Brooks rail length problem
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Brooks rail length problem
Postby Nobody » Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:42 pm
Rail length of new Team Pro. ~13cm from front of rails to back of saddle. 1cm too far forward. Confirmed by other measurements on bike.
As most of you already know, the usual problem with Brooks saddles is not being able to get the saddle back far enough due to short rails. I made the incorrect assumption that different saddles would have at least the same reference point to the rear of the saddle so you can just swap them, but I was obviously wrong.
Could someone with a Swift or Swallow please measure the front of the rail to back of saddle (like photos) and post it? I'm trying to figure out if I have any other Brooks options before looking elsewhere. I've already got a 30mm setback post and most frames of similar size to mine have a similar seat tube angles. Looks like I'm going to have to sell the Team Pro either way.
Thanks in advance.
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby il padrone » Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:17 pm
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby Nobody » Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:20 pm
I think there is too little information on the Brooks site about measurements considering the limited amount of rail adjustment.
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:32 pm
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby bprb » Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:25 pm
Edit: On second thought, I'll say 14 cm. Looking vertically at the desk it appeared 15 cm, but that wasn't perpendicular to the ruler (the rails aren't horizontal when the saddle is on the desk). When I look perpendicular to the ruler, I now think it's 14Â cm.
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby il padrone » Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:31 pm
[edit] Then again maybe not longer. It seems the Swallow just has a deceptively different bend in the front of the rail.
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby Nobody » Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:46 pm
At least it looks like I have other options.
I'll give it one or two more shorter rides to see if I can get it to work, but I'd say it's very likely to be up for sale in a week or two if my knees complain.
-
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:05 pm
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby ray » Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:54 pm
There isn't too many options for seatposts with a setback greater than 30mm. If you still want to use the Brooks there are some 40mm+ setback options such as the Ambrosio Momentum Carbon (27.2 x 300/350 with 45mm setback) and the Nitto S-84 Steel (with 42mm setback - some quote 37mm). For me with small frame, short legs and steep seat tube angle need around 40mm setback.Nobody wrote:Thanks Bprb and Pete.
At least it looks like I have other options.
I'll give it one or two more shorter rides to see if I can get it to work, but I'd say it's very likely to be up for sale in a week or two if my knees complain.
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby Nobody » Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:23 pm
Thanks Ray.ray wrote:There isn't too many options for seatposts with a setback greater than 30mm. If you still want to use the Brooks there are some 40mm+ setback options such as the Ambrosio Momentum Carbon (27.2 x 300/350 with 45mm setback) and the Nitto S-84 Steel (with 42mm setback - some quote 37mm). For me with small frame, short legs and steep seat tube angle need around 40mm setback.
Very informative and good to know there are extra options. The problem is the Nitto S-84 is $119 which is more expensive than what I paid for the saddle. The Ambrosio is even more expensive. I suppose it is much cheaper than a custom frame though.
I worked out that with a 70cm saddle height (BB to saddle top) the difference between a 73 degree seat tube and and a 74.5 degree is 17.5mm. I also have 165mm cranks which also encourages me to want to go back 5mm further. So I'm trying to get at least 22.5mm further back than average.
I'll see how the ride goes today.
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby Nobody » Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:35 pm
At least they look pretty together...
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby Nobody » Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:02 pm
http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index ... 72667.html
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby Nobody » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:43 pm
For anyone else that may be looking for similar smaller frames with a slacker STA, look for steel touring bikes and old style steel road bikes. After looking around I found some examples:
http://www.fujibikes.com/bike/details/touring5
http://www.jamisbikes.com/canada/thebik ... elite.html
http://www.jamisbikes.com/canada/thebik ... rt_rd.html
http://www.somafab.com/archives/product ... n-frameset
I think I'm going to buy a Planet-X frame because it's cheap and has 73.5 degree STA for a 545mm ETT. The ETT will be shorter by 8.5mm due the difference in STA, so it will be like a 532.5mm ETT at 74.5 degrees.
http://www.on-one.co.uk/i/q/FRPXKV2/pla ... _out_frame
- Rich-Ti
- Posts: 820
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:50 am
- Location: Sydney
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby Rich-Ti » Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:57 am
- MichaelB
- Posts: 14775
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby MichaelB » Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:52 am
Good way to get a new frame "But the seat doesn't go back far enough dear ......"
So, the options for me are a New Brooks Swallow (AT) $159 for the Chriome rail version or $300 for the Ti version (ooooohhhhh the WW in me is seeing value in 200g less ..... ) or try and find a new seatpost with more setback.
But the important Q is - how different is the profile of the Swallow compared to the Team Pro ?
Anyone with experience using the Swallow & Team Pro ?
- Mulger bill
- Super Mod
- Posts: 29060
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
- Location: Sunbury Vic
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby Mulger bill » Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:29 pm
I haven't used a Pro so it's grain of salt time but going on googled pics of one, the Swallow is almost dead flat along the top, effectively zero sag on mine, even after I dunno how many kms (bum bone dimples aside). I haven't touched the tension. It looks from above to be narrower through the mid section too, the folded and riveted flaps stop it splaying out. I can't find a decent pic of Pro rails from the underside to make an honest comparison but the Swallow doesn't give a huge amount of room either.
Hope there's some nugget of assistance in all this waffle.
Shaun
London Boy 29/12/2011
- MichaelB
- Posts: 14775
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby MichaelB » Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:37 pm
Ooorooo
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby Nobody » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:34 am
As a conclusion to this thread, I ended up replacing the Pro with a WTB Speed V Comp. It had the advantages of ample rail length and better comfort for me in a road bike position. It's significantly cheaper too.
Another frame that people might want to consider if they can't drag themselves away from a saddle with short rails is the Planet X Kaffenback 2. It has a 72.5 degree STA which is rare in a modern small sized frame.
http://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/FRPXKBD2/p ... e-and-fork" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 14305
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
- Location: Bendigo
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby warthog1 » Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:23 am
Having the seat a long way behind the bb and attempting to ride in the drops would close up the hip angle a fair bit
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby Nobody » Sat Jan 11, 2014 1:01 pm
Currently 5mm behind KOPS. It's not that I'm so far back, but it's the the STA is so steep and I have 165 cranks. So to be 5mm behind KOPS is actually 10mm behind the norm 170mm crank position due to 5mm shorter crank length. Then a 74.5 deg STA puts the seatpost at the saddle about 12mm more forward than a 73 deg STA. So to be 5mm behind KOPS puts the saddle a total of 22mm behind a "normal" position on a seatpost. This might be OK with a modern saddle - although a setback VO seatpost still helps to place it in the middle of the saddle rails - but not good for a short railed Brooks Pro.warthog1 wrote:I'm no expert on knees or bike fit as you know, but I'm wondering if you can explain to me why you are so far back behind the bottom bracket. The current racing practice seems to be run a long stem on a smaller frame, for its shorter head tube, and have the seat as far forward as is legal or you can get away with.
Having the seat a long way behind the bb and attempting to ride in the drops would close up the hip angle a fair bit
I found it interesting to read in "Greg LeMond's Complete Book of Bicycling" from 1988 in which he said to hang the plumb line off the front of the knee (not the position we measure from now) and it should "bisect exactly the center of the pedal axle or fall as much as one or two centimeters behind." But the different measuring style for "bisect exactly the center of the pedal axle" is actually 5mm behind KOPS using the current measuring method.
-
- Posts: 14305
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
- Location: Bendigo
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby warthog1 » Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:51 pm
Do you get sore knees if you run the seat further forward?
I've never actually looked at the KOPS situation on my bikes. As you say with longer cranks I may need to be further forward anyway.
Looking at people who are in the drops and going hard I've noticed many pull themselves forward "on the rivet" to try and generate power I guess.
I found the tt bike was faster in a forward position due to the more open hip angle so replicated that on the roadie a bit.
Maybe you can try a longer stem, move forward a bit if the knees allow and still use the brooks if it works?
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby Nobody » Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:43 pm
Summary:warthog1 wrote:Thanks, more upright seat tube and shorter tube means the seat is further forward and combined with those silly little cranks , you need it to be further back?
<<10mm saddle (fit & cranks)
seatpost 12mm>> (STA)
In theory I should and so I don't usually try it. I don't get sore knees much while riding, mainly the next day after a ride. But I've done the following now and my knees are better than they have been since I restarted cycling in 2008:warthog1 wrote:Do you get sore knees if you run the seat further forward?
Shimano road pedals/shoes with cleats back and out
G8 Performance custom fit insoles.
Steve Hogg heel wedges.
Bikefit cleat wedges.
3mm custom cleat shim.
Saddle down 4mm, back 5mm.
Using foam roller on ITB & leg muscles after rides.
Lost 10Kg with a change of diet.
I'm also considering getting a single chainwheel setup to reduce my Q-Factor/Step from 147 to 134mm which also should help. In the end it's about accumulative small gains. This fit thing is expensive. I think the crank setup will probably cost about $300 landed and may make no difference at all. But still worth trying.
If I get everything else sorted to reduce my knee pain to next to nothing (priority 1 recently) I may try that setup to see the impact on my knees. No point trying it until the knee pain is gone long term, as I could be adding to the problem. I found changing the fuel for the engine is making more difference than any fit or equipment change.warthog1 wrote:I've never actually looked at the KOPS situation on my bikes. As you say with longer cranks I may need to be further forward anyway.
Looking at people who are in the drops and going hard I've noticed many pull themselves forward "on the rivet" to try and generate power I guess.
I found the tt bike was faster in a forward position due to the more open hip angle so replicated that on the roadie a bit.
Maybe you can try a longer stem, move forward a bit if the knees allow and still use the brooks if it works?
According to LeMond, moving the saddle back uses the muscles behind the leg more. Therefore I can see an advantage of having the saddle back so I'm working different muscles when standing to sitting. Since the hills in my area are fairly short, I like to attack them standing these days. Probably no advantage doing a TT, but since I'm not doing TTs...
-
- Posts: 14305
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
- Location: Bendigo
Re: Brooks rail length problem
Postby warthog1 » Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:02 pm
Well thats a bit more thought out than my random trial and error changes. Sounds like you are all over itNobody wrote: I don't get sore knees much while riding, mainly the next day after a ride. But I've done the following now and my knees are better than they have been since I restarted cycling in 2008:
Shimano road pedals/shoes with cleats back and out
G8 Performance custom fit insoles.
Steve Hogg heel wedges.
Bikefit cleat wedges.
3mm custom cleat shim.
Saddle down 4mm, back 5mm.
Using foam roller on ITB & leg muscles after rides.
Lost 10Kg with a change of diet.
I'm also considering getting a single chainwheel setup to reduce my Q-Factor/Step from 147 to 134mm which also should help. In the end it's about accumulative small gains. This fit thing is expensive. I think the crank setup will probably cost about $300 landed and may make no difference at all. But still worth trying.
I'll shut up now
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.