View Single Post
Old 05-04-16 | 09:19 PM
  #14  
oldbobcat's Avatar
oldbobcat
Senior Member
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,987
Likes: 709
From: Boulder County, CO

Bikes: '80 Masi Gran Criterium, '12 Trek Madone, early '60s Frejus track

Originally Posted by 79pmooney
No! That is all backwards. The seat to BB relationship is all about your position relative to the best power, comfort and aerodynamics of your body. Same with handlebars. After those are in place, your weight is where it is relative to the BB and more important, the wheels. If that is not optimum for handling, then that frame doesn't really suit you. (My weight ends up being far enough forward of the BB that I have my customs built with rear triangles as short as feasible and longish front centers.)

My feeling is that the bike is a tool to support my riding, not vice versa. (Although this forum is "Fitting Your Bike" so perhaps I am in the wrong place. I should be in 'Getting Your Bike to Fit".)

Ben
But energy spent maintaining balance over the bike is energy not available for propelling the bike.

While I maintain that center of gravity dead over the bottom bracket is not necessary, it's a starting point. The idea is to be far back enough so the core can support the forward-bent torso with minimal help from the arms. This doesn't apply to track sprinters and time trialists. A road rider, however, can't afford to the energy needed to support the upper body for hours at a time with his arms and shoulders. The weight-centered approach lets the stronger core muscles do most of the work.
oldbobcat is offline  
Reply