geezerwheels

I liked my alloy Synapse so much I bought a carbon frame version to add to the fleet. I think it is a 2013 model. But the alloy frame is a 58cm, and the carbon is a 61cm. Plus, the stem on the carbon bike is a little shorter.

I'm 6'-1", and I used to be just fine with 60cm steel bikes, but age is beginning to limit my range of comfort. I've already slammed the seat as far forward as it will go. The stem is angled up, and I put on bars with a short reach. But another inch or so would be nice.

So here's the question: should I replace the offset seatpost with a straight post, or swap the 100mm stem for a 70mm or 80mm? Or both?

thanks for reading!

PS--the carbon Synapse is one sweet cushy ride...

--Geez

TrojanHorse

You are starting into territory that is going to negatively affect the handling of the bike and your placement on it. Unfortunately, the right answer is.... get a smaller frame. Did you buy the bike new? Used? Can you trade it back in?

Lazyass

You want to change your reach. You don't change your reach by adjusting your saddle fore/aft, it needs to be in the proper position for your legs (KOPS). You change the stem length.

phughes

I would seriously hesitate to move the seat forward to shorten the cockpit, in fact, I would first set the saddle to the correct position for you now, then try a shorter stem. I personally see nothing wrong with a short stem. You may also want to get bars with a shorter reach. It can't hurt to try, if you don't like it, you can always go back, and possibly sell the frame and cut your losses. But don't try to reduce cockpit length by slamming the seat forward, unless of course that is the best position of the seat for you , and it places your center of gravity in the right place. Judging from your description though, that is not the case.

jefnvk

What @Lazyass said. Despite my best efforts on one bike I got a deal on, I came to realize if I have to play with saddle position to adjust reach, it just isn't the right size.

That said, I'd try stem adjustment if all you need is an inch. Nothing wrong with a 70-80mm stem.

fietsbob

its all in your stem length/angle choice .

Set back; seat post/saddle, seat tube angle, is somewhat about your femur length,

and weight balance fore and aft, affecting weight placed on your hands..

.

Kapusta

To repeat what has already been said, do not slide the saddle forward just to shorten cockpit length. The saddle should be in the proper position for pedaling.

Get a shorter and/or taller stem.

geezerwheels

once again, this forum proves to be a repository of profound wisdom. many thanks for your perspectives and advice.

124Spider

Ritchey 4-Axis Adjustable Stem; they come in several different lengths.

canklecat

I recently put a shorter stem on my old school steel road bike to reduce the reach to suit my comfort level. Worked great. No handling problems.

But the current conventional wisdom with newer bikes is to get a slightly smaller frame, set the saddle where it's supposed to be to suit your knees, etc.; and choose a stem and/or drop bar to suit your preference for reach. There are some drop bars that can shorten reach slightly too when riding the hoods, as well as compact drops with less drop than the old school cyclists used.

Experiments by the GCN fellows (retired pros) indicate a stem shorter than originally intended for the bike can make handling twitchy. But they're riding bikes with frames slightly smaller than previous generations of pros would have ridden. They have a lot more seat post extension than we used to see, but reportedly that works well enough.

52telecaster

get as short of a stem as you need. if it seems twitchy at first you will get used to it. i use the shortest stems possible on every bike i ride. if it made them unrideable i wouldnt be riding so much.....

Kontact

The GCN tests changed only the stems, so they were testing short stems on bikes with unnaturally short reach. If they had tested short stems on larger frames they would likely have different results.

People used to ride Scott Drop-Ins, which grossly decreased reach and leverage. Were those bikes notoriously twitchy?

canklecat

Rephrasing what I already wrote.

That's an interesting example. I've watched videos and looked at photos of cyclists who had those trendy Scott Drop-In bars and they rarely actually used that extended part of the bar. Presumably a clever solution to a non-existent problem. The Scott extension might have been useful for a few minutes at a time while grinding uphill into a stiff headwind.

Apparently not useful enough to catch on. Especially among weight conscious pros trying to eliminate every superfluous gram.

Kontact

Actually, it isn't.

The point I was making is that if you want to test a 110mm stem against a 90mm stem, the 90mm stem bike should have a 20mm longer top tube so the rider's fit isn't part of the test. The GCN riders were descending with the bars uncomfortably close to them, which shouldn't surprise anyone if that feels twitchy. So it is impossible to say if the twitchiness was from a short lever or from a too-short reach.


I mentioned the Drop-In bars, but a more germane example is riding on the tops with your hands close to the stem. This reduces the length of the steering lever far more than riding on the hoods with even a 60mm stem.

geezerwheels

in the interests of closure, here is my solution: Sparrow bars, by Soma. More aggressive than riding on the hoods; less aggressive than riding in the drops. Less variety of positions, for relief on long rides; less potential to tuck in out of the wind. Eventually I may swap the XC shifter and RD to Ultegra, but it actually works very nice, if not as quiet.

But for me, with some gnarly cervical vertibrae, that can cause my arms to go numb when I really tuck in, a very comfortable compromise.

canklecat

Looks like a good solution. I'm considering something similar for a 1990s Univega. It's a bit stretched out and upright for me with both flat and riser bars. So I might try some flipped bars, or flat arced bar.

puma1552

canklecat

1 cm is a huge difference to me, whether in stem reach, height, or saddle adjustments. Particularly with a bad neck (old C2 vertebrae injury), I'm extremely sensitive to handlebar adjustments. I make adjustments in 1/8" increments. A 1 cm adjustment would be comparable to a 3/8" change, which I would do only in three steps, trying each for a test ride.

geezerwheels

you might also try an Nitto Albatross bar... you end up with a similar reach, but with the heel of your hand turned inward a little more than the Sparrow. To me, the Sparrow provides a perfectly neutral position for the hands and wrists.

toast3d

I found this goofy looking backwards stem: Backward Geometry?! Introducing the SubZero stem from Drover Cycles... - www.drovercycles.co.uk

I'm not really sure what to think.

fietsbob

I have trekking bars on 2 bikes , they come back from their center clamp,
and ahead, and along side.

joejack951

So 'everyone' agrees not to move the saddle forward to change bike fit, yet practically every frame manufacturer steepens the seat tube (moves the saddle forward) as their frame sizes get smaller, including Cannondale with the Synapse. What gives?

Asking rhetorically, of course

Lazyass

Welllll uh, because shorter riders have smaller pelvis's, shorter femurs, ect.

joejack951

Proportionally shorter, though, right? Which would mean that there should be some magical, one-size-fits-all, seat tube angle that gets nearly everyone in the right position relative to the crank (Cervelo at least used to preach exactly this BTW, and still might). The saddle is already coming forward due to its lower height for a shorter cyclist.

fietsbob

Bike Friday, having smaller wheels, does not have to steepen the seat tube
for it's smaller frames..