Do I need a micro-adjust seatpost?

I'm in search of a better saddle, and have discovered in the process that my seatpost is one of those one-bolt ones that pretend to microadjust but don't really.

I'm feeling that at least one of the saddles would be better with a teeny bit of tilt.

Currently I've got a 27.2 x 350 composite post on a Giant OCR 1. I don't think I need setback in that my arms are short and I don't need to be any further back.

Have I got the basics? Any recommendations? What exactly am I looking to ask for when I go shopping?

I've heard of people using a little piece of metal cut from an aluminum can to shim a serrated seatpost clamp for greater tilt adjustability.

Might be worth trying before you spring for a new seatpost.

Seems like a lot of people get along just fine with seatpost that are not infinitely adjustable. However, I strongly prefer an infinitely adjustable post (I replaced all of my posts with infinitely adjustable ones).

Usually two-bolt systems are better than one-bolt systems, but there are a few easy-to-use, infinitely adjustable one-bolt posts out there. Bontrager Race X Lite and Race XXX Lite, for instance, and I think the highest end Ritchey carbon post is one-bolt/infinite adjust (haven't seen it in person though).

I like Thomson posts a whole lot. They are aluminum, but they're lighter than a lot of carbon posts and they are supposedly the strongest post on the market. Very easy to adjust (and pretty, I think).

I just put an FSA K-Force post on my road bike. I bought it partly because it is available with 35mm of setback (the 16mm on my Thomson just wasn't enough -- 35 is a bit more than I strictly need but it gives me some flexibility), and partly because it had a friendly adjustment mechanism. I actually like it a lot, the two-bolt system is infinitely adjustable and both bolts are easy to access. It's reasonably good looking too. (And I found a good deal on Ebay...).

Both of these posts are available with no setback (as are the Bontragers mentioned above). One note about setback though, you should not be determining whether or not you need setback based upon your reach needs -- it should be determined based upon where your saddle needs to be in order to achieve a reasonable relationship between your knees and the pedal spindle. This is completely independent of reach; it's a function of the relationship between your femur/tibia ratio and the geometry/size of your frame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liza

This is completely independent of reach; it's a function of the relationship between your femur/tibia ratio and the geometry/size of your frame.

---

Ok thanks. I think maybe I associated them because both bike peeps who fit me when I was looking for bikes commented how difficult it was to get the right position for my seat and a proper reach (short legs and short arms, I guess).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teawoman

Ok thanks. I think maybe I associated them because both bike peeps who fit me when I was looking for bikes commented how difficult it was to get the right position for my seat and a proper reach (short legs and short arms, I guess).

---

If you are having a hard time finding the right combination of set-back vs reach, it's possible that your femurs are long and your torso/arm combination is short. If having set back gets your knees in proper alignment, but you can't reach your handlebars, it's your stem (or heaven forbid, your top tube) that may be the problem...not the seat post.

Of course, this has nothing to do with saddle comfort, in which case, seat post selection may make a difference. I use the Thomposon posts on both of my bikes (I do need zero set back because I have short femurs) and I love the two bolt setting adjustments for dialing in the perfect tilt!

No, the bike itself is a perfect fit as my bike shop did it. It's just that the saddle I have now seems to start pushing painfully into my soft bits after about 60-70k. It might be me getting tired, or maybe running out of lube.

That was why I asked before if a saddle was comfortable for that long, it would be comfortable for 100k (my goal this summer). I went 94k last weekend, and OWIE!

Quote:
Originally Posted by liza
This is completely independent of reach; it's a function of the relationship between your femur/tibia ratio and the geometry/size of your frame.

Posted by Teawoman:
Ok thanks. I think maybe I associated them because both bike peeps who fit me when I was looking for bikes commented how difficult it was to get the right position for my seat and a proper reach (short legs and short arms, I guess).

That makes sense... They are related actually. If you need lots of setback that will have an effect on your reach (probably requiring you to look for a bike with a somewhat shorter reach than you otherwise would), but setback should affect reach rather than the other way around ('cause you can mess up your knees if you let your reach dictate your setback).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liza

[COLOR="Purple"]Quote:
If you need lots of setback that will have an effect on your reach (probably requiring you to look for a bike with a somewhat shorter reach than you otherwise would), but setback should affect reach rather than the other way around ('cause you can mess up your knees if you let your reach dictate your setback).

---

Yeah, they did the saddle first and then I think they gave me a shorter stem. I haven't had any probs until after about 75k. And nothing else was really hurting (even my lower back was absolutely fine) except for the girly bits :(.