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

[Sakizashi]

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

I hate to say it since their fit sessions cost more than a lot of the frames here, but this is probably the answer.

I am still confused as to what the issue or observation is. Originally I thought the complaint was that @paliean1 wanted more setback and lower stack. Given the later comments about Bernal and Pogi, not sure?

Either way, there are two ways to fix this.
1. Get a bike fit to see if you can make a modern geometry bike work for you
2. Find a frame that allows you to duplicate both your saddle position (as measured in both height and setback from the BB) and stack and reach, and stop using stack and reach in isolation for sizing and then complaining that bikes don't fit. It was never intended to be used that way if you read up on the FIST fitting method that popularized it. https://www.xybikecalc.com/ has an amazing toolset for this.

[notnow]

I feel blessed because I have long legs + short torso and a proper bike fit has been impossible since forever without buying a new stem/integrated barstem.
This new trend allowed me to have a regular saddle fore/aft instead of having it slammed all the way to the front + sacrifice weight distribution + requiring new stems.

I first noticed this in my Trek Madone SLR gen 7, where did all my pain go?

[Dareios]

183cm tall, 88,5cm inseam and (only) 58,6cm armlength (measured from top of the sholder to the wrist), so I do like the modern trend and having steeper seattube angles is something I kinda like because I did lots of MTB as a kid.
That said, it would be enough if each company would allow you to pick between a classic offset and a zero offset saddle and have their regular handlebars + some with 20 or even 25mm of extra stack.

I do think the whole prog geometry discussion is something different, where those newer frames like Ridley Noah Fast 3.0, Factor One, the Dare and even the Aerotrace or even something like the Simplon Pride 2 (don't laugh, 2 positions for the seatpost clamp and 3 different stack height stems, each with 15mm reach adjustability, you can get that one dialed in pretty good) make sense. Trying to replicate your traditional fit on those bikes will probably be a bit of an uphill battle.

Slightly off topic, but someone should give Paty a Storck Aerfast, long low and stiff as hell

[jonathanf2]

I like °0 offset seat posts, forward saddle positioning and high stack. In conjunction with shorter cranksets and narrow handle bars, I can ride all day in comfort. Nowadays it's how I have my road and gravel bikes setup even on my less-modern geometry framesets.

[hubba]

I'm built a bit like Pat with longer legs. 186cm 94.5cm inseam 197cm wingspan. He might have even longer arms than me. I remember he mentioned he's running 9.5cm setback because of old leg injury and if he moves it forward it starts to hurt.

I used to run a lot more setback too close to 10cm but past few years I've moved my position forward about 2cm and I feel a lot better on the bike. Also my crank length has gone down from 175 to 165. I remember when trying to be aero my legs were hitting my stomach and it was hard to produce power there.

When I moved my saddle forward I did get some feelings in my right knee but it got used to it quickly and now it's fine. Are you doing any strength training Pat? Strong muscles help protect the knees. I wonder if you could get used to running less setback too by slowly moving the saddle forward and strengthening the legs and using short cranks.

[jonathanf2]

The nice thing with shorter cranks is the reduced hip impingement in conjunction with that forward saddle position. Though it emphasizes more quad use. I've been adding leg extensions and/or hack squats to target that muscle group in conjunction with regular barbell squats. I've also been adding more running to my off-bike training as well to make sure my legs get well-rounded muscle use. While it might not give me the advantage on long steady climbs, the moment I hit a short punchy climbs, I can attack hard on those sections while other cyclists are just dawdling. Only problem is once we're back to the long steady climbs I still get dropped by the lightweight cardio climbers! 

[srf0638]

I will say, shorter cranks plus seat forward plus "don't worry about seat too low" seems to have done a number on my left knee, which had previously been immune to anything I could throw at it on a bike. I already run my cleats as far back as they'll go, but I think a true midfoot cleat fit might be ncessary to make the rest of it work for me.

[toxin]

Definitely should worry about "seat too low" at least a little bit. Not as much as "seat too high", but it's still bot something to write off. Yeah lower seat is better for aero, but biomechanics should still be the main concern. Shorter cranks and forward saddle both reduce your terminal leg extension if you don't change seat post extension.

[Blueberry]

I'm always getting annoyed by high stack "aero" bikes because they're basically just a bigger frame maybe with shorter reach. I end up having to size down to be able to stand over the bike, negating the benefits of higher stack.

That being said, I do like the new trend of riser bars. That could certainly help my stack issue. Maybe I can get the size down with a riser bar and not have to use a million spacers.

I'm a fan of lower bottom brackets too. I think they could go lower than they have been. I feel like 70-72mm is pretty normal right now but I prefer 74-80 if possible. Road tires have gotten 5-10mm bigger and many people are running cranks that are 5-10mm shorter but bb drop has probably only increased an average of around 5mm (don't double check those numbers, they're all rough estimates). I think people care about pedaling through corners more than they used to so maybe that's why they haven't lowered them more.

[rolypoly]

I mean, in response to the general sentiment of this forum: its a good thing that there are HEAPS of options out there.

Realistically there is only a few "aero" frames that truly fit the steep STA, high stack and long reach criteria?

[toxin]

Tbh, "high stack and long reach" just means bigger size frame

[srf0638]

I will say, shorter cranks plus seat forward plus "don't worry about seat too low" seems to have done a number on my left knee, which had previously been immune to anything I could throw at it on a bike. I already run my cleats as far back as they'll go, but I think a true midfoot cleat fit might be ncessary to make the rest of it work for me.

Definitely should worry about "seat too low" at least a little bit. Not as much as "seat too high", but it's still bot something to write off. Yeah lower seat is better for aero, but biomechanics should still be the main concern. Shorter cranks and forward saddle both reduce your terminal leg extension if you don't change seat post extension.

On this, I will also note that the Wove Bike guy, who is otherwise pretty into "progressive" road/tt fits, seems to put most people on 170-175mm cranks for approximately this reason, see e.g. https://wovebike.com/blog/bikefit and https://forum.slowtwitch.com/t/tri-bikes-need-greater-pad-reach-x-and-the-role-of-crank-length-in-bike-fits/826776/2 (I believe he's the OP there.).

[Sakizashi]

I don’t know if you are reacting to Nick from Wove—but yeah he has a lot of interesting things to say and while i dont love how much those saddles cost as a wear item, they are pretty awesome.

Nick tends to take a nuanced approach to this stuff which is not well received on a lot of places on the internet. I think there is a situation where people are looking for quick answers, a linear process to acheive what they want from a fit, be it aero gains, comfort or both. The reality is that the quick answers didnt work that well for “traditional” road bikes and with the bike geometries designed for forward fit or progressive road fit still evolving, they are still too immature for folks to be saying that shorter cranks are needed or that you cant have a seat thats too low.

For me, at 169cm, ive stopped at 165mm cranks. There are no impingement issues for me, my knees track straight, hips are stable, and going lower its probably not possible on my road bike. As I go to shorter cranks, my power band gets narrower. A lot of this has to do with glute recruitment. In theory a shorter crank can help glute recruitment, but a higher base cadence tends to put the load on the cardio system and mechanically on the quads—so it ends up as a bit of an optimization question depending on the style of riding you do in addition to a fit question.

[patliean1]

I'm 6'0"/183cm tall - Saddle setback around 9.5cm - Saddle height 78cm center to center - Size 56 frame
Typically I run a 140mm stem with no more than 15mm of spacers depending on the frame. 170mm cranks.

Once the outdoor season is finished I plan to completely retool (no pun) and experiment with a new bike fit.
Try out some 165mm cranks, move the saddle forward, and push my cleats further backwards. All I really and truly want is for my knees to track straight. Would be cool though if I somehow magically unlocked 10-20w more watts with an updated fit.

Earlier this week I did move my saddle forward around 5mm. Feels a tad more stable without introducing knee pain.

I just turned 43 and no I don't do strength training. But I actually did religiously up until I started cycling in 2020. Then I lost around 10kg from the bike. Seems like everyone is lifting now so I guess I better do the same.

[Dark17]

I would advise you to go to a reputable bike fitter but the best fitters I know lives faraway from your city lol. I know that you despise bike fitters based on one of your youtube comments but these fitters are the best in the world and are progressive the way they fit their clients. Brian McGuian or Chris Balser would be the closest fitter to you and for sure he can make you fit to modern standards.