Door to trail riders - tell me how you've accommodated these crazy steep seat angles please

Posted by: Vikb

I'm tall with long legs and I don't want steep STAs or long CS. Currently I have to hunt around for a frame that works and what passes for "modern" or "cutting edge" isn't of interest. I think the innovation that will solve a lot of these problems is rapid custom-ish manufacturing along the lines of Robot/Atherton Bikes when it becomes more common/affordable. If we can select our geo criteria from a range of values and then a frame gets built quickly at a reasonable [what passes for reasonable in the MTB world anyways] without going the full custom route that will be great. Everyone can get what they want....more or less.

I like the way Kavenz does it. This is about as much customization as I would ever need.

https://77-store.com/en/Kavenz-VHP-16-MX/1003062.3

One nice side effect of the rapid rise in production FS frame costs is that it makes getting a custom steel FS frame a lot less expensive in relative terms. I'd like to try "Steel is Real Squishy" once in my MTB career. I'm getting more confident in my wishlist for geo/features which also makes pulling the trigger easier.

Fit and function is such a complex issue. More so with a mountainbike than a road bike. If a rider has their weight over the rear contact patch they will probably find that they are wiggling and moving forward the keep the front end down which is not efficient even if the seated position is where that rider can generate the best power. Simply angling the seat angle forward will help that significantly. But that’s not necessarily the most efficient position to make power. I do believe that steeper static seat tube angles than road bikes are better on a mountainbike  simply because we ride more upright on a mountainbike. I think a combination of steeper sta and longer chainstays as the size increases are the way to go. And I like adjustable drops of some sort to allow me to lengthen and shorten the rear centre. That adds cost. But so does having a different length rear triangle for each size. 

I think what’s happened as someone suggested earlier, is that as reach increased top tube lengths kind of remained the same and sta became steeper at the same time to accommodate rear wheel travel with bigger wheels especially. To me, manufacturers are trying to keep costs down to maintain a competitive price by making all rear triangles the same size. Not all of course and I see more manufacturers coming around to the reality that short rear centres aren’t what all people want. I don’t really get why many riders say they want slack long front ends for the stability and short stays for nimble qualities. 

I get why long front ends allow a rider to keep their weight more centred on less steep flow type trails. But on steeper trails that we "Shore" riders feed on where a rider moves their weight back vis a vis the front end to not go over the bars is different. With a super short rear I think that puts more weight over the rear and not enough on the front. Move the bb forward a bit, keep the wheelbase the same, and maybe that’s better? 

But to the original question, if a steep sta creates an uncomfortable position, you need to change something. I’m all about a balanced position where you don’t feel like your sliding forward or backwards on the seat and not leaning too hard on the bars. You should be able to take your hands off the bar while riding at a moderate pace and sit up without utilizing your core too much or pedalling quicker to maintain your position on the saddle.  If you can’t ride the saddle close to horizontal you have either a position issue or the wrong shaped seat. Or both. I’ve run saddles which were comfortable only tipped back. I think those saddles were too wide because I have since retired to some old narrower saddles which I can run pretty flat.

Posted by: andy-eunson

I think what’s happened as someone suggested earlier, is that as reach increased top tube lengths kind of remained the same and sta became steeper at the same time to accommodate rear wheel travel with bigger wheels especially. To me, manufacturers are trying to keep costs down to maintain a competitive price by making all rear triangles the same size. Not all of course and I see more manufacturers coming around to the reality that short rear centres aren’t what all people want. I don’t really get why many riders say they want slack long front ends for the stability and short stays for nimble qualities. 

Do you mean ETT? Cockpits haven't gotten that much bigger: we've just shifted the weight forward and you see that as ETT gets shorter while Reach gets longer. But slacker head tube angles and in some cases longer rear centers are making wheelbases longer. 

It's understandable that manufacturers want to simplify by sharing rear end assemblies across sizes but this doesn't work anymore. The idea of a flip chip seems the obvious solution to build in 10mm+ of adjustment on the same swingarm.

Posted by: craw

Posted by: andy-eunson

I think what’s happened as someone suggested earlier, is that as reach increased top tube lengths kind of remained the same and sta became steeper at the same time to accommodate rear wheel travel with bigger wheels especially. To me, manufacturers are trying to keep costs down to maintain a competitive price by making all rear triangles the same size. Not all of course and I see more manufacturers coming around to the reality that short rear centres aren’t what all people want. I don’t really get why many riders say they want slack long front ends for the stability and short stays for nimble qualities. 

Do you mean ETT? Cockpits haven't gotten that much bigger: we've just shifted the weight forward and you see that as ETT gets shorter while Reach gets longer. But slacker head tube angles and in some cases longer rear centers are making wheelbases longer. 

It's understandable that manufacturers want to simplify by sharing rear end assemblies across sizes but this doesn't work anymore. The idea of a flip chip seems the obvious solution to build in 10mm+ of adjustment on the same swingarm.

Yes.  Effective top tube. Being 5’4" I’m usually on a small or medium. So going by that sizing, increased reach with the same tt length means steeper sta. 5 or 6 years ago many went to a bigger bike to ride with a short stem. Then reach measurements became a thing and long reach was good, so more reach is more good. And steep sta is good so steeper is gooder. And short stays because playful or some other overused silly word. 

I do believe that a mountain bike should have a steeper sta than road because of the more upright position. And full suspension usually squats enough that a steeper angle is better there. But on a hardtail super steep doesn’t make as much sense. I would also like to see sagged angles provided too.

I am usually right in the middle of medium sizing at 5'8", I tried a large yeti and it definatly felt long but then when I got the Medium it was perfect and now same with the SC so i think being in the middle of the size and especaily being medium is a good thing for me

I have always read that a seat should be flat so thats how i adjusted my CAAD7 road bike from new but it never really felt that good so I raised the nose like I always did which I thot felt better.

Then I was riding with my neighbor the now retired world class road coach so i mentioned to her what I did with the seat and she said " yeah your position on the bike looks better that way " and she would have looked at a few asses on bikes

but i still think everyone is different and so the nose high/ seat slammed forward works for me on endruo/ road/ touring

edit : it doesnt  matter which bike its all about the seat position for me

Posted by: craw

Posted by: andy-eunson

To me, manufacturers are trying to keep costs down to maintain a competitive price by making all rear triangles the same size. 

It's understandable that manufacturers want to simplify by sharing rear end assemblies across sizes but this doesn't work anymore. 

I think most manufacturers offering RC's that grow with size still use the same rear end. They are just attached at different positions relative to the bb

Hi

I had some misgivings about a steep seat angle but got used to it pretty fast. 

Generally that kind of bike is made more for standing / leaning the bike under you on trails, rather than steering through whilst seated IMO. 

I’ve been on a 79 degree seat tube (Chris Porter / Mojo-Rising / Geometron Bikes geometry) for 7 years now and not looked back. It’s part of making a long reach, long chainstay, low BB slack bike handle right.

I even slide the (Specialized Power) seat right forward on the rails. 

For sure you get some weight on the bars (which does wonders for front end grip) and therefore pressure on the wrists hands. 

Maybe this geometry is better suited to more dynamic mtb rides rather than long tours/cruises. To be fair tho, triathletes do distance well on very forward seats. 

Maybe it’s partly a body issue. Many of us have spent our lives seated resulting in weak posterior chains. 

I’d look at Dr. Eric Goodman’s “Foundation Training” YouTube videos - to strengthen the posterior chain. It happens quite quickly - seems more like awakening the muscles than strengthening, almost. 

Just my 2p

Hope it helps.

Triathletes rest their weight on their forearms. Tri bikes are notoriously uncomfortable to ride off the aerobars. Not to mention, the pedalling position is also notoriously problematic for numb nuts etc and triathletes use all types of weird seats to relieve pressure. Not to mention, triathletes are known to embrace all sorts of weird equipment and training methods no one else would. 

I do agree that modern geo is suited to a specific type of riding. Up then down.  I also think it is suited to a less dynamic style of riding. Staying seated and staying in the middle of the bike. I have no problem climbing anything on a 73 deg seat tube. My power output standing is easily 30-40% higher than seated but you need fitness to do that. Modern geo is all about staying seated and grinding up - it makes that style of riding much easier. But most will tell you that maintaining traction out of the saddle is harder. Modern geo rewards a rider who stays put in the middle of their bike. It is fast but definitely less dynamic. If you look at the advances in geo and bike gearing it's all about keeping you seated and making that position as easy as possible. It doesn't reward people who want to jib or quickly change lines or manual. There are definite advantages to modern geo but it isn't for everyone.

I don’t actually have misgivings about any geometry. I understand and appreciate the benefits of a more forward seat and actually didn’t have an issue with the 0” nose to BB setback one I had made on my hardtail. Not until I decided I preferred riding from the house instead of packing it onto the car and driving the bike to the trails. Even if the seat angle wasn’t a benefit on trail (which it is) I can tolerate less than perfect ergonomics for a 3 hour trail ride. It’s an entirely different experience when I’m on a bike all day (like bikepacking) or half that ride is flat bike path. 

I’d argue that the reason the extreme examples of geo out there like Pole, Geometron etc are liked is because they are being ridden only in those situations where they are being hauled to a trail head or even hoisted to the top of a trail by vehicle or lift. No one is bikepacking 100km a day on Chris Porters Geometron setup or riding it to the trail head from the house unless that ride is very short. Now put some aero bars on the Geometron and that could be a different story… ;-)

Speaking to the research about seat angles that suggest steeper is better, the subject of an NSMB article a while back I just don’t see the connection to recreational mtb riding. The studies that had the most well documented scientific method had athletes (first problem) giving all out efforts higher than 90rpm (second problem) with zero consideration for comfort (you get the idea). That research applies to a tiny fraction of mountain bikers if at all given the unique circumstances of the types of cyclists in these studies.

Posted by: RAHrider

Triathletes rest their weight on their forearms. Tri bikes are notoriously uncomfortable to ride off the aerobars. Not to mention, the pedalling position is also notoriously problematic for numb nuts etc and triathletes use all types of weird seats to relieve pressure. Not to mention, triathletes are known to embrace all sorts of weird equipment and training methods no one else would. 

I do agree that modern geo is suited to a specific type of riding. Up then down.  I also think it is suited to a less dynamic style of riding. Staying seated and staying in the middle of the bike. I have no problem climbing anything on a 73 deg seat tube. My power output standing is easily 30-40% higher than seated but you need fitness to do that. Modern geo is all about staying seated and grinding up - it makes that style of riding much easier. But most will tell you that maintaining traction out of the saddle is harder. Modern geo rewards a rider who stays put in the middle of their bike. It is fast but definitely less dynamic. If you look at the advances in geo and bike gearing it's all about keeping you seated and making that position as easy as possible. It doesn't reward people who want to jib or quickly change lines or manual. There are definite advantages to modern geo but it isn't for everyone.

This is why I tend to think that slightly less modern geo bike (say 4-8yrs old) with an angleset could protentially be a better riding bike than the current geo trends. Ultimately it comes down to the type of riding you primarily do and finding a bike that works well for that with compromises in other areas that are less important. For a ride to the trails scenario imho it makes sense to "suffer" a little on the ride to the trails in order to have a bike that works well for the trails.

Posted by: geraldooka

Speaking to the research about seat angles that suggest steeper is better, the subject of an NSMB article a while back I just don’t see the connection to recreational mtb riding. The studies that had the most well documented scientific method had athletes (first problem) giving all out efforts higher than 90rpm (second problem) with zero consideration for comfort (you get the idea). That research applies to a tiny fraction of mountain bikers if at all given the unique circumstances of the types of cyclists in these studies.

The thing with seat tube angles too is that they are only one part of a bigger equation. They have to be factored in with things like CS and HT lengths, stack and HT angle as well as bar and stem measurements. You could easily have two different bikes with the same STA ans similar suspension measurements that ride and feel very differently due to all the other numbers. Maybe NSMB could do an article on "How to buy a bike" that takes these factors and things like type of bike, terrain and style of riding to help people figure out what a good bike for them would be. It ideally would go well beyond the XC/FR/DH type of designations to really help people understand what might be a good bike for them and most importantly why. Just as long as there are none of those silly fully rigid single speed bikes in there. Unicycles would be ok tho ;)

Posted by: syncro

For a ride to the trails scenario imho it makes sense to "suffer" a little on the ride to the trails in order to have a bike that works well for the trails.

I'm really happy that at least for my own personal situation there is no compromise between riding to the trails comfort and on trail performance.

Yeah, for some folks it works and for some there needs to be some compromises. There are just so many factors to consider that there really isn't a one bike fits everyone scenario.