# Seat tube angles and power



## MDEnvEngr (Mar 11, 2004)

Talk to me about this. I've pretty much always liked steepish seat tube angles. But, I wanted to try a slack seat tube frame to get the rear wheel more under my butt. So, I built that red bike I showed here a couple of months ago. It's a 29er with a real short wheelbase, 420mm CS and a 68° seat angle. That bike was great: cornered really well, held a line good, went up-and-over stuff really well. You certainly wouldn't fall asleep on it, but that's fine.

So, last Saturday, I broke the drive side chainstay. Tubing too light for the application, coupled with some ill-planned crimps was the culprit. I *knew* that frame was going to fail in fairly short order, so no biggie. Not worth repairing, as it was a test sled anyway.

So, I swapped all of the parts over to frame #3. I built this frame to be a clone of the bike Carl Strong built me. It has a 74° seat angle. Took it out last night for a quick lap. I'll be a sunny biscuit...that feels much faster. Not as comfortable...more weight on the hands, but it feels like I can get the power down much better.

One thing I did notice on the slack bike was the effort it took to go from sitting to standing. I got used to it and didn't notice it again until last night...when that transition is essentially effortless. Here in New England, one does the sit/stand about 10,000 times/mile.

Anyway, is there any general wisdom about seat tube angles. Steep = fast to the point where too much weight is on your hands. Slack = comfortable but tough not as "fast". Is it a spinner vs masher kind of thing...I've always been a spinner type.

Any input from you guys would be appreciate while I sketch up #9 in my head.

Thanks.

B


----------



## Schmucker (Aug 23, 2007)

Kops?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Impossible to say*

Everyone is different, and unless you get yourself a powertap and ride the trainer for a few hours or pay some schmuck in a lab coat to draw blood every 2 minutes while you ride, you'll never know if you're generating more power in one position than the other. Humans don't perceive tiny differences (like 1 or 2 percent) well, so unless you've got an impartial observer (read: computer hooked up to some kind of power meter) you will never know.

You can, however, decide which one you *like* better and base your decision on that.

-Walt


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

What you are talking about, I've been working on since getting into framebuilding. I got a fit bike, I've done tests, I've talked to 'experts' and read tons of books and online.

I've realized that in the end, almost nobody really knows what they are talking about on the subject.

KOPS = Meaningless. Utter nonsense.

Botrager's argument against KOPS = Very good, but awkward.

After all of what I've learned, I've come down to this;

Bike fit is a compromise of:
* Power
* Aerodynamics
* Handling
* Comfort
* Duration of use
* Specific needs
* Design envelope
* and a few other things

You really end up having to decide along all of these factors to get it right. You can have an incredibly climbing MTB that is truely dangerous to decend on. Or you can have the killer bomber, but you can't ride accross a parking lot and keep the front wheel down.

We all have different needs and desires for what our bikes need to do for, specifically, us. For my personal MTB, for my skill level, strength, desires, and needs. I am set up with about 62% of my weight on the rear wheel on flat ground. I can just keep control on the steepest of climbs that I'm willing to ride, but it keeps my weight back far for best control going down hill.

I do all my fitting now with just two scales and a gionometer. Plumb bobs are for idiots.

FYI, this is what Fox racing shox recomends for weight distribution on the rear: 55% for X-Country, 65% for Freeride, and 70% for Downhill. 

For road, I use 55% on the rear when on level ground, in the drops, decending postion.


----------



## dru (Sep 4, 2006)

This is a very interesting topic. It is one that I have some first hand experience with. I got back into the sport 4 years ago and built up a beater of sorts, being I wasn't sure I'd still like riding. That was answered fairly quickly! 

Anyways, the frame I built up is mid 90s, non suspension corrected, so when I put an 80mm fork on it I ended up with a seat tube angle around 68/67 and a similar head angle. I crashed the bike 3 times in one ride when I started pushing it since all my weight was at the back. I put a 150mm stem on it, and then over the years began sliding the saddle forward in the clamp. Last season I went from an offset post to a Thomson.

Transitioning to standing is so much nicer than before, it was night and day essentially. The front sticks now too. 

Of course the bike handles like crap because there is pretty much no BB drop, and a really slack head angle. This was really noticeable the other day when I took the bike out for a ride after riding my 29er for the past two months. At first it immediately felt like it was going to tip over and that turning would take a lot of force. Once I rode it for two seconds I was use to it again. 

I did notice that it was pretty much as easy to stand on the bike as it was on my Salsa which has a very steep 74 seat tube angle and a post with roughly an inch of offset.

I've gotten faster every year since I started back because of fitness, but I will say I like the saddle forward position much more for transitioning to standing. I have no idea if it makes more power for me.

Drew


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

MDEnvEngr said:


> Talk to me about this. I've pretty much always liked steepish seat tube angles. But, I wanted to try a slack seat tube frame to get the rear wheel more under my butt. So, I built that red bike I showed here a couple of months ago. It's a 29er with a real short wheelbase, 420mm CS and a 68° seat angle. That bike was great: cornered really well, held a line good, went up-and-over stuff really well. You certainly wouldn't fall asleep on it, but that's fine.
> 
> So, last Saturday, I broke the drive side chainstay. Tubing too light for the application, coupled with some ill-planned crimps was the culprit. I *knew* that frame was going to fail in fairly short order, so no biggie. Not worth repairing, as it was a test sled anyway.
> 
> ...


Was everything else the same betwen the two frames? Yes as a *general* rule, a steeper seat angle lets you 'get the power down'. But with varying riding styles, physiology, etc, it's not the right way to go for everyone.

I like steep seat angles, because I like to ride my bike up hills as opposed to pushing..a rare thing these days it seems.. as far as hand pressure, I get my ass off the seat to descend. If the st angle is too steep, you can slide off the back, if it's not steep enough, you're sol.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

When you have a slack seat angle, it's easier to stay seated while pedaling on fast decents. I'm a Trail/Super D rider at heart, so that's the way I roll. Once you get out of the saddle, you start wasting a lot of energy to keep pedaling.


----------



## MDEnvEngr (Mar 11, 2004)

That was one of the things that made it interesting. The build was exactly the same, except for the frame and fork and seatpost. Wheels, tires, gearing, bars, seat. 

The Walt-built rigid fork wasn't a huge difference from the Blacksheep Ti fork on the red bike. ('course the front wheel that had Gordo rim and Stout front tire has most of the effect).

I could also feel the "give" the moots post had compared to the FSA post in the red bike.

I think that saving energy on the sit/stand transition counts for a lot for a rider like me that stands a million times per ride. Essentially any climb and any time I coast I'm off the saddle. 

While I'm experimenting for myself it's fun figuring it out. But how do the pro builders do it...especially via phone/email? Or is this why so many of the pro-builder bikes are standard design...varying a few degrees here and there. Truly unique, out-of-the-box custom bikes (Wolfhound, a few of the Stickels, Jones) are few and far between. I guess the further out of the norm the builder goes, the more contact it takes with the rider. He!!, I'm having trouble figuring it out for myself...and I'm building and riding.

B


----------



## MDEnvEngr (Mar 11, 2004)

Being a former MA fella, you know that decending and sitting are just about mutually exclusive here in NE. You also know that the longest off-road decents are only a couple of minutes long.

B


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

Still can't figure out if the two frames were exactly the same except seat angle. Ht length? TT length? AtoC? Stem/bars? Any of these could change how easy it is to stand.

Like PVD says.. riding style/location play into it.


-Schmitty-


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*My take*

I'm not sure the STA on the Jones or Wolfhound stuff is all that much slacker - they both use bent/offset seat tubes a lot, which will mean to get the same saddle setback from the BB, you've gotta make the angle a bit slacker. I could be wrong, of course.

The reason I don't often do super-slack or super-steep seat angles (I'd say 90% of my frames are between 70 and 74 deg) is that for most people riding XC stuff, anything to much slacker or steeper causes terrible problems with one or another aspect of riding. Like anything else, this is always a compromise between keeping weight over the front to climb steep stuff, and being able to get weight far enough back for descending. No free lunch, really.

I do sometimes do really slack angles for folks with weird long femurs or odd preferences, and I usually try to compensate as needed by moving the rear wheel back a bit extra to keep the bike from being an inadvertent wheelie machine. Of course, some folks aren't concerned about looping out (roll your wrists and hump the nose of that saddle!) or stand up most of the time. Each case is unique.

IMO, it's not my job to inflict my preferences about fit or handling on my customers. My job is to figure out how they really like their bike to ride (which isn't always what they initially think) and do my best to balance out the pluses and minuses inherent in each geometry choice to make them as happy as possible.

-Walt



MDEnvEngr said:


> While I'm experimenting for myself it's fun figuring it out. But how do the pro builders do it...especially via phone/email? Or is this why so many of the pro-builder bikes are standard design...varying a few degrees here and there. Truly unique, out-of-the-box custom bikes (Wolfhound, a few of the Stickels, Jones) are few and far between. I guess the further out of the norm the builder goes, the more contact it takes with the rider. He!!, I'm having trouble figuring it out for myself...and I'm building and riding.
> 
> B


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

MDEnvEngr said:


> Being a former MA fella, you know that decending and sitting are just about mutually exclusive here in NE. You also know that the longest off-road decents are only a couple of minutes long.


Yup. I will never go back. I can't imagine going on a ride that didn't include at least on 15 minute decent on it. I also like my technical sections to be a min of 50 yards long and steep.

This is exacly why it helps to look at what is being done local to you for cues on setup. What works in NE is just lame in CA. Good local builders can really steer your straight.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Walt said:


> Like anything else, this is always a compromise between keeping weight over the front to climb steep stuff, and being able to get weight far enough back for descending. No free lunch, really.


Bang!


----------



## MDEnvEngr (Mar 11, 2004)

Well, there was some other differences. Shorter TT, longer stem on red bike. 70° HA and 46 mm rake fork on on red...72° HA and 38 mm rake fork on bare bike.

Liked the turn in and line holding of red better.

CS about the same...420 on red, 425ish on #3.

Stem to bars the same distance. Bars slightly higher on red. 

Both easy to wheelie, with red being slightly easier...if you used your a$$ on the seat as a counter weight.

Red bike pic has a difference seatpost...settled on a no-offset FSA post.

Perhaps pics will help:


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*No point*

Those are two totally different bikes. There is no point in trying to isolate the effect of one variable by comparing them.

-Walt



MDEnvEngr said:


> Well, there was some other differences. Shorter TT, longer stem on red bike. 70° HA and 46 mm rake fork on on red...72° HA and 38 mm rake fork on bare bike.


----------



## herbn (Sep 17, 2005)

ok seatube angles have been explained fairly well,i knew the effect but never really picked a bike or frame because of the seatube angle, other features, just plain old good deals, always influenced the decision more. I've heard that chainstay length,particularly short ones accelerated better and not just because they're stiffer, i never really got it 100%.is this peter verdone?


----------



## MMcG (Jul 7, 2003)

Just split the difference on the next one and see how that feels.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

herbn said:


> Is this Peter Verdone?


Hey Herb. Yup. I come here to cause trouble. Are you planning on bringing some of your magic to bike building? That would be pretty cool.

Pete W. is back east right now. I'm sure you've seen him.


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

Walt said:


> I'm not sure the STA on the Jones or Wolfhound stuff is all that much slacker -
> 
> -Walt


The WH are, or can be very slack. There was a total crap storm over of Frameforum Vol 1.0 with that guy. He posted a 'technical east woods bike' that had a really slack st. It was a single speed... he claimed, you never climb in the seat, and that slack seat angles were the only way. Thursday is a big proponent also. You can see clearly in some pictures of the WH bikes.. the nose of the seat is behind the cranks, bent tubes or not.

-Schmitty-


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Wolfhound and Thursday are complete outliers. I wouldn't use those as any kind of reference.


----------



## MDEnvEngr (Mar 11, 2004)

One problem with slack STA is that it makes the bars to BB dimension shorter than it would be on a steep STA bike. Seated climbing is great, but you feel all crunched up when standing. Of course this is directly counter to Sch's paraphrase of WH's theory above.

B


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

B

Have you measured saddle setback from the BB on both bikes? To me, that's a much more important indicator than STA. 

How do the front-centers compare? HTA/fork length/offset? BB drop?


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

MDEnvEngr said:


> One problem with slack STA is that it makes the bars to BB dimension shorter than it would be on a steep STA bike. Seated climbing is great, but you feel all crunched up when standing. Of course this is directly counter to Sch's paraphrase of WH's theory above.
> 
> B


That's why it's important to put more importance on the FC and HTA dimensions (forks being the same) than ETT. If you're used to judging a bike by ETT, it's easy to shy away from something with a very steep or slack STA because of the weird ETT value.


----------



## DWF (Jan 12, 2004)

Seat tube angle doesn't mean squat when it comes to the MTBs and especially bent seat tube bikes. It's all about set back, i.e., how far behind the BB the saddle is. I have a bike with an 62-degree STA. When the saddle is at normal height, it's in the same place it would be with a 72. Seatpost setback and saddle placement on the rails obviously effects this too. Whatever combination of seat tube angle, seatpost setback, and saddle placement you have gives you is your "effective" seat tube angle. Setback is a better measurement.

I like a slacker effective seat tube angle on MTBs and so did everybody else before straight/zero setback seat posts became the norm. The funny thing about that is that seat tube angles haven't changed to account for them.


----------



## nogod (May 30, 2009)

well the angle degree does matter for seat setback when raising and lowering the seat. also another factor would be the seat type and how its mounted. but you could make it up with the setback on the seat/seat post. that would be why manufactures stick with a somewhat standard angle. that way the consumer can change it more to their liking.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Seat tube angle doesn't mean anything with regard to bike design. Utterly stupid.

It's where the saddle is located that matters in that side of the bike.


----------



## nogod (May 30, 2009)

pvd said:


> Seat tube angle doesn't mean anything with regard to bike design. Utterly stupid.
> 
> It's where the saddle is located that matters in that side of the bike.


I agree, i was just saying that when the seat is high or low setback will be largely affected by large slack.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

DWF said:


> I like a slacker effective seat tube angle on MTBs and so did everybody else before straight/zero setback seat posts became the norm. The funny thing about that is that seat tube angles haven't changed to account for them.


How did I miss this thread? It's right up my alley.

I'm guessing Don you mean on production bikes, because the vast majority of frames here go out the door with 71-72 degree STAs and have since day one in 2003.

You/Smudge/Pete are right about seat angle though - it's just a resultant of saddle setback. All I do when designing a frame is nail down the required saddle height and setback, ask the customer which saddle and seatpost they want to run (I've gathered a library of drawings of different makes/models and their rail locations) and then just join the dots.

Whatever STA comes out, is whatever it needs to be.

I also notice nobody is talking physiology here yet. What I've found over the years is that sitting further back engages the Glutes more, and sitting forward engages the Quads. What you need is to be able to develop both, because if you sit too far forward _all the time_ (which I can almost guarantee the vast majority of people I see riding a bike or posting pictures on the Intarweb is) you're missing out on being able to engage a much larger muscle group when you need it.

I really hate this 'trend' of "shorter-steeper-(appears)faster" - or as I prefer to call it "You look like a dog humping a football". So f'n annoying and puerile.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Thylacine said:


> What I've found over the years is that sitting further back engages the Glutes more, and sitting forward engages the Quads.


When I was doing a lot of studying on fit and whatnot, I made a realization. You can keep a rider in any position and rotate them about the BB and physiologically it will be the same. Yes, it changes several things like aerodynamics, handleing, and strain on the arms, but the rest of the muscules shouldn't know the difference.


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

Jesus, more technical chest beating. The two are related.. I think most guys get that.

So change the op to "seat tube angles/ saddle set back and power' and get back on track with the discussion.

In general terms less set back= more power.

Fot atb's, it depends how/what you can ride. If you like technical climbing (used to be called mountain biking), it's way easier to have the saddle forward by whatever means, and to simply move back on it for engaging different muscles. Something lost on most saddle makers.

-Schmitty-


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

pvd said:


> When I was doing a lot of studying on fit and whatnot, I made a realization. You can keep a rider in any position and rotate them about the BB and physiologically it will be the same. Yes, it changes several things like aerodynamics, handleing, and strain on the arms, but the rest of the muscules shouldn't know the difference.


That would only be true if you had your weight planted firmly on your butt in the middle of the saddle for the entire ride.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Yup. Once you stand up, who cares where your saddle is. That's pretty obvious.


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Jan 30, 2004)

Thylacine said:


> How did I miss this thread? It's right up my alley.
> 
> I'm guessing Don you mean on production bikes, because the vast majority of frames here go out the door with 71-72 degree STAs and have since day one in 2003.
> 
> ...


I had a laser measurement done on one of my current bikes. I was told I had about 80mm of setback. I assume this is the distance behind the BB where my sit bones are on my seat. I have a WTB Devo saddle (with frustratingly short rails), a custom high offset ti post. What kind of STA should I be looking at if I got a custom frame? I would think 72 would be pretty good, but that might require running my saddle all the way back (like I always have to do)...


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Jan 30, 2004)

Walt said:


> The reason I don't often do super-slack or super-steep seat angles (I'd say 90% of my frames are between 70 and 74 deg) is that for most people riding XC stuff, anything to much slacker or steeper causes terrible problems with one or another aspect of riding. Like anything else, this is always a compromise between keeping weight over the front to climb steep stuff, and being able to get weight far enough back for descending. No free lunch, really.


To me, since most of what I look at are production bikes, anything less than 73* can be considered slack. So 70* is a lot slacker than 73*.

Can anyone tell me what the difference in setback is between a 73* and a 72* or slacker STA would actually equate to? And if saddle height matters, then use 875mm.


----------



## herbn (Sep 17, 2005)

tell that to the guys that design timetrail bikes.


----------



## rustola (Jan 15, 2008)

pvd said:


> When I was doing a lot of studying on fit and whatnot, I made a realization. You can keep a rider in any position and rotate them about the BB and physiologically it will be the same. Yes, it changes several things like aerodynamics, handleing, and strain on the arms, but the rest of the muscules shouldn't know the difference.


I understand where you are coming from mechanically, but I disagree because gravity comes into play. As you rotate the rider around the BB, two things happen - first, the rider will compensate position in order to stay balanced, which will influence the mechanics and therefore the recruited muscles. Second, what you are pushing "against" changes - namely gravity holding your body towards the earth. Obviously not practical, but do the thought experiment of the extreme of your hypothesis - rotate 180° around the BB. Pedaling upside down on a bike would not recruit the same muscle groups. Under more reasonable conditions the effect is more subtle, but I think certainly discernable.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

herbn said:


> tell that to the guys that design timetrail bikes.


Time trial bikes are designed for power and aerodynamics and almost 0% handling.


----------



## herbn (Sep 17, 2005)

people keep saying that ,but other than the handlebars being really cumbersome,mostly the tucked middle position, i don't think they they're all that much different(5 degrees on the seatube).If you swapped the bars over and slid a long seat back on the rails a bit,how bad could they possibly handle?.


----------



## G-Live (Jan 14, 2004)

pvd said:


> When I was doing a lot of studying on fit and whatnot, I made a realization. You can keep a rider in any position and rotate them about the BB and physiologically it will be the same. Yes, it changes several things like aerodynamics, handleing, and strain on the arms, but the rest of the muscules shouldn't know the difference.


I am not a fitter or builder, but I am not sure about this. My riding experience tells me it stresses the leg muscles differently as well...at least that is what my knees tell me. My knees like a forward taller position right at the point that starts to pressure my hands/arms. Once I start offsetting reward for better comfort, my knees ache. Of course there are probably other variables in my position changes over the year that do not have me rotating about the bb as you have experienced. I am really not sure but frustrated just the same, especially with road bike fit.

G


----------



## nogod (May 30, 2009)

Schmitty said:


> Jesus, more technical chest beating. The two are related.. I think most guys get that.
> 
> So change the op to "seat tube angles/ saddle set back and power' and get back on track with the discussion.
> 
> ...


ive touched on this concept on another thread.
outside of the banana seat (quit laughing) seats are usually(notice i said usually not always) a one position seat.( let me point out, since i need to. how you ride and sit on your bike is your way, its not better or worse then anyone else. im not telling anyone their wrong so please dont defend your riding style im not attacking it.)

bottom line i believe a longer seat would greatly improve many peoples riding styles.
by allowing one too move froward and aft on the seat. allowing more weight distribution.
of course this only applies to when your sitting. and before you say it, no i dont mean a longer horn, ouch... and im not saying use a banana seat either or a large heavy seat.
just a seat that is a little longer in the rear.

this would allow for seat setback or no setback depending on terrain.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Schmitty said:


> The WH are, or can be very slack. There was a total crap storm over of Frameforum Vol 1.0 with that guy. He posted a 'technical east woods bike' that had a really slack st. It was a single speed... he claimed, you never climb in the seat, and that slack seat angles were the only way. Thursday is a big proponent also. You can see clearly in some pictures of the WH bikes.. the nose of the seat is behind the cranks, bent tubes or not.
> 
> -Schmitty-


I setup my bikes with a fairly forward saddle position by many riders' standards, and use long-nosed saddles and the nose is still well behind the BB spindle.


----------



## stumblemumble (Mar 31, 2006)

Great info, I'd always wondered.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

see rustola, im not sure about that at all. yes (obviously) turning 180 degrees around the bb will alter things, but moving an inch forwards or back wards or even 5", i dont think that would have any real effect on gravity. PVD is right, you r feet attached to the bb, and the angle your back makes to the legs (at extreme points of the pedal rotation) is way more of an issue. which in itself is related to saddle to bar stretch and where you want you weight to fall between the wheels.

this is particularly true because 90% of the time aerodynamics makes no real difference in mtb'ing. so, having a low flat back is pointless, it just puts *more* strain on the back, neck and arms. The purpose of the steep seat angle in a time trial bike is so that you *can* get the back flat without overly curving the lower back to get you feet ontot he pedals...it is not to do with generating more power.


----------



## stumblemumble (Mar 31, 2006)

Try standing up from butt on the floor vs. a squatted position: You do make more power when over the BB. 
My understanding was that a set back position gave more sustainable power, which doesn't make sense if you are recruiting hamstrings & glutes in that position instead of the more powerful quads when over the BB. 
Just 2 cents.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

try standing up when your hands are holding onto something or not. different scenarios senor!


----------



## nogod (May 30, 2009)

ok this is just ridiculous. unless your riding a chopper or weigh 400 pounds. rising from the seat at whatever setback on you mtb is easy! and setback is still a personal choice based on riding style and the riders built. there is relatively no wrong way to ride a mtb. unless your just plain stupid, your body will tell you whats wrong in short order. its this easy if you need more power stand up and pedal. im begining to wonder if some people here dont even ride a mtb.


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

nogod said:


> ive touched on this concept on another thread.
> outside of the banana seat (quit laughing) seats are usually(notice i said usually not always) a one position seat.( let me point out, since i need to. how you ride and sit on your bike is your way, its not better or worse then anyone else. im not telling anyone their wrong so please dont defend your riding style im not attacking it.)
> 
> bottom line i believe a longer seat would greatly improve many peoples riding styles.
> ...


Word +1.

-Schmitty-


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

*Bontrager on fitting, st angles*

http://sheldonbrown.com/kops.html

Amen.

-Schmitty-


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

nogod said:


> is relatively no wrong way to ride a mtb.


Nope. No wrong way. Just slow or fast. Clown or king.


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

pvd said:


> Nope. No wrong way. Just slow or fast. Clown or king.


Even the short dudes with their seats too high doing the Gorilla pedal?

-Schmitty-


----------



## metelhead (Jun 1, 2008)

I have been mtbing for a longtime, and really never gave a thought much about STA....that was until I recently picked up my 1st 29er...an XL Giant XTC, well out of the box it just seamed to fit like a glove and after my first few rides I figured out why...the STA and the size of the bike...when seated the pedal position was right under me, rather than in front of me(which was the normal for me and my size/leg lenght- the the sensation always felt very inefficient - almost recumbent like). So the more I rode the 29er the more I started to understand why this worked for me- the sit stand relationship was effortless as the pedal position didn't change nearly as dramatic as previous rigs....Like many others I don't thing there is a right or wrong ...but I know now what feel like I able to put the power down the best..at least for XC/Am style....FR/DH is a different relationship.


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Jan 30, 2004)

metelhead said:


> I have been mtbing for a longtime, and really never gave a thought much about STA....that was until I recently picked up my 1st 29er...an XL Giant XTC, well out of the box it just seamed to fit like a glove and after my first few rides I figured out why...the STA and the size of the bike...when seated the pedal position was right under me, rather than in front of me(which was the normal for me and my size/leg lenght- the the sensation always felt very inefficient - almost recumbent like).


I could be wrong, but I believe the STA on the XTC to be one of the slackest you can get on a XC 29er production frame. :skep:


----------



## Skeptastic (Mar 31, 2012)

Schmitty said:


> The Myth of K.O.P.S.
> 
> Amen.
> 
> -Schmitty-


How do you find fitters who use this method?


----------

