Yup, these along with Trek and others of the same cone-style can experience slippage. It’s probably my least favorite style of seatpost clamp because of this.
And when they to hold tight, they end up being a pain when I’m doing a fit and want to alter the seat angle just a bit. More than once I’ve had to totally remove the seat, knock out the cones with a screw driver and start all over with the fore-aft and angle. I end up taking before and after measurements to be sure, and try to under-do the torque while we’re still playing with setup. Just a hassle compared to a regular 2-bolt setup or one of the other separated adjustment systems that work very well.
Back to your problem, I do have one idea if you haven’t already tried this. Assuming the saddle is tipping up at the nose, as a result of the main weight on the saddle at the wider wings, which are behind the pivot axis of the clamp…
Slide the saddle rails as far forward as possible in the clamp (red arrow). This will reduce the leverage that your body has on the pivot location.
Match this shift by moving the lower seat mount an equal amount in the opposite direction (yellow arrow), to maintain your saddle fore-aft location relative to the BB.
Essentially looking to reduce the effective leverage and force applied to the clamp.
Opposite direction, but good idea. Get the weight over the pivot point. Hadn’t really thought of that. I just seem to treat it like a ‘get on and go’ device, and often neglect some basic maintenance from time to time. I usually keep saying when I’m riding ‘Tip that seat up’ and then forget to do it until it gets really bad, and then sometimes tweak it too far. And suffer with it enough, or realize it will just nose down again, and live with it. I have a feeling I’m not the only one, but…
Thanks for this thread. The one big thing I kept saying when I was working at a bike shop was (for capable people) don’t be afraid to experiment. A millimeter can make a world of difference in how you fit the bike. I almost always now start out with a shorter stem because putting a 100 or 110mm reach on a 56 bike is just not going to work for me. I have a collection of them, in case my arms ever grow longer. I guess you never know…
For sure, that’s a big reason I got this going. It’s something I often say to my clients, that a few millimeters and/or degrees are sometimes the surprising difference between getting by (or living with discomfort) and loving your bike. I do have the occasional client where we make some massive changes. But the vast majority are a sum of maybe 3-5 key adjustments that seem small until you actually try them individually, but the group makes the real difference.
Very true. I often test a range and purposely overshoot some adjustments just to let the client feel the real difference at the extremes. Doing that serves as some education so they can tweak on their own in the future if they wish, but also makes a more memorable impact than a small change that is ‘perfect’ from the start (if we even hit that sometimes )
Fitting is a mix of some good science, experience and targeted guessing at times, but usually can get someone to a better place on their bike once done.
That thought runs through my mind all of the time. I started doing specific exercises along with core work 2-3x per week about a year ago. I have a consultation / assessment test with a PT tomorrow.
Got a question around saddles. I’ve been told by 2 fitters that I am inbetween 143 and 155 saddle sizes so am a ‘either or’… I have a 153mm pro logic on both my bikes. I’ve tried both sized saddles but have NEVER been comfy, constantly moving around and find myself having to shuffle back onto the back of the saddle.
Past 6 months, I’ve been having continual ongoing lower back and hip problems that after visiting a cycling physio am getting scanned tomorrow for hip impingment, but she thinks the issue is most likely that I am not activating my glute max on my right side and instead the glute med is taking the brunt of the work. I’ve shortened cranks from 172.5 to 165.
Since this I have been doing glute activation exercises off the bike and when doing small rides on the bike, I’ve been actively trying to engage my glutes. Now paying more attention, I find rarely sit on the wings of the saddle and find myself resting of my perianal area, when I lift myself back I can feel the glute start to kick in, my posture changes and i feel better but I soon will slip back.
Obviously this could be the FAI - but trying to attack things from all sides could a incorrect saddle have a impact on the lack of glute max activation (and be a reason why I slid myself forward).
IME some saddles will cause me to slide forward. But it could be as simple as tilting the nose up slightly, lowering the saddle or moving it forward.
I recently switched to shorter cranks and didn’t adjust my seat post height. This meant my saddle was lower than before. I found that I was more comfortable at the very back of the saddle than I have ever been. It gave me more fore /aft range to work with.
The saddle is “The center of the bike fit universe” according to Dr. Andy Pruitt, which basically means that if you aren’t stable and comfortable on the saddle, nothing else matters.
If you aren’t comfortable or able to find a consistent position on the saddle, your fit and performance are likely to suffer.
My main thought from your comments is that you are potentially on the wrong style/shape saddle regardless of width. There are a nearly endless supply of saddle shapes and that’s not an accident or capitalism gone bad. Some people will love one shape while others consider it less comfortable than sitting on a hatchet.
The only way to really know is to try different shapes (and sizes) on the bike and see how each works for you. I wish we had an easy… “pick this saddle to solve all your problems” solution, but that doesn’t exist. There are too many differences in use cases, physical attributes and the like to be so specific.
That may well indicated that your prior saddle height was too high. Good to experiment as it seems there is a general tendency for people to be too high rather than too low from the examples I’ve seen.
At first I thought it was my saddle being a bit far back so I made that adjustment and put my saddle height about where it was before, but you were right. It needed to be a few mm lower.
Pearson is claiming their latest road bike has a greater range of fits than the competition due to their geometry and how they have small increments in their frame sizes. But if you read their graphs carefully, you see that they are comparing other road bikes with only stock components to Pearson bikes with a whole range of stem sizes, bar widths, etc. So it’s very apples and oranges.
You can get that adjustment range with most bikes, except if the bike uses proprietary interfaces or has an integrated bar/stem combo, then you might be pretty limited. If they had been clear about that and pointed to specific bikes in their comparison, that would be fine. But they made it sound like Pearson bikes are unique in this ability, which they very much aren’t.
I am linking to it because the graphs they used at least have some interesting fit data on them and can help people visualize bike sizing.
Thanks for the reminder. I saw this last night and immediately saw some red flags in their claims. I need to dig in today. I hadn’t caught the component side, but their basic bike sizing falls in line with most endurance geo that I have seen. But perhaps part of their claim is getting that geo on a more “race” oriented bike via aero & other ride qualities vs the typical endurance bike?
I think it basically boils down to endurance geo with aero design, smaller size jumps and customizable component selection. However, they don’t cover the typical size range, instead guiding smaller and larger riders to one of their other models. So this great fit system isn’t so great.
I really take issue with this statement:
Forge begins with our customers – passionate, committed riders – and works backwards. Where most bikes use industry data, we use customer data. As the world’s oldest cycling company and an independent bike maker, it genuinely sets us apart. Put simply, there is no other bike manufacturer in the world who has gathered such useful fit data.
So Specialized with Retul somehow has less data than Pearson just because Pearson is older.
If they leaned into the customized fit of the stock components they would have a good story. Swapping carbon parts after purchase is expensive. But even here it’s not as nice as they imply.
First off, it seems that someone at Pearson is going to select components for you based on a consultation? You can’t pick them on the product page.
Secondly they still seem to be using proprietary seatpost and integrated bar/stem combo, likely with non-round steer tube. So you’re still locked into proprietary parts. Worse, it’s on a bike that you can’t try out before ordering.
Man, that sure looks like a load of BS to me as well. You nailed it with time being one thing, and actual count another. I don’t think it’s a stretch to consider Specialized (and their Body Geometry to Retul purchases along the way) as likely having the largest dataset in fitting available.
Based on your observations, I am even more skeptical than I was on first blush from the BR article. Good old Marketing dept run wild
I dont really agree with pearson, but I do agree with we need some very aero endurance bikes. I have been on the hunt lately for a friend and there really isn’t much to offer.
Agreed, I have hacked some setups on “race” bikes for “endurance” fits when people essentially have “the wrong bike” for the job. A proper blend with light weight, some aero shaping and relaxed Reach & Stack (perhaps with related endurance Wheelbase & Head Tube Angle) seems like a bit of a hole in the market.
My buddy (68Y/O) throws out great power and has very good endurance. All he wants is a new Madone that fits him (mostly aesthetics reason). We couldn’t find him a “superbike” with ideal geometry so guess what, he bought a madone with tons of spacers and not the ideal fit…
I tried really hard to get him on this new Defy because I thought it was a pretty good compromise but couldnt get him to bite
They should focus on that aspect of it. They prattled on and on about their “special” sizing for hundreds of words and some fancy graphs instead of saying “Hey, most of us aren’t comfortable on pro fits. But everyone likes free speed (aero), so here’s a bike for the rest of us”. Keep it simple and communicate effectively.
Just dropping this off here because it is a pretty good visual for hip rotation and I know that I’ll never remember where I saw it the next time the question comes up…
I think he is exaggerating his lower back position when he rotates his hips, as it looks very stiff and awkward, but it is a good visual for your hips.
And suffer with it enough, or realize it will just nose down again, and live with it. I have a feeling I’m not the only one, but…
)
