Seat stems

[Basil.B]

Being a newbie and just returned to cycling after a long abscence. I have noticed bikes these days all have about 2 feet of seat stem showing.
Is this the latest bike fashion? I ride an old 21 inch framed bike, and only have a few inches of stem showing.
(I'm 5'9).

 

[ianrauk]

I'm another one who prefers more frame the seatpost. I'm also 5'9 and ride a 56cm Spesh

 

[Banjo]

It seems to me that a large number of road bikers opt for a smaller frame thus having more seat post showing.

Personally I prefer the seat not too much higher than the bars so have a frame the correct size for my body/legs.

Some bikes have a sloping top tube which makes the seat look higher than it really is.

PS Iam 5ft 9 1/2" and ride a 56 cm road bike. You pair of short arses

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Tis the fashion. Compare with cyclist from before WWII you and ianrauk are very risque and the rest of use are positively obscene.

Now me, I just don't like the look of a bike that can be used as a farmers gate.

 

[carlgorse]

Im 6ft 2 and have a good amount of seat stem showing and its only a 54cm saying that i also changed the Handle Bar Stem from 100mm to 130mm

 

[Basil.B]

I would have to ride a 50 cm frame, for me to have a lot of stem showing.
It would look like a kids bike!

 

[MacB]

I would have to ride a 50 cm frame, for me to have a lot of stem showing.
It would look like a kids bike!

not with compact geometry, I had an old style geometry Surly Xcheck at 60cm with a fistful of seatpost showing, my Giant had 20cm of seatpost. The Surly had a 600mm TT and the giant 596mm

 

[HLaB]

I don't know if its fashion or just more folk are realising having their saddle higher is more efficient and better for the knees. And IMO its better to buy a bike thats too small and put the saddle up rather than one which is too large and you can't adjust; maybe manufacturers have the same opinion.

Quite bit shows on compact framed sirrus where as less shows on my more traditional geometry bike (the kinesis) yet both are set to the same height; it doesn't really bother me.

 

[mickle]

Road bikes (and the first mountain bikes) all had horizontal top tubes. Eddy Mercxks system tied top tube length to seat tube length - so called 'square' frame geometry.

As mountain bikes evolved there was a move towards sloping top tubes to allow more 'stand-over' / crotch clearance for off-road riding. This innovation was only possible thanks to advances in materials technology - it required a much stronger seat-post. Rocky Mountain Bicycles have a good claim as the first manufacturer to use the sloping top tube but other makers soon followed suit - Kona and Overburys were among the first.

Sloping top tube geometry forced the end of established relationship between seat tube length and top tube length for a given frame size. A typical modern Canadian style 19" mountain bike might have a 23.5" length top tube. My tradish road bike has the same reach and same 23.5" top tube but a 23.5 seat tube.

Once this relationship was broken for mountain bike ergonomics it was only a small jump to apply the same to road bike geometry. Mike Burrows spearheaded this innovation and introduced it to Giant when he was designing bikes for them.

Which is why seat tube length is now almost completely irrelevant when buying a bike. Even though thats' how we all describe them.

 

[Mark_Robson]

I'm 5' 9" with little stumpy legs so I never have a lot of seat post showing but as long as I am comfortable then who cares how the bikes set up looks?

 

[accountantpete]

5' 9" on a 56cm horizontal tube myself- which leaves 3" of seat tube showing.

I don't think it makes any noticeable difference -except with a longer carbon seat post it should in theory be slightly more comfortable.

 

[MacB]

5' 9" on a 56cm horizontal tube myself- which leaves 3" of seat tube showing.

I don't think it makes any noticeable difference -except with a longer carbon seat post it should in theory be slightly more comfortable.

Agreed, I did find compact geometry a bit weird when I started cycling but I have, and have had, bikes of both ilks and am happy with either. Have chosen compact for the custom frame because I'd rather have the additional clearance than not.

 

[Banjo]

I know Lance Armstrong is 5 ft 10 and rides a 58 cm bike. You see lots of much taller riders on smaller frames. All down to personal choice I guess .