Pimping saddle height
Discussion
Dear Pistonheads,
I've got a Trek Madone 3.5 on long-term loan from my LBS. It's to replace my old Trek 1.5.
I'm 6'1". The 3.5 is a 56cm, so was the 1.5.
6'1" is too big for a 56cm according to the Trek website, which says I should be on a 58cm or a 60cm. However, my last 56cm felt great and this one does too. After riding the 3.5 for a couple of weeks the LBS fitted me up properly on the bike, main adjustments were to tilt the bars up very slightly and to raise the saddle height by nearly an inch and bring the saddle forwards a touch (it was set back before). The bike feels great set up that way, and my average speeds seem to have gone up since raising the saddle.
LBS think that the seat post is out a long way and I would be better off with a 58. However, everything fits perfectly and the saddle height is well within the limits marked on the post. Switching to a 58 would mean waiting until Feb 2013 for delivery. LBS are happy that the bike is safe and fits well, the only thing is that the saddle height is pretty eye-catching. The bars are set pretty low, which makes it look even higher. It does feel great though.
So, take the 56 now or wait until Feb for a 58?
(I should add that I'm not going to look for a 58 elsewhere as the LBS have been brilliant to me and I will never make any substantial bike-related purchases from the internet again, or tart around other shops for prices or availability)
I've got a Trek Madone 3.5 on long-term loan from my LBS. It's to replace my old Trek 1.5.
I'm 6'1". The 3.5 is a 56cm, so was the 1.5.
6'1" is too big for a 56cm according to the Trek website, which says I should be on a 58cm or a 60cm. However, my last 56cm felt great and this one does too. After riding the 3.5 for a couple of weeks the LBS fitted me up properly on the bike, main adjustments were to tilt the bars up very slightly and to raise the saddle height by nearly an inch and bring the saddle forwards a touch (it was set back before). The bike feels great set up that way, and my average speeds seem to have gone up since raising the saddle.
LBS think that the seat post is out a long way and I would be better off with a 58. However, everything fits perfectly and the saddle height is well within the limits marked on the post. Switching to a 58 would mean waiting until Feb 2013 for delivery. LBS are happy that the bike is safe and fits well, the only thing is that the saddle height is pretty eye-catching. The bars are set pretty low, which makes it look even higher. It does feel great though.
So, take the 56 now or wait until Feb for a 58?
(I should add that I'm not going to look for a 58 elsewhere as the LBS have been brilliant to me and I will never make any substantial bike-related purchases from the internet again, or tart around other shops for prices or availability)
If it feels OK...there's your answer. Potentially!
However, if the seat's *right* up and the bars are likewise, then that could be one hint of it being a bit small: saddle high to get the leg extension, which then exacerbates a potentially too-short head tube, which means raising the bars. Banging the seat forward means you can reach "downwards" to the (maybe too low) bars that bit easier.
The 58 will have a taller headtube, bringing the bars up. The bar-saddle drop will be less.
What's the reach like on the 56? And have you tried a 58?
Of course, I'm no bike fit guru, but that's how I'd play it myself. YMMV of course
However, if the seat's *right* up and the bars are likewise, then that could be one hint of it being a bit small: saddle high to get the leg extension, which then exacerbates a potentially too-short head tube, which means raising the bars. Banging the seat forward means you can reach "downwards" to the (maybe too low) bars that bit easier.
The 58 will have a taller headtube, bringing the bars up. The bar-saddle drop will be less.
What's the reach like on the 56? And have you tried a 58?
Of course, I'm no bike fit guru, but that's how I'd play it myself. YMMV of course
Reach feels good on the 56. The bars are actually dropped down slightly from standard (one spacer above, two below). The saddle is pretty much central (it was set back at first but the bike fit bought it back to the middle).
I'm going to try a 58cm (model 3.1, same frame) tomorrow which should give a bit more of an idea.
Does sitting high above the bike tend to cause any handling quirks which might mean a larger frame would be better?
I'm going to try a 58cm (model 3.1, same frame) tomorrow which should give a bit more of an idea.
Does sitting high above the bike tend to cause any handling quirks which might mean a larger frame would be better?
You can pretty much set up any bike to fit you (within reason). Saddle height, stem length/height, crank lengths etc can all be changed.
Personally I prefer a smaller frame with a long stem to increase the reach. I'm 6ft 3 and ride a 57.
The one thing you need to keep in mind is that on a short test a bike might feel comfortable but if you do 3 or 4 hours it might hurt your back, neck or shoulders. Also the handlebars might feel at the right height when you are on the hoods but have you tried staying on the drops for any length of time, if you don't find the drops too uncomfortable then the handlebar height is probably not going to be a problem.
Aesthetically saddle height is a personal preference but i definitely prefer a higher saddle, it looks and feels more aggressive.
Your cetre of gravity should be almost identical on both so control won't be much difference between both if they are set up to have the same handlebar, saddle height etc. The only difference will be them will be wheelbase but that shouldn't be noticeable.
Personally I prefer a smaller frame with a long stem to increase the reach. I'm 6ft 3 and ride a 57.
The one thing you need to keep in mind is that on a short test a bike might feel comfortable but if you do 3 or 4 hours it might hurt your back, neck or shoulders. Also the handlebars might feel at the right height when you are on the hoods but have you tried staying on the drops for any length of time, if you don't find the drops too uncomfortable then the handlebar height is probably not going to be a problem.
Aesthetically saddle height is a personal preference but i definitely prefer a higher saddle, it looks and feels more aggressive.
Your cetre of gravity should be almost identical on both so control won't be much difference between both if they are set up to have the same handlebar, saddle height etc. The only difference will be them will be wheelbase but that shouldn't be noticeable.
A lot of people prefer slightly smaller frames because
1) They weigh less
2) They handle better
However if you have got 2cm or more of spacers under the stem to get your position, then you need a larger frame. You can get longer aftermarket seatposts so as long as you are not past the minimum insertion level otherwise replace it
1) They weigh less
2) They handle better
However if you have got 2cm or more of spacers under the stem to get your position, then you need a larger frame. You can get longer aftermarket seatposts so as long as you are not past the minimum insertion level otherwise replace it
You won't be higher up on a smaller bike, as the saddle-BB distance and BB height will be the same.
As the seat post extends the saddle goes back, so balance shouldn't be altered either.
Smaller bikes have shorter wheelbase which makes the more pointy, and the head tube is shorter so bars will be lower, but if you're not slamming the stem it sounds right.
On the other hand, a bike that's too large is unfixable.
I'm 6ft and normally ride a 58 (trundling) or 56 (racing) but I've ridden my 5ft1 wife's tiny Trek road bike with the seatpost all the way up and whilst I wouldn't want to descend an alp on it, it feels fine pottering around on.
As the seat post extends the saddle goes back, so balance shouldn't be altered either.
Smaller bikes have shorter wheelbase which makes the more pointy, and the head tube is shorter so bars will be lower, but if you're not slamming the stem it sounds right.
On the other hand, a bike that's too large is unfixable.
I'm 6ft and normally ride a 58 (trundling) or 56 (racing) but I've ridden my 5ft1 wife's tiny Trek road bike with the seatpost all the way up and whilst I wouldn't want to descend an alp on it, it feels fine pottering around on.
Bear in mind that it's not just the seatpost that has a minimum insertion amount; the frame will also have a depth that it requires the seatpost to be inserted. Can't see that this would be a problem if the post's markings have loads of adjustment left though.
Go small. I'm 6'6" am on a 58cm Cervelo and 56cm Look!
Go small. I'm 6'6" am on a 58cm Cervelo and 56cm Look!
Uriel said:
Bear in mind that it's not just the seatpost that has a minimum insertion amount; the frame will also have a depth that it requires the seatpost to be inserted. Can't see that this would be a problem if the post's markings have loads of adjustment left though.
Go small. I'm 6'6" am on a 58cm Cervelo and 56cm Look!
You must have a monster saddle/bar height drop ?Go small. I'm 6'6" am on a 58cm Cervelo and 56cm Look!
Going from a 56cm to a 58cm would add 20mm to the headtube, countering the spacers below the stem on the 56cm and/or the turned-upwards bars. It would also add 13mm to the (horizontal) top tube BUT, Trek also state a measurement called "frame reach", for which the 58cm is only 4mm longer.
If it was me (again, disclaimers ahoy!) then I'd take a very long look at a 58cm
If it was me (again, disclaimers ahoy!) then I'd take a very long look at a 58cm
Uriel said:
Bear in mind that it's not just the seatpost that has a minimum insertion amount; the frame will also have a depth that it requires the seatpost to be inserted. Can't see that this would be a problem if the post's markings have loads of adjustment left though.
Go small. I'm 6'6" am on a 58cm Cervelo and 56cm Look!
I'd hate to see an MRI of your lumbar spine.Go small. I'm 6'6" am on a 58cm Cervelo and 56cm Look!
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff