# Road Logic 2.0 and too much seat post?



## filly

About to pull the trigger on this frameset, but am worried about the short seat tube. I ride a 57 cm top tube, so looking at the geometry chart, the size 57 frame (57.5 cm effective top tube) would be my choice; however, I see that the seat tube is only 54.5 cm. In comparison, my last bike, a Cannondale CAAD9, size 58 frame, with the same 57.5 cm top tube, had a 60 cm seat tube. I guess the big reason for the difference is that the Ritchey cuts off the seat tube right at the top of the top tube, whereas most frames have the top of the seat tube a couple of centimeters above the top tube. This tells me that I'm going to have about 5 cm more seat post exposed on the Ritchey. Is it possible that this frame will not work for me? Isn't that a lot of extra seat post showing?

FYI, I posted this in the general frames section, but wanted some feedback from folks actually riding the frame.


----------



## robt57

Mountain bikes and compact geometry road bikes all show loads of post. And MTN bike terrain puts plenty of load on them too.

Google 'compact vs feulier' bicycle frame. You are obviously used to Feulier type frames, as are a lot of us that were roadies before dirties. 

I think you got your eye on the wrong ball though.. If i was you I would be more concerned about the Head Tube length on that specific 57CM frame

And be aware and beware that with a carbon steer tube on a fork [if you go this way] there is only so many spacers you can/should use.

When I say 'should', take that as you need to look up the specific fork you are using, the manufacturer will have a specification.


----------



## filly

You saying it's a relatively short head tube? I'm thinking not an issue because I like my bars low. I don't expect I'll have more than one 10mm spacer under the stem.

I hear you on the post. I've had others tell me no problem on a couple fistfuls of seatpost exposed. Thanks for your feedback.


----------



## Peter P.

Seatpost extension won't be an issue. I assure you Ritchey designed the frame so the headtube length and top tube length correspond to a traditional horizontal top tube sized bike. Most manufacturers have done this. You only need to leave all the spacers under the stem and take your time in finding your satisfactory handlebar height before cutting the steerer.


----------



## tka

On my 55 cm Road Logic 2.0 I have about 150mm of seatpost exposed. On the closest equivalent traditional frame it is about 75mm.

I find it annoying is that I have almost twice that amount in the frame since the shortest Ritchey seatpost is a 300mm. I suppose I could cut it off but it just seems wrong that I need to do that just to save a few grams and reduce the chance that the post sticks in the frame.

The maximum allowed stem spacers is 30mm.


----------



## plag

I just think it depends on the rider , found this one on google images it's not mine but this guy has a lot of post and saddle to bar drop.

Others I've seen look pretty normal .


----------



## filly

That's spot on how my bike would look.


----------



## Peter P.

That bike in the photo is clearly undersized, assuming the seat height is correct.


----------



## plag

My bianchi looks look that , it's a 55.. I bought it used as as a frame only and if feels very quick and nimble .My orbea is a 57 and looks more normal and I'm 5,11 34" inseam


----------



## ceugene

Kinda weird since the owner is still using a -6 degree stem and plenty of spacers. He could achieve the same geometry with the next TWO sizes up easily. To each their own, I guess. Most pros don't even jack their seats that high.


----------



## ceugene

plag said:


> My bianchi looks look that , it's a 55.. I bought it used as as a frame only and if feels very quick and nimble .My orbea is a 57 and looks more normal and I'm 5,11 34" inseam


Does your Bianchi have a horizontal or sloping top tube? I'd generally consider 55cm the right frame size since your inseam is slightly longer than average, which by extension assumes you have a slightly shorter reach.

I mean sure, fit is largely personal preference when dealing with small ranges, but what's pictured above is quite extreme.


----------



## plag

ceugene said:


> Does your Bianchi have a horizontal or sloping top tube? I'd generally consider 55cm the right frame size since your inseam is slightly longer than average, which by extension assumes you have a slightly shorter reach.
> 
> I mean sure, fit is largely personal preference when dealing with small ranges, but what's pictured above is quite extreme.



It has a little slope to it not dramatic, it was an experiment. On my 57 i do run a little shorter stem.


----------



## Henry Chinaski

filly said:


> About to pull the trigger on this frameset, but am worried about the short seat tube. I ride a 57 cm top tube, so looking at the geometry chart, the size 57 frame (57.5 cm effective top tube) would be my choice; however, I see that the seat tube is only 54.5 cm. In comparison, my last bike, a Cannondale CAAD9, size 58 frame, with the same 57.5 cm top tube, had a 60 cm seat tube. I guess the big reason for the difference is that the Ritchey cuts off the seat tube right at the top of the top tube, whereas most frames have the top of the seat tube a couple of centimeters above the top tube. This tells me that I'm going to have about 5 cm more seat post exposed on the Ritchey. Is it possible that this frame will not work for me?  Isn't that a lot of extra seat post showing?
> 
> FYI, I posted this in the general frames section, but wanted some feedback from folks actually riding the frame.


A current C'dale Caad12 58 has a 17.5 cm headtube. The Ritchey you are looking at has a 18. I think you'll be fine. I'm showing a lot of seatpost on my Breakaway


----------

