Loading…
For the alternative view.
I have a lugged steel bike that I love. However it is old school geometry with a horizontal (non sloping) top tube that is pretty tall. The only difference it really makes to me is that there is very little exposed seat post. That means the seat post can not absorb any shock.
I have some nice flexy carbon seat posts (Canyon, ergon, specialized CG-R) that are great at passively absorbing shock, but they do nothing on this frame. There is not enough exposed for the seat post to flex. I do use an active seat post (small Thudbuster) on it and that works fine.
Just something to keep in mind. Stiff seat posts are horrible on gravel, flexy ones are nice, but don’t work without a lot of seat post exposed, and active seat post are great, but if your seat is too low, it may not fit. Food for thought.
I was between frame sizes, and went for the small frame (and lower stack height) partially because the seat post worked so well with a lot exposed. It also makes for a more agile bike. The larger frame would have given me more stack, and been more stable.
Caliper wrote:Yup, I've got some bikes where the top tube will just give some gentle pressure while standing over the frame. Riding in Michigan at least, gravel riding is pretty much gravel roads and thus a road fit works fine. Heck, I've even used look pedals and road shoes for many, many miles and never an issue.
bnystrom wrote:Personally, I would not buy a frame that compromises fit and function in any way, no matter how much I like it otherwise. Proper fit should always be the number one priority. You've experienced poorly fit bikes and the issues they cause in the past, so why would you compromise fit again?

nellborg wrote:I should have 3" of standover height clearance with the L frame that I bought...
nellborg wrote:
But, as to my original question, lots of stem spacers, an upwards angled stem, and too much seat post just doesn't look like an optimal setup to me. Is there an optimal length of exposed seat post, stem spacers, stem length, and stem angle - or at least numbers that have been thrown around as being in the middle and what frames are designed around?
Well, the middle is whatever comes stock on the bike.
My old mountain bikes came with 120mm stems. Now they are less that 50mm. Depends how the frame is designed. Even with Gravel/CX bikes, there is a trend to longer top tubes and shorter stems.
Exposed seat tube:
as much as you can for optimum comfort and shock absorption.
As little as possible if you are bike packing – in that case you want as much area in the frame triangle for your frame bag and/or water bottles.
Height – Ideally your handlebars would be as high as your seat for a relaxed fit (lower if you are more aggressive).
Handlebar stems – your bike will probably come with the maximum number of spacers already on it – that is going to be limited by the length of the steerer tube. With a carbon steerer tube, I don’t think you’ll see much more than 30mm. More is possible if Aluminum
chas wrote:It's not necessarily about being aggressive as much as it's about body proportions. I have long arms and legs for my height, so my bars need to be considerably lower than my saddle in order to not be sitting too upright. On my gravel bike, that difference is 8cm. This puts the bars 2cm higher than on my road bikes because I want a slightly higher position.
Height – Ideally your handlebars would be as high as your seat for a relaxed fit (lower if you are more aggressive).
nellborg wrote:
But, as to my original question, lots of stem spacers, an upwards angled stem, and too much seat post just doesn't look like an optimal setup to me. Is there an optimal length of exposed seat post, stem spacers, stem length, and stem angle - or at least numbers that have been thrown around as being in the middle and what frames are designed around?
Sign in to reply — or claim your old account if you posted here before.