Thinking about buying a Specialized Ruby Comp

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

Honestly, I am quite shocked myself. I had come to accept that I couldn't afford custom and manufacturers weren't going to offer the frame I would want and 650's on a stock bike. I figured I would just have to manage the toe overlap. I am not sure if it is my riding style, shoes, pedals or the bike.

Hey, I'm sure you must have way smaller feet/shoes than I have (size 9 1/2 "ski feet") so that must help you avoid toe clip too!

Li10up wrote:
If I raise the seat up then I will be rocking too much from side to side. From everything I've read if the front of your knees hurt then your saddle is too far forward.

Lit10,
That's not what I have read, but oh well, much has been written! It IS true that if you start to rock when you raise your saddle higher, then it's probably as high as it should go.
One detail to consider- I believe the front knee ache is "most commonly" the result of leg staying too bent on the downstroke. One thing I found is that I used to catch myself pedaling with my toes pointing downward a lot- and that caused my heels to be higher, resulting in slight bent leg syndrome. I had to work hard to keep correcting this in myself and keeping my feet flatter (more horizontal) while riding- and i think that has paid off finally in a more efficient pedal stroke that is better for my legs and knees as well. It's something you might want to check to see if you are doing it too.

[Wahine]

Lit10,
That's not what I have read, but oh well, much has been written! It IS true that if you start to rock when you raise your saddle higher, then it's probably as high as it should go.
One detail to consider- I believe the front knee ache is "most commonly" the result of leg staying too bent on the downstroke. One thing I found is that I used to catch myself pedaling with my toes pointing downward a lot- and that caused my heels to be higher, resulting in slight bent leg syndrome. I had to work hard to keep correcting this in myself and keeping my feet flatter (more horizontal) while riding- and i think that has paid off finally in a more efficient pedal stroke that is better for my legs and knees as well. It's something you might want to check to see if you are doing it too.

Knee pain can be the result of both of the scenarios brought up in this thread. If the knee is too bent during the down stroke, you will get pain, if the knee is too far forward over the toes in the 3 o'clock position, you will also get pain. There are also other causes of knee pain such as cleat position and good old muscle imbalances.

Because seat posts are angled backward, when you raise them, you also move them back. So raising the seat will also increase the distance between the pelvis and the bottom bracket, fore and aft. Usually what I recommend is finding the correct seat height first, then correcting for fore and aft position of the saddle based on where the patella lines up above the toes in the 3 o'clock position.

Seat height should take into account your habitual ankle postion during your pedal stroke. IMO, it is not good enough to measure with the heel on the pedal at the bottom of the pedal stroke, as many shops do. This is a static measurement and there is nothing static about pedaling.

I ride a 2000 Allez pro. I bought it when most companies did not have WSD frames. It is also a little too big for me. However, it is a beautiful frame and I can't afford a new bike at the moment. I have tweaked out this bike really well by changing saddle, seat post, stem and going to fully adjustable aero bars. Now, apart from not having proper top tube clearance, I am a happy camper. The moral of the storey is that bike fit is important, and if you are buying new get the best fit you can. But, if it comes down to it, you can also do a lot with a frame that isn't perfect that will make it fit you well.

[Kathi]

The Specialized bikes have very steep seat tube angles (76 degrees) on the smaller bikes. On their 54 cm frame the seat tube angle is 74 degrees.

Cannondale has the 75 degree seat tube angle on the Synapse but they don't make it any smaller than 47 and its interesting to note that on their 40 and 44 cm frames they still use 650c wheels.

Caligurl, I'm getting the feeling that a lot of the small custom builders will not put 700c wheels on a small frame. Some won't bother making a 650c wheel frame.

I didn't push the issue but I suspect that Serotta would not have built my 48 cm custom frame for 700c wheels.

I wonder about a 74 degree seat tube angle on a bigger frame because my 48cm frame has a 74.5 degree seat tube angle. It just seems like a bigger frame should have a slacker seat tube angle.

I think the steeper seat tube angles are how Specialized is getting around the toe overlap issue. I wonder if the rider's center of mass is then compromised?

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

Interesting. The seat tube angle on my 54cm Rivendell (non woman-specific) is 72.5 degrees (with 55cm long TT). It has 700 wheels. But if you want the next size down (52cm frame with 53cm long TT) they then put on 26" wheels. The 52cm frame still keeps a 72.5 degree ST angle.

[Kathi]

Years ago, mid nineties, the trend was to shorten the tt on small mtn bike frames but not to change the seat tube angle. When Cannondale came out with the Compact frame (1st WSD frame on 650c wheels) they decided to steepen the seat tube, as well as shorten the tt and change the head tube angle.

So I wonder if Rivendell stayed with the shorter tt, slacker seat tube for a reason or if the design worked for them and they never changed it?

Many small mtn bikes have the slacker seat tube angles and in 04 I had a hard time finding one to fit because I need the steeper seat tube. I think that why so many small women like the Titus mtn bikes.

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

So I wonder if Rivendell stayed with the shorter tt, slacker seat tube for a reason or if the design worked for them and they never changed it?

Not sure if this answers or not, but:
Rivendell has always favored a more "relaxed" geometry for several reasons. Mainly, they believe thier bikes should be comfortable to ride for long distances. So to attain that goal...they makes their bikes with a slightly more long-low geometry than typical road bikes, because they feel that is a more comfortable ride for long happy hours in the saddle. They like the handlebars to be about the same height as the seat, for a less bent over rider position. In their belief that one should be able to ride on rough roads as well as smooth, and touring through bad weather if necessary, they build in clearance to be able to put fenders and/or fat tires --up to about 38mm wide.

[Kathi]

In that case a Rivendell would not work for me. I'm a perfect example of why the 1 size fits all philosophy doesn't work, even with bicycle fitting.

My old mtn bike has a 72.5 degree seat tube angle. When I ride it I'm mostly on the nose of the saddle. With a zero degree seatpost and my saddle all the way forward I still can't get centered on the bike. If I sit on the saddle the way I'm supposed to I can't don't get good power on the pedals. If I move forward on the saddle to get centered on the bike, I'm on the nose.

On my bikes with the steeper seat tube angles I have no issues of where my body is. Someone told me one time that the body seeks a neutral position on the bike. The only way I can get that position is with a steep seat tube angle.

That's why generalizations can't be made about women's fit, we're all different
and that's why some women have problems with WSD bikes, they don't fit the standards that bike companies have come up with.