Originally Posted by DXchulo

However, I'm sure the manufacturers will argue about little differences like changing the fork rake, designing the frame to be more "compliant", etc. How much do those little things really matter? Hard to say. Probably not much.

Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy

Arms in the wind are bad. So a higher bar that lets you bend your elbows more and thus get your arms out of the wind (if I understand you correctly), could make you a little faster. Knees not hitting your chest will definitely make you faster. Some riders TT faster in a higher position than a lower because they can breathe better. I believe Indurain was famous for that. IME some bike are just faster for me, for no apparent reason. I've always assumed it was power transfer because that's what it feels like. I have a favorite bike - it just flies for me. I drop into a longer, lower position naturally on it.

Originally Posted by gregf83

I think you're asking the wrong question. The real question is: is a proper bike fit essential to optimizing speed on the bike and the answer is yes.

It sounds like you inadvertently made a substantial change to your position by changing frames. That's one way to adjust fit but difficult to fine tune. If you really want to compare frames you need to adjust the three contact points so they are identical. In your case it sounds like you just moved all the components over which resulted in a different, and more comfortable, position. It's very likely you could go back and achieve the identical comfort/position on the original Felt by changing components, stem, seat position etc. If you can't then you perhaps had the wrong size frame originally.

Edit: I missed Dean's earlier response which said something similar more concisely

Originally Posted by OldTryGuy

After, "With all due respect".... maybe an....IMO.... before reply would have made for a smoother delivery. Just sayin.....IMO.....

2 weeks ago at 2017 Bike Sebring 12/24 Hour I completed 307.8 miles in < 22 hours. Not fast and not a whole lot of miles but more than half of them on my 1982 Touring Paramount fitted with 6" rise steel bars and bar pegs to allow me an aero position for extended time. Bike is way heavier than my aero Giant but because of the comfort factor I put in more miles than had I been on the Giant the whole time. I am currently outfitting my 1983 Paramount road frame the same as the touring bike and expect to be much faster; HOWEVER, still not as fast as on my Giant.

Intensions are to enter next year's Sebring as a RAAM Qualifier meaning 400 miles no drafting. p.s.--at age 67 I'll need all the help I can get.

Originally Posted by chaadster

I know this is a popular viewpoint, and may even be the conventional wisdom, but I don't know if it's such a sure thing, if only because people are very adapatable, meaning there is no one setup which "best suits" someone.

My perspective is that there are a range of comfortable set-ups or positions depending on geometry, riding purpose and conditions.

For example, in my case, while I do know what 'numbers' (e.g. TT, stem length, etc.) I like, and about where I like the saddle in relation to the BB, I ultimately fine tune my fit based on how the bike handles; like, where I need my weight to be in order to make the bike move the way I want it to. I may raise the bars a bit in order to shift my weight back to control fore-aft pitching and improve climbing traction on the gravel bike, or drop the bars and pull the saddle forward on the crit bike to optimize front end grip and to stay 'on top' of the pedals.

So yes, while one could choose to position themselves the same on every road bike-- and we need to be clear we're talking just about road bikes here, because it makes even less sense to speak about all bikes because of the range of geometries-- I would not suggest doing so would either be the most comfortable or the most effective in terms of performance.

Originally Posted by DXchulo

True, for the most part. The big thing about "endurance" bikes is that they have a taller head tube. In some ways, all this does is make it so you can have a more upright position without having a ton of spacers or a Fredly looking stem with a huge upward angle.

However, I'm sure the manufacturers will argue about little differences like changing the fork rake, designing the frame to be more "compliant", etc. How much do those little things really matter? Hard to say. Probably not much.

Originally Posted by Dean V

Surely it is just a matter of having a set up that best suits the individual. Then that "fit" is transposed onto whatever bike you are riding.
I can get the same fit on a comfort or race frame, just a matter of having more or less spacers and changing stem lengths.

Originally Posted by gsindela

x2 I always wondered why they don't ride beach cruisers in the TDF.

Originally Posted by gurk700

I think my suspicions are being confirmed. I prioritized the wrong goals in bike fit which was to get the front end as low as possible. Every time I got used to / became more flexible, I took out more spacers. It looks like I've gone a bit too far where I find myself going to a non aero position to relax a lot of times on the road with the felt.

I suppose a better way of putting it is get as aero as possible without sacrificing too much comfort if you're gonna ride long rides. That probably explains why some riders even in pro cycling raise their handlebars.