Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    279

    HELP with Canyon minimum seat height

    Bike
    I'm in the market for n+1, looking for a bike for winter road riding, with these requirements:
    Ė hydraulic flat mount disc brakes, Shimano
    Ė 12mm thru axles front and rear
    Ė will run 28mm tires with room
    Ė plan to run Crud Mk3 fenders, so I don't need mount points, but I do need 3-4mm of *height* clearance above the wheel

    Budget is tight Ė would like to stay under $2k. Will happily ride an alu frame if the savings are worth it; delighted to run Shimano 105, but won't drop down to 10s (tiagra).

    Fit
    I know my fit well, and it is an odd one. I have a VERY long torso and VERY short legs. I usually ride a frame with around 390mm of reach (I'm aiming for a total reach Ė frame + spacers + stem Ė of right at 485mm). I have bikes with effective Top Tube lengths ranging from 560mm to 580mm. So I ride relatively big bikes (long torso). But my saddle to BB height is 690mm (short legs). My usual setup is to have just a couple of cm of saddle to bar drop.

    MY QUESTION
    The Canyon Endurace CF Sl 7.0 looks like it ticks all the boxes and at a great price. I usually build up my own bikes (from china frames) and I do all my own wrenching, so I'm not worried about buying direct and setting the bike up myself.

    Looking at their geo charts (which are, shockingly, incomplete) and emailing them for more details (fork length and rake, BB drop), it's clear to me that I could ride the Endurace in either a size M or size L.

    But Canyon reports that the minimum seat height on the size M is 720mm....WAY too high for me.

    But what I can't figure out is whether this limitation is caused only by their fancy seatpost technology, or whether it has something to do with the frame. The frame in size M has a seat tube length of 520, so at 690 I'd still be way above the top of the seat tube.

    If I use a Canyon seatpost that isn't "split" can I go below 720?

    Can I use a regular, non-Canyon seatpost on a Canyon bike?

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,903
    It takes any 27.2 seatpost.

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    It takes any 27.2 seatpost.
    Thanks, Jay. If that's the case, then I can see any reason that I can't run a 690mm saddle height on a bike with a 520mm seat tube.

    And for the record: I asked Canyon this question and googled every way I could think of, but no luck.

    thanks again!

  4. #4
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,903
    Sure no problem. It's on their web site but the way. When you go into the model, then see components, you can expand each component listing for more detail. It doesn't allow me to cut/paste but it definitely says 27.2 mm diameter. Which as you probably know is one of the 'standard' sizes so won't be a problem finding a regular style one.

  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    Sure no problem. It's on their web site but the way. When you go into the model, then see components, you can expand each component listing for more detail. It doesn't allow me to cut/paste but it definitely says 27.2 mm diameter. Which as you probably know is one of the 'standard' sizes so won't be a problem finding a regular style one.
    Yes, I saw that it was the standard size of 27.2, but it was the Canyon folks themselves that made me less than certain: when I asked about the minimum seat height they responded by suggesting that there was just no way the saddle could go lower than that and that I should therefore choose a size S frame.

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Kontact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,372
    Quote Originally Posted by fronesis View Post
    Bike
    I'm in the market for n+1, looking for a bike for winter road riding, with these requirements:
    Ė hydraulic flat mount disc brakes, Shimano
    Ė 12mm thru axles front and rear
    Ė will run 28mm tires with room
    Ė plan to run Crud Mk3 fenders, so I don't need mount points, but I do need 3-4mm of *height* clearance above the wheel

    Budget is tight Ė would like to stay under $2k. Will happily ride an alu frame if the savings are worth it; delighted to run Shimano 105, but won't drop down to 10s (tiagra).

    Fit
    I know my fit well, and it is an odd one. I have a VERY long torso and VERY short legs. I usually ride a frame with around 390mm of reach (I'm aiming for a total reach Ė frame + spacers + stem Ė of right at 485mm). I have bikes with effective Top Tube lengths ranging from 560mm to 580mm. So I ride relatively big bikes (long torso). But my saddle to BB height is 690mm (short legs). My usual setup is to have just a couple of cm of saddle to bar drop.

    MY QUESTION
    The Canyon Endurace CF Sl 7.0 looks like it ticks all the boxes and at a great price. I usually build up my own bikes (from china frames) and I do all my own wrenching, so I'm not worried about buying direct and setting the bike up myself.

    Looking at their geo charts (which are, shockingly, incomplete) and emailing them for more details (fork length and rake, BB drop), it's clear to me that I could ride the Endurace in either a size M or size L.

    But Canyon reports that the minimum seat height on the size M is 720mm....WAY too high for me.

    But what I can't figure out is whether this limitation is caused only by their fancy seatpost technology, or whether it has something to do with the frame. The frame in size M has a seat tube length of 520, so at 690 I'd still be way above the top of the seat tube.

    If I use a Canyon seatpost that isn't "split" can I go below 720?

    Can I use a regular, non-Canyon seatpost on a Canyon bike?
    Where does it say there is a minimum saddle height? I see the chart has ranges, but are those anything more than sizing guides?

    If there is an issue, it may relate the seat binder, which is several inch down inside the frame - but that looks like a maximum height issue.

    The other issue some frames have is the post bottoming out on the bottle cage bolts. Which is fixed by cutting the post short.


    It would probably be good to verify that you won't have an issue with Canyon before buying. This seat binder makes me think that standard seat posts might not be long enough or have the minimum insertion lines in the right place for this frame.
    Get a better saddle: www.kontactbike.com

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
    Where does it say there is a minimum saddle height? I see the chart has ranges, but are those anything more than sizing guides?
    According to Canyon tech support, those are maximums and minimums, not ranges. This is what they told me over the phone and email.

    If there is an issue, it may relate the seat binder, which is several inch down inside the frame - but that looks like a maximum height issue.
    That's exactly what I thought.

    The other issue some frames have is the post bottoming out on the bottle cage bolts. Which is fixed by cutting the post short.
    Again, this was precisely my thinking.

    It would probably be good to verify that you won't have an issue with Canyon before buying. This seat binder makes me think that standard seat posts might not be long enough or have the minimum insertion lines in the right place for this frame.
    And this is my worry: I have followed up with them and hoping for another reply, but at the moment Canyon has only really said "that's the MINIMUM saddle height" without giving any explanation to WHY. So they aren't helping very much.

  8. #8
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Kontact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,372
    Quote Originally Posted by fronesis View Post
    According to Canyon tech support, those are maximums and minimums, not ranges. This is what they told me over the phone and email.



    That's exactly what I thought.



    Again, this was precisely my thinking.



    And this is my worry: I have followed up with them and hoping for another reply, but at the moment Canyon has only really said "that's the MINIMUM saddle height" without giving any explanation to WHY. So they aren't helping very much.
    At some point you have to either take their advice and not buy, realize that anything as simple as seat height ought to be explainable by customer service and not buy, or just buy it and take your chances.

    The second one bothers me the most. If a customer asks me why they can't do X with their Kontact saddle I give them a reason, not "just cause we say so".
    Get a better saddle: www.kontactbike.com

  9. #9
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
    At some point you have to either take their advice and not buy, realize that anything as simple as seat height ought to be explainable by customer service and not buy, or just buy it and take your chances.

    The second one bothers me the most. If a customer asks me why they can't do X with their Kontact saddle I give them a reason, not "just cause we say so".
    Yep. I was pretty excited about the Canyon offering until I started communicating with them. Makes me worry about what it would be like to deal with a problem *after* they had my money.

    I feel like it should be easier to find what I'm looking for, but I might just have to look for a frameset and build the bike up myself.

  10. #10
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
    Where does it say there is a minimum saddle height? I see the chart has ranges, but are those anything more than sizing guides?

    If there is an issue, it may relate the seat binder, which is several inch down inside the frame - but that looks like a maximum height issue.

    The other issue some frames have is the post bottoming out on the bottle cage bolts. Which is fixed by cutting the post short.


    It would probably be good to verify that you won't have an issue with Canyon before buying. This seat binder makes me think that standard seat posts might not be long enough or have the minimum insertion lines in the right place for this frame.
    I think you're needlessly making something out of nothing.

    Canyon told him the min. seat height he can get. That's limited because the post it comes with has a split in it. I'm guessing about 8cm of that post can not go into the frame. No different than if it came with a Thompson set back post, you can only move it down so far because it's not straight all the way.

    Minimum insertion with a standard seatpost is obviously not an issue because the short legged OP is looking to go really low, below what Canyon says he can do with their post. And Max insertion is also obviously not an issue with a standard seatpost either because the length of the stock split one is 330 and that is a standard length so one that's straight all they way can off course match or exceed the max insertion of the stock one.

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Kontact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    I think you're needlessly making something out of nothing.

    Canyon told him the min. seat height he can get. That's limited because the post it comes with has a split in it. I'm guessing about 8cm of that post can not go into the frame. No different than if it came with a Thompson set back post, you can only move it down so far because it's not straight all the way.

    Minimum insertion with a standard seatpost is obviously not an issue because the short legged OP is looking to go really low, below what Canyon says he can do with their post. And Max insertion is also obviously not an issue with a standard seatpost either because the length of the stock split one is 330 and that is a standard length so one that's straight all they way can off course match or exceed the max insertion of the stock one.
    What "split"?


    That looks like a straight, smooth round post. What split are you talking about, and is it necessary for the binder to function?
    Get a better saddle: www.kontactbike.com

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
    What "split"?


    That looks like a straight, smooth round post. What split are you talking about, and is it necessary for the binder to function?
    The OP mentioned it has a split. And every level of the model except that one does have a split seatpost. But you're right, you pictured the 7.0 and he did say they 7.0. It does seem he and Canyon are both referring to something other than than the 7.0 but yeah, you're right.
    OP I think you need to clarify how/why you mentioned the 7.0 having a split seatpost. Are you actually looking at another one?

    edit: and no the split seat post isn't necessary for clamping. It's a shock/vibration reduction gimmick. I'm not smart enough to post pictures but you should see it here: https://www.canyon.com/en-us/road/endurace

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    OP I think you need to clarify how/why you mentioned the 7.0 having a split seatpost. Are you actually looking at another one?
    Yes, I was vague on that point. To clarify:

    1. The bike I am looking at (7.0) does not have the split seatpost.

    2. Since I could not find any good reason for the minimum seat height and Canyon hadn't given me a reason, I was guessing that it might have to do with the split seatpost. That post is standard on most of the Endurace bikes, and so my hunch is that the geo charts with minimum saddle height listed were based on the assumption of a split post.

    In other news, I got a very helpful reply from Canyon. They say it won't be a problem to run the M size frame with 170mm of exposed seatpost. They further clarify:
    "The recommendation on our geometry charts of having more seatpost exposed is so our customers may take advantage of the flex that our carbon fiber leafspring design offers. Reducing the amount of exposed seatpost might affect the amount of flex the seatpost gives you."

    This makes good sense to me.

  14. #14
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Kontact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,372
    I think you're right that the lower limit is a cut and paste from other bikes in their line.

    A Large would put your saddle only 14cm above the seat tube. That sounds like a standover pain.
    Get a better saddle: www.kontactbike.com

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
    I think you're right that the lower limit is a cut and paste from other bikes in their line.

    A Large would put your saddle only 14cm above the seat tube. That sounds like a standover pain.
    Iíd probably go with a M and a 120 stem. But in dealing with my bike fit needs I long ago decided not to worry too much about standover height. I ride one bike that doesnít have enough standover height for my short legs, but in 6000 miles itís never been a problem. When I put my foot down at stops I lean the bike a bit.

    All of that said, itís also now clear to me that the Ultimate geometry is better for me than the Endurace. The trend toward shorter and higher is no good for me. Of course, right now there are no Cheaper ultimates available in the US store - so Iíd have to wait.

    Was hoping for something to ride in December in the rain...

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Kontact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,372
    Quote Originally Posted by fronesis View Post
    Iíd probably go with a M and a 120 stem. But in dealing with my bike fit needs I long ago decided not to worry too much about standover height. I ride one bike that doesnít have enough standover height for my short legs, but in 6000 miles itís never been a problem. When I put my foot down at stops I lean the bike a bit.

    All of that said, itís also now clear to me that the Ultimate geometry is better for me than the Endurace. The trend toward shorter and higher is no good for me. Of course, right now there are no Cheaper ultimates available in the US store - so Iíd have to wait.

    Was hoping for something to ride in December in the rain...
    I don't get it. If you can ride a 580 top tube, how is it that you will fit a M with a 553 top tube with only a 120mm stem? Do you ride a 580 TT with a 90mm stem? That doesn't sound all that long a reach.
    Last edited by Kontact; 4 Weeks Ago at 01:46 PM.
    Get a better saddle: www.kontactbike.com

  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
    I don't get it. If you can ride a 580 top tube, how is it that you will fit a M with a 553 top tube with only a 120mm stem? Do you ride a 580 TT with a 90mm stem? That doesn't sound all that long a reach.




    Total effective reach of a bike involves a number of factors beyond just eTT length and stem length. Most significant is seat tube angle - a super slack seat tube tube translates into much less reach - but there are a number of others including BB drop, HT angle, etc.


    The bike I ride with a 580mm TT has a very slack ST angle (itís a cx bike). This means it has LESS frame Reach than my road bike with a 560mm eTT and a steep ST angle. I ride it with a 110 stem.


    The endurace frame in size M has a 553 eTT with a relatively steep ST angle (73.5). If I remove most spacers from under the stem and angle it down I can easily get the total reach I need (about 485mm).


    Iím comparing directly to the exact numbers on my current bike using a stack and reach calculator, and if I had to I could actually get MORE reach out of the size M frame with a 120mm stem than I have on either my road bike or my cx bike.


    If you havenít played around with stack and reach calculators, I highly recommend it. It shows you a lot, and particularly it shows that you canít size a bike based only on TT length. If you compare geo charts you will also see that some bikes with 520 top tubes (small, race bikes with 74.5 ST angles) will have MORE Reach than bikes with 560 top tube (endurance bikes with slack ST and HT angles and huge head tube lengths).

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Kontact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,372
    Quote Originally Posted by fronesis View Post
    [FONT="][FONT="][/FONT]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT="][FONT="][/FONT]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT="][FONT="]Total effective reach of a bike involves a number of factors beyond just eTT length and stem length. Most significant is seat tube angle - a super slack seat tube tube translates into much less reach - but there are a number of others including BB drop, HT angle, etc. [/FONT][/FONT]
    [FONT="][FONT="][/FONT]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT="][FONT="]The bike I ride with a 580mm TT has a very slack ST angle (itís a cx bike). This means it has LESS frame Reach than my road bike with a 560mm eTT and a steep ST angle. I ride it with a 110 stem. [/FONT][/FONT]
    [FONT="][FONT="][/FONT]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT="][FONT="]The endurace frame in size M has a 553 eTT with a relatively steep ST angle (73.5). If I remove most spacers from under the stem and angle it down I can easily get the total reach I need (about 485mm). [/FONT][/FONT]
    [FONT="][FONT="][/FONT]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT="][FONT="]Iím comparing directly to the exact numbers on my current bike using a stack and reach calculator, and if I had to I could actually get MORE reach out of the size M frame with a 120mm stem than I have on either my road bike or my cx bike. [/FONT][/FONT]
    [FONT="][FONT="][/FONT]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT="][FONT="]If you havenít played around with stack and reach calculators, I highly recommend it. It shows you a lot, and particularly it shows that you canít size a bike based only on TT length. If you compare geo charts you will also see that some bikes with 520 top tubes (small, race bikes with 74.5 ST angles) will have MORE Reach than bikes with 560 top tube (endurance bikes with slack ST and HT angles and huge head tube lengths). [/FONT][/FONT]
    I don't like Reach because it produces numbers that are only useful at the same stack. Correcting level TT length produces more comparable numbers because you don't need to subtract reach for higher stack.

    Specifically, if you corrected everything to comparable TT lengths using 1cm per degree of STA, you'd have numbers that allow you compare TTs directly. Which is what I thought you were doing (to an extent) when you posted your preferred TT lengths, because most road bikes use similar STAs for the middle size range. I didn't realize you would use a CX bike for sizing a road bike since many people choose a different (shorter) position for CX than road.

    Specific to your problem, you appear to have a 31" "standover height" or inseam, and I would imagine you are 5'8" to 5'9". 120mm is not that long a stem since a 110 is the middle of the range. For someone with a longish torso, even a 130 or 135 stem would not be considered all that long, so you could even ride S with its 541mm TT length and have a comfortable reach.

    I don't see why you would ever want to go to an L unless you like your bars really, really high.

    There is nothing wrong with a longish stem - they exist for people with longish upper bodies. The only reason to avoid a smaller frame with a long stem is if you can't get the handlebar height you want.
    Get a better saddle: www.kontactbike.com

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
    I don't like Reach because it produces numbers that are only useful at the same stack. Correcting level TT length produces more comparable numbers because you don't need to subtract reach for higher stack.

    Specifically, if you corrected everything to comparable TT lengths using 1cm per degree of STA, you'd have numbers that allow you compare TTs directly. Which is what I thought you were doing (to an extent) when you posted your preferred TT lengths, because most road bikes use similar STAs for the middle size range. I didn't realize you would use a CX bike for sizing a road bike since many people choose a different (shorter) position for CX than road.

    Specific to your problem, you appear to have a 31" "standover height" or inseam, and I would imagine you are 5'8" to 5'9". 120mm is not that long a stem since a 110 is the middle of the range. For someone with a longish torso, even a 130 or 135 stem would not be considered all that long, so you could even ride S with its 541mm TT length and have a comfortable reach.

    I don't see why you would ever want to go to an L unless you like your bars really, really high.

    There is nothing wrong with a longish stem - they exist for people with longish upper bodies. The only reason to avoid a smaller frame with a long stem is if you can't get the handlebar height you want.
    You are right, of course: reach numbers only make full sense in the context of stack numbers, and a good fit requires both. For me, the bike fit problem is usually about getting enough reach, so I often focus there first. But when I do fit calculations I am dialing in the exact reach AND the exact stack.

    In fact, the size L endurace frane would NOT fit me, because I couldnít get the bars LOW enough. I donít ride in a super aggressive position but I need a stack just a bit over 600, so the size L just has too much stack for me.

    My inseam is 31Ē, as you deduced, but Iím actually a bit over 5í10Ē. As I said, crazy long torso.

    What you say about going with a 120 or even 130 stem is interesting. Iíve never ridden a stem that long so I think I shied away from it for no other reason. I also like the weight balance that a longer TT gives me, because I have so much upper body leaning out over the front of the bike. And you are right, with a 130 stem I ciould probably even ride that bike in a size S. That would might be too much of a switch for me, and at 5í10Ē a small might be too small. But the M would be fine, and Iíll dfinitely consider going with a smaller frame and a longer stem, in general.

  20. #20
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Kontact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,372
    Quote Originally Posted by fronesis View Post
    I also like the weight balance that a longer TT gives me, because I have so much upper body leaning out over the front of the bike.
    Not pushing you to any size bike, but keep in mind that the wheelbase/front center difference between the S and L is only 2mm. So your weight distribution over both sizes would be identical.


    I would assume that the best compromise is the M, but you now have all the information to decide for yourself.
    Get a better saddle: www.kontactbike.com

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
    Not pushing you to any size bike, but keep in mind that the wheelbase/front center difference between the S and L is only 2mm. So your weight distribution over both sizes would be identical.


    I would assume that the best compromise is the M, but you now have all the information to decide for yourself.
    I appreciate the help.

    I ran the numbers on the size S. Interestingly, that frame has the exact same STACK as my currrent road bike (I do all my comparisons with the road bike, not the cx) but 23mm less reach.

    With a 130mm stem angled up, with only 10mm of spacers, it dials in to exactly the same stack and reach as my current bike. (Current bike has 20mm of spacers and a 110 stem).

    It would be great to do a test ride to compare the differences on the bike. But of course bike shops donít stock size S frames with 130mm stems, so itís hard to test.

  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Kontact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,372
    Quote Originally Posted by fronesis View Post
    I appreciate the help.

    I ran the numbers on the size S. Interestingly, that frame has the exact same STACK as my currrent road bike (I do all my comparisons with the road bike, not the cx) but 23mm less reach.

    With a 130mm stem angled up, with only 10mm of spacers, it dials in to exactly the same stack and reach as my current bike. (Current bike has 20mm of spacers and a 110 stem).

    It would be great to do a test ride to compare the differences on the bike. But of course bike shops donít stock size S frames with 130mm stems, so itís hard to test.
    The shop I worked at would swap stems for test rides.

    Are Canyon's in bike shops? Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong brand.
    Get a better saddle: www.kontactbike.com

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
    The shop I worked at would swap stems for test rides.
    Sounds like a great shop. When I first starting riding and bought my first road bike, I took everyoneís advice at made fit rule #1. I walked into more than a dozen bike shops and told them, Iím new and want to buy a bike that fits me. Half of them had me standover two bikes before telling me which to ride. The other half squinted at me and said ďyour a 54.Ē I asked to try out different stems and was told no.

    Are Canyon's in bike shops? Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong brand.[/QUOTE]

    Canyon is direct sale only over the net.

  24. #24
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    279
    I'm the OP, just wrapping up this thread. I bought a Canyon Endurace in size M, and can now report:

    1. There is NO issue with saddle height. The seatpost has little min/max tick boxes on it, and set at 690mm (BB to top of saddle) I could still lower it quite a bit. As discussed here, it's a very standard seatpost. (The securing mechanism is really cool). It may be that I get less of the Canyon-intended seatpost flex, but if so, I can't tell. And the bike IS extremely comfortable.

    2. I'm running a 120mm stem and just one small spacer and easily dialed in my stack/reach fit. The bike feels slightly smaller than others I've ridden, and I get slightly more toe overlap. I think a size S with a 130 stem would have been pushing it, and as discussed, the size L just had too much stack for my fit.

    Only one ride in, but so far I'm thoroughly impressed with the bike. Thanks again to everyone who helped here.

  25. #25
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Kontact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,372
    Glad you're happy with the bike.
    Get a better saddle: www.kontactbike.com

Similar Threads

  1. Back pain: Seat height? Seat? Bike?
    By InfiniteLoop in forum Racing, Training, Nutrition, Triathlons
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-30-2010, 07:46 PM
  2. CX bar height compared to road bar height
    By fishman473 in forum Cyclocross
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-06-2010, 09:10 PM
  3. Seat height...32 inseam with 31.5 inch seat height? Am I a freak of nature?
    By Stu_the_weak in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-10-2010, 01:00 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-13-2007, 07:29 PM
  5. What is your height and saddle height?
    By rd12vman in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-19-2007, 06:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •