elapid wrote:An update: I changed the saddle and did a basic homestyle fitting on the R3 and still had some soreness during, but not after, my interval session during the week. Rather than persisting with the R3 as is, I rode my custom Lynskey this weekend. Two 120 km rides with 1800 m and 1350 m of climbing, and feeling great. Some soreness, but to be expected and no prolonged recovery. I am getting a fitting on the R3 this week.
Next question: would you take the R3 or the Lynskey on a week long tour through the mountains (850 km over 6 days with 40,000 feet of climbing)? I haven't much time to decide, because this tour starts in a couple of weeks.
elapid wrote:The R3 has the same setup as the Lynskey. I had a professional fitting a few days ago which set the R3 exactly the same as the Lynskey, which has the same seat tube and head angles and top tube length (seat height; saddle to bottom bracket distance; saddle to stem/bar distance; distance from saddle to stem; etc). The saddles, wheels, pedals, crank lengths are all the same. I don't feel as though there is any difference in the ride quality, so it is not as though the R3 is appreciably stiffer and causing a harsher ride.
Does anyone have any ideas why the R3 chews me up and spits me out, while the Lynskey seems so much kinder?
davidg wrote:a) saddle position w.r.t. bottom bracket. This is totally independent from tube lengths and angles, and is a combination of saddle height and forward position.
b) saddle position w.r.t. bar setup. ie tip of saddle to bars and drop to bars.
davidg wrote:You also need to be careful if the saddles are different, since measuring saddle height is then more complicated.
davidg wrote:You should also carefully check saddle angle, since different seat posts make it difficult to get this exactly the same between two bikes.
elapid wrote:All of these measurements are the same (saddle to BB, saddle to centre of stem, and drop from saddle to bars). However, the first two were measured from the back of the saddle rather than the tip of the saddle.
You would normally measure setback from the tip of the saddle to a vertical line dropped through the BB
The saddles are both Selle Italia SLR, one older than the other.
This is a good saddle with a carbon base, same as I use. Should not see much sag compared to a nylon base, but worth checking. If it is a gel model, there could be more 'set' in the older one
The saddle angle is the more difficult part. This was changed from a slightly nose up position on the Lynskey to a slightly nose down position on both the Lynskey and R3. I haven't ridden the Lynskey since this saddle angle was changed. Also, while both seat posts are FSA 2.5 cm setbacks, the seat post on the Lynskey has microadjustments but microadjustments are not possible on the R3 seat post. Do you think saddle angle can make such a difference if everything else is the same?
Absolutely. This will change where you sit on the saddle and change the effective height. Normally you should measure your saddle height at a position approx 120mm from the back (ie approx where you sit). But if you tip the saddle down you will slide forward. This will also change your relationship with the bottom bracket and with it height and knee position.
davidg wrote:It would be worth dropping a plumbline from your knee to see where it sits relative to the pedals in a 3 o'clock position (after riding a few minutes on an ergo) Do this on both bikes to see if there is a difference.
Bike setup in fine detail can be a difficult thing, so it would be worthwhie contacting a reputable coach to confirm.
elapid wrote:increase my saddle height by 1-1.5 cm because my knee looks too high at the top of the pedal stroke which is closing up my hip angle and resulting in my knee being too bent at the bottom. Do you think this is too much of a change in saddle height in one sitting?
Users browsing this forum: JayKosta and 2 guestsBack to top