# Exposed seatpost lengths???



## jzm (Jun 7, 2007)

Is there a minimum, aesthetic or otherwise. I'm looking at a CAAD 9 frame, size 52, and based on my fit data from competitive cyclist, my saddle height should be around 69cm. That means about 4" of exposed seatpost only. I'm coming from mountain bikes so I'm quite used to longer exposed seatposts - my current bike has about 8" exposed.


----------



## funktekk (Jul 29, 2006)

It all depends on the frame geometry related to your body.

Compact frames (with sloping top tubes) will automatically expose more seatpost. More traditional frames will expose less. 

It seems to be Pro style right now to ride a frame smaller than would be fit correctly. They might do this to save some weight or increase stiffness, but this results in long seatpost extensions, long stems and a silly amount of saddle to bar drop. 

Most of the recreational riders I know ride with a minimal amount of saddle to bar drop to increase comfort. With a traditional frame this means that only bit more than a fist full of seatpost is exposed.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

jzm said:


> Is there a minimum, aesthetic or otherwise. I'm looking at a CAAD 9 frame, size 52, and based on my fit data from competitive cyclist, my saddle height should be around 69cm. That means about 4" of exposed seatpost only. I'm coming from mountain bikes so I'm quite used to longer exposed seatposts - my current bike has about 8" exposed.


Depends on what's important to you. Aesthetically, the current fashionable minimum is about what you see on most manufacturer's web sites. Functionally, the minimum establishes itself from a good fit. It's useless to argue the merits of one over the other—kind of like telling someone to trade her high heels for Birkenstocks or vice versa.


----------



## Cory (Jan 29, 2004)

*Rivendell (who else?) cites an old rule...*

Grant Petersen at Rivendell recently cited an old rule that was gospel when I started riding in the '70s but that I haven't heard in years: If you closed your fist around the exposed seatpost, your hand should cover it. If more than that was showing, the bike was too small.
Obviously people don't pay much attention to that now, but it does show that what we think of as "too big" these days might not really be too big. If the bike feels comfortable and you can stand over the top tube without mashing the boys, don't worry about it.


----------



## jzm (Jun 7, 2007)

Thanks for all your inputs!


----------



## trek_FL (Apr 7, 2006)

*minimum seatpost insertion*

One more thing I didn't see mentioned is to be sure that you have at least enough seatpost to go in past the top tube on the bike. This is probably obvious to most, but it's good to make sure you got that covered. This can easily be overcome with a longer seatpost if needed.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

trek_FL said:


> One more thing I didn't see mentioned is to be sure that you have at least enough seatpost to go in past the top tube on the bike. This is probably obvious to most, but it's good to make sure you got that covered. This can easily be overcome with a longer seatpost if needed.


This useful reminder brings back memories of a crude bike fit scheme from my younger days, when all frames had horizontal top tubes. The idea was to wind up with the smallest rideable frame for reasons of race handling and, of course, style.

Taking your seat post with your saddle attached to the shop, you'd insert it into a couple of frames that looked like they'd work. The frame you picked was the one that gave you your known saddle height with the seat post right at its minimum insertion mark. Worked for some of us—but we were young and flexible then.


----------

