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

It'd be kinda nice if nsmb had up/down votes in the forums. While catching up on a thread it makes it easier to spot and ignore trolls.

Ok bringing it back to pedals. Here is a great example of two riders testing out the same Catalyst pedal and needing to adjust fit as a result in completely opposite ways:

Skyler reviewed them for Bikepacking.com here: https://bikepacking.com/gear/pedaling-innovations-catalyst-review/

Cycloscope review here (unsure of the author): https://cycloscope.net/catalyst-pedals-pedaling-innovation-review

Skyler suggested that the pedal necessitating its design intent of a mid foot pedalling position would logically result in a slacker effective seat angle and that it may be necessary on some bike to move the saddle forward. Ok makes sense…

Cycloscope suggested the exact opposite to the degree that the author installed a set back seat post to accommodate the fit change (and a longer stem). They described the issue as reducing reach, and they felt like they needed to increase the length of the bike…

Go figure.

That just reiterates the point the buying a vike that fits your body should be top of mind.

In the instructions I received with my catalyst pedals the designer of the pedals James Wilson suggests the need for the saddle to come down 2-3cm and forward. That said fit is a tricky elusive beast and I suspect most of us are less than optimized. No surprise two people landed on two different solutions. I wish there was more science and less expensive trial and error we all end up going through.

Posted by: geraldooka

Cycloscope review here (unsure of the author): https://cycloscope.net/catalyst-pedals-pedaling-innovation-review

Cycloscope suggested the exact opposite to the degree that the author installed a set back seat post to accommodate the fit change (and a longer stem). They described the issue as reducing reach, and they felt like they needed to increase the length of the bike…

Go figure.

I'm not sure this guy knows what he is talking about. He says that because kids pedal with their midfoot on pedals that is obviously the natural way we are meant to do it. Huh? My nephew eats by putting his whole fist in his mouth and half his food ends up on the floor, it doesn't mean this is the natural way to eat, its simply how little kids do it. I feel like a lot of people don't pedal very well. I used to think I was pretty good at pedalling before I got rollers. I'm always skeptical of who they are using in studies of pedalling efficiency. 

In any case, I know what I like, so who cares what some study says. It's interesting to see others who don't necessarily like being pitched forwards on their bikes.

Posted by: Ziggy

In the instructions I received with my catalyst pedals the designer of the pedals James Wilson suggests the need for the saddle to come down 2-3cm and forward. That said fit is a tricky elusive beast and I suspect most of us are less than optimized. No surprise two people landed on two different solutions. I wish there was more science and less expensive trial and error we all end up going through.

It makes sense that that would be the thing to do. Surprised it’s by that much something like that could for sure mitigate steeper angle issues.

Posted by: RAHrider

In any case, I know what I like, so who cares what some study says. It's interesting to see others who don't necessarily like being pitched forwards on their bikes.

Totally. Funny thing though, while I fully dislike super steep seat tube angles for my riding on the north shore and squamish, after spending a few days riding in whistler, I get why they exist. 

If I was local to whistler, I'd be either buying a switchgrade, or be looking at a steeper STA. 

The steep FSR climbs are a different beast yet again. The Doctahawk geo choices start to make more sense after a few rides in whistler.

Posted by: Kenny

Posted by: Endur-Bro

It's wild that I'm outta shape and my tech climb times are apparently faster on a G16 29er @ 175/170mm travel than with my Gen 1 Surface.

Have a look at hill climbing dirtbikes to see that long CS/RC result in a better climbing bike.  I'll wait for the haters to tell me mtn biking exists in an alternate universe where physics doesn't

Do you ride dirt bikes? Cuz it sounds like you don't. No offense. 

No hate, but it's totally different. With a dirt bike you have what is almost like unlimited, instant power literally at your fingertips, it doesn't get tired, you have tonnes of momentum, and spinning is a secondary concern.  You can apply that power INDEPENDENTLY of how you position your body. Your limiting factor is looping out, not power, not traction(not really anyways because you can just pin it and the tire will keep scratching, not like on a pedal bike where a spin out basically means say goodbye to all momentum), yeah you need to modulate the throttle, but yeah, totally different. 

I'm not saying it's not working for you, but the dirt bike comparison is just totally invalid, sorry.

Motor or not the principles will be the same. 

Let's look at sleds then; there's a reason that a 175x3 track sled climbs better than a 154x3 sled

Posted by: Endur-Bro

Motor or not the principles will be the same. 

No sorry. It's not a useful comparison to what we are talking about.

Posted by: geraldooka

Posted by: Ziggy

In the instructions I received with my catalyst pedals the designer of the pedals James Wilson suggests the need for the saddle to come down 2-3cm and forward. That said fit is a tricky elusive beast and I suspect most of us are less than optimized. No surprise two people landed on two different solutions. I wish there was more science and less expensive trial and error we all end up going through.

It makes sense that that would be the thing to do. Surprised it’s by that much something like that could for sure mitigate steeper angle issues.

I know- interesting. I got out some of my old notes from a professional fit back when I was clipped in and sure enough my saddle height was about 15mm higher and 10mm further back. My saddle position now is the same whether it’s the catalyst pedals or other flats. 

The biggest difference for me between regular flats and the catalysts is foot fatigue. I find that on regular flats my feet start getting tired at about the two hour mark and they don’t get tired no matter how long I ride with the catalysts. However there’s always a trade off- I have more foot dexterity with regular flats (easier to use feet for hopping, turning etc.). The other difference is I can apply a bit more low speed torque through the pedals with the catalysts but it’s minor.

Posted by: Ziggy

... I wish there was more science and less expensive trial and error we all end up going through.

Not sure about the science helping, science is always experiment based. And fit is pretty heavily individual and preference based anyhow. I've heard of some shops in places with loads of bikers having trial parts or try before you buy kind of deal on components like saddles and bars. Especially for parts that break the norm like super high rise bars or greater backswept bars for example. I mean I'm curious about both but not willing to spend new prices just to satisfy my curiosity on what's even money a waste. Being able to rent some for a few days would be awesome. I wish rental/trial programs for fitment parts were more common to make the trial/error less expensive.

I've got a box of handle bars. It's great to be able to try one out or lend one to a friend so they can see if it'll work for them before they buy. But ya that costs a few $$. That said being able to quickly make a bike feel better is priceless and often I'll try 2 or 3 bars before I find the perfect one for that specific bike and even then sometimes after 6-12 months I find a different bar works better. The few times I came across a bar that was never going to work for me I've been able to sell/trade it and get most of my $$ back out of it.

I look at it like having spare brake pads or tires in the garage...an upfront cost, but eventually everything gets used on a bike.

Posted by: Kenny

Posted by: RAHrider

In any case, I know what I like, so who cares what some study says. It's interesting to see others who don't necessarily like being pitched forwards on their bikes.

Totally. Funny thing though, while I fully dislike super steep seat tube angles for my riding on the north shore and squamish, after spending a few days riding in whistler, I get why they exist. 

If I was local to whistler, I'd be either buying a switchgrade, or be looking at a steeper STA. 

The steep FSR climbs are a different beast yet again. The Doctahawk geo choices start to make more sense after a few rides in whistler.

I live in Whistler so I know what your talking about. Not for me though. This morning I rode the steep parts of See Colours and Puke.  The grades are about 25 to 30% according to my Garmin. My Chameleon has a pretty slack sta as I have a 150 travel 36 on it. It’s claimed to be a 73 sta with a 130 fork I think. Powering up I tend to have my forearms parallel with the ground and I’ll move my hands over the brake lever clamp area if it’s just a grind and not technical. I’ve also increased the wheelbase to max on the adjustable drops outs. But I am short so I don’t have the long leg high seat height problem others do.  

The op wanted to know how to ride a super steep sa bike on paved flats. I think one needs a higher seated position to be balanced and not be leaning too hard on the bars. From a power production standpoint, too upright is not as good. If we imagine a 90° sa, the max weight one can al]poly is body weight. But if the sa is slack, a rider can push against the saddle a bit and get more power down. That’s why when riders are pushing hard on a steep climb they tend to pull straight back on bars with fore arms parallel to the ground and push over the top of the of the pedal rotation.

Posted by: andy-eunson

That’s why when riders are pushing hard on a steep climb they tend to pull straight back on bars with fore arms parallel to the ground and push over the top of the of the pedal rotation.

Yes, but you need to consider body position relative to the ground and gravity. The physics of riding on flat ground vs riding a steep pitch are quite different even though the bike's physical geometry has not changed. For this reason you can't consider one bike position or bike geometry to work the same over different types of terrain and it's also why you can't make A/B comparisons in terms of bike set-up over different types of terrain. IMHO this is also why people who climb to the top as part of the regular ride are better off optimizing their saddle/bar set-up for the climb as on the descent the most riders have the seat all the way down and are rarely, if ever, seated on it. Optimal set-up has to consider how biomechanics vary with the terrain and should be adjusted to favour the terrain that offers the least range of adjustability and causes potentially the most amount of discomfort or ineffective use. When you're descending the seat is out of the way and your weight is supported by the pedals and your body has a large amount of free movement over the bike. When you're climbing the seat is up, your body weight is supported primarily by the seat and you have far less free movement over the bike. 

The main reason you're pulling on the bars is to keep from pushing yourself off the back of the bike on the power stroke. Relative to the ground your body position and power stroke is more parallel to the ground than when you're pedaling on the flat and the power stroke is perpendicular to the ground. As soon as you stand up and lean forward that changes.