Originally Posted by
tomato coupe
I wasn't referring to Cobb -- I was referring to some random idiot on the internet. Even with Cobb's input, Armstrong and Lemond did not have their bikes set up like yours. But, what do they know?
I am not sure what input Cobb gave Armstrong and LeMond but apparently he was paid to advise them. I guess it may have been more time trial stuff where the aerodymics matters more than in the Peloton where drag is reduced drastically and therefore
peloton bikes are a very poor model for the solo rider.
Originally Posted by
smd4
So we're taking lessons from Lance Armstrong now?
I am a big fan. I recently bought his bike, with a "7" on it.
Originally Posted by
Herzlos
Do you not find it suspicious that the people who'd have the biggest gain from following him, and the most investment, are also choosing to ignore him? Is there maybe something their R&D teams know that we don't?
As I just mentioned, both Greg LeMond and Lance Armstrong paid him for his advice. Greg LeMond rode in a style not dissimilar to that of Robbie
Here is once of Greg Lemond's famous bikes. I was thinking of purchasing one like this recently but it did not have so many gears. Nice geometry and great colour though.
Greg LeMong's XLV aluminium butted carbon bike
Here is Greg LeMond and the man he beat Laurent Fignon
no parachute
Here they are from a different angle
Drops not far about the front wheel, back pretty flat.
More pictures of John Cobb advised Greg LeMond here on these forums.
Does anyone have pics of Greg Lemond riding a non-time trial steel Bottecchia?
As far as I am aware the first bikes that I rode when I was at high school, and the ones I have gradually rediscovered and now ride again tend to put the riders back horizontal to the road, because in the days when the pro tour riders rode more like amateur riders (because there were MORE breakaways) that geometry was and remains fast, comfortable, and beautiful too.
Eddy Merxx bike (1970's?)
Moser 1970's
Pantini's aluminium bike with brifters.
The sweet spot for me (my look KG 386 and Madone 5.2) is the early 2000's when there were still short headtubes, horizontal top tubes and 10 speed brifters. I tend to need a higher seat because my belly is not as small as Robbie's and these pros. But as I get older and weaker, the desire for good aerodynamics increases.
Originally Posted by
Herzlos
I don't buy the idea that a rider in training would use a different, more efficient set up during training than in the races. I'd assume that if they were going to use different equipment, they'd be keen to make it harder for them rather than easier, to provide the biggest race day advantage. You wouldn't ride a track bike on a velodrome to train for a cyclocross race, would you?
I was not talking about training but time trials, which is generally only time that pros ride solo. (Hour records?)
Pros are a poor model for the amateur solo rider because when they ride solo they do so on cordoned off roads on specialist bikes ("Time trial bikes") that would be too dangerous in most on-road (with cars) situations. When they ride their "road bikes" they ride in times in pelotons so again they are a poor model for the amateur rider. But something between the two --- flat back with road bike bars -- as recommended by John Cobb would seem to be appropriate.
Originally Posted by
Kapusta
OK, so please show us an example of one of their bikes that is set up like yours, and looks any different from road racing bikes sold today.
Why look any further than Robbie's bike which I have already shown you?
No chest parachute at all.
Cobb says "What causes this, the need to have a stem like this with this downward slop is because most of the companies nowdays make the bikes with real tall headtubes to make the bikes more comfortable. But what we find is for aggressive riding, and it doesn't have to be just racing, but when you are right and you want to ride a little harder, as you go down further it keeps taking weight off the seat and offf your hands. "
Originally Posted by
3alarmer
.
...I have refrained from joining in this
timtak festival thus far, because I really enjoyed watching the various near death experience videos he used to post in the road forum. I use that term "enjoyed" in the same way I enjoy watching car chases/ crashes in the movies. And there is the occasional Dukes of Hazzard rerun.
I do not doubt for one minute that you can go faster on a bicycle if you flatten your position. I even think that with a return to a more formal yoga practice, I might be able to ride in that position.
I just don't get the visibility thing ? I just returned from one of my regular rides through downtown Sacramento, and even with the reduced traffic levels, I needed my head on a swivel to avoid all the various car encounters and intersectional misunderstandings. I enjoy the whole mirror prism glasses thing immensely, but in my environment here, I need a full field of vision, including peripheral, so I don't get killed...or maybe just maimed. I know that time trials stages are run differently from criterium stages for various reasons, but drafting is not the only one. If you showed up for a Cat 4 crit race here with aero bars on your bike, they wouldn't let you race, and it's not because the position is an unfair advantage due to aero efficiency. It's because you're dangerous to the other riders.
Anyway, I
you
timtak , and would never say anything mean to you. But I do worry about your personal safety sometimes. Maybe you are more fortunate over there in Japan, and the drivers care more about your well being. But if I tried to ride like that here, someone would flatten my ass pretty quickly.
Thank you very much for your concern. You are 100% right.
The major drawback of flattening your position is that it reduces ones field of view, unless you crick your neck up.
I will try and keep my head up in town. I have some great straight wide country roads (
google street view) to ride fast on. I will take some more video too.
Tim
m(._.)m