View Single Post
Old 01-30-23 | 08:22 AM
  #49  
Kontact's Avatar
Kontact
Senior Member
15 Anniversary
Community Builder
Community Influencer
Active Streak: 30 Days
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 12,701
Likes: 4,832
Originally Posted by elcruxio
It all depends on what you need. By moving the cleats back you gain foot stability but lose peak power. I don't personally need peak power and I can still crank out high enough power if I need to. For me long term stability is more important. For a trained individual (such as Pantani) the stability issue is much less of a concern. Not many typical riders are trained to nearly the same level. I also do not like the idea that I'd need to train certain muscle groups so that I can graduate to ride in the fashion I prefer. If there's a shortcut with caveats that don't concern me, I'm taking it.



In my experience the issues caused by too much reach begin manifesting when you start having your saddle in a position that allows for balanced recruitment of the quads and hamstrings. If get to that point and start adding excessive reach, there comes a point when you start tipping forward, placing more weight on the hands and all that fun stuff. Affecting factors are arm length, pelvic stability, and as a big factor upper body mass, among other things. Bigger hunks can tolerate less reach and vice versa.

Typically adding reach doesn't just mean you move your hands forward into a more vertical position. More often it means leaning the whole torso forward and that's really why adding reach for most people doesn't remove weight from the hands but does the opposite.

I believe in the pro peloton they have shorter reach these days because it's easier for the rider to achieve lots of drop instead of lots of reach. Added drop doesn't move the CoG forward as quicly as added reach does. There's also no inherent advantage in adding reach beyond the required amount.

What I do find interesting is the relationship of weight on hands, balance and back angle. It seems to me that to a point more forward lean increases balance and lessens weight on hands. I have no idea why, but I imagine it's different muscles taking over the balancing of the torso. Or it could just be me.
If you increase your hip bend, the hamstrings become even more involved in suspending the upper body. But hip bend has limits - the least of which being your quads hitting your stomach as you pedal.

At the same time, your shoulder joints also have a useful limit of about 90 degrees from the upper torso. So you really can't lean over very far and then reach forward to the bars like Superman.

The combination of those two factors means that, if you want to have a flat back you have to move the saddle forward to keep your hip angle reasonable. And then you have to move the bars back and down because your upper torso angle means a traditional bar location is out of reach due to shoulder restriction. The net result are riders whose legs and arms are approaching vertical - just like triathletes.

If you're pedaling hard enough, are very fit and weigh very little, such a position might not bother you for awhile - but it is definitely putting weight on your hands, just like triathletes have weight on their elbows.

Which brings us back to set back and KOPS - which was a method to find the forward limit to set back that provides riders with the minimum hamstring support of the upper body before they tip forward onto their hands. You can also adopt more set back, but the limits to hip bend mean you'll have to sit up in a less aero position. Tourists don't care about that, which is why we have things like French fit for a more set back and upright posture. A recumbent is the ultimate expression of set back and bar position.
Kontact is offline  
Reply