Thoughts on modern frame geometry trends? Steep seat tubes? High stack?

[patliean1]

My Monday morning rant...

So I've been struggling to get an optimal bike fit on several newer frames within the past 9 months. While I always pay very close attention to the stack and reach measurements when selecting a frame size, something always felt off.

Recently I discovered the shortcomings in my understanding of geometry and design - Seat tube angle. And by extension, "effective overall reach." Many new frames are being designed around 73.5° or 74° seat tube angles supplied with zero offset seat posts. This does work for me...at all. It's basically impossible for me to get my saddle far enough back even when going beyond manufacturer suggested saddle rail limits. Extremely frustrating. Both back pain and knee pain immediately occurs when my saddle isn't far enough back during harder efforts.

I want to be clear: I am in the minority of individuals where this new geometry trend is killing me. The difference between 73° and 74° seat tube angle is very tangible. My arms are super long for my height. Short torso. And my saddle fore/aft is around 9.5cm behind the bottom bracket. 140mm stem. Apparently I have an old school style of bike fit, so I'm more Luke Plappy from Jayco than Remco.

My Tavelo Arow has been in rotation now for two years. The longest bike in rotation since my original Winspace T1500. It is absolutely the benchmark for setting up all new bikes for speedy rides. But sadly I haven't been able to do so because of....seat tube angles.

Am I the only one here? I emailed QuickPro to order a 15mm setback post. They said it will take a month. I also immediately offered this feedback to Peter at XMCS and now he is releasing a 20mm setback post for the new AERYS frame later this Spring. The Velobuild Aero Trace should have been a cautionary tale that I completely overlooked. What's the solution lol?

[Takiyaki]

Weirdly, I have long arms, but regular legs + torso and I find I like a saddle forward position with lots of reach. Voicevelo Echo is at the top of my list fit wise.

Thinking about it..... IDK man. A tri frame with road bars might be worth considering. It will get you the reach you need for sure, and in the right size + setup might get your lower body in a more powerful position w/o tons of pain.

[xenograft]

A 15mm offset seat post combined with pushing your saddle back 20mm would be an apparent STA of approx. 71° to 72° when starting from 74°. Unfortunate as moving away from round seatposts means this is entirely dependent on the frame manufacturer or expensive bespoke solutions.

[Chiyou]

Somewhat of an aside but frames like the AERYS with a partially-curved, partially-straight seat tube pose a particular challenge for online purchase because STA is somewhat meaningless in these cases; you need to know what point on the seat tube they use to determine STA. And what you really want to know is the STA for your saddle height.

[toxin]

Unfortunately, you might be in the minority, wanting slack seat angles on a race bike. My preference is extremely forward, where a tri/tt bike with drop bars might be the only currently existing option. As a bandaid fix though, you could look at https://www.fairbicycle.com/product-page/drop-best-uc-road

[Sakizashi]

The steep seat tube, high-stack thing isn't / shouldn't be for performance drop-bar bikes. Yeah, it's a minority opinion that only really gets heard by the designers who make WT-spec race bikes, who are now starting to lower stacks again. /rant

The problem is that you are using stack and reach to solve a problem that sounds like it's actually a saddle-to-bar distance (resolved to X, Y components) problem. One of the assumptions of the church of stack and reach is that your pedaling position is fixed and optimized. Because these new geometries intentionally shift your pedaling position, using stack and reach to translate your fit won't work. I would recommend going back to the basics and refitting accordingly.

If I remember correctly, you are slightly between sizes. I suspect refitting will lead you to the bigger size, but then the issue might be that you can't get low enough, so you need to look at a brand with more aggressive geometry, and we can rant together.

[dsveddy]

While I generally think steep seat tubes and long frame reaches are here to stay, I do think stack height is an area where all bikes should be low. In principle it could make perfect sense: just accommodate different stack philosophies at the level of the handlebar/stem. It's lighter and more aero as well.

[Takiyaki]

While I generally think steep seat tubes and long frame reaches are here to stay, I do think stack height is an area where all bikes should be low. In principle it could make perfect sense: just accommodate different stack philosophies at the level of the handlebar/stem. It's lighter and more aero as well.

Ive heard there are problems with running too many spacers. What those problems are I dont know but Ive heard to just size up vs adding more and more spacers. For the folks who dont need a ton of reach that gets tough.

I do feel like frame builders should just offer different geometries. IMO stuff like the 130mm stem Im running shouldnt be so popular. Frames just need to be a little longer. Sizing up doesnt even help as the next size of my frame only has 10mm more reach and a 15mm longer TT, which I feel like gets eaten up by the fact that I will be running the seatpost much shorter. I really need my frame with like 30-35mm more reach to run a "normal" stem length.

[xenograft]

Ive heard there are problems with running too many spacers. What those problems are I dont know but Ive heard to just size up vs adding more and more spacers. For the folks who dont need a ton of reach that gets tough.

I do feel like frame builders should just offer different geometries. IMO stuff like the 130mm stem Im running shouldnt be so popular. Frames just need to be a little longer. Sizing up doesnt even help as the next size of my frame only has 10mm more reach and a 15mm longer TT, which I feel like gets eaten up by the fact that I will be running the seatpost much shorter. I really need my frame with like 30-35mm more reach to run a "normal" stem length.

I think he meant handlebar/stem solutions such as integrated bars with rise (like tavelo, lightcarbon), or more slack angles, -7 vs -17 for example. As an added convenience of one piece stems, some you can just flip to get the positive angle, even up to 35 degrees for example.

[patliean1]

What doesn't get talked about enough is the fact world tour riders are training their bodies to accommodate the modern road bike position. Core exercises, strength training, yoga etc. And GC riders tend to be on the shorter side overall. Even Egan Bernal looks tall and slender, but in reality is only 5'9".

The fix for brands in general in my opinion would be to simply make the top tube and front centre a tad longer. And offer both a zero and 20mm setback post.

Funny enough I was chatting with a professional race team who is running the QuickPro ER One this season. Turns out the general critique among the team is that the supplied zero offset doesn't work for the majority of their American riders. This give me a little validation that the problem isn't just myself.

[Sakizashi]

What doesn't get talked about enough is the fact world tour riders are training their bodies to accommodate the modern road bike position. Core exercises, strength training, yoga etc. And GC riders tend to be on the shorter side overall. Even Egan Bernal looks tall and slender, but in reality is only 5'9".

The fix for brands in general in my opinion would be to simply make the top tube and front centre a tad longer. And offer both a zero and 20mm setback post.

Funny enough I was chatting with a professional race team who is running the QuickPro ER One this season. Turns out the general critique among the team is that the supplied zero offset doesn't work for the majority of their American riders. This give me a little validation that the problem isn't just myself.

Feels like Quick Pro is sponsoring half the Pro 1/2 teams / clubs out there.

Re fit: I don't think much of this is really true. Pro riders aren't doing much more off the bike work than before. Modern road positions don't require changes in core strength and demand less flexibility in the hips and lumbar spine.

Also, it's not Egan Bernal, but riders like Pogacar, Remco, Matteo Jorgenson, and Jonas Abrahamsson who are on the forward fits right now. Jorgenson is 6'3" and Abrahamson is like 6', so its not just for short riders.

[patliean1]

Also, it's not Egan Bernal, but riders like Pogacar, Remco, Matteo Jorgenson, and Jonas Abrahamsson who are on the forward fits right now. Jorgenson is 6'3" and Abrahamson is like 6', so its not just for short riders.

Correct. I just meant that Egan Bernal is on the taller side of typical GC riders. Irrespective of his bike fit. Then again, him and Tadej are around the same height. It was funny seeing Tadej on the Y1Rs early season last year during the UAE Tour. He didn't look nearly as comfortable on it as he did later in the season during TdF.

[toxin]

The tiny GC rider hasn't been the norm for quite some time now. Bernal is about average, maybe even lower side of average for a GC guy. As climbing speeds rise, absolute watts gain more importance. And if you can't TT or ride on the flat in this age, you aren't winning big GCs. The days of the Quintana body type at the forefront of GC are over.

When you watch a WT race, pay attention to how many riders have a lot of the back of the saddle showing. Most saddles are designed to be sat on in a way that would result in almost no saddle showing behind the rider. MvdP and Pog both sit basically on the nose of their saddles. This has been a staple of many pro bike positions for a long time and is a clear indicator that the rider needs the saddle further forward. It's only now that something is finally being done about it.

[CycOps]

"Steep seat tubes? High stack?"
IMHO STA yes.
If someone could make the math and rotate the Ridley Noah Fast 3.0 geometry counter clockwise around the BB to a "normal" STA of 73 degrees I'd like it be insteresting what stack we'd have.
Noah Fast 3.0 starts with a STA of 76.5 degrees in the smallest size. So veeery centered rider position. Not in the bigest frame size though.

IMHO stack, the trend ist not so clear as I thought it was.
Cannondale lowered the stack. But in the classisc we could see EF riders with nice towers of spacers under their stems. So does the new gemetry makes any sense?
Canyon copied the geometry of the Aeroad to the new Endurace. So less stack and more reach for their endurance bike. Does this make sense for an endurance bike?

[Dark17]

It's time to go to Jerry Gerlich, Colby Pearce or Brian McGuian for a comprehensive bike fit