KOP vs. Hands-off test
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 4,393
Bikes: '80 Masi Gran Criterium, '12 Trek Madone, early '60s Frejus track
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 513 Post(s)
Liked 447 Times
in
336 Posts
OK, OK . . . if CG "isn't as critical a consideration as people seem to believe," and "KOPS is a Myth," . . . well, just how in the heck IS fore/aft supposed to be determined?! (Is that Slow-twitch formula -- which sets fore/aft by a percentage of saddle height -- any better?)
In practice, keeping the back and the arms share the load, but balancing keeps the arms, upper back, and shoulders from getting fatigued and sore. Balancing also allows the rider to shift easily to standing and pulling up and back on the bars when that's needed.
Torsoes come in different lengths and masses, riders have different back angles and levels of back strength, so this method defies numeric quantification. So far, experience and Steve Hogg's hands-off test are probably the best indicators. And, of course, radical changes in saddle setback can require changes in stem length, which may require a readjustment of setback, which may require . . . So it's an iterative process. At some point the changes in setback become so small that the stem can stay the same.
So what I'm saying is CG is important. To keep the weight off the hands it needs to be over the feet. Runners, skiers, skaters, golfers, tennis players, volleyball players, climbers, skateboarders all keep their CGs over their feet. It's how they keep from falling down. A cyclist can choose between balance or arm strength to keep from falling forward. Guess which is easier?
Last edited by oldbobcat; 01-07-16 at 07:49 PM.
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
Plus as with your point, I learn more by re-learning, if that makes any sense.
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
Because the center of gravity relative to the bottom bracket isn't as critical a consideration as people seem to believe. In my humble opinion.
In a way you've pointed out a flaw in the whole "crouch balance hands-off" test. Weight on the saddle changes the whole force vector picture, and hence the distribution of weight between the saddle and handlebars. A more forward lean from the saddle moves weight towards the hands, and that can happen moving either the hands forward or the butt back.
In a way you've pointed out a flaw in the whole "crouch balance hands-off" test. Weight on the saddle changes the whole force vector picture, and hence the distribution of weight between the saddle and handlebars. A more forward lean from the saddle moves weight towards the hands, and that can happen moving either the hands forward or the butt back.
CG like KOPS is not a magic formula. It's means to an end, and it is not the right means for everyone.
I also think the arms are relatively low mass compared to the torso, so you get a lot more reduction in hand pressure by moving the saddle 1 cm back than by moving the hands 1 cm back.
Last edited by Road Fan; 01-10-16 at 09:02 AM.
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
I don't think so, I never had the shoulders, fur, forehead, or the stubby bowed legs. Plus I don't think too many gorillas got engineering degrees.
My dad used to say I was a slim mesomorph. I think now I'm a porky slim mesomorph.
My dad used to say I was a slim mesomorph. I think now I'm a porky slim mesomorph.
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
OK, OK . . . if CG "isn't as critical a consideration as people seem to believe," and "KOPS is a Myth," . . . well, just how in the heck IS fore/aft supposed to be determined?! (Is that Slow-twitch formula -- which sets fore/aft by a percentage of saddle height -- any better?)
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,902
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4802 Post(s)
Liked 3,922 Times
in
2,551 Posts
Fore/aft, or setback, is set so that when the torso is in its neutral position, which is usually with the hands on the lever hoods, the center of gravity is over the feet. This facilitates using the back muscles rather than the arms and shoulders to keep to torso elevated.
In practice, keeping the back and the arms share the load, but balancing keeps the arms, upper back, and shoulders from getting fatigued and sore. Balancing also allows the rider to shift easily to standing and pulling up and back on the bars when that's needed.
Torsoes come in different lengths and masses, riders have different back angles and levels of back strength, so this method defies numeric quantification. So far, experience and Steve Hogg's hands-off test are probably the best indicators. And, of course, radical changes in saddle setback can require changes in stem length, which may require a readjustment of setback, which may require . . . So it's an iterative process. At some point the changes in setback become so small that the stem can stay the same.
So what I'm saying is CG is important. To keep the weight off the hands it needs to be over the feet. Runners, skiers, skaters, golfers, tennis players, volleyball players, climbers, skateboarders all keep their CGs over their feet. It's how they keep from falling down. A cyclist can choose between balance or arm strength to keep from falling forward. Guess which is easier?
In practice, keeping the back and the arms share the load, but balancing keeps the arms, upper back, and shoulders from getting fatigued and sore. Balancing also allows the rider to shift easily to standing and pulling up and back on the bars when that's needed.
Torsoes come in different lengths and masses, riders have different back angles and levels of back strength, so this method defies numeric quantification. So far, experience and Steve Hogg's hands-off test are probably the best indicators. And, of course, radical changes in saddle setback can require changes in stem length, which may require a readjustment of setback, which may require . . . So it's an iterative process. At some point the changes in setback become so small that the stem can stay the same.
So what I'm saying is CG is important. To keep the weight off the hands it needs to be over the feet. Runners, skiers, skaters, golfers, tennis players, volleyball players, climbers, skateboarders all keep their CGs over their feet. It's how they keep from falling down. A cyclist can choose between balance or arm strength to keep from falling forward. Guess which is easier?
Now my approach is to keep very close to that old racing position, the triangle of BB seat and handlebars except that now being aerodynamic is much less important (except on my fix gears) so I rotated that triangle back varying degrees for different bikes. And yes, my CG relative to the BB is different with the different rotations. I buy/have made frames that take that into account. I consider the proper weight balance between the wheels important, quite possibly the difference between staying up and laying the bike down on a hard turn. (I bring a tape measure when I am looking at a new bike. Go home and draw it up on a CAD program and compare it to my existing bikes.)
You might have noticed that my forward positions place real weight on my hands. Yes it does. Fortunately there is a really simple remedy. Train those muscles! There are no drawbacks to having strong enough arms, hands and wrists to ride those positions for hours. I do pay close attention to handlebar and brake lever angles, shapes and positions.
I just noticed the bit about being "balanced" helping out of the saddle riding. Again, this never crossed my mind, ever. And I am a born out of the saddle rider. Go back and forth between the two often.
Ben
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 878
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I don't race, but had the same experience as you. Moving my seat forward got more power due to being unbalanced - you have to push harder with your legs to balance and take weight off of your hands
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
79mooney, I think OldBobcat is talking about getting the CG over the BB ("over the feet"), not over the saddle. For me, a forward position from that one is just a few cm of saddle motion.
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Brentwood, TN
Posts: 139
Bikes: Novara Trenta Road, Trek ZX6000 MTB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
CG should be in relation to BB. This is a concept studied by Keith Bontrager (The Myth of K.O.P.S.). Keith uses a method for determining your CG off the bike that can be translated to the bike and then dialed in after riding. I feel Steve Hogg's method (https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...or-road-bikes/) of determining your optimal CG-BB position while actively riding is best since it allows you to determine it as you would be riding on the road, but if you do not have access to a trainer, then Peter White's method (How to Fit a Bicycle) is a good starting point and you can tweak the fore-aft after each ride until you dial it in.
These are all starting points and the final position is dialed over time based on how you feel after a ride. Generally the more forward you are the more power you can generate, but the downside is you may not be able to sustain that position for long periods of time without conditioning.
These are all starting points and the final position is dialed over time based on how you feel after a ride. Generally the more forward you are the more power you can generate, but the downside is you may not be able to sustain that position for long periods of time without conditioning.
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 4,393
Bikes: '80 Masi Gran Criterium, '12 Trek Madone, early '60s Frejus track
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 513 Post(s)
Liked 447 Times
in
336 Posts
These are all starting points and the final position is dialed over time based on how you feel after a ride. Generally the more forward you are the more power you can generate, but the downside is you may not be able to sustain that position for long periods of time without conditioning.
In the last few years many pro riders appear to be sitting farther forward than what had been customary. Whether they're on the forward edge of balance, or they are just carrying little mass above the hips, or they have very strong arms and shoulders , or they are outliers, or they've discovered a new fitting paradigm, only they and their coaches know for sure, and so far they're not talking.
Last edited by oldbobcat; 01-20-16 at 10:10 PM.
#36
Senior Member
Definitely a spider if your wingspan matches or exceeds your overall height. This is casual body typing, but for remote bike fitting and sizing it gives a general ideal. I think your forward saddle position works because of a short, light torso. Also, if your arms are long, the 9 cm handlebar drop might still be keeping you in a fairly upright position.
Except for the lack of saddle setback, your setup sounds pretty conventional and conservative. If you're inclined, experiment with more bar drop and setback. Actually, more bar drop might require more setback to stay balanced.
Except for the lack of saddle setback, your setup sounds pretty conventional and conservative. If you're inclined, experiment with more bar drop and setback. Actually, more bar drop might require more setback to stay balanced.
#37
Blast from the Past
Right. I believe Hogg's underlying premise for a balanced position is energy used to maintain position is energy not available for propelling the bike forward. Balance is letting the skeletal structure do more work to maintain position.
In the last few years many pro riders appear to be sitting farther forward than what had been customary. Whether they're on the forward edge of balance, or they are just carrying little mass above the hips, or they have very strong arms and shoulders , or they are outliers, or they've discovered a new fitting paradigm, only they and their coaches know for sure, and so far they're not talking.
In the last few years many pro riders appear to be sitting farther forward than what had been customary. Whether they're on the forward edge of balance, or they are just carrying little mass above the hips, or they have very strong arms and shoulders , or they are outliers, or they've discovered a new fitting paradigm, only they and their coaches know for sure, and so far they're not talking.
Steve's premise is about more than just saving energy and gets to the I think the core of his fitting process. His fitting techniques from the pedals all the way up focus on response from the nervous system. It's a very different process to go through than say Retul which is primarly biomechanical (angles, levers, etc). His theory is that posture and "postural muscles" are given priority by the nervous system. That is we are hard wired to stay upright first and propel ourselves second. So his fore-aft positioning is trying to reduce that postural load on the CNS.
#38
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If your torso is bending forward (as it is for most cyclists), then something is keeping your torso from toppling forward. That something is either:
1. Weight on your hands
2. Strain in your lower back
3. Some combination of the two.
1. Weight on your hands
2. Strain in your lower back
3. Some combination of the two.
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,902
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4802 Post(s)
Liked 3,922 Times
in
2,551 Posts
Wow! This isn't how I got to my position at all. I have heard about KOP for decades but never heard it addressed as anything that mattered by the racers I learned from. I start with the concept of a triangle, pedals (for simplicity the BB), the seat and the handlebars. First order of business: seat distance from the BB. Then it is a matter of finding where my shoulders should be for an effective forward lean to: ensure a good aerodynamic position to go upwind (spiders have their challenges) and an open enough position for good blood flow, etc. Now I swing an arc from my shoulders (on paper, not literally) of radius from shoulder to center of handlebar top. (The working part of that arc is almost a straight line of "slope" of 1 cm steerer height up and 2 cm horizontal stem length forward. Very convenient.) I have now located this line in space X distance forward of the BB and Y height above the BB. I have established the triangle.
Next is to decide what this bike is to do. Cruiser? Rotate this triangle up and back (about the BB) Fix gear that will see wind. Rotate it forward.
The concept of a line for the handlebar position simplifies bike setup a lot, especially for bikes with quill stems. Raising and lowering the quill moves the handlebars at nearly right angles to the handlebar line. Put the HBs on the line and fit is right. Now the bars may be close and low and getting bumped by my knees, or high and for forward (which turns out to be a) sweet for Zzipper fairings and b) a placement I have grown to love; excellent for long days upwind. I do different things on different bikes but my relative shoulder position stays the same. Likewise arm bend.
The end results work for me very well. Yes, my faster bikes place real weight on my hands. Not a problem; physical conditioning works very well here and has no adverse side effects I am aware of. And yes, my weight is well forward of the BB. I chose bikes with short chainstays and longish front ends. Not a problem. And with fatter tires I don't even need the short chainstays. I do choose bikes with steep seat angles to go with those short chainstays, then just use seatposts with a lot of setback.
KOP? I've never looked. As you can see with my rotating triangle, it would vary from bike to bike.
Ben
Next is to decide what this bike is to do. Cruiser? Rotate this triangle up and back (about the BB) Fix gear that will see wind. Rotate it forward.
The concept of a line for the handlebar position simplifies bike setup a lot, especially for bikes with quill stems. Raising and lowering the quill moves the handlebars at nearly right angles to the handlebar line. Put the HBs on the line and fit is right. Now the bars may be close and low and getting bumped by my knees, or high and for forward (which turns out to be a) sweet for Zzipper fairings and b) a placement I have grown to love; excellent for long days upwind. I do different things on different bikes but my relative shoulder position stays the same. Likewise arm bend.
The end results work for me very well. Yes, my faster bikes place real weight on my hands. Not a problem; physical conditioning works very well here and has no adverse side effects I am aware of. And yes, my weight is well forward of the BB. I chose bikes with short chainstays and longish front ends. Not a problem. And with fatter tires I don't even need the short chainstays. I do choose bikes with steep seat angles to go with those short chainstays, then just use seatposts with a lot of setback.
KOP? I've never looked. As you can see with my rotating triangle, it would vary from bike to bike.
Ben
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 4,393
Bikes: '80 Masi Gran Criterium, '12 Trek Madone, early '60s Frejus track
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 513 Post(s)
Liked 447 Times
in
336 Posts
to this
And thanks for clarifying the basis of Hogg's system on the CNS. Point is well taken. I'd been attributing my simplification of it for so long I was forgetting about the difference.
#41
Blast from the Past
Oldbobcat, great pictures! I loved looking at GL on a bike. Especially low on the tops, he was the epitome of relaxed upper body.
Last edited by Voodoo76; 02-17-16 at 10:26 AM.
#42
Senior Member
#43
Surf Bum
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 2,184
Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
3 Posts
bikeeagle1, not really. Stand with your heels and butt against a wall, flex your knees, and try to bend foreword from the hips (like you are getting low on a bike). No doubt there is strain on your lower back and you would need to hold onto something to not fall over. Now move your heels just 12"-18" away from the wall, butt still against it and try again. Easy, little strain on lower back & no weight on hands. That's where the hands off test is trying to get you in setback.
beautifully explained! Thanks for that.
__________________
Thirst is stronger than the rules. - Stars and Watercarriers, 1974
Thirst is stronger than the rules. - Stars and Watercarriers, 1974
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 4,393
Bikes: '80 Masi Gran Criterium, '12 Trek Madone, early '60s Frejus track
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 513 Post(s)
Liked 447 Times
in
336 Posts
Back in the day, riders were somewhat limited by how much shoe they could fit into their toeclips. I wonder if we never would have been stuck with that "ball of the foot over the pedal spindle" paradigm if Christophe made longer toeclips.
Shoes I'm familiar with that are drilled for more rearward cleat placement are Bont, the Dynalast Shimanos, and Bontrager. One shoe that definitely does not is Pearl Izumi.
#45
Senior Member
Yeah, moving the foot forward on the pedal might play into moving the hips forward over the cranks.
Back in the day, riders were somewhat limited by how much shoe they could fit into their toeclips. I wonder if we never would have been stuck with that "ball of the foot over the pedal spindle" paradigm if Christophe made longer toeclips.
Shoes I'm familiar with that are drilled for more rearward cleat placement are Bont, the Dynalast Shimanos, and Bontrager. One shoe that definitely does not is Pearl Izumi.
Back in the day, riders were somewhat limited by how much shoe they could fit into their toeclips. I wonder if we never would have been stuck with that "ball of the foot over the pedal spindle" paradigm if Christophe made longer toeclips.
Shoes I'm familiar with that are drilled for more rearward cleat placement are Bont, the Dynalast Shimanos, and Bontrager. One shoe that definitely does not is Pearl Izumi.
#46
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
bikeeagle1, not really. Stand with your heels and butt against a wall, flex your knees, and try to bend foreword from the hips (like you are getting low on a bike). No doubt there is strain on your lower back and you would need to hold onto something to not fall over. Now move your heels just 12"-18" away from the wall, butt still against it and try again. Easy, little strain on lower back & no weight on hands. That's where the hands off test is trying to get you in setback.
Oldbobcat, great pictures! I loved looking at GL on a bike. Especially low on the tops, he was the epitome of relaxed upper body.
Oldbobcat, great pictures! I loved looking at GL on a bike. Especially low on the tops, he was the epitome of relaxed upper body.
I tried your test, and I think that you aren't feeling that torsion because your glutes and legs are activated, but I assure you it is there.
Try this. Assume the position you mention in your post, where you are away from the wall and bending forward. Now, without changing anything else, completely relax your lower back. I promise you your torso will fall forward, until you subconsciously tense your lower back to keep from hurting yourself.
Last edited by bikeeagle1; 02-18-16 at 02:17 PM. Reason: Edited for clarity