aside] I run wildly different fits (bar height relative the ground, effective top tube, etc) so I also don’t have a specific pedal to saddle number I run on all my bikes. [/aside]
My concern is folks who’ve slammed their dropper as far as it will go (max insertion or bottomed at seal) and are beyond straight legged at full extension. That’s not sub-optimal or personal preference that’s potentially causing injury. It’s also a free fix, just don’t run the saddle fully extended. I don’t know, in a one-on-one situation (not trying to embarrass or old-man-splain to anyone) I feel I have a bit of a duty of care to say something?
No different than the multiple loose lock-on grips I spot on the trail every year. Gotta say something.
Posted by: Vikb
If someone is struggling and/or uncomfortable/injured due to easily fixable issues I'll broach the subject unasked, but I'll also STFU if they don't welcome the discussion.
This is me.
Posted by: Vikb
I agree with the above ^^^, but my comment was about the fact geo chart Reach is defined by the Stack of the frame [ie. top of HT]. So you can say I like Reach 465mm, but that's meaningless without stating what Stack goes with that. Two bikes with the same Reach and significantly different Stack values can be a whole frame size apart. Hence people getting fixated on Reach alone is silly.
I agree with this 100%. Reach and stack drive me up the wall. Not only are they meaningless alone, they are non-trivial to measure so who knows what we’re actually being sold.
The Knolly reviews on Pinkbike recently were a good case study of this problem. The short stacks/headtubes seemed to boggle the reviewers.
I did like how Mike Ferrentino used wheelbase to compare different bikes in his Element review.
Forum jump:
