wishiwereriding profile

Steep works really well for mountain bikes and mountain biking, because they let you climb better. They also let you get the saddle out of the way for the downhill parts. These are all things that benefit us. However, I think that if you do a lot of non-vertical riding there will be a limit to how steep you (could be different for everyone) should go, because on flat ground you can still end up with your weight balance and body angles not being as comfortable or useful.

The faster you want to go on flat ground, then I think the slacker you want your STA to be so you can be more aero and have less weight on your hands and upper body muscles by stretching out. Riding this way you can cover more ground at a better pace because you are more comfortable. But then again, if you are ride your road mostly up mountains, a steeper STA might help. But unless you have a dropper post on your road/gravel bike, you may not like the position going down.

I can get a lot of power from behind the BB unlike some people here feel, but I think that is only the case if I have the right reach to the bars. Peak power comes from using the whole body and if the reach is wrong (likely wrong if it is too long) then you won't feel as powerful.

If someone was interested in the 611, would you steer them towards the basic non-elastomer one, or the "active" one with or without elastomers? (I like your idea of not even using one.) I'm on Deva's and a Koda now, so your preferences are usually great for me as well. I assume you use 14cm versions of your saddles given your other preferences right?

IMO it's all about where your center of gravity needs to be. Different bikes and disciplines may require different geo's based on their intended purposes.

I've no spent almost 2 years on my road+ bike, and now realize it doesn't fit as well as I'd like it to. I would prefer a 72* STA on my road or gravel bikes. With my seat this far back my hands will require a lot less weight on them because I'm more balanced.

On my mountain bike, because I don't care about aerodynamics I think 74+ would be fine because I do a lot of climbing, and the steeper STA's make climbing easier. I have a Giant Trance with 74.5 STA and 66.5 HTA. It has normal reach, and I find this bike very comfortable for trail riding. (I only rarely ride your kind of stuff.)

However, learning where in space to place your controls is the part that doesn't have enough info. In the case of the mountain bike (trail) adding additional length to the reach is probably not the answer, because that pulls your weight forward onto your hands. Your controls should be in a place that provides power, but doesn't overly cause you to use your hands and other upper body muscles to keep yourself upright.

You center yourself over the BB with your feet. Reach's that are too long could potentially pull you forward too much, move your weight forward of the BB, and maybe make you uncomfortable with hand or muscles issues keeping yourself upright.

or race, religion, sexual preference.

I personally wish I hadn't read this. It's an April 1st kind of post at best. I'm disappointed, but nobody has to care.

I, too, thought that was a hilarious slam on the tire. But it perked my interest as I have been thinking about actually trying one of them. Maybe now I shouldn't...

Does anyone who mostly doesn't use a chamois, do you prefer saddle that are a little softer? A little wider? I rode 25 miles on the road bike yesterday without pad and with WTB Silverado. I think narrow is better, but probably only for me on road bikes. But the saddle feels a little harder without the pad, and I kinda wonder if a softer saddle would help. In the past I fully bought into the soft saddles are worse (due to more soft tissue compression), but maybe that's something to revisit?

The other issue about all this is the expense. Because I've spend a lot on money on bibs already. Spent a lot of money on saddles too. Now I want fancy undies. And I'm still not sure what saddle I should be one, because I'm not sure I've ever stumbled onto the perfect combo of saddle/clothing/ass yet. LOL

Sucks that they are all sold out of all sizes but small!

I like the sound of those and that they are wool. They do have seams though, that look like they would hit where the saddle and body interface with each other. Those are the best I've seen though.

With bibs, I often find that I get rubbed the wrong way in the crotch. Specifically at the top of the inner leg. I guess that's what I'm calling the crotch. When I rode with some fitted boxers like the ones we are all talking about, I found that the seams effected closer to my sit bones. If I had ridden longer, it might have been a problem. However, it wasn't as bad as getting a blister at the top of my inner leg/taint/ball area.

I want to see the seams not in the crotch, as that is a main contact point when sitting on a saddle. I also don't like the seams coming under the cheeks. But the seams on the outside of the cheeks seems fine. I guess my question for garment makers like this is why not have the seems on the outside of the leg? I'd even entertain less structure in the front if that meant it was easier to put seams out of the areas that would cause saddle and pedaling conflicts.