# A fistful of seatpost



## george kraushaar (Jan 15, 2007)

Back in the day (30 years ago) the formula for proper frame size was that on a horizontal frame (we didn't have anything but then) the seatpost should stick up a "fistful" which is about 4 inches. Since then most hip riders have gravitated more and more to smaller frames where the seatpost sticks out 2, 3 or even more fistfuls.

During a recent bike festival (Fall Foliage Bike Festival) in Staunton, VA I encounted a number of older riders sporting old classic steel bikes. Almost invariably these guys were from the old school and had just a "fistful of seatpost" showing on their bikes

As an older guy myself I have been riding frames which tended to be 54cm or so and showed slightly more than a fistful. However, I recently traded off one of my classic steel bikes on a newer steel bike with a significantly smaller frame where the seatpost sticks out about 7". It's a Lemond Buenos Aries which is listed as a 51cm but which really measures 52cm to the top of the seat collar.

After riding the bike throughout the festival, I'm here to say that the little bike really is more comfortable. It feels really zippy and nimble in a way that the older larger frames didn't. I really don't know if it's faster but had no trouble keeping up with riders on carbon and ti bikes.

I'm in the process of converting my fleet of bikes over to smaller frames. Plus I'm tired of hearing all those whippersnappers in my club tell me "that frame's too big for you!"


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

I have a feeling you're going to get a lot of back-and-forth in response to this thread. There does seem to be two different schools of thought with proponents on both sides. Your comments remind me of something I came across on the Rivendell site regarding frame sizing. They mention the "fist full of seatpost" idea and suggest that most folks today ride frames that are too small. 

I know for me (at 5'9") my first frame was a 58cm and it took me a few years of riding before I finally came to the conclusion that it was just too big. Fortunately, the overall geometry of it is pretty relaxed and it is still rideable. I am slowly but surely converting it into a commuter. For my next bike purchase I went with a 56cm frame. I tried a 54 but I felt like I was all over the bike. Maybe that's because I had gotten used to riding the 58 by then and the difference was just too great. The 56 feels good to me, not too big, not too small.

Glad to hear you found what works for you.


----------



## M-theory (Jul 16, 2009)

If you have short thighs, the smaller frame will have the saddle in a more forward position over the pedals. It feels more powerful and nimble, as it is more of a time trial position. Also, the seat posts are usually designed so as to be more vertical on the smaller frames as well.

I'm 5'8" and much prefer a 52cm over a 54cm. What I dislike is that many bike brands don't offer a size 52: rather they jump from a 51 to a 54... so that one is either too small, or the other too large. 

Smaller frames are great when seated. However, when getting out of the saddle on a long climb, that's when the extra room of a larger frame is a bit nicer. However, since the vast majority of a ride is seated, I'd rather optimize for that.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

A fistful of seatpost is about as meaningful as your handlebar lining up with your front hub. If the bike fits properly, those things sometimes shake out. And sometimes they don't.

If you feel better riding a smaller frame, that's good.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Opus51569 said:


> I have a feeling you're going to get a lot of back-and-forth in response to this thread. There does seem to be two different schools of thought with proponents on both sides. Your comments remind me of something I came across on the Rivendell site regarding frame sizing. They mention the "fist full of seatpost" idea and suggest that most folks today ride frames that are too small.


I highly respect Grant Petersen and the stuff he does at Rivendell, but his whole thing on frame sizing is that he wants the rider to be able to jack the bars up to not just level with the saddle (which isn't extreme at all) but maybe even a couple or three inches _above_ the saddle. By race-fit standards, that's nosebleed high. 

Even one of those Nitto Technomic stems Grant loves can't always get the bars that high all by its lonesome. So, Grant decided to size the bikes bigger as well, do upsloping top tubes, etc etc.

Which is all well n' good... IF you want to ride the way Grant wants you to ride, which I'd say is the extreme opposite of the extreme 'race' position/fit.

Obviously, if you're a racer or time-trialist, you don't want to size your bike Grant's way, because you'll have a hard time getting the bars low enough. And if you're someone in the middle, which is many of us, well, it _is_ the era of up-angled stems currently, and it's certainly not tough to buy a -17 degree stem, flip it over, put it on a racing-sized frame and _still_ get the bars level with the saddle if you want. Only tall riders would need to size up if that was the goal.

'Fistful of seatpost' is a vague guideline in any case. It does work well for Grant's fit/sizing method, but not so much for everyone else, at least not tall or even medium-height riders. 

I myself got screwed over as newbie and was riding a 60cm Lotus for a little while back in the '80s, when what I really needed was a 54 (bought a bike used from an a-hole... don't ask). So, I'm not only familiar with a 'fistful' of seatpost, but also a 'finger's width' of seatpost as well. I sure wouldn't go back to either.
.


----------



## Fai Mao (Nov 3, 2008)

I ride a bike made by Grant Petersen to commute on. He probably thinks I show an immodest amount of seatpost. My 52 CM Sam Hillborne has a whopping 59.5 cm toptube. The next size up had an even longer top tube. 

I agree with Terry b. It is a starting point rather like KOPS or the handel bar-front hub thing. A place to start in fitting a bike. But frame geomerty, your physiology, purpose in riding and age all figure in to it.


----------



## george kraushaar (Jan 15, 2007)

I'm a little over 5'*8" but have rather short legs (about 31.5"). My best standover bike size is 52cm, but many of them are too short fore and aft. I need a 54 cm TT with a 120mm stem to get things right.

I've still got one bike which is 54cm and it remains my fastest. I'm thinking of trading it for one I have located which is 52st/54tt compact.


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

FWIW, I wasn't necessarily advocating the Rivendell website's point of view, merely pointing out the different philosophy. You're right that each person is different and will have different needs based on physiology as well as the type of riding they do. 

For me, as a Clydesdale who will never race, I think (slightly) bigger is better when it comes to frames. I'm only an inch taller than the O.P., but I just can't imagine feeling comfortable on a 54cm frame, much less a 52. My biggest fit issue seems to be reach. The 56cm frame I have also came with a 110mm stem. That seems to be just a bit long for me. One of these days, I plan to swap it out for a 90mm.


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

I am 5 foot 5 and ride a 52cm compact track frame with a double and a half fistful of post showing, a 53 and a 54 with a fistful showing. The track frame feels the quickest and most nimble but frankly the numbers don't bear that out, my 54 is the fastest, I have really long femurs and prefer a few cm saddle to bar drop only. Even at that, I have a short (90cm) stem and 3 spacers. This is the 54 below


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

+1 'A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down'. Utterly meaningless to me. Whose fist are we talking about-the rider, his mom, the LBS mechanic? I never confuse aesthetics with riding comfort and efficiency. The whole thing is down to personal comfort. I'm back on my first non-sloping frame in over 15 years, I'm 5'3" and I need this much seatpost to feel comfortable. If you look at my sloping tube road bike you'll see that the saddle to bar height differential is about the same as the track bike. If it comes out as a fistful for some riders it should really just be coincidence. 

View attachment 181105


View attachment 181106


----------



## Srexy (Oct 25, 2005)

sir duke said:


> snip


I'm loving the alliteration on that bike!


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

george kraushaar said:


> It feels really zippy and nimble in a way that the older larger frames didn't. I really don't know if it's faster but had no trouble keeping up with riders on carbon and ti bikes.
> 
> I'm in the process of converting my fleet of bikes over to smaller frames.



Sounds a little drastic at this point. There are tons of factors other than seatpost height that could be contributing to a new frame feeling more zippy than an old one.


----------



## ccroy2001 (May 20, 2002)

*I go both ways!*

:ihih:

I have 2 road bikes both with horizontal top tubes, one has "a fistfull" the other maybe 1.5 fistfulls. Will bicyclists start measuring in "spans" and "cubits" next?

Like others have said, put the 2 bikes side by side and the bars, saddles, cranks end up in nearly the exact same position. I'm a recreational rider so bars end up about 2-3" lower than the saddle. 

The most extreme seatposts I see is in the British "Cycling Plus" magazine. They ride really small frames with like 10" of post showing and still complain that they can't get bars low enough.

Chris


----------



## mendo (Apr 18, 2007)

Two things:

In the Merckx, fistful of seatpost days, racers road mostly in the drops, whereas now, they ride on the hoods more. The relative position of saddle v. drops on a "fistful" bike, and saddle v. hoods on a "modern" bike is similar.

Also, on older saddles, like the example below, the distance from the top of the saddle to the rails is much greater than on modern saddles, so different amounts of post would have to be exposed for the equivalent position.


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

Good points all, but I think the "fist full of seatpost" comments and the overall frame size debate are more about the extremes than the majority of us who are somewhere in the middle. Riders who are 6'+ tall but insist on a 48cm frame with the seat post run all the way up and a 130mm stem with risers just to be able to fit on the thing. I could be wrong, though.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

It is a matter or geometries and components.

My steel bike is a 58, horizontal top tube, quill 10cm stem, brooks saddle.

My carbon bike is a 57 sloping horizontal tube, 11cm stem, SLC saddle.

Both are setup with identical sadlletip-to-handlebars, handlebars to front-hub-axis, saddle-to cranksetaxis triangles

The steel one show one fistful of seatpost, the carbon one much more.


----------



## tempeteOntheRoad (Dec 21, 2001)

*See Leo. Zinn's bike...*

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/photos/on-show-rocky-mountain-bicycle-show-part-2/85009

Too much seatpost? Frame too small? High head tube? Who would dare to criticize?

Well, he seems like a tall guy and I find this setup gives nice proportions to the whole ensemble.

What are his cranks by the way?


----------



## mitmoned (Apr 7, 2008)

tempeteOntheRoad said:


> What are his cranks by the way?


Zinn makes his own cranks as he is tall and is not happy with being limited to 175, maybe 180 length cranks.


----------



## cmg (Oct 27, 2004)

" It feels really zippy and nimble in a way that the older larger frames didn't. I really don't know if it's faster but had no trouble keeping up with riders on carbon and ti bikes."

Same components on the Lemond as your classic? you may have been feeling the affect of lighter wheels and a lighter frame. As stated earlier in this post is that the seat post lenght above the top tube is meaningless. bike fit is about top tube length, headtube lenght, and knee position above BB. the lenght of the seat tube can vary. Does the Lemond have the same seat tube angle and top tube lenght as the classic?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

mendo said:


> Two things:
> 
> In the Merckx, fistful of seatpost days, racers road mostly in the drops, whereas now, they ride on the hoods more. The relative position of saddle v. drops on a "fistful" bike, and saddle v. hoods on a "modern" bike is similar.


The funny thing is, while a fistful of seatpost might've been common in Merckx's day, Merckx himself seemed to show more seatpost than that...maybe 1.5 fistfuls?: :idea: 













And at 6'0", he was not a super-tall guy or anything.
.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

It's all branding , baby!


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

yer seat's too high.

/ it had to be said.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

Meh.

I've ridden both ways.

Sometimes the bike was more comfortable, sometimes not.

It's about what you like and what works on the frame you're on. It's personal preference and sizing and fork rake and frame geometry and what the frame was designed for and what it's made of and who built it and when it was designed...

So, ride what you like.


----------



## zandr (Sep 19, 2009)

*ahem*


















Some of us, thanks to super odd proportions, don't have much choice in how much seat post is showing. Old wisdom be damned, if it fits, ride it! :thumbsup:


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

sir duke said:


> It's all branding , baby!


I understand that branding really hurts........


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Touch0Gray said:


> I understand that branding really hurts........


Not if you do it right. :wink5:
.


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

SystemShock said:


> Not if you do it right. :wink5:
> .


I don't know I touch red to white hot metal often enough.....it hurts ME ...OH......I get it.....never mind...


----------



## spastook (Nov 30, 2007)

Grant Peterson was a visionary back in his Bridgestone days. Now he's a looney toon. His company "Bridgestone" was the first to get mountain bike geometry correct while every other manufacturer was just taking stabs at it. He laughed at the U-Brake when all the other companies couldn't wait to spec it on their bikes. But today he's clearly lost his marbles. Granted, many cycling changes are clearly for marketing purposes but even Grant would have to admit some technology has been positive for cycling. Yet he pretty much shuns all things new and embraces all things old.He needs to find some middle ground.


----------



## newmexrb1 (Aug 16, 2009)

ya suggesting Grant is getting wooly-minded?


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

spastook said:


> Grant Peterson was a visionary back in his Bridgestone days. Now he's a looney toon. His company "Bridgestone" was the first to get mountain bike geometry correct while every other manufacturer was just taking stabs at it. He laughed at the U-Brake when all the other companies couldn't wait to spec it on their bikes. But today he's clearly lost his marbles. Granted, many cycling changes are clearly for marketing purposes but even Grant would have to admit some technology has been positive for cycling. Yet he pretty much shuns all things new and embraces all things old.He needs to find some middle ground.


Nah, he's not crazy at all.

He's got a devoted audience that love him and buy what he sells. And he continues to have decent ideas. Oh, and he didn't invent modern mountain bike geometry. Charlie Cunningham did. 

It can't be stated strongly enough, a whole bunch of the current trend towards attractive, functional city bikes (fenders! useful racks! handlebars that make sense for a city bike!) and road bikes with clearance for tires bigger than 23s and the ability to ride on something other than perfect pavement was inspired by him. Salsa's cassaroll, Surly's Pacer, Even a couple raleighs, fishers and bianchis...

And, though I often hate to admit when he's right, index shifting _is_ pretty over-rated. And lugged steel is really, really pretty. And, if you aren't racing, what's an extra pound?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

spastook said:


> Grant Peterson was a visionary back in his Bridgestone days. Now he's a looney toon. His company "Bridgestone" was the first to get mountain bike geometry correct while every other manufacturer was just taking stabs at it. He laughed at the U-Brake when all the other companies couldn't wait to spec it on their bikes.
> 
> But today he's clearly lost his marbles. Granted, many cycling changes are clearly for marketing purposes but even Grant would have to admit some technology has been positive for cycling. Yet he pretty much shuns all things new and embraces all things old.He needs to find some middle ground.


He's not nuts, but he is very zealous in his point of view, and that frightens or upsets some ppl.

But, whatev. What's more tiresome, the lone guy marching to his own drummer, or the horde of zombies all dancing to the exact same tune, a la Thriller? 'Cuz that's what the bike industry kind of is right now... follow-the-leader, to the point of nausea. :shocked:

I don't agree with everything Grant says, and I think he is a bit extreme in a few of his viewpoints. But he's more interesting than the zillion 'me too' bike companies out there, that's for sure.

Now if he'd only price some of his bikes better, and let a better company than Panaracer make his tires...
.


----------



## Voodoochile (Apr 10, 2009)

I have a fist full of seatpost on both of my traditional geometry bikes. It just worked out that way. No sloping top tube and about 3" drop to the center of bars. It works out that way for me using common geometry and typical 110-120 stem. I remember when I was younger all they did was have you stand over the bike and if you could pull the top tube up about an inch it was the right size. That works out for me too with most but not all common geometry. I do though know my exact size and don't deviate more that a couple mm.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Obviously sloping top tubes require a longer exposed seat post. From my experience this also means that the bike will feel more comfortable because the seat post reacts with more flex than the frame (especially carbon seat posts). Manufacturers have tried to counter the flex by using a larger seat post diameter, which may work to give less flex (and therefore possibly better efficiency) at the expense of some ride comfort. Out of all my bikes the compact frame / 27mm seatpost combo seems to be the most comfortable ride. As I don't crank low rpms with big power I prefer this combination.


----------



## veloduffer (Aug 26, 2004)

DrSmile said:


> Obviously sloping top tubes require a longer exposed seat post. From my experience this also means that the bike will feel more comfortable because the seat post reacts with more flex than the frame (especially carbon seat posts). Manufacturers have tried to counter the flex by using a larger seat post diameter, which may work to give less flex (and therefore possibly better efficiency) at the expense of some ride comfort. Out of all my bikes the compact frame / 27mm seatpost combo seems to be the most comfortable ride. As I don't crank low rpms with big power I prefer this combination.


Isn't that the contradiction - compact frames are supposed to be stiffer than non-sloping but then you have more flex in the seatpost.


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

It would seem to me that a stiffer triangle would be far more important than a stiff seatpost as far as power transfer


----------



## tarwheel2 (Jul 7, 2005)

All of my bikes have about a fistful of seat post showing, but they are all traditional geometry (non-sloping). However, I would have no problem riding a compact frame with more seatpost showing if the geometry fit me. I also run my handlebars about the same height as my saddle, so I guess that puts me in the Rivendell school of bike fit. It works for me, but to each his own.


----------



## Lou3000 (Aug 25, 2010)

I just recently purchased a vintage Trek 760, and I can't decide if the frame is a little small. I've got a lot more than a fistful of seatpost showing. However, the next size up doesn't allow me to get nearly as much drop because the head tube height. So if I want to ride my bike like I ride my race bike, then I need the smaller size with a lot of seatpost. If I want to ride it like Peterson recommends then I clearly need to size up.

But honestly, I don't want a bigger bike. I had a larger traditional frame at one point that had a fistful of seatpost, and I always felt like there was too much bike underneath me. Stable to a fault, whereas my smaller bike is much more (to steal from mountain biking) flickable.

Ultimately, I'm a child of the modern era, and I like compact geometry.


----------



## dnice (Jul 12, 2012)

first of all, touch of grey, that is a beautiful trek. a guy in my group rides a white one, which i love, especially the simple decals and lack of excess branding. what year is it?

on topic, at just shy of 6 ft, with long torso (31.5 inch inseam) i have been riding large frames. (my giant has a 57.5 ETT and 20.5 HT, for example). this frame was first fitted with a 90mm upturned stem with 3 spacers. 18 months later it has a 100 flipped stem and 1 spacer. bar to drop is about 2-2.5 inches...i love the ride, but i have to admit it feels like a cadillac--slow steering and comfortable, although perfect for long days in the saddle. 

but i need some more excitement in my life (and a reason to buy a new bike), so new experiment...new bike build starts with smaller frame. the new/old bianchi i acquired has a 56 ETT and 16MM head tube. i expect quicker steering, more responsive and "cooler" racier, rider position. something different entirely.

either that or it'll be 4 spacers, upturned stem and shortened seat post.  

we shall see...


----------



## flatsix911 (Jun 28, 2009)

Here is a link to the article that started the discussion ... 

Learn About Bikes with Rivendell Bicycle Works




> *Sizing Trends*
> *If you look at old racing photos or drawings, you'll see bikes with "a fistfull of seat post" showing. That was the rule --- a fistfull of post. *You bought a frame size that, when the saddle was set at the right height for you, exposed a fistfull of seat post! If in order to get the saddle at the right height, it required much more than a fistfull of seat post, then the frame was too small. These days, "a fistfull of seat post" sounds quaintly stupid, charmingly naive, cute but dumb, stay away from me with your dangerous folk medicines!
> 
> *And yet, riders back then were a lot more comfortable. We aren't suggesting that you go by "a fistfull of seat post," but that simplistic approach was (and still is) successful because it allowed the handlebar to be close to the height of the saddle.* So it resulted in a fit that took weight off your hands, and strain off your neck and lower back. (It also allows sufficient standover clearance. In other words, when you straddle your bike, your genitals may rest on the top tube, but your pubic bone will easily clear it -- as you'll notice if you grab a handful of genitals and pull up. Apologies if this is too graphic for you.)


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

dnice said:


> first of all, touch of grey, that is a beautiful trek. a guy in my group rides a white one, which i love, especially the simple decals and lack of excess branding. what year is it?



It is a 2007, and has no decals at all, that is painted, or should I say not painted......custom ....red metal flake, it glows in the sunlight!


----------



## BruceBrown (Mar 20, 2011)

flatsix911 said:


> Here is a link to the article that started the discussion ...
> 
> Learn About Bikes with Rivendell Bicycle Works


That's a great article. I can relate to this statement from that article...

_Handlebars too low cause 90 percent of the discomfort people suffer. And buying a frame too small guarantees that the bars will be too low._


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

BruceBrown said:


> That's a great article. I can relate to this statement from that article...
> 
> _Handlebars too low cause 90 percent of the discomfort people suffer. And buying a frame too small guarantees that the bars will be too low._


Well, unless you use something like a Nitto Technomic stem. Which Grant sells.


----------



## aureliajulia (May 25, 2009)

I like reading threads like this to try and understand the different set-ups people have in relation to their own body measurements, because that is what affects fit. I use a 51-52 mens road bike, or 54 55ish women's. My bikes are on the large side for my height and inseam, (5'7'', 33.3" inseam), because I have to use a zero-offset seat post, effectively bringing the saddle forward 4-5 cm. That's a huge difference. Even that barely gets my knees over the pedals. Long tibias? Not sure. If I try a smaller bike, I have to raise the saddle even higher, which, of course increases the distance from the bars. On my bike, my saddle height is generally best at 73 cm from bb to top of the saddle. I've got 4.5 inches of actual seat-post showing, if you include the clamp, it's more like 6. And that is with a horizontal top tube. 

If the smaller bikes truly fit better, then convert. If not, then don't.


----------



## BruceBrown (Mar 20, 2011)

SystemShock said:


> Well, unless you use something like a Nitto Technomic stem. Which Grant sells.


Looks like the Nitto Technomic "tall" version would do about the same that I accomplished with frame size to get my bars even with my saddle at 6'4". 64cm Specialized Roubaix has a generous 260mm Headtube length and the steerer tube was left long enough for me to play with stem position. Fit like a glove out of the box when I flipped the stem negative. After riding an 58cm Allez the past 7 years that had my hands way too low, is what I was responding to about being able to relate to the bars too low.

New 64cm Roubaix (which I guess, officially, has the center of BB to top of seat tube measurement of 60cm - which means I'm more than a fist full of seat post showing)...

View attachment 282296


----------



## Fai Mao (Nov 3, 2008)

What an interesting resurrected thread from 3 years ago

I do not buy quite everything that the Rivendell people say but as said above it is a point of view that works for many people especially if they do not race though it does not slow you down as much as the full race guys will claim. That said, I have a Sam Hillborne and Soma San Marcos - two Rivendell bikes. The two bikes are actually very different. The Soma while not a screaming racer is a much more lively frame and much lighter it is my bike to ride for fun, exercise and mental health. The Sam is an absolute workhorse commuter, touring bike that is my full flat-bar retro grouch machine and the Soma has Campagnolo 10 speed flat-bar 

Here is the thing as other have said it depends upon your physiology. I am just over 6 foot but have only a 32 inch inseam. I am built like a short Sasquatch with long arms, long torso and short legs and broad shoulders. When I walk I almost leave two foot prints and knuckle-drags. My nick-name in high school was Neanderthal (I hated my high school) So online fit kits don't really work for me. I had to ride a long time get the saddle height and bar/saddle distance right.

Now that I've revealed my goofy physiology. The most comfortable bike I currently own is the cheapest one. I have a reworked Mongoose X-Com which was originally a 7 speed. It was bought as a cheap bike to go a couple of miles to the grocery store something that I am not afraid to lock outside in the rain. It was a piece of garbage. The tires rubbed the fenders - which were nonadjustable - and they would blow off the rim when adding air because they were so lose on the rim. The bike also had a 48 tooth single chain ring which is too big for a utility bike. So dipping into the dead parts and a little help from Jenson USA I added a triple crank, new tires and wheels, a different seat post, flat rather than the swept back bars and a different saddle. I still only about $400.00 invested in the bike

This bike has a compact frame a shows nearly a foot of seat post. It weighs probably 40 pounds with the racks,bags and light. It also has the highest bars of any bike I own. It has an absolute Cadillac ride. 

View attachment 282321


Not exactly a fist full of seat post


----------



## Warpdatframe (Dec 9, 2012)

I laughed so much reading the rivendell article. The author must have the flexibility of the Robax doll. He doesn't once mention lower back/core strength or flexibility. On my road bike I have ~17cm of saddle to bar drop and it's incredibly comfortable. The longest ride I've done on it was over 300km. At the end my back was completely pain free. Goes to show what a little core and stretching can do.


----------



## BruceBrown (Mar 20, 2011)

Warpdatframe said:


> I laughed so much reading the rivendell article. The author must have the flexibility of the Robax doll. He doesn't once mention lower back/core strength or flexibility. On my road bike I have ~17cm of saddle to bar drop and it's incredibly comfortable. The longest ride I've done on it was over 300km. At the end my back was completely pain free. Goes to show what a little core and stretching can do.


17cm! Ooooooooo....color me super impressed with your feat. But it means nothing...

I work my core 3 times a week, stretch, do yoga, race XC mountain bikes, train on the road bike - and feel completely comfortable and pain free whether I'm in the hoods, on the flats or down in the drops. Does it really matter that much to you if my bars are even with my saddle, above, slightly below on the road bike?

Do you feel that you are right with your 17cm saddle to bar drop, and Grant Rivendell - or anyone who does not ride with the AXX in the Air/Hands way down there position is wrong?

Lots of folks in the world out there riding and enjoying it who have a different position on the bike than you do. Now that's worth smiling about.:thumbsup:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Warpdatframe said:


> I laughed so much reading the rivendell article. The author must have the flexibility of the Robax doll. He doesn't once mention lower back/core strength or flexibility. On my road bike I have ~17cm of saddle to bar drop and it's incredibly comfortable. The longest ride I've done on it was over 300km. At the end my back was completely pain free. Goes to show what a little core and stretching can do.


Just how nerd-core have you gone to be bragging about your seat-to-bars drop? :skep:


----------



## BruceBrown (Mar 20, 2011)

SystemShock said:


> Just how nerd-core have you gone to be bragging about your seat-to-bars drop? :skep:


Maybe it's the only 6.69 inches he's got.


----------



## Warpdatframe (Dec 9, 2012)

I can't brag too much because a guy I race against has 26cm of drop.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

brucebrown said:


> maybe it's the only 6.69 inches he's got.:d


bam_!! :lol:_


----------



## BruceBrown (Mar 20, 2011)

Different set ups and fitting techniques to accomplish for a comfort road bike fit compared to race road bike fit...





















It's all good.


----------



## Fai Mao (Nov 3, 2008)

Warpdatframe said:


> I can't brag too much because a guy I race against has 26cm of drop.


I am not sure that \ is any more aerodynamic than / if the object is to get to --

I would also wonder what putting that much weight over the front wheel does to the bike handling.

But to each his own


----------

