livedarklions

Mojo31

Good sag wagon for a long ride.

seypat

Old School.

Jrasero

I think it's more of a ****** joke but I think there is some truth to it. Maybe more so for the boomers dentists since millennial dentists have six figures worth of debt. Either way I think dentists tend to have an easy schedule so they tend to have hobbies. My aunt was a dentist and became a Porsche person after many years of driving a Prius. My uncle who is also a dentist works 3 days a weeks and his main thing is taking lavish fishing trips around the world. Everyone has a hobby or something they indulge in but dentist and doctors seemingly dial it up to level 10.

70sSanO

Is that an Uber?

John

mschwett 

back when i did a lot of scuba and underwater photography, the whole dentist thing played out remarkably true to stereotype. totally nice guys, but absolutely the less-than-skilled divers who'd show up on the most extravagant trips with the very latest gear.

genejockey 

Uber for the Untergrund set.

seypat

I think so. You might have to ride in the back though, laying in a long, rectangular box thing.

70sSanO

Hopefully the driver is prepaid. I would guess the tips stink.

But it could be lucrative if someone used the right advertising…

“In Loving Memory of (Your Name Here)”

John

timtak

First of all sorry to badger1 for ascribing his or her words to Herzlos. I eventually found some badger1's words that I misquoted, and I corrected it. If I have made other mistakes, I am sorry.

Secondly, yesterday I had my yearly health check and thanks to everyone's encouragement, for the first time in my life (since I started taking yearly health checks in 2003) my BMI was (unless my height has decreased) less than 21.

A lot of what folks are saying here is that I am incorrect to assume that my experience will generalise to that of others. Someone was right to say that I have sometimes used language (a guy goes into a bike shop...) that implied more generalisation than is appropriate but when pressed, and here again, I do mean that a Cobb-Robbie or time-trial-bike-crossed-with-road-bike style will only be of interest to a small percentage of cyclists but enough of a percentage to make it worth disseminating, I think.

But then again, a lot of what I am saying is my ignorance.
1) I did not know that about 90 percent of the drag experience by cyclists and that two thirds of that (i.e. 60% of the total) is the riders body -in other words, in Specialized words "aero is everything"
2) I did not know how radically the peloton reduces aero drag by an average of 80% according to the study I posted above, so that (as quoted in that study) one can go along with the peloton (i.e. at about 40 kmh) without hardly pedalling. 40kmh without pedalling! That is e-bike or moped territory.
3) I did not know what a road bike was. I thought it was a lighter, lower rolling resistance bike compared to a cross bike or mountain bike when in fact I now think a *traditional* road bike is a bike with improved rider aerodynamics (using road bike bars and rear offset).
4) I did not even realise I had purchased a comfort/enduro "road bike" that, to the extent that 3 is partially true, negates the traditional road bike raison d'etre. But that is not to say everyone should be on a non comfort road bike just that I had ignorantly bought the wrong one.
So I did not realise that if I wanted to rip it up, ride hard, aggressively, then I would need to get my body low. It took me years to realise this! I gradually experimented. Perhaps everyone on these forums knows what I have to say. But, honestly, I think not.

Hear hear.

Hear hear.
And this is to me very important because, as pointed out earlier, group riding (either in the extreme pro-peloton, or criteriums, or even a more casual group ride) makes low positions fraught due to the reduced visibility of flat backed, Cobb-Robbie riding.

Here is where I start to disagree.
First of all it seems to me that groups have a more profound effect than "a bit." How big is a bit. I think that effect is very large such as 20 to 40% of a reduction in power required. Secondly, and this is not a disagreement but a clarification, as long as you are referring to riders / "them" who sometimes ride in groups, then such riders may never have a different riding style in or out of the group. But almost everyone I see on the roads, and my own riding, is solely solo. I will never ride in a group. I will never ever train for a group ride. I think that many other cyclists never ride in a group.

And finally, since it seems to me that professional riders in the pro tours may be riding 90% of their time or more in the peloton, so they will be maximizing there riding style and bike style to match the style of riding that they do.

You claim that the breakaways are "equally important" to pro racing. I find myself in agreement and disagreement. The breakaway part of the race will determine who wins the race, so one might even say that the breakaways are more important. But at the same time, since pros ride for so much of their time in the peloton their riding in the peloton will be more important in terms of time spend doing it and perhaps practising it.

Vis a vis the bike (the subject of this thread) the fact that so much time is spent in an activity that is so different to that of the solo amateur rider, means that the bikes will be (or should be? if they are to be appropriate to each) designed differently. The pros bike will have those bent elbow use compact drops that will get the pro down as low as a less bent elbow used non-compact drop bar because they don't need to get low for such a large part of their riding. I have seen pace line photo where only the person at the front is in a tuck. If that is the norm, then the bikes will be designed to get low for the time that the ride spends at the front, before dropping off to pass to the next rider.

Time trial bikes, and time trial bars, are however usually fitted so that the rider can rest more of their weight, since instead of a short bent elbow tuck followed by rest, the rider will be riding low for all of their ride.

Road bikes without aero bars likewise can be set up so that the rider can ride low for a much larger proportion of their ride -- all of it.

So,
I disagree, because if you remove the possibility of "training for events," and if a rider is always riding solo, then such riders, or a non insignificant percentage, may want to ride differently.

I really did consider getting a time-trial bike but they are expensive, and I want the gears and brakes on the same bar. Someone suggested getting Di2 and putting gear buttons on the horns. A nice solution perhaps but, another Frakenbike, between a time trial bike and peloton-road-bike.

I presume you mean "not to overgeneralize in one or two sentences." I am sorry if I overgeneralise too much. I am very enthused with my style of riding and probably have the tendency you point out. I am sorry.

This sounds quite a lot like me. I quite often do 2.5 hour rides (less so that my children are growing up and we don't go family trips much). But other than that I think I ride in a similar way to you, using all sort of positions and degrees of lowness. But since I do go in for attempting to keep to a low BMI (which is not for everyone, but I recommend it) I lower my bars, avoid comfort bikes (and baggy trousers), and try to go low as often as possible.

Your Litespeed looks beautiful. I think the only differences I would make (if I could afford the bike!) is the brifter change you have already made and slamming the quill stem.


I wish I had the money to fund a study.
In the control condition, "entry road" bikes, and in the Cobb Robbie condition an "aggressive" road bike with an adjustable stem with instructions to raise or lower the stem such that your knees do not hit your chest. My prediction (which may be wrong as you point out) is that the thin guys in the control condition will have a greater tendency to fill out their baggy geometry and that the heavier riders in the control condition will have a greater tendency to "enjoy" the comfort, whereas the riders in the Cobb-Robbie condition will enjoy a different, more challenging, riding experience that may result in weight loss. I only have myself to offer currently.

And also perhaps, I can offer just a little to the analysis of rhetoric. Sometimes we can be persuaded to indulge ourselves by the use of some types of rhetoric, perhaps. Story or fact, the snake managed to convince Eve that an apple would be good to eat, and in one sense it was good to eat but in another it was not. What is going on here? In the context of the immediate benefits of eating the apple, it conferred wisdom and tasted good, so it was good to eat. But at the same time, all things considered, it was not "good to eat," to the extent that it was the biggest mistake anyone made.Context shifting, from one specific context, ignoring a more general one, can encourage us to indulge. Perhaps this is also the mechanism used by MacDonald's catch phrase "I'm lovin' it," (or others similar used on foods). It is true to an extent that I do love MacDonald's food. I love the cold, delicious, sweet, filling milkshakes. But taking a wider context, and knowing what it does to my body (I used to work there, with unfortunate results) I do not love MacDonald's food.

What I am scared of is a similar sort of context shift that MAY be going on in LBS.

What I feel is happening here is a context shift. Yes, it is true that taken in the context of "how much money is spent" or "how much time is spent" or "how may hours of thought" or "how many different types of aero promoting clothing" go into aerodynamics, the pro rider blows me and Robbie out of the water. Aerodynamics is more important to the pro, in those contexts, than Robbie or I and to say otherwise would be ridiculous.

However, when the pro looks at the whole context, the complete set of requirements and constraints, of the pro peleton ride, pro riders see that avoiding the others in the peloton, getting rested after their turn at the front, providing drafting (?), riding for three weeks, riding long distances day after day, riding for shorter percentages of time in low position, then it is not ridiculous to say imho that in the context of an always solo amateur rider, who never drafts, who doesn't need to avoid other riders, who never takes a short turn anywhere, generally (generally) for shorter rides with just the wind as companion, then in that different context, getting and staying aero for as long as possible, can (if they are not into scenery, don't have too many cars around, and are into losing weight) be more important, in that context, even though the solo rider does not buy the socks.

dedhed

Y'all have too much time on your hands

timtak

I think it would be a good idea if the UCI held some time trials on road bikes and I have set up a petition to ask that this be carried out.
ime-trials-on-road-bikes?recruiter=1228368375&recruited_by_id=dfd841e0-23b4-11ec-82dd-b35053c1cda3&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_for_starters_page&utm_medium=copylink&lang =en-GB

koala logs

I have flat abs, 26" waistline so I have an eff'n small waist, in addition to a light torso and near pro racer body build, I'm actually comfortable in the TT racing position. But only as far as TT goes in terms of riding duration.

Out in the streets and riding for more than 5 hours, I prefer more upright riding position to avoid straining my neck and better visibility of road traffic.

I am able to tolerate more aero positions for longer periods during indoor training where I didn't have to strain my neck to look forward to watch out for traffic or other obstacles on the road (obviously!). I still eat "voraciously" with loads of carbs in my diet but I probably ride hard enough that I don't actually gain weight. I'm currently holding 125 lbs.

The fact is I can ride a lot harder in a more upright position, pedaling out of the saddle than staying seated in an aero position. I have relatively short training sessions but 50% of it is spent pedaling out of the saddle. In on hour session, 30 minutes will be out of the saddle. 2 hours will be ~1 hour out of the saddle, with 15 minutes being the maximum continuous out of the saddle. I'll be well within the zone 5 HR effort whenever I'm out of the saddle in a 15-minute FTP.

Pedaling OOS is crazy hard enough, now do it continuously for 15 minutes with only 5 minutes "break" in between. And the "breaks" are still >tempo efforts but done seated and spinning.

livedarklions

Am I now going to have to explain why bmi doesn't really tell you anything? News flash--muscle is heavier than fat.

indyfabz

Hello. What’s this thread about?

livedarklions

Are you going for a record on how off-topic a post can be?

Non-racing is in the title of the thread.

Please remove yourself from this thread. You're free to start one yourself but you really keep throwing the same turd in the punch bowl here.

timtak

Since I think you said you ride a relaxed geometry bike, it sounds like my hypothesis would be proved wrong, assuming you are representative.

I am lucky to be able to ride on quite wide roads with very little traffic.

I pedal out of the saddle about 5%-10% of my rides these days, generally on slopes where I don't want to change to an easier gear. I used to do it more but I got old or lazy or something. At the same time, I try to do it in the drops. When I first saw Pantini out of the saddle in his drops, my jaw dropped, but now I try to make it my policy.

I used to ride harder out of the saddle, in emulation of Marc Cavendish, using my upper body strength to pull up on the bars as I pressed down. But these days I am scared for my knees, so I try to stick to ankling in a seated position.

Because I mentioned my BMI? I could have said my weight this year was 63.4kg, when it is at this time of year generally 64-65kg but it did not seem to be as informative.

Or are saying something more along the lines of Meghan Trainer

Tim

WhyFi

BMI is a useful diagnostic for *populations* not individuals.

Kapusta

You have once again confused “thinness” with “range of motion” these are not the same thing. For those who do wish to to ride more aero than whatever they are currently doing, it is range of motion - not a gut - that is hindering them from doing so in most cases. Though in reality it is usually neither… but rather simple comfort and safety preference.

As for the rest of what you wrote here… again, no matter how many times you assume a more areo position will lead to more weight loss is still won’t be true. Biblical references and bad Fast Food analogies won’t change that fact.

Your fast food analogy is still based on the asinine premise that endurance road geo is less healthy than race geo.

If you want to use a food analogy… riding bikes is a healthy diet. More comfortable bikes are just healthy food that tastes better to many people.

koala logs

I've been recently trying Mark Cavendish posture out of the saddle because I start to see lower back (core muscle) pain at the 10 minute mark out of the saddle.

The Mark Cavendish posture felt easier on the back when out of the saddle for long periods and I was able to hold the effort 15 minutes continuously with greatly reduced pain on my back. It was a pleasant surprise to say the least.

It would seem with further training on the posture, I'll finally be able to break my current 15 minute OOS limit. It was the pain on my lower back limiting me to 15 minutes. I can't tolerate the pain beyond that.

So the Cavendish sprint aero posture have merits to it. Especially if riding at FTP. BUT I would not do the same back posture when pedaling seated at lower efforts. I have tried it but it puts too much pressure on the arms unless I'm probably using aerobars. But on a regular drop bar on a >4 hr ride, I'd still prefer the ability to ride more upright.

Ironically, the aero posture is more comfortable with FTP efforts but doing >100% FTP effort well beyond 1 hour, even for 2 hours is not sustainable. Nobody does that as far I know and it's difficult to look ahead on the road in the slammed down aero position for more than 2 hours.

Kapusta

Actually, it would have been just as informative and not made it look like you we’re miss-using the concept of BMI.

BMI is a useful tool for studying populations and trends. It is not very informative for individuals. And downright useless when those individuals are athletes.

Kapusta

@timtak does not understand that CAT6 is a form of “competitive” riding.

terrymorse 

...is something a person with a high BMI would say. :-)

As populations go, check out the BMI ranges for 1100 pro cyclists. They fall into a rather tight band of the "healthy" range:

timtak

The thread is about whether recent innovation is a good or bad bargain for those not highly competitive.

It seems to me that the OP's question as to whether recent innovation is relevant to non-racing amateurs, depends on the races that are available. I have gone on and on about the fact (?_as I perceive it) that, currently, there is no UCI-approved race that corresponds to the ride of many amateurs -- hence my answer to the OP's question was no.

However, I accept that pros and pro races can be a great model, a great way of knowing what innovations are good, and also great cosplay bling. Therefore, I suggested, and created a petition to create pro races that are nearer to the ride of amateurs AND (therefore) pros so that the innovations of pro bikes in such races (non group road bike races) would a good bargain for those who are not pros.


I agree. Maybe. For some reason my yearly medical check tells me my weight and BMI. My weight says even less about my health because it is dependent on height.
I am 174 - 175cm.

I agree but, I also find, that in my experience, my flexibility does not affect my ability to get into an aero position whereas my weight does.

That was not applicable in my case but perhaps it is true for others.

You may well be right. Koala Logs' experience would seem to back up what you have to say.

Is myself found that Cobb-Robbie aero was motivating, thrilling, flying whereas pro-peloton-position was demotivating, and parachute-like, your experience seems to be different. I am not saying "no matter how many times you (Kapusta) assume a more comfort position will lead to more weight loss still won't be true," because I accept there are other perspectives -- such as Koala logs. However, I do find that the Cobb-Robbie position works for me (and perhaps Robbie) and is under-represented in the market place.

My fast food and biblical analogies were an attempt to show how rhetoric can convince people of that which is incorrect. "This is good to eat" or 'You love this" can be true in one context, and false in another. Likewise, "this is a great, supremely designed bike" or "This is a supremely aero bike" can be, and is true in one context, such as of a Pro tour race, but, due to the difference in context, it may not be true for amateur solo cyclists. The fact that I pointed out this rhetoric does not mean that one style of riding is better than another, but it may help prevent purchasers being persuaded by this rhetoric.

I mean to say that the Pros and their gatekeepers do not know best, for the amateur context, at least until the pros are riding in a more similar way to amateurs.

MacDonalds too claims its food is healthy.
https://www.chiefmarketer.com/mcdona...tyle-campaign/

I am not an athlete. BMI is reported on my yearly check up. Koala Logs mentioned BMI. I mentioned my improvement, and my gratitude.

WhyFi

No, it's something that someone familiar with the origins of the BMI metric would say.