Black wallnut 

Followed your link to your Strava acct. I'll echo what @CliftonGK1 is telling you and honestly IMHO listen to him. If he's not the smartest guy in the room he is damn close. Your strava times likely could be better on a bike that actually fits you and has you set up to use the right muscles for cycling.

stephtu

Uh, they make more than one model, you wouldn't have to get the top-of-the-line Dura-Ace one. The bottom model Trinity Composite 2 is MSRP $1925. You can find tri-bikes of some other brands for < $1500. Some big brands (Trek/Specialized) don't make cheaper tri-bikes, only $3k+ ones, but doesn't mean you have to spend that much to get a time trial optimized position. Sure, forward seat post is cheaper, but I agree with Clifton that the starting point should be a much larger frame. And if most of the time you are riding the hoods for safe access to brakes, not the aero bars, then really a road fit makes more sense, tri-bike is designed for riding vast majority of time on the aero bars resting on the pads.

It seems like the main thing is that you are trying to achieve an aero position with your arms almost locked out straight. This is what makes the biggest difference between you and typical racers. If you go view pictures and videos of pro racers on the web, trying to get aero, either on a breakaway, head of the paceline, or on their TT bikes in a time trial, you'll notice that for most of them, their elbows are bent far more than yours, often forearms fairly close to parallel to the ground, while yours are pointed at the ground. That explains why their handlebars end up so much higher than yours. You apparently need to have straight arms because your hands are supporting more weight because of the forward position and the massive drop. With the pros, on their TT bikes, they aren't riding with locked arms, most of the time they are resting forearms on the aero bar pads, much higher up than you have yours, but achieving same back position, presumably more comfortable. On their standard road bikes, a bit less aero, but with weight further back and supported more by core muscles rather than arms, they have no problems bending at the elbows. Look at Wiggins in first and last photos in Tour of California 2014 stage one photo gallery - Cycling Weekly. Or look at picture here: Rohan Dennis Wins Third Stage Of Tour Of California, Wiggins? Overall Lead Narrows « CBS Sacramento , the rider in front achieves similar aero to rider behind him, by bending elbows in the hoods, while the guy behind has straight arms in the drops. It looks like you are putting your hoods where most people like their drops, so that locked out in the hoods you are aero, whereas the rest of us are locking out in the hoods to sit up, take it easy, or maybe purposely slowing down on a downhill or in a group to control our position in a paceline.

This is why you are not seeing bikes coming with massively negative dropping stems, even racers don't need them, not to mention the vast majority of the public buying the bikes who aren't racing to begin with, and have no strong desire for the aero flat back position. Racers will typically run more saddle to bar drop, but not nearly as much as yours!

CliftonGK1

Not that it would be within the price range, but if you want a TT bike setup with access to shifting and braking simultaneously, quite a few of our shop's racers have di2 robot remotes on the horns of their base-bar, next to the aero brake levers. That's part of the awesomeness of the di2 shifting; you can put those remote switches wherever you're comfortable with having them. I've also seen regular drop bars set up with the remotes on the tops, and on the hooks.

daviddavieboy

If this is working for you that is great, keep it up! The problem with locked elbows is that all road vibrations are transmitted directly to your shoulders, a aero tuck with a higher stem and bent elbows is preferred. The times on your strava account really aren't that great, as overweight as I am and on a cheap supersix ($2000 NEW and fitted the proper way) on a bad day I can reproduce similar or better times without much problem.

Forgive me for saying but it seems to me that you might have bought the best bike your budget allowed and are trying to make the most of it. Anyway, good luck on finding the components you want but I would suggest you find a decent frame and swap over your good stuff.

timtak

Clifton
> Lift the front of those aerobars and get your forearms parallel to the ground, that will help with comfort.
Thank you very much. I have only just got the stem and they are still set up for my old stem. With the lower position I think that you may be right: I will be more comfortable with them straight and can afford to have my head up more. With the previous stem though, I liked having my weight shared between the writs support and 'trispoon' ends. I found that after I had "invented" trispoon road bike aerobars, I had in fact reinvented the Cinelli Spinachi which were often used with downward pointing forearms. They should be legalised and on road bikes but they are against the UCI rules. It is bad enough that UCI rules prevent the use of spinachi in UCI races, but it is bizarre that UCI rules should make a good innovation rare even among riders that do not take part in UCI races.

[I tried the bars level, but I preferred them more spinachi-esque down, like central hoods, as they are. But thanks again for the suggestion. ]

There is a lot going on in this thread. Thank you all.

I would like to say first of all, that 5 or 6 years ago, when I was sick of being fatter I went to a local bike shop, told them my budget and intended use (even the route, which has not changed), and came away with a Trek F7.2 with a 54cm top tube, to which I fitted long aerobars and eventually a 140mm stem. I was unhappy with the aluminium material not the fit at the time. I don't hate that bike but I hardly ever use it. I wasted about 700-800USD. The cheapest carbon bikes available then (and I do swear by carbon) from my bike shop were well over - I seem to remember double - my maximum budget. I think that I may have said 1200 to the bike shop so they were $2400 and not Ultegra. I did not come out with any of the bikes kindly suggested above. The F5 looks similar to the Z5 that I bought last year (again in 54cm top tube!). Felt seems to have really lowered the price of bike shop carbon frames.

Another issue is that, I came here to say that I am really enjoying riding my bike and getting a good work out, and that since I don't mind what I look like, in lyrca, nor care whether I look like a pro cyclist (!?), my bike fits, it fits me, my use, my riding style, my body, my objectives well, and I to recommend this fit to others.

[My advice is "Skip the expensive LBS 'fit'. Get a cheap carbon road bike online in a size on the small side, with the best mech you can afford, and get extending parts to suit. Carbon frames can easily be extended. You will love your bike, lose weight, and save a thousand USD. You may even love your bike more because long stems and posts lead to more comfort due to flex, and lower, in-traffic-time-trial, faster positions"]

While I do not doubt that my times are those of a bad day for others. At the same time I know that I am fairly fast because despite being nearly 50, and fatter than the Japanese cyclists I see on the road, I generally overtake them and do okay compared with others on strava
Strava Segment | ?338**********?4km**********???25********************
So yes. I am happy. I am trying to tell other would be cyclists who want to get on a bike, and get fit, and fairly fast, how to get a good fit cheaply.

I find myself being offered professional cyclists in comparison to my oldness, which is kind of pleasing in a way but a little puzzling. This is a central issue, it seems to me, that when people use the word "fit" they seem to be thinking about how some professional cyclists ride their bike. There are no pro that ride to loose weight, commuting, and no cycling competion equivalent to the type of riding that I do. This is a problem since there seems to be a tendency to evoke an image of one or other pro rider, in one or other pro event, as the paradigm of "fit". No, no, no.

My use is different. I want to avoid cars, go fast, use calories and have my hands on the gears and brakes. Brakes because I am riding on roads which have cars which jump out. Gears because I forced to slow down and speed up. And yet, I do not have a peleton, so I do not wish to nearly so be upright.
I am glad I happened to get a cheap Carbon OEM frame, and that I eventually managed to ignore the lore about KOPS (!) and 5cm behind cranks. I was timid. It took me a long time to ignore the LBS, UCI lore. I spent years worrying that a stem more than X would result in poor steering, or that my saddle rails might break, or that non KOPS might hurt my knees. But eventually I got a forward offset seat post and spanking long stem, because my long stemmed road bike, with braker-gear levers, in an aero position, and nice road smoothing suspension, works for me.

Ah, but if you did this or that you would go faster? A new frame?

Someone kindly suggested Di2 remote control gears near a trial bike's brake levers and it sounds like a nice idea. Perhaps one day if I want to spend a lot of money I may go down that route. Thank you for that interesting suggestion.

The long stem really helps with suspension (flexing fork) so locked elbows seem to be fine. I do understand that bent elbows are even more aero though. [Also, I found that when cycling I am often not locking my elbows. The locked elbows are partly a facet of having my photo taken while stationary]

If would be nice if more bike suppliers made bikes for their customers rather than pro-cyclists. But many customers want to be sold an image of being in the Tour de France. And the manufactures, while saying that they are making bikes for the racers, are in fact slipping in geometries for fatties, which racing pros have to modify. But this mixture of fiction, and mixed, multiple motives, can and will be unravelled to result in more bikes made specifically for us the customers: speeding overweight commuters, traffic bound clyclo-joggers (i.e. people who treat going for a ride, like going for a jog, except on a bike in traffic), and part-time Stravaistas. The hybrid bike is one such bike. My bike is another suggestion.

CliftonGK1

Shops did you a disservice by not discussing your ride goals and desired style with you. You never should have been sold an FX series bike. Even a heavier rider can be fitted properly to a drop bar road bike, and nothing about how you describe your ride style makes me think "hey, let's get this guy on a flat-bar fitness whip." I push people towards those when they say key words like "errands", "child-seat", "groceries", and "bike-path".
As for Alu v. Carbon, depending on the frame design you can get a smooth ride from an alu bike with a carbon fork. The Domane 2.3 I suggested has a decoupling mech at the seatpost/toptube interface to help isolate the rider from road vibration. Same sort of thing that you see on a lot of higher priced carbon frames from Trek, Volagi, and Specialized.

I'm glad you enjoy riding and working out, but your bike doesn't fit. It may suit your objectives, but it does not fit.
Do not recommend that setup to other people. It is incorrect.
Bike fit isn't about "looking pro", it's about proper kinesiology. This is done by putting the rider on a correctly sized frame with the right geometry and proportionately sized components. While the end result may be a homogenization of appearance amongst cyclists, it's not because everyone is being "sold the image of being in the Tour de France." It's because proper fitment ends up looking very similar between all cyclists on similar looking styles of bikes. There is a correct road bike fit, a correct TT/Tri bike fit, a correct flat-bar fitness bike fit, a correct XC mountain bike fit, a correct DH mountain bike fit, etc.


Pros don't ride to lose weight? You don't hang out with any pro riders, do you? Listening to top level riders talk about their weight is like listening to a bunch of 15 year old high-school girls. I'm not kidding; I can tell you on a daily basis the variations in our elite riders weights and what they ate because it's the only thing they talk about more than how many watts they were putting out that morning.


You seem to think that you've created some entirely new classification of cycling, which the rest of the cycling world doesn't understand and can't comprehend. Your non-peloton, want-to-go-fast, sometimes-commuting, rides-with-traffic style is about 90% of the roadie customer base we see in our shop. They like to do longer solo rides or go on fast group rides on the weekend, but during the week they use the same bike for their 15 mile commute to work from the suburbs into downtown. That commute is their "training" or "workout" even if there aren't specific training goals set for each day, like a racer might say "today is hill repeats" or "today is sprint day".
The idea that a regular road bike position is upright and inefficient is misguided. I think that I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from with it, with the things you keep emphasizing; peloton riders working together to minimize wind resistance, and individual TT riders maximizing aerodynamic efficiency to reduce wind-resistance without the benefit of a drafting partner. But here's what you're not understanding; poor bike fit costs a rider more raw power wattage than the frontal surface area presented by a correct fit. Poor fit means poor power transfer at the cranks; an inefficient pedal stroke which isn't optimized to properly utilize the largest muscle groups throughout the most powerful phases of a pedal rotation. Poor fit means energy wasted throughout the upper body in holding the torso due to improper balance of the 5 contact points.
Do you want to talk about fast? Let's discuss that stem of yours. You say it's comfortable for the 'suspension' quality is adds to your ride. That same road chatter could be correctly damped with a proper fit to a carbon frame with a carbon post, carbon stem, and either carbon bars or bars with Fizik gel padding under the tape. The loss of flex in your front end will translate to direct power at the cranks as you won't be siphoning watts into flexing out that stem. Every millimeter that front end flexes when you pull on the bars during a hard effort is energy that doesn't get used to turn the pedals.


The first thing I mentioned was that it was well outside of your stated price range. I realize that you aren't interested in spending a lot of money because you consider the mainstream cycling industry to be nothing more than pushing pro-inspired dream machines and unnecessary "fit paradigms" on fatties who don't know any better than to waste their money on what the companies tell them they should want. It wasn't so much a suggestion, but just noting that there *are* other solutions. If you notice, I also made plenty of suggestions which are inside your stated price range, but you've ignored those because apparently you know better. I get it. One bike shop someplace was crappy to you, so now you carry a grudge against the entire industry as a whole, and you're going to do your own thing regardless of what people who do this for a living will tell you.
My shop's team saw 3 AG wins and 2 overall podium finishes at last weekend's Philly Tri. We have racers who are AG winners at Kona, and overall stage winners at TSE. Not enough? How about a couple of solo RAAM finishers? One of our fitters/coaches is a National Champion on the track. But certainly, you know better than the people who fit, coach, and wrench for them.

Please explain what geometry modifications are being made to pro race bikes? That very expensive little UCI-Approved decal on so many race frames means that's the exact same frame you can buy in the store that the pros put under their butts on the racing circuit. Any 'modifications' are going to be saddle height, fore/aft adjustment, and stem height/length based on the preferences of the specific rider. Those aren't geometry modifications, that's fit modifications; same as any shop can perform for you.
There are a few times where you'll see racers on equipment not available to the public, but those are rare. Unbranded or misbranded secret tire and wheel combos for the Paris-Roubaix being the most famous on the road. World Cup DH racers using prototype geometry being the biggest one off-road.

stephtu

It's the recommending the fit to others that seems bizarre to me. You have to realize that the way you set up your bike is far, far outside the norm. If you are fully comfortable, great, keep using it, whatever works. But I think it is a mistake for you to think that other people would also be comfortable in this position and recommend they do it. Fitters have worked with many people and settled on positions that work for their goals of comfort and/or aero and/or power production, that work for most riders they encounter, whereas you have only experimented on one person, yourself. Top athletes in other sports sometimes settle on an unorthodox technique for something, it works for them, but they realize it's unorthodox and don't coach other players to also do it. Not unless they think the unorthodox technique clearly is an advance in ultimate effectiveness. Your position achieves similar aero position to more orthodox positions, it's not *more* aero. So it makes more sense for people to first try positions that have been used successfully by many more people over longer distances than to go to your scheme.

When the pros go on a solo break, or are in time trial, they don't have a peloton either, they want to be aero, they are not so upright. Even if they are simply in the front position of a paceline they will get lower. They achieve aero position, they have settled on positions that are both aero & relatively comfortable over long distances. Don't you think if your extreme position was the more comfortable option more people would have figured it out and used it?

They are. But they went the opposite direction from what you are recommending, higher head tubes, less aero position, which is what most non-racing cyclists want.

There are lots of people who are not fat who also prefer less aero position for greater comfort and better view of surroundings. If you are not racing, there is zero need to eke out extra 2 mph from lower position. If you are after a workout, after all you can push yourself just as hard at a lower speed at higher resistance as at a slightly higher speed with lower resistance. It's the power output you are generating at the crank that is the measure of how hard you are working, not the ultimate output of speed after subtracting drag & rolling resistance. 220 watts @ 21 mph riding more upright on the hoods is still as hard as 220 watts @ 24 mph tucked on an aero bar.

And even if you do want aero position, it can be achieved with more conventional positions, which most people find more comfortable.

chaadster

I'm not so confident as some here that there is a "proper fit" for a given type of bike, nor am I as confident as some here that Tim's positioning is so problematic. It is unconventional or extreme, but if it works for him, I don't see the point of arguing against it.

I agree that he could probably achieve better handling characteristics with a different frame, but what seems to be going on here is that Tim has optimized his bike for a single type of riding and a single position. Those are not the decisions I have made, but I'm not Tim.

His forward position and bar placement remind me of forum moderator Carpediemracing's setup, which I'd also call unconventional, but which again work for the rider. When objectives are set clearly, goals prioritized, and compromises accepted, a good fit can look a lot different than a standard fit (depending on the rider).

So while yes, I'd think the bike could be setup better in the sense of it being more versatile (in particular, a longer front center and wheelbase, coupled with a rearward weight shift), I can't get all fired up as some are about his fit being "wrong." The guy is doin' his rides and gettin' on fine by his own account.

What really chaps me about Tim's bike is that he's got two lights and one reflector on the seat post and not a single one is properly aimed!!

Wilfred Laurier

the frustration is not with his personal fit preferences
but with his insistence that everyone else has it wrong
including pros tourists commuters and bike companies

CliftonGK1

Unconventional is when someone puts a aero clip-ons onto their flat-bar commuter because they're fighting a Chicago headwind every day.
Ridiculous is when you need a 450mm seatpost and 170mm trials stem to make a bike which is at least 5cm too small work for you, and then make the claim that "this is how the pros get low" and reference outdated photos of Hour Record attempts on the track when you're riding exclusively on the road.

My statements are nothing about the versatility of his bike. If he wants to ride everywhere like it's a velodrome pursuit, let him. Heaven knows there's enough college kids around here on Kilo TTs with goofy setups, too. I'm not saying a person can't enjoy their bike how they have it set up. I see all sorts of janky shiz roll through the shop every day.
It is my duty when someone says, "I'm going to tell everyone that this is how they should set up their bike, because if there's anything I know, it's bike fitting; and this fit is awesome" to point out the exact reasons why that is incorrect and not let bad fit information spread on the internet. Bicycle fitters are trained professionals (mind you, I'm only a mechanic, not a fitter), working with information gathered from thousands of athletes and programs developed by engineers and physical therapists and people who really understand all the ins-and-outs and nit-picky little details about how all this crap works. The engineers and such have taken all that, and condensed it into something that a shop employee can spend about 2 hours working with a customer to optimize their position on a bike. And whether you want to believe it or not, there really is a generic range of "correct fit" for any given type of bike. The parameters will change depending on the rider and the type of riding, (endurance racing vs. criterium vs. ultradistance, for example) but no one can ever wave their magic wallet and buy enough bolt-on parts to turn an Azzurri Primo into a Cervelo P5, which is what Tim is attempting to do.

chaadster

Okay, I understand you guys are reacting to Tim's rationale for his setup, and I agree he's off-base in that regard. I haven't really read all these lengthy, slightly crazy, posts thoroughly, so I didn't really understand that was the main point of contention.

I'm glad to hear the rollback from "a proper fit" for a certain type of bike, to "a generic range of correct fit." Absolutely his setup is extreme, but fit is not about the look of the bike, but rather adapting the bike to the rider and bis needs. That's the distinction I'm making, and while I have aesthetic preferences and share some of the practical concerns with leveraging carbon steerer tubes and seat tubes, ultimately if Tim is willing to accept those and other tradeoffs to make this frame fit, that's his decision.

daviddavieboy

x2

timtak

I was recommending my bike not only because I appear to have been successful in overcoming my initial poor purchase decision but also because
1) The long stem and seat post provide extra vertical suspension with very little loss in lateral stiffness/acceleration
2) The long stem produces a set up like a time trial bike (which are also very unusual) except with road handlebars. Not rocket science. You tell me, why has no-one come up with this before?

I am finding it difficult to believe in the merits of "proper kinesiology."

Most of what I understand to be 'bike fit' can be written on the back of a postcard: Inseam x 0.883 = Centre of Bottom Bracket to top of seat, saddle position to achieve KOPS (or TOPS for sprinters), stem length so that handlebars obscure front axle. Shame I did not know this 5 years ago.

My bike fit largely achieves the above, but it is early days yet with my stem. I do appreciate that my fit is very unusual, so I think that I should give it more time to see if there are problems with it.

CliftonGK1

Yet you assume you are an expert.
You've just managed to sum up in 2 statements why I left BikeForums a while back.

timtak

> Yet you assume you are an expert. You've just managed to sum up in 2 statements why I left BikeForums a while back.

I am sorry to make you feel that way. I think that I just got lucky.

I repeat that I was grateful for your suggestion regarding my tribars.

> no one can ever wave their magic wallet and buy enough bolt-on parts to turn an Azzurri Primo into a Cervelo P5, which is what Tim is attempting to do.

But, I also repeat, I would never ride a Cervelo P5 on my commute because the brakes are not were the gear levers (& hands) are. I would not want to turn my Azzuri Primo into a Cervelo P5 because the former is clearly much better (fitting, appropriate) than the latter for my route trough traffic. It does not take an expert to see this.

Cavendish who is almost the same height as me rides a 49cm frame! Still loving the above setup.