# Short Femur - is it all about the seat tube angle?



## GadgetGuy (Jun 22, 2006)

I'm 36yo, 5' 9.5", 168lb.

I just got a pro bike fit, and everything was dialed in properly, except that she moved my saddle forward a whopping 4cm, based upon plumb-bobbing. I think this was a good change because I've ridden 60 miles since then without any issues, and my power meter is showing an immediate 10% improvement in power output during a 20-minute time trial.

I'm currently riding a 2007 Ridley Excalibur, size medium. The seat tube angle is 73* and the distance from the top of the saddle to the middle of the BB is 73.6cm. My ideal setback is 3cm from the nose of my saddle to the middle of the BB. (Everything else on me checked out A-OK... I am Asian, though, and she did mention that Asians tend to have proportionally shorter femurs than Caucasians - who knew?)

Kinesthetically I love the new setup, but aesthetically it's atrocious. I have a zero-offset seatpost and the saddle is slammed all the way forwards.

I attempted some rudimentary trigonometry involving the cosine of the seat tube angle multiplies by the saddle height, and for my 73.6cm saddle height, it seems like for every 0.5 degrees steeper my seat tube angle becomes, my saddle will move 0.6cm closer to the BB. In other words, if I switched to a frame that had a 74.5 seat tube angle, I could move my saddle 1.8cm further back on the rails. This would keep my legs in the same riding position, and would improve the aesthetics (yes, I know I'm shallow).

I know that the head tube angle and top tube length will also change with a new frame, but I believe that will only affect the rest of the cockpit. If we're focusing only on keeping my legs in the optimal position, then we should be able to focus only on the seat tube angle, right?

I've researched racing frames, and here are the main contenders that have seat tube angles >=74*: Specialized Tarmac (52cm: 74*), Trek Madone (54cm: 74.2*), Wilier Le Roi (Medium: 74.3*), and Wilier Cento Uno/Izoard/Mortirolo (Medium: 74.5*).

Questions:
1. Am I right about seat tube angle being the only frame-related factor that will help me to know the saddle back on the rails while preserving the setback?
2. Any other off-the-shelf racing frames that have >74* angles?
3. Should I live with the aesthetics and start saving up for a custom frame, built with a 75* seat tube angle?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Wow man, that's pretty extreme, unless you have a really wild Femur/Tibia ratio Id say you need more than 3cm of setback no matter what frame sizing method you prescribe to....

My saddle height is 73.0cm(similar to yours), and I've always run about 6.5cm of saddle setback. My Femur/Tibia ratio like yours is also a bit on the short side at about 1.1/1, whereas average is about 1.11/1, and some are up to about 1.14/1


Everyone will subscribe to a different sizing method, but for me the Huggi/Guimard method (sometimes called the LeMond, Hinault or Genzling method) used by LeMond, Hinault, and Fignon has always worked. LeMond covers it in his book, but Hinault does so in a bit more detail in his book 'Bicycle road racing Technique and Training', and it can also be found on these sites:

http://www.strawberrybicycle.com/sizing.htm
http://www.strawberrybicycle.com/frames-custom.htm
http://www.bestbicyclepartsetc.com/dicks-cycling-blog/3-myblog/20-bike-fit-made-easy

That method tends to run a bit more setback than most, but again no matter what sizing method you are using I'd say more than 3cm is needed unless you have very bizarre leg proportions....

For reference Armstrong runs about 75mm of setback for a 75.3cm saddle height- well within the range prescribed by the above sizing method...

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/pro-bike-lance-armstrongs-astana-trek-madone-21594


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

In a word....Yes 

I have short femurs as well....though I'm taller at around 5'11" and for me a 74 - 74.5 degree STA works best (gets the seat post in the center of the rails)...The problem is nobody makes a bike with a STA that steep in a 56cm frame.

I run zero degree posts on all my bikes and the saddles are set most of the way forward.

One thing you can do, if you haven't done it already is try shorter cranks. This brings your feet back toward the saddle a little and can help make up the difference. I run 170mm cranks on all of my bikes, which also seems to work well with the shorter femurs.

Most people don't understand the problem because they have normal length or longer femurs. Some will likely tell you that a zero degree seat post isn't necessary and the steeper STA's are not needed...My advice, don't listen to them 

Your position change sounds like it was a very positive improvement with immediate power gains...and is comfortable. If you can't find a bike with the proper dimensions a custom frame will solve the problem and a nice steel frame can be as inexpensive as many carbon frames, but will weigh just a bit more...however, proper fit will make up for everything as far as being able to go fast goes


----------



## android (Nov 20, 2007)

GadgetGuy said:


> Questions:
> 1. Am I right about seat tube angle being the only frame-related factor that will help me to know the saddle back on the rails while preserving the setback?
> 2. Any other off-the-shelf racing frames that have >74* angles?
> 3. Should I live with the aesthetics and start saving up for a custom frame, built with a 75* seat tube angle?


1) With a custom frame, the builder will give you a STA that allows the saddle to be in the middle of the rails for the seat post that you intend to use with the frame or the one he suggests. This is for your fitted position. So you will be able to make minor fore and aft adjustments. The builder will then adjust the rest of the bike around that position. It is "backwards" from buying a bike in the store. The bike is built under you, rather than sliding and adjusting to force you to fit the bike.

2) Don't know.

3) IF you are completely happy with your current fit, then it won't matter much. One minor point is that most saddles flex better and are more comfortable when not mounted at the extremes. Obviously you lack the ability to slide the saddle any farther forward if for some reason you need to. Sometimes pains that require saddle adjustments don't show up until longer rides. If you can do your longest ride with the current position without much problem, then don't worry about it.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

GadgetGuy said:


> 3. Should I live with the aesthetics and start saving up for a custom frame, built with a 75* seat tube angle?


60 miles and one timed effort is nowhere near enough to make a judgment on your new setup. Before investing in a custom frame and especially one with an unusual geometry, I suggest keeping with your current bike for a year, and make further fit fine-tuning as required. How do you know that this new saddle position is optimal? Perhaps a position half-way between your old and new positions would be better? Also note that the UCI racing limit on saddle set-back is 5cm. Perhaps you have no intention to race, but this is an indication that your 3cm is on the extreme side. Personally I would not worry about aesthetics until you have your fit absolutely dialed, and even then I think I'm more attached to my savings than I am to some aesthetic ideal.


----------



## GadgetGuy (Jun 22, 2006)

It's nice to find another short femured rider 

I considered shorter cranks. But I'm already on 172.5, and probably wouldn't go shorter than 170, so when my cranks are at 3 o'clock that would only move the pedal spindle 0.25cm closer to the BB. I stumbled on some companies that make very short cranks (150mm) but that doesn't seem like the right solution for me.

Thanks for the other feedback, too.


----------



## GadgetGuy (Jun 22, 2006)

Good point about the saddle not flexing when the rails are at the extremes.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

GadgetGuy said:


> It's nice to find another short femured rider
> 
> I considered shorter cranks. But I'm already on 172.5, and probably wouldn't go shorter than 170, so when my cranks are at 3 o'clock that would only move the pedal spindle 0.25cm closer to the BB. I stumbled on some companies that make very short cranks (150mm) but that doesn't seem like the right solution for me.
> 
> Thanks for the other feedback, too.


Theoretically you could try 165mm cranks (most crank manufacturers make them in this length)...which would give you almost 1cm of room to move your saddle back.

However, unless your legs are really short 170mm is probably the shortest you would need to go. Some people can feel the difference, others not so much. I actually did notice a difference when moving from 172.5 to 170's but I'm very sensitive to changes in position.


----------



## GadgetGuy (Jun 22, 2006)

Darn those UCI rules - sounds like they're discriminating against the femur-challenged!

I definitely won't be making any permanent changes for a while. If I'm going custom, I'll need some time to save up my nickels anyway.

Regarding how we arrived at the setback: I spent ~20 minutes spinning at different intensities, then coming to rest at 3 o'clock. The fitter plumb-bobbed off the front of my kneecap down to the pedal spindle. This process was repeated many many times because I was so far behind the spindle at first.

Given my immediate comfort with the new position, and the immediate increase in power, I feel like it was a good move.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

ukbloke said:


> Also note that the UCI racing limit on saddle set-back is 5cm.


Unless somebody is racing at the Pro, world or national level....it doesn't matter  

With that said, I believe there is an exception to the rule...though don't quote me on it...but if you can prove (I'm guessing medically) that the 5cm is detrimental to your performance due to physical constraints you can get an exception.


----------



## rcnute (Dec 21, 2004)

No. I went to a bike fitter and he suggested a zero setback post with the rails slammed forward on a bike with a 74 STA. It was a joke. I like bikes with 72 degree STAs and a normal setback post.


----------



## bicicletă (Aug 18, 2008)

ukbloke said:


> Also note that the UCI racing limit on saddle set-back is 5cm.


Isn't this just for time trial setups?


----------



## luv2bike (Oct 26, 2009)

In response to your original question about steep seat tubed bikes. I am in the same boat as yourself in that for my body dimensions I need a 58cm bike with a 75 deg seat tube angle. This is impossible to find. I have now gone the custom route but before I did so, to make sure I was on the right track regarding geometry, I built up a tri bike frame as a road bike. The frame I choose was a Valdora that came in a 75.5 deg seat tube angle. It is a frame that has a decent head tube angle (most tri bikes handle like a board when set up as a road bike) so it still handled well. The frame price is really reasonable as well.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

bicicletă said:


> Isn't this just for time trial setups?


I believe that's right. I only brought the 5cm number up as some evidence that the OP's set-back of 3cm was at the extreme end of the range. The point that the 5cm is for time trial setups, which typically feature very steep seat tube angles and very forward saddle positioning, only adds to my comment. I didn't mean to imply that the OP had to meet the requirement.

If the new position works out for the OP and truly increases power by 10%, that's a massive improvement!


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

bicicletă said:


> Isn't this just for time trial setups?


No, that rule is for all road, track and cyclocross events. The only exception is the track sprint, keirin, 500 meter time trial and 1,000 meter time trial. Under the "morophological exception", a rider can ask for approval to move his seat forward so that he achieves so-called KOPS even if it violates the 5-cm rule. But when pedaling, the excepted rider's knee in its foremost position cannot go beyond a vertical line drawn through the center of the pedal spindle. Under no circumstances can the saddle nose of any rider be in front of a vertical line drawn through the center of the bottom bracket.

/w


----------



## Nielly (Sep 21, 2009)

wim said:


> No, that rule is for all road, track and cyclocross events. The only exception is the track sprint, keirin, 500 meter time trial and 1,000 meter time trial. Under the "morophological exception", a rider can ask for approval to move his seat forward so that he achieves so-called KOPS even if it violates the 5-cm rule. *But when pedaling, the knee of the excepted rider must always be behind a vertical line drawn through the center of the bottom bracket.* Under no circumstances can the saddle nose of any rider be in front of that same vertical line drawn through the center of the bottom bracket.
> 
> /w


Maybe I mis-understand but how is it possible that the riders knee be behind the center of the bottom bracket when using KOPS?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Nielly said:


> Maybe I mis-understand but how is it possible that the riders knee be behind the center of the bottom bracket when using KOPS?


You're absolutely correct—it's not possible, and I screwed up. It should read: when pedaling, the excepted rider's knee in its foremost position cannot go beyond a vertical line drawn through the center of the *pedal spindle*.

I fixed my previous post, thanks for the catch! Getting old sucks.


----------



## bicicletă (Aug 18, 2008)

wim said:


> No, that rule is for all road, track and cyclocross events.


Doesn't this rule discriminate against shorter riders? How does the rule account for the variation in different saddle nose lengths, or saddle heights for tall or short riders? For example, my saddle is clamped at its absolute physical limit rearward on a 25mm setback seatpost, and normal (if not higher) saddle height for a 5' 5" rider. My setback, at 4cm, would fail the rule.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

bicicletă said:


> Doesn't this rule discriminate against shorter riders?.


It does, in that shorter riders are much more likely to require an exception to the rule and be burdened by the application process, the associated measurements and the potential disagreements. Whether or not short riders have actually been forced by the rule into a position not of their choosing, I do not know. See top of page 6 at the link.

http://www.usacycling.org/forms/uci/UCIBicycleRegulations.pdf


----------



## andresmuro (Dec 11, 2007)

GadgetGuy said:


> It's nice to find another short femured rider
> 
> I considered shorter cranks. But I'm already on 172.5, and probably wouldn't go shorter than 170, so when my cranks are at 3 o'clock that would only move the pedal spindle 0.25cm closer to the BB. I stumbled on some companies that make very short cranks (150mm) but that doesn't seem like the right solution for me.
> 
> Thanks for the other feedback, too.


Im a short femur dude too. I had a ti bike built in china with a 75.5 degree angle. I love it. My lower back stopped hurting when I moved forward. I also have a 73 degree bike but I have an extra long nashbar saddle and it is pretty forward.

Tri bikes can be set up as road bikes for short femur people too.


----------



## pdh777 (Oct 7, 2005)

Another person in the same boat. Do not ride custom, but I am 5'11" and ride a 56cm Look 585. STA = 73.75 / HTA 73. This set up works well although my seat is a little bit forward on a zero offset post - it does not look bad aesthetically (if that is your concern). As with many suppliers the smaller the frame the steeper the STA, if you need to go 1 size down this might help even more - will put you at 54. Great bike for everything, I believe the 595 has the same geo and is more of a sprinters bike - definitley stiffer. As you mentioned, Willier is the only other off the shelf bike manufacturer i know of offering your desired STA. Unless you want to go modern Italian retro steel in which case, Mondonico, Olmo Ciocc and few others offer 74 STA.
Further you have to consider HTA when considering a steeper STA - reason, many bikes with a steep STA also have steep HTA - if short femurs are your only unique issue - you then do not want to be too stretched out over the TT, or coversely need to use too short a stem to accomodate the steep HTA. Since I am normally proportioned on my upper torso the 73 HTA on the Look works great.

Also, you must consider the saddle length when using the seat tip as a measurement. Example; Two popular saddles - A Fizik Arione is physically longer than a Specialized Toupe. If you have both saddles where they are supposed to be on the rails for KOPS the Arione will measure with less of a setback from the saddle tip than the Toupe. Therefore you should measure KOPS for your saddle and remeasure if you decide to try a different brand.

Good Luck!


----------



## cmg (Oct 27, 2004)

" I have a zero-offset seatpost and the saddle is slammed all the way forwards." the first red flag that your on the wrong size bike. The fact that you've shown an increase in power means that the setup is correct. You don't mention a complaint about the reach being too long so assume that distance to the bars is close to optimum. Try riding a smaller size Ridley.


----------



## KensBikes (Feb 6, 2005)

GadgetGuy said:


> I'm 36yo, 5' 9.5", 168lb.
> 
> I just got a pro bike fit, and everything was dialed in properly, except that she moved my saddle forward a whopping 4cm, based upon plumb-bobbing. I think this was a good change because I've ridden 60 miles since then without any issues, and my power meter is showing an immediate 10% improvement in power output during a 20-minute time trial.
> 
> ...


I think you have the numbers and logic pretty much right. Check out the Torelli and Mondonico frames from Torelli. They usually have pretty upright seat tubes.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

You're assuming the fitting you received is correct for you.

It could be. But then maybe it's not.

If you believe the fitter and you're satisfied with the position but you want the aesthetics, then you have to have a custom frame built using the position you have with a change in seat angle to get the seat in an aesthetically acceptable position. This is something you would discuss with the builder. Some builders will instantly be skeptical of your requst and if they're thorough, will ask for body dimensions for proof. They may question the accuracy of the fitting you received, particularly after they view your body dimensions.

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but it's all based on the assumption that the fitter's positioning of you is gospel. Maybe you need another opinion.

Gunnar makes stock Roadies with steeper than average seat angles.

Cervelo seems to think a 73 degree seat angle works for just about everybody. Scour their web site for the story.

Is it possible your cranks are too long? That would be a cheap way to gain 2.5-5mm of setback.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Peter P. said:


> Cervelo seems to think a 73 degree seat angle works for just about everybody. Scour their web site for the story.


Sorry...I just had to laugh at this comment :lol: I'm no expert...but I'd venture to say Cervelo is wrong, however it may work those that they are marketing bikes to. 

I'd also venture to guess It also makes it much easier to keep costs down and profits up when you make very few changes from frame size to frame size...Which I have a feeling plays a bit more into the 73 degree STA more than anything :blush2:


----------



## amaguru (Jul 12, 2011)

*ratio*

Sorry to re-open an old thread, but slegros -- You cited a 'normal' ratio between femurs and tibiae. Where did you find that information? 

I'm working on designing a pair of prosthetic legs for a little girl and I'm trying to find kinanthropometric data like that and google brought me here... 

Thanks for your help!


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

amaguru said:


> Sorry to re-open an old thread, but slegros -- You cited a 'normal' ratio between femurs and tibiae. Where did you find that information?
> 
> I'm working on designing a pair of prosthetic legs for a little girl and I'm trying to find kinanthropometric data like that and google brought me here...
> 
> Thanks for your help!


The military compiled a bunch of that kind of proportion data - I thought I heard that Cervelo used it. Cyfac also has a lot of data.

However, little a girl does not have the limb proportions of the adults in those studies. Why not get some measurements from some volunteers her age? Given the reason, it shouldn't be hard to get parent or school support.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

She's also going to grow (like a weed in my daughter's case), so presumably they will have to be adjustable anyway.


----------



## anthro88 (May 17, 2010)

I don't think 170 would be too short, also should consider the KOPS position so you are within the range unless you are going to be on a racing position most of the time. All of this can affect your handling so pay attentionto those things to not compromise your center of gravity.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

My initial thought is that such a position as described by the OP would affect handling. Badly.

But this is thread dredge.


----------



## AvantDale (Dec 26, 2008)

Lol...I'm in the same situation as the OP. My fitter pushed my saddle all the way forward and used a longer stem.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Peter P. said:


> Cervelo seems to think a 73 degree seat angle works for just about everybody


They got roasted good on Velocipede Salon, and deservedly so.

One of the builders on VS said they should have just copied Ugo de Rosa's geometry.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> They got roasted good on Velocipede Salon, and deservedly so.
> 
> One of the builders on VS said they should have just copied Ugo de Rosa's geometry.


They can laugh all they want, but the average femur to leg proportion doesn't change radically between short and tall people. Proportional triangles are composed of the same angles, no matter what size, so if you are designing stock bikes for average people, a set angle makes more sense then what is common. As someone who is shorter, I'm continually confounded by the 74 degree or greater seat tube angles smaller frame sizes - most short people end up their saddles slammed back because of them.

While it is possible that_ very_ tall people have proportionally long femurs and need some setback help, steep STAs on small bikes are just a fraud to make the top tubes appear shorter than they really are. Trek is a major offender on it's WSD bikes.


----------



## dinosaurs (Nov 29, 2011)

AvantDale said:


> Lol...I'm in the same situation as the OP. My fitter pushed my saddle all the way forward and used a longer stem.


My saddle is all the way forward on a seat post I borrowed, and my fitter suggested a seat post that can give me some forward offset. Stem is 100mm.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Perhaps consider using an SMP saddle rather than a custom frame.
They have about 90mm or so of useable rails vs only about 60mm on many saddles.
As a result you can push the saddle further forward or back and in turn allow greater adjustment of setback.
Also if your fitter is relying on KOPS and plum bobbing I would look elsewhere.
My setback from my RETUL fitting is 99mm (187cm tall with long tibia and fibula's).


----------



## Johnnyb2 (Sep 1, 2009)

This is a great thread - one thing which seems to be missing is the aspect of lower back, 
hamstring & piriformus flexibility with respect to saddle positioning.

I think you also need to factor in flexibility and your ability to generate power and various hip angle.
This means there is an an arc of saddle height and fore/aft positioning that put your knee in the correct position relative to the pedal spindle.

For the super flexible, they can move the seat much further back and down to get a flat back and ride in a more aero position, without feeling like they're reaching for the bars.
For those that have lower back flexibility issues, they need to sit more upright, therefore the seat has to be further forward to compensate for this, and possibly be a little higher.

Have you done a bike fit, and what were your flexibility test results? If you can improve flexibility then you probably also need to change saddle setback and height to compensate.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Johnnyb2 said:


> This is a great thread - one thing which seems to be missing is the aspect of lower back,
> hamstring & piriformus flexibility with respect to saddle positioning.
> 
> I think you also need to factor in flexibility and your ability to generate power and various hip angle.
> ...


This misses hip flexibility, which often runs counter to lower back flexibility and can still produce a low bar position.

In the end, the position that works is what works. It is not a product of flexibility measures but of what can and can't happen on the bike.


----------



## AvantDale (Dec 26, 2008)

Doesn't setting the saddle too far back open the knee angle up too much? 

My saddle was set where my knee angle is at 90 degrees at the 2 o'clock position. Originally my saddle was too far back and my knees too open. My saddle was slammed all the way forward on my Cannondale that has a 74 degree STA. I asked if the frame was the wrong size...he said no...I just have short femurs.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

AvantDale said:


> Doesn't setting the saddle too far back open the knee angle up too much?
> 
> My saddle was set where my knee angle is at 90 degrees at the 2 o'clock position. Originally my saddle was too far back and my knees too open. My saddle was slammed all the way forward on my Cannondale that has a 74 degree STA. I asked if the frame was the wrong size...he said no...I just have short femurs.


No. Your knee angle is a function of the distance from the cranks to the saddle. Unless you move the saddle back without rechecking saddle height, the knee angle will remain constant, even on a recumbent.


----------



## AvantDale (Dec 26, 2008)

Won't that throw off my knee angle off at 6 if I slide it back and move the saddle down?

My fitter did use KOPS as a point of reference. My knee angles were checked at the 2,3, and 6 o'clock positions. I do kind of want to slide my saddle back a slight bit to see if I can get some pressure off my hands.

But on the other side...my riding did improve after the fit. So am I over thinking this?:mad2:


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

AvantDale said:


> Won't that throw off my knee angle off at 6 if I slide it back and move the saddle down?
> 
> My fitter did use KOPS as a point of reference. My knee angles were checked at the 2,3, and 6 o'clock positions. I don't kind of want to slide my saddle back a slight bit to see if I can get some pressure off my hands.
> 
> But on the other side...my riding did improve after the fit. So am I over thinking this?:mad2:


Sure, it will change at 6 o'clock. Moving your seat back and down redefines 6 o'clock, but it doesn't change how much bend you knee has as measured between the thigh and shin, just where those angles exist in comparison to a vertical line (which KOPs also references).

KOPs is a reference point for creating a traditional relationship between the saddle and cranks. For some kinds of riding a further aft position with a higher handlebar is preferred. For aero bars a forward saddle is used. KOPs is a good guide for those looking for the flattest back while using bars that don't have armrests to support your torso weight.


----------



## AvantDale (Dec 26, 2008)

So if I was to move my saddle back 1 or 2cm, how far would I slide my saddle down?

How will that affect my pedaling since I will be moving away from KOPS for which I was initially set at?

Thanks for your feedback...I appreciate it!


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

AvantDale said:


> So if I was to move my saddle back 1 or 2cm, how far would I slide my saddle down?
> 
> How will that affect my pedaling since I will be moving away from KOPS for which I was initially set at?
> 
> Thanks for your feedback...I appreciate it!


Saddle height is always measured as a straight line from the BB to the center of the saddle. All you do is maintain that distance - no calculation needed.

It affects different people in different ways, and the location of the your bar is going to matter, too. KOPs is normal - no reason not to use it. But other positions are easy to deal with once you understand that they are just variations on the normal position rotated around the BB.


----------



## AvantDale (Dec 26, 2008)

Ok...one last question. The bottom bracket on my S2 is not located where the seat tube and down tube meet. Its placed back of the seat tube. I was originally fitted on a Cannondale, where the BB shell is where the ST and DT meet. Does this factor into saddle fore/aft vs the position on my Cannondale?


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

AvantDale said:


> Ok...one last question. The bottom bracket on my S2 is not located where the seat tube and down tube meet. Its placed back of the seat tube. I was originally fitted on a Cannondale, where the BB shell is where the ST and DT meet. Does this factor into saddle fore/aft vs the position on my Cannondale?


No. All the fit contact points are just points in space. The shape of what connects them is immaterial - only the contact point locations matter.


----------



## AvantDale (Dec 26, 2008)

I moved the saddle back 1cm and down a bit to bring me back to KOPS. Feels like theres a bit less pressure on my hands. 

Thanks for the feedback!


----------



## gordy748 (Feb 11, 2007)

Wookiebiker said:


> Sorry...I just had to laugh at this comment :lol: I'm no expert...but I'd venture to say Cervelo is wrong, however it may work those that they are marketing bikes to.
> 
> I'd also venture to guess It also makes it much easier to keep costs down and profits up when you make very few changes from frame size to frame size...Which I have a feeling plays a bit more into the 73 degree STA more than anything :blush2:


+1! I've never seen any manufacturer have 73 degrees STA for all sizes.

The good news for the OP is that an upright position is possible by looking at TT frames, like Kestrel's Talon (or a bunch of others out there). From what I also understand, Italian bikes tend to have steeper seat angles than other countries. I know this is a gross generalization, and that other manufacturers may have steeper angles.

One trick you might consider is a slightly smaller frame. Usually they have steeper ST angles. But you need to be mindful they don't have top tubes so short you need a 150 stem to get the bars the right position.

Or... go custom.


----------



## gibson00 (Aug 7, 2006)

I'm in this same area of difficulty. I have shortish femurs for my height. They aren't super short, but then I also have a problem with one hip that doesn't move properly (bad posterior hip glide). This causes me to have to slide my saddle a bit further forward than I otherwise would, and also gives me a very un-smooth pedal stroke. The side with the bad hip pushes forward, and the heel on that side swings around a lot. Very frustrating..


----------

