As Jeroen noted, they made the bike significantly steeper but the reach didn’t follow. Why is that ?
As Blackey noted, to get reach some may size up. But with the stand over this is not really an option.
Maybe they can explain why the went steep without that extra reach.
Are there PD extenders to get more reach ?
It started to really gain steam in 2022. Here’s 5 positions from Kona 2022 that can’t be replicated on a stock setup. I’m sure there’s more if I dig further.
Laidlow above
C’mon, 6 months…where have you been the last 3 years…
And it is not to critic them it is pure interest and trying to understand why they went for that super steap seat angle but or it feels like the rest of the bike isn’t /didn’t adjusted to that.
Jeroen
There is this Profile Design reach extender but is fairly recently introduced to the market.
And let’s say as @E-Dub suggests it took some years to design the bike I cannot see that they would design a bike for a might be available reach extender in the future.
Or they must have been informed by PD that there was a reach extender coming. But even with that knowledge I would imagine that you would make the design default already longer so the need for that reach extender is not needed.
Again, it is not to critice Ventum @BarrettB, it is pure interest why or how what drove the design this way especially when you have a stand over height quite tall that makes sizing up to get extra reach, more, difficult.
And I looked up Ben’s Trek SC and from what I could find he rodes medium’s only, not large, but maybe there is other info we don’t have.
But looking at his pics, the dimensions and he rides a medium Tempus and rode a Medium Trek.
And to be fair if he would ride a Large Tempus and still needs all that spacer stack…
Jeroen
Haha, sounds like quite the story! It’s great to see the UCI Legal TT bike finally hit the scene. Can’t wait to see how it performs now that the real version is out!
At least there is a solution we can trust. I believe PD does thorough stress testing. Some of the solutions on the market for other bikes are sketch.
100%
Oh, for sure, if there is one company I trust to do thorough testing before they bring something on the market it is them. And one of the reason why so many comapanies like Canyon, BMC, Cube and now Ventum rely on there hardware to put it on their bikes.
Jeroen
This is sort of like looking at Pro Riders that are on the tour with their smaller frame sets, jacked up seat posts and 140mm stems and saying… “The bike manufacturers aren’t making road bikes right”. We are looking at the top guys in the sport that are trying to do anything and everything and demanding that it be the same for the masses. (I blame Joe Skipper for most of this craziness) I even think that the 3rd party bar makers are starting to even put regulations on how forward they are willing to put a rider.
Can you mount those PD extenders backwards to reduce reach?
Seems like we are venturing into this thread
And this is why the manufacturers should start making the frames longer so we don’t have to use duct tape solutions.
It’s not just the pros that are benefitting from longer reach. From the session we did this week, with amateurs, probably half benefitted from more reach. Most found it more comfortable as well.
Again, Jeroen is asking with the steep angle without the reach required to unlock it’s full potential
I tried to bring it back to the Ventum :-).
Having said that, after experimenting a bit with those extremer seat angles on the fit bike so you can adjust it all very fast and easy I’m also not sure if as extreme as virtual SA of 84-88 degrees are very usefull.
It feels in the end quite heavy on the quads, for me I feel there is a sort of sweet spot around 79-82 at the most to have a sort of balance between glutes and quads.
Might be different as you are at the level of some pro’s, which I am certainly not
That’s a reason why I’m interested in the 82 SA from the Tempus (to bring the thread back on topic) but not having the reach to accomodate this set up.
Jeroen
I will check and confirm what I wrote about Ben’s sizing and get back to you.
While only recently commercially available, the reach extender by PD has been a go-to-market solution for them as long as I can remember in the development process. We even saw physical 3D Printed samples of that part in October 2023, so it has always been in the geo plan.
Great, let us know. Again, this is not to critique but seriously interest on the how and why the geometry ended up where it is.
Jeroen
I’m just curious why Ventum went with such a steep seat tube angle. Looking at Danielle’s bike it looks like she was almost running out of saddle rail space to even get the saddle far enough back. Steph also seams to be quite far back in relation to the saddle rail clamp location.
I know the trend is to have a saddle that is set further forward but I also feel like it alienates people that do want more saddle setback. Like for example my effective seat tube angle is 76 degrees for my last bike fit but I always found that I have had a loss of power when I move the saddle further forward. With it being a UCI legal bike I wonder how that fit will even work when it comes to the -50mm setback rule as well considering how steep that seat tube angle is.
We have a UCI/Setback post that a few of our riders are currently using. We just didn’t include it at launch as frankly we don’t expect to sell many. It will be available in a couple weeks. Most customers today want to be forward, but we do recognize there are people bound by UCI regulations and/or just want a position further back so we made both!
I’ve read through this discussion and I although people mention a BTA, I haven’t seen anything specific from anyone (including Ventum or PD). I am aware that their pros have built out BTA solutions, but it’s not obvious that there is anything available off the shelf.
Does anyone know of a BTA approach for this bike (and in particular with the ACS Pro bar), that doesn’t involve Home Depot or 3D printing?
See the slowtwitch news article “seen at sea otter…”
