This is from the Woods Cyclery’s insta but I also see people on the genosack group doing the same thing.
Surely if you’re seatpost is that low the bikes too small for you? But there must be a reason why some people favour this sort of set up? Low CG for touring stability? I can’t really think of an explaination.
by 4tunabrix
16 Comments
Frame is too big
Not too small but too big. I bought my disc trucker a size bigger than normal for more space in the triangle. Could be that. Could be for a more upright position. Could be for mobility issues.
Usually because their butt is installed too low.
I have chronic pain from a completely fucked back and I’ve been moving closer and closer to a too large frame with a slammed seatpost for a few years now. It’s almost always more comfortable for me
It’s called the French fit and it calls for a frame size that results in a fistful of seatpost showing (not slammed). Ideally, it also results in a bar setup with no saddle to bar drop without using a comically high stem or spacer stack.
Back in the ’90s, fashion demanded MTBs with tiny frames and comically extended seat posts.
In days of yore, the standard for fitting a road bike was “a fistful of seatpost.” Some folks still find this preferable.
I’m just under 5’10”, kind of between sizes for many bike companies, and I find “a little too big” is more comfortable than “almost too small.”
You sometimes get a frame that’s too big, hand me down, donation, etc. not everyone can afford a bike that fits or they may not even realize their bike doesn’t fit.
It’s one way of getting relatively higher handlebars too, although that’s a terrible reason to lower the saddle.
In some cases it may be intentional.. there’s a reason dropper posts exist after all. But I imagine most bikes you see like this aren’t being used that way.
Depends on frame design too, older bikes have less exposed seatpost to begin with. I would not call your example image slammed but it is lower than average.
Others have mentioned indicators on why someone may be riding a fit like this, it’s also sometimes referred as a “French Fit” which from my understanding is ride the biggest frame possible, seatpost/stem match at identical heights. This fit is popular for Randonneuring.
Conversely, it’s actually because the bike is large for them. I inherited my dad’s size 58 or 60 (not sure) Trek road bike as my first bike and it is definitely too big, looks exactly like this pic lol. It was SUPER uncomfortable since the reach was just way too long. I now have a size 54 gravel bike with a healthy amount of seat post stickin’ out… Definitely looks better and it will add more compliance since the post will flex as well.
They sort of explain it in the post description:
>*My* [](https://www.instagram.com/singularcycles/) *Peregrine was the bike that I spent most time on this summer.*
*It’s still my favourite bike of all time, I actually swapped to an XL frame early this year, I’m only 5’10, but with the bb in its forward position, and using Crust towel rack handlebars that have a fair bit of back sweep, it fits perfectly!*
*Swapping from my prototype frame to the production frame also meant I could make use of the increased tyre clearance, I’ve been running these 2.5 Teravail Ehlines. I rode some really rough routes this year, fully loaded, and the Peregrine just glides over everything with so much confidence, but it’s still a pleasure to ride on smooth gravel.*
*If there was one bike I’d take around the world, it would be this one.*
I think a consideration that is sometimes overlooked is body proportions, perhaps they’ve got a longer than average inseam?
Others have already mentioned french fit, but in this photo, saddle could be a little higher if the cranks weren’t so long. They look longer than 175s.
Because people would rather have a hype bike that is grossly oversized than something boring that fits
Short legs, bad back, lack of smaller frames on the market
Call it “French Fit” if you like, but ultimately it just fits or it doesn’t. Some people have long legs/short torsos or vice versa. Seatposts are being worn tall these days, but there’s no reason to size down a frame that fits you otherwise just so you can have that trendy tall seatpost look. If that’s Tom’s Peregrine then I’d guess it’s pretty dialled – he does plenty of miles off road.
Also, often with frames if you’re on the border between two sizes you can choose between sizing down with longer seatpost/stem (for a lighter frame, more snappy handling) or sizing up (with a shorter seatpost/stem) for a more planted/stable ride, and more room for a bigger frame pack. Particularly true of these Peregrines – when the Woods built mine up they suggested I go for a M with a short stem rather than an S with trendy amounts of seatpost showing. IIRC the seat-tubes are a similar length to the top tubes for any given model, so they are taller in proportion than most ‘classic’ steel frames, which are longer than they are tall.
The Peregrine is a pretty sorted Jack of all trades, so while my M has pretty much Unimog levels off off-road comfiness, I reckon that if I’d gone for the S with a different cockpit fit I could have got a pretty quick-feeling road-biased build.
And finally…you see all sorts of wackiness here because r/xbiking is obsessed with making that holy grail frame work even if it’s the wrong size. NGL I love you all but this doesn’t even come close to some of the wackiness I see here on talismanic/meme frame builds.
Some people prefer comfort over aerodynamics.
Their bike is too big