# Road Bikes With Steep Seat Tube Angles???



## luv2bike (Oct 26, 2009)

Hi,

Due to my short femur challanged physique, I need a bike with a steep seat tube angle in a large (58cm) size. Most manufacturers tend to reduce the STA as they go up in size. I would appreciate suggestions for carbon bikes that have steeper than normal seat tubes.

Thanks


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

A zero-setback seatpost won't help enough? That's the equivalent of about a degree-and-a-half steeper STA right there.
.


----------



## luv2bike (Oct 26, 2009)

Hi
Zero offset posts help of course but my ideal STA is about 75.5 deg. If I have a frame with say a 74 deg STA and a 56 TT, by the time I jam the seat all the way forward on a zero offset post the top tube ends up to short and I have to use stems like 140mm long. This does not do the comfort factor much good either as the saddle rails don't flex well when the saddle is jammed forward.
Ideally, I could use a 75.5 STA with a 57 TT. I have even tried converting tri bikes to road configuration but then they handle like schite.


----------



## rcnute (Dec 21, 2004)

Gunnar Roadie?


----------



## cdhbrad (Feb 18, 2003)

You mention wanting "carbon" but that may be tough to find since, as you are seeing, the larger the frame, the lesser the STA. Have you considered a custom steel frame? I had one built last summer from Columbus Spirit and, when built up, it only weighed a few ounces more than the carbon framed bike on which the builder patterned the geometry. Plenty of options to consider if you can live without the carbon frame.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

If you want to keep costs reasonable, go with custom steel, or aluminum and you should be good to go. My custom aluminum Tsunami should be here in a week or two.

For me I need a 74 degree STA with a 57cm top tube and a short head tube (13.5cm - 14cm total stack height) and the only way to achieve this was with a custom frame.

On the plus side, a nice custom steel frame will cost less than most carbon frames...and may give you better name recognition/style points than a carbon frame. If you are hoping for magical ride qualities of Carbon...they are a myth. Any good builder can make a bike ride as well or better than carbon frames. My current frame is carbon and I can make it ride like a brick or a dream based on how much air I have in the tires.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

luv2bike said:


> Hi
> Zero offset posts help of course but my ideal STA is about 75.5 deg. If I have a frame with say a 74 deg STA and a 56 TT, by the time I jam the seat all the way forward on a zero offset post the top tube ends up to short and I have to use stems like 140mm long. This does not do the comfort factor much good either as the saddle rails don't flex well when the saddle is jammed forward.
> 
> Ideally, I could use a 75.5 STA with a 57 TT. I have even tried converting tri bikes to road configuration but then they handle like schite.


I think you're kinda stuck then... it's going to be extremely difficult to find a production road bike in your fairly big size (58cm) that has a STA that steep (maybe some track bikes do?).

I'm guessing that you'll either have to go custom, or do a variation on the 'compact' trick... get a production roadie that's one size too big but has a sloping top tube so that you still have standover. That gets you the longer top tube you say you need. Pair that with a zero setback seatpost, and perhaps some longer-reach handlebars. Your stem won't be super-long in that case. Sure, your saddle rails won't flex much, but comfort is more about good tire and tire pressure choices anyway.

Thing is, we're then talking a 60cm with about a 74 degree STA. That isn't easy to find either, but it's probably easier than 75.5 STA in a 58... occasionally you find an unimaginative bike maker who just gives all sizes a 74 degree STA.

I don't envy you your fit issues. 
.


----------



## pdh777 (Oct 7, 2005)

Gunnar, as mentioned above - they make custom for about a $300.00 upcharge


----------



## luv2bike (Oct 26, 2009)

Thanks all for the suggestions.
I was hoping to avoid the custom route due to distance and border issues. I'm in Ontario,Canada.
I did visit one custom guy here, True North Cycle, but was a little put off by what I thought was non existant customer service.
Have any of you done the custom bike thing without actually visiting the manufacturer?

@ cdhbrad - Can you let me know who built your Columbus frame for you?

@ wookiebiker - always reading stories of aluminum being harsh riding. Would appreciate you elaborating on why you went with it for a frame material.

Thanks again for the suggestions. Will check out the Gunnar.


----------



## David Kirk (Mar 6, 2005)

What are you basing your seat angle need on? Are you trying to get into a KOPS position or has experience shown you that this steep angle works best for you? What are you riding now and why change?

dave


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*don't agree...*

Short femurs do not necessarily dictate the need for a steep STA. The idea that KOP is some sort of must-have position has been largely discredited. If fact, it can be the cause of many fitting problems.

Claims of pwer lost from using a more rearward position are most often the result of just needing time for the legs to adapt to the position. You don't see the pros riding with far-forward saddle positions.

http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/kops.html


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

luv2bike said:


> Have any of you done the custom bike thing without actually visiting the manufacturer?


I have ordered a custom frame without visiting the manufacturer....It's not a big deal as long as you are comfortable with the builder. The results for me were great, but as I got into racing the bike no longer fit my needs so I sold it for bikes that fit my needs better.

Now that I'm racing much more, I want a bike that fits better...hence going custom again. As with my first experience I won't be visiting the manufacturer either, but feel I will get a great product.



> @ wookiebiker - always reading stories of aluminum being harsh riding. Would appreciate you elaborating on why you went with it for a frame material.


Aluminum can be harsh, but it's somewhat of a myth that's left over from the 90's when they built large tube frames as stiff as possible. The reality is an aluminum frame can be built to ride as well as any other frame material...it's all in the tube diameters, lengths, angles, etc. 

Bottom line....If the bike fits really well, it's going to be comfortable. If you want a bit more comfort go with 25c tires and 5 - 10 PSI less in your tires and you will be amazed at the ride.


----------



## cdhbrad (Feb 18, 2003)

@ cdhbrad - Can you let me know who built your Columbus frame 

Carl Strong, also check your PM.


----------



## ewitz (Sep 11, 2002)

Cervelo S1 with the dual position seatpost has a 76 STA without going custom.


----------



## luv2bike (Oct 26, 2009)

Over the last 3 years I have had 3 fits done all using different "systems". I know this is excessive but I kept wondering why I could never get comfortable on a "normal" bike. As far as I know none of them used KOP as a basis. Mostly body position, limb angles, power output etc.
Anyway, they all came to the same conclusion, within .5 deg of 75.5 for STA.

@C-40 - I understand your comment but, if using power output as a measure why when the pros ride time trials are they all as far forward as possible, even to the point of manufacturers creating "shorter" saddles so that they can get even further over the bottom bracket? I think that road bike geo. is a compromise between power output, comfort, ability to climb, etc. Also, may of those guys are pretty short, under 5'9" and fit on bikes with a lot steeper seat tubes than someone like me at 6'1".


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

luv2bike said:


> Over the last 3 years I have had 3 fits done all using different "systems". I know this is excessive but I kept wondering why I could never get comfortable on a "normal" bike. As far as I know none of them used KOP as a basis. Mostly body position, limb angles, power output etc.
> Anyway, they all came to the same conclusion, within .5 deg of 75.5 for STA.
> 
> @C-40 - I understand your comment but, if using power output as a measure why when the pros ride time trials are they all as far forward as possible, even to the point of manufacturers creating "shorter" saddles so that they can get even further over the bottom bracket? I think that road bike geo. is a compromise between power output, comfort, ability to climb, etc. Also, may of those guys are pretty short, under 5'9" and fit on bikes with a lot steeper seat tubes than someone like me at 6'1".


The thing missed by many with the pro's is they "Tend" to have very long limbs, which allows them to use laid back STA's compared to the average person. Nobody should ever compare normal riders and their positions to that of the pros because their bodies tend to be much different than the average rider.

Like you....I'm the anti-pro when it comes to body build, so steeper STA's are the norm for me. I also tend to gravitate more toward Time Trialing and sprinting where the steeper STA works much better for me.

In the end, go with what works for you...and it sounds like you have already found that through fittings you have had done. The Internet is a great place for information, but take it for what it's worth (i.e. what you paid for it  )


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

luv2bike said:


> @C-40 - I understand your comment but, if using power output as a measure why when the pros ride time trials are they all as far forward as possible, even to the point of manufacturers creating "shorter" saddles so that they can get even further over the bottom bracket?


Because of aerodynamics and the use of tri bars, I'd think. TT positions are basically triathlete positions these days, more or less.










.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*????*

You're the one who mentioned your short femurs being the driver for the steep STA, but now you claim it's not. Which is it? 

A typical TT bike position is nothing like a road bike's setup and not comparable at all. You should read some of the articles on fitting road bikes versus TT bikes. The idea with a TT bike is to be more aerodynamic. The whole body is rotated to place the head lower and that's the reason for the steep STA. 

The further back position can make better use of the powerful glutes. A rider who is too far forward is likely to have too much weight on his hands and be overly dependent on the quads. Having the saddle further back does not reduce power and it's not a compromise. If it was, you would see the best climbers using a forward position (but none of them do).

As for rider height, there are plenty of tall pro riders, like George Hincapie. He's got his saddle slammed all the way back on his current bike because the STA is only 73.5 degrees and the post only has about 20mm of setback.

I'm a short rider at 169cm tall, but I have an 83cm inseam and 73cm saddle height. Despite having a short torso, I have my saddle nose 6-7cm behind the center of the BB -. much less and I immediately feel the extra weight on my hands.

http://www.cyclefitcentre.com/pdf final docs/backyard positioning_julu_aug_2004.pdf
http://www.cyclefitcentre.com/pdf f... NOT HAVE KNOWN ABOUT BIKE POSITION_final.pdf


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*well...*

Having longer legs does not automatically mean proportionately longer femurs. It's common for long legs to be longer from the knee down, particularly with tall riders having very long legs. Compared to my very short-legged wife, most of my extra leg length is from the knee down - probably 10 of 15cm. Her saddle height is about 15cm lower than mine, which moves the saddle forward by 4-5 without the need for an extra steep STA or a nonsetback seatpost.

I've read posts from short-legged riders complaining about STAs being too steep and not allowing them enough setback, since their saddle height is so low. Every 3cm the saddle is lower, moves the saddle nose about 1cm further forward.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

C-40 said:


> Having longer legs does not automatically mean proportionately longer femurs. It's common for long legs to be longer from the knee down, particularly with tall riders having very long legs. Compared to my very short-legged wife, most of my extra leg length is from the knee down - probably 4 of 6 inches. Her saddle height is about 15cm lower than mine, which moves the saddle far forward by 4-5 without the need for an extra steep STA or a nonsetback seatpost.
> 
> I've read posts from short-legged riders complaining about STAs being too steep and not allowing them enough setback, since their saddle height is so low. Every 3cm the saddle is lower, moves the saddle nose about 1cm further forward.


I do agree that long legs doesn't automatically mean proportionately longer femurs...*however, the comparisons were with pro's, who do tend to have proportionately longer femurs than the average person*....which is why I said people shouldn't compare a pro's position to that of the average individual.

With my wife has long legs for her height and has much longer femurs than the lower part of her leg. Myself...I'm the opposite. She has a 28.5" inseam at 4'11" tall, I have a 32.5" inseam at 5'11" tall and she has longer femurs than I do.

On top of short femurs my left femur is a good 1cm shorter than my right femur, which creates a whole other set of issues when it comes to bike fit and cleat adjustments.

Personally...I have the same experience of the OP. I have ridden bikes with laid back STA's and bikes with steep STA's and there is a substantial drop off in power for me when going to a laid back STA (on the order of 30% - 40% drop in power). 

With that said I also have very large quads, no butt and short femurs...always have and always will, even when I was squatting 650 pounds I had very small glutes, but very large quads. So for me the only viable option is a steep STA because that's what works with the build of my body.

As I've said before, and my disagreements with you are these: You tend to group everybody into one category and don't look at the overall situation. You automatically tell people they are wrong for wanting a steep STA and everybody should be able to get by just fine with normal frame...*without ever seeing them on a bike or finding out any background information on the individual*. Basically you make assumptions with no knowledge about the rider other than they want a steep STA.

I know from personal experience this isn't true and until you end up in a situation similar to somebody that has issues like myself....you will never understand the issue at hand. Granted, I'm on the fringe of fitting...but you can't ever assume anything when it comes to bike fits and design for individuals.

This is why I say that advice on the internet is worth what you pay for it....Nothing. Figure out what "You" need and what works for "You" and go with that...ignore the rest.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

You're extremely fortunate to have Dave Kirk of Kirk Frameworks chiming in on your question. I'd use the opportunity to ask him questions to see whether you really need a steep seat angled frame. If you're not persuaded to change your mind, or if perhaps Dave Kirk winds up agreeing with you, then you might want to consider a custom steel frame, and consider Dave Kirk.

If you're convinced you need a steep seat angle, and you really want carbon, then pay the money and get a Calfee, Parlee, Crumpton, I.F., or Serotta. Any of them should make you what you want.

And to answer your question about anyone ordering a custom frame without having visited the manufacturer; I have. I ordered a custom steel ATB frame and fork from Paul Sadoff at Rock Lobster and couldn't be happier with the experience I had. His prices are ridiculously affordable considering the lengthy experience he has. So if you weren't satisfied with your first over the phone experience with a framebuilder, then keep trying.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*about power...*

Your loss of power is due to the fact that your legs are accustomed to the goofy position that you've used for years. Changing that position would require many small changes done over a whole season, to allow time for the legs to adapt an make better use of the glutes.

In theory, short femurs would make better use of the force produced by the glutes, if you could recruit their use.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

C-40 said:


> Your loss of power is due to the fact that your legs are accustomed to the goofy position that you've used for years. Changing that position would require many small changes done over a whole season, to allow time for the legs to adapt an make better use of the glutes.
> 
> In theory, short femurs would make better use of the force produced by the glutes, if you could recruit their use.


Sorry to sound negative...but is reading comprehension an issue for you?

I don't have glutes!!!! I never have. My wife laughs as my how my jeans go completely flat from my waste so my hamstrings....always has, even before getting into riding....even when I was doing very heavy squats, very heavy leg presses, very heavy power cleans, snatches, etc.

Those lifting actions should have built up my glutes...however they never did. They might have been stronger, but my leg strength has always come from my quads, not my glutes. Changing my position isn't going to change this, nor is it going to recruit my glutes any more than my current position does. 

However, experience tells me that using your advice slows me down...substantially  

How do I know this? Experience...:mad2: I rode a bike that was set up as you would have it done for a good 1 - 1.5 years and could never figure out why I was so freaking slow compared to my old bike (earlier in my riding experience when I didn't pay attention to angles)...come to find out it was my STA being too slack and riding a set back post. Once I made the switch back to steeper STA's and zero degree posts my speed picked up dramatically.....So much for your theory :thumbsup: 

This is what I'm talking about with your fitting advice....you seem to absolutely refuse to accept that not everybody falls into your definition of how somebody should fit a bike. Not only that but you do this without ever seeing a rider on a bike, a picture of the rider, know anything about their strengths, weaknesses or flexibility. You just make huge "ASSUMPTIONS" about every rider you give fit advice to. By chance....you wouldn't happen to be Andy Pruitt would it?

There are always exceptions to the rule, which you seem to not allow with your advice.

I'm done with this conversation because IMO you simply will never understand or comprehend some of the issues people on the fringe run into when it comes to bike fit.

BTW...On a side note...I've never found too much pressure on my hands to be an issue from my position. My upper body doesn't get tired like you might suggest it would. In fact it feels quite comfortable...just thought you should know


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*well...*

I don't have a reading comprehension problem. 

Everyone has glutes that can be developed, but changing your saddle fore/aft position will not automatically recruit the glutes and put them into use. It takes a special effort to relax the quads and force the use of the glutes. I practice this on long climbs. Perhaps you do indeed have phsical deformities that make this impossible, but that would be rare. As long as it works for you, there's no sense in arguing about it. I only suggest to people that they experiment on their own rather than accepting some fitter's proposed position as something that must never be changed.


----------



## jrz1 (Mar 15, 2006)

Your answer was given earlier. There are at least two very good road bikes that have reversible seatposts for tri users that would give you what you are looking for: Cervelo Soloist series and the Kestrel Talon series. Both are very good road bikes (not bad tri bikes either). I am surprised that your tri bike to road bike conversion didn't work. What bike did you use? I did that with a Guru Crono. Turned it into a road bike and it handles great and I am noticeably faster, climb better (yes its true), and am relatively comfortable on it compared to my pure road bikes that I was fitted on with all the conventional applications. Sometimes it pays to think outside the box. I took a chance with the Crono and am very glad I did.


----------



## AlexRandall (Nov 29, 2008)

The other option is to choose a bike that has standard angles but an unusually long TT. Pinarello springs to mind immediately. This way you use a normal frame (maybe 1 size larger than normal - depends on exact body measurements) but slightly customise it to your specific requirements. Also means at some later stage you have a 'normal' bike to sell.


----------



## luv2bike (Oct 26, 2009)

Hi,

Really appreciate all the feedback and suggestions. Just to answer some of the various points that have come up.

The tri bike I built into a road bike was a Valdora. I think the model was the PHX or something similiar. The bike is built so stiff (I assume for power transfer) that it is very tiring for long rides (4-5 hours) due to vibration etc. I found that high speed decending was not as secure as a road bike.

I initially started going for the various fits because for many years I always found myself trying to move myself forward on my seat when riding. I tried all the various changes to seat height, stem lengths, etc but could never shake the sensation of trying to move forward on the seat. During those times I was always sore in my hamstrings and glutes but never in my quads. I'm talking several years here.

I finally got a Specialized tri bike and did the road thing to it. It was like a revelation. That's when I started to get the various fits done....as a confirmation of my "seat of the pants" experimentation.

My current position balances my muscle recruitment. I think this is what C-40 might have been getting at? If I get sore now from riding the soreness is equally distributed among quads, hammies, and glutes. I believe that is why this position (and the 75.5 STA) generates best power is because in balances the recruitment of all the leg muscles.

Thanks again for all the suggestions. I will be doing some hunting on the internet for a frame builder!


----------



## rayms (Sep 11, 2013)

luv2bike said:


> Most manufacturers tend to reduce the STA as they go up in size.
> 
> Thanks


Is this because smaller frame have porportionly longer top tube?


----------



## Lelandjt (Sep 11, 2008)

Another vote for the Cervelo S series or Kestrel Talon SL. I like a fairly forward position and love my 60cm Talon with zero offset post. The funny thing is I have very long femurs and good size glutes (girls just say "nice ass"). I just found that I always wanted to site on the nose of the saddle when going hard in the drops or spinning fast up a steep climb so I gradually slid my seat forward until I was content staying in the middle of it. I think the key to having a comfortable handling bike if you're gonna sit over the bottom bracket is short chainstays and a long top tube (a slackish headtube doesn't hurt). This keeps weight balanced between the wheels instead of too far over the front wheel.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

rayms said:


> Is this because smaller frame have porportionly longer top tube?


No. It's because smaller frames take shorter riders and shorter riders have shorter femurs and shorter femurs means the rider's seat need to be further forward than someone with longer femurs to achieve the same knee potition in relation to the botton bracket. That's 'on average' there are exceptions like me, I'm short at 5' 8" but have a femur length typical of a much taller person.
The argument against changing tube angles, which I belive Cervelo uses and keeps the angles the same for all sizes, is that the the taller person with longer femurs will have a higher seat and moving the seat up also moves it back so the need to go back and forth for femur length naturally takes care of itself by going up and down.


----------



## Lelandjt (Sep 11, 2008)

I agree with Cervelo. This is much more evident in MTB than road because we move our seats up and down dozens of times and hour. Seat tube angles have steepened over the last couple years from high 60s to 74°. The only times I've heard of someone not being able to get their seat far enough back with a 20mm offset post is when they're trying to adjust the reach. Duh, get a longer frame or stem.


----------

