|
Originally Posted by Fiery
(Post 18479926)
Now draw some nice red lines from the saddle to the hoods and from the saddle to the drops (preferably the part the typical handhold is, not the very ends that tend to point down on modern shaped bars).
|
Originally Posted by Maelochs
(Post 18479559)
I finally got off my fat a$$ and went riding, so I had some time to think about this.
First off, who are these "friends" ansd why do they think your position should be more "aggressive"? And what does "aggressive" mean? If you guys are seriously racing, then riding position is determined by performance, not appearance. The WorldTour pros are all down low and stretched out, but then they are professional athletes, and the best of the sport. That doesn't mean that you will have maximum power or speed just by imitating them. If you really want to find that last little bit of time to finish a little closer to the front, then first get a fitting, and next, buy a few stems and test saddle angles and stems. Just because it works well on the bike-fit machine, doesn't mean that it will give you max power and speed over the course of a race (also, crits and road races --which can include all kinds of climbing---might need different positions.) You might need to sit up higher or make other adjustments to get the most out of your body---and of course, that might change by the end of the season. If you guys are just doing group rides ... then it really is all about the look, isn't it? In which case, who cares if they think your position could be "more aggressive"? What matters here even more so, is being comfortable enough to really put the power down when you want to while also being able to push for the entire length of the ride. I used to ride as low as possible, but I realized my hip flexors limited me---even if I could get down ridiculously low, I couldn't use my power (what there was of it) because my hip flexors didn't work at teh extreme angle. So for me, the best (fastest and most powerful) position was a little less slammed. Nowadays, even though I get lower by a few millimeters every few months, my "right" position is considerably more upright, because Looking "aggressive" is for poseurs. Riding well is what matters to me. I will continue to get lower for the aero advantage, but it sin't a goal, because i don't care if I look like a WorldTour cyclist. I care about being able to ride. So, go get a fitting, it's the right place to start, but "more aggressive" should be measured with a stopwatch, not a ruler. Looking "aggressive" has nothing to do with being able to riding aggressively. Find what works for you, not what looks good to your friends. Maybe your friends want to wreck your riding position because they are scared of how fast you are. :D |
Originally Posted by Lazyass
(Post 18479959)
Yes I did. No offense but I think someone like Dave Moulton knows a tad more than you do. I was cycling before the threadless slammed stem era so I know from experience how it's changed. I'm not debating it because it's not debatable.
I don't doubt that the bikes you rode decades ago were setup less aggressively than the bikes the pros ride today. What you don't realize is that the bikes that the pros rode decades ago were also setup much more aggressively than the bikes you rode. |
Originally Posted by Fiery
(Post 18480212)
No, you did not. You are just ignoring anything that might challenge your prejudice. For example, if you had read the article by Dave Moulton that you linked to
Also probably the main factor driving frame design is the change in riding positions of today’s racing cyclists, over those of their predecessors in the 1950s. I have already mentioned the 50s riders sat more upright because the handlebars were higher in relation to the saddle. Today’s racing bicycle has a large saddle to handlebar height difference; which is how most racing frames sold today are designed. |
Originally Posted by ILZA
(Post 18476941)
Would like to seek your opinions on my riding position on my road bike. I do feel that I'm comfortable but am thinking if I could increase the seat post height to achieve a more aggressive riding position... Any suggestions /opinions is greatly appreciated.
This past summer I was a Wilderness Ranger for the Forest Service and spent 4 days per week in the backcountry. Hiked an average of 6 or 7 miles per day much of it with a 30+lb pack and ate the dehydrated food I packed in, with some fresh fruits. At the end of the summer, with less than 200 total miles ridden, I lowered the handlebars on several bikes because there was no discomfort. Something had changed - I had lost 20 lbs of fat. I have since regained most of that weight and changed bar height accordingly. |
Originally Posted by Lazyass
(Post 18480262)
I did. Calm down, big guy. There's nothing to debate. Cycling position has changed.
Also probably the main factor driving frame design is the change in riding positions of today’s racing cyclists, over those of their predecessors in the 1950s. I have already mentioned the 50s riders sat more upright because the handlebars were higher in relation to the saddle. Today’s racing bicycle has a large saddle to handlebar height difference; which is how most racing frames sold today are designed. It's really amusing to watch you do this. Here we see that Dave Moulton thinks riders from the 80's were riding larger drops than riders from the 50's - so the exact same riders that you have been using as an example of old, more relaxed fit are actually more aggressive according to the person you are quoting. And then there's the diagram you are still ignoring that shows how close a rider from the 50's actually was to a modern rider, when you compare the contact points and not just the bar tops. One thing is true, there really is nothing to debate: it is perfectly clear that the actual riding positions have changed far less than frame, stem, handlebar and brake hood shapes have. |
Originally Posted by Fiery
(Post 18480833)
You did? Well, let's see those images,
|
So you didn't actually make them? Just as I thought. How eager you were to post comparisons to bar tops when you thought that's all that was to it... But now that you've painted yourself in the corner you don't want to play anymore. It's not easy when you discover that the prejudice you've held for so long doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Fiery
(Post 18482959)
So you didn't actually make them? Just as I thought. How eager you were to post comparisons to bar tops when you thought that's all that was to it... But now that you've painted yourself in the corner you don't want to play anymore. It's not easy when you discover that the prejudice you've held for so long doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
It looks like the blue line, from the end of the bars to the seat tube, is quite a bit shorter than the yellow line. Something doesn't add up.http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=500253 |
2 Attachment(s)
Different angles
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=500352 Shoes clipped in http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=500353 Shoes not clipped in, heels on pedals |
From these pictures your saddle height looks good
|
Originally Posted by StanSeven
(Post 18483908)
From these pictures your saddle height looks good
|
Looks much better. Thanks for putting shirt on.
|
Originally Posted by franswa
(Post 18484257)
Looks much better. Thanks for putting shirt on.
Haha |
Originally Posted by wphamilton
(Post 18483149)
One thing that bugs me about your side-by side, Contador looks more stretched out even though they're the same size and the contact points are supposed to be the same.
It looks like the blue line, from the end of the bars to the seat tube, is quite a bit shorter than the yellow line. Something doesn't add up.http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=500253 |
Originally Posted by Fiery
(Post 18484477)
The bike on the overlay is a Tarmac, the bike in the photo is a Madone. It also seems to me that the yellow line extends a bit further than the drops and the middle of the seat tube, but that won't account for the whole difference if true. Finally, I think that the bike in the overlay is more of a generic slammed setup rather than an exact copy of Contador's bike. In any case, since the riders have supposedly downsized their frames since the days of Coppi, the modern bike should be shorter, no?
Those two pics are supposedly scaled the same - that's the point of the side-by-side graphics. Horizontal lines would be meanimgless otherwise. The overlay on your linked page shows the two frames superimposed, showing the contact points the same. That's the point of the overlay. But something doesn't add up between the article you linked and those pictures. One of the riders has a much longer distance to reach from his saddle to the bars. Either the pics are scaled differently and we can't see it easily because the wheels and tires aren't fully in the photos, or the bikes do not have the same contact points as claimed. |
Oh, come on! At least read the post fully before responding. It is literally all there.
The two photographs don't have identical perspective, and they are possibly not scaled exactly the same (I haven't checked). The bike on the overlay is not the same bike from the photo. No, the contact points don't match with millimeter precision. They are, however, far closer than what is commonly proclaimed, and they fall well within the range of variation one would expect between two riders of similar heights and proportions. The two compositions show this clearly even when the imperfections are taken into account. It is actually enough to take a look at the overlay and compare the apparent saddle to bar drop with where the actual contact points fall to see how silly it is to compare this one measurement and conclude that bikes used to fit less aggressively back in the day. |
Originally Posted by PaulRivers
(Post 18477284)
It's hard to tell from just one pic, but it looks like your bike might be to small. Your seat is already raised quite a bit above your handlebars but your knee out the other side isn't extended as much as I would expect with the pedal almost all the way down. You're almost overreaching past the hoods as well. Just my 2 cents.
Yours is Too Small. I had a touring bike that was one size too small. Made many changes to it. After 14,000 miles it was still too small. |
Originally Posted by franswa
(Post 18484257)
Thanks for putting shirt on.
|
Originally Posted by Fiery
(Post 18484591)
Oh, come on! At least read the post fully before responding. It is literally all there.
The reach differs by almost 10% between the two riders, not milimeters. Their position on the bikes are dissimilar. That's not really helping OP - I just figured you'd appreciate seeing why those photos and the guy's bike overlays were inadequate to support his (and your) conclusions. |
I'd say the OP looks a bit cramped in the top photo but i for sure wouldn't give any advice based on a just a photo ... after all This Is the Internet .....
|
Originally Posted by wphamilton
(Post 18484873)
I did read the post, and the article, and noted and demonstrated where the author's error was.
The reach differs by almost 10% between the two riders, not milimeters. Their position on the bikes are dissimilar. That's not really helping OP - I just figured you'd appreciate seeing why those photos and the guy's bike overlays were inadequate to support his (and your) conclusions. |
Originally Posted by Fiery
(Post 18486355)
We have both missed the fact that, while Coppi's photo was made almost exactly from the side, Contador's was made from the back slightly. By measuring the reach to the left drop, you are including a fair bit of the handlebar width into the equasion. You need to measure to the middle od the line connecting the drops. I don't have the tools at hand to correct the measurement, and I'll be grateful if you'd do it and come back with the new result.
I can't really see where the center of the bars are. The tool is just irfanView, freeware, draw a line and look at the dimensions. |
Originally Posted by ILZA
(Post 18483833)
Different angles
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=500352 Shoes clipped in http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=500353 Shoes not clipped in, heels on pedals As I was recording this yesterday I had the simple thought about how USA this type of riding is. How it is nothing like what the World Tour pros do and how...this thread. This is typical USA position. This race has THE best crit rider in it and several close. You can see the positions are varied. Also for a given rider the position varies based on power and wind. I think these guys are much better to copy than current and past world tour guys. Actually, copy those at the level you ride, or those that ride like you. So run in HD, stop and look at the profiles. If you think these guys are faster than you, you will likely want a shorter top tube and higher bars. If not - copy them. |
Originally Posted by Maelochs
(Post 18477218)
You would be a lot faster if you weren't riding in your living room.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:08 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.