Riding "Steep"

There is a huge, HUGE problem with the vernacular we use to describe bike fit and position. The (mis)use of the word "steep" is one of them.

In common usage of triathlon/bike fit context "riding steep" suggests using a seat tube angle closer to 90 degrees than a traditional 73 degree road frame.

A better vernacular to describe this, more literal and accurate, is to say, "riding open" since the seat tube angle closer to 90 degrees (usually betwen 78 and 84 degrees actual, effective seat tube angle for most well-positioned triathletes) opens the angle between the femur and the torso.

In other words, at the top of the pedal stroke, your thigh is not as close to your chest. It is a less compressed posture and generally less restrictive of mobility through the entire pedal stroke. There are also studies to suggest (Ian Garside study) that this facilitates a better bike to run transition through faster run splits off the bike. These studies have also been debunked, then re-proven.

Another commonly misused term is the word "aggressive" to suggest a lowered cockpit is de facto faster. It isn't, nor is any one single fit adjustment.

The use of the vernacular, or wording is super important since it carries with it certain connotations. "Aggressive" is a perfect example. It sounds like getting more "aggressive" would most certainly be faster. Aggressive.... Aggressive.... ohhhh.... mean. Let's get serious. Let's get down, like James Brown.... Let's get down to it.... Grrrrr..... Very manly. Lower your handlebars and suck it up snowflake... Man up.

The language is misleading.

Steep refers to the angle of the seat tube. Traditional road bikes have a seat tube angle of 73 degrees from horizontal.  Triathlon bikes average about 78 degrees. Since a 78 degree grade would be steeper than a 73 degree grade, we use the word steeper to describe aerobar positions. 

Not so tough huh?

Why?  Because it allows us to ride lower. Instead of simply bending over more, we take a system of bones, muscles and joints and rotate it around a fixed point, in this case the bottom bracket of the bike. Forward and down.

Now why on earth would we want to ride lower?  Ok, I tell you....because....wait for it.....

...Lower is Faster.

Running better off tri bike geometry was an afterthought that may or may not be true.  Lower is faster is the entire reason to be for aerobars and bikes with steeper geometry.  This simple truth is the only reason these items exist.  say it with me now...

 "Aerobars and steep triathlon specific geometry exist becauser lower is faster"

Tom, you are misleading. Frankly I can't believe a guy that I thought was as smart as you is continuing to spout off like this. I notice you have conceeded the battle on ST, as you know darn well there would be 50 guys saying almost exactly the same things I am. Except they wouldn't be quite so nice about it.

bryancd - 2011-05-13 7:15 PM Yeah, but what if I want to ride at 400 watts?

Or with the 12-incher?

That's funny. Sorry you feel that way. I keep posting this stuff and I keep posting on here in general because I like triathletes, and I know when you are starting out there is a steep learning curve.

I have never gotten a fit or a coaching client from posting on BT. I actually spend a good bit of time giving fit advice through PM and email for free.

Whew.   Quite the little thread you started, troublemaker.  

I am a layman.  It means lower.  They've discussed the details of the how and why above.

Done, copied verbatim.

Not sure either of us will get the responses we seek there. This argument has been done and finished on ST, and I have posted much of the same stuff before. Mostly in response to T.D. over there as well. I am not digging around for old threads, but IIRC the idea that lower wasn't generally faster got a pretty good smackdown.  You are up against Tom A., Coggan, R. Chung and others.  Here it's just little old me. 

I didn't necessarily mean it in a bad way, it just feels like you're trying to sell me something versus trying to teach me something.  I think it's just the tone of your comments more than the content.  You make some good points.

That said, I've looked at your swimming program a bit the past few days, and I like what I see very much compared to what I've seen with TI.  (I'm not interested in either for me personally, just in general how I think swimming should be taught terms).

you think you would give me a little credit too!  anyways, im pretty low but with a cobb defined "B" shaped back.  when i went to the tunnel lower wasnt any faster because im so skinny that it created a bubble where my stomach was that caught air.  benefits came from narrowing up my very broad shoulders and raising my handle bars to about 20-25 degrees.

i said this on slowtwitch and im going to say it again, lower is most often faster.  unless your top of your helmet is above your back, you probably can go lower.  people who continue to deny this generality with statements such as "you cant produce power" or "lower isnt faster" or my personal favorite "you can run off the bike with that position" are just lazy and dont want to step out of their comfort zone.

I spend a lot of time day dreaming about building up a bike from scratch with a Chinese eBay frame, but have never come up with the right theme until now.

I'd definitely paint it yellow-brown, with "Badger" on the down tube, and "Honey" stenciled in cursive at the set clamp where people so seriously put their names. The phrase for the helmet writes itself. Now what was this thread about?

Here's a discussion of short/narrow v long/low from the guy who invented the terminology. As an earlier poster said, you should imagine a good road position rotated forward about the bottom bracket. This new effective seat tube angle can be accommodated by various frames, not just tall/narrow or whatever (depending on body proportions like torso/leg ration - edited).

If you're putting the money into a Slice, I'd make darn sure you can get low enough in front. As Dave states, it doesn't take much flexibility for a proper TT fit. A TT fit is just a good road fit rotated to be aerodynamic, and with your weight on elbow pads so you can take a nap.

It's not possible to evaluate what you have been told because they won't release your fit numbers.

For instance, if the 60cm frame is set up steep (seat forward) then the distance from seat to bars is minimized.  If the size 58 in that slice were set up slack, the distance might be the same.

Now I do tend to recommend the steeper positioning, hence would side with the bigger frame unless there isn't enough drop to the bars.  But both have to be considered.  And if the Slice fits you either/or (either the right reach, or the right drop) then it's not the right frame design for you.

Ask the shop what they charge for a fitting.  You would then presummably be able to pay them off for those numbers and get impartial expert advice.

(if you do, make sure that includes photos of you aboard that position so their fit itself can be validated by the eyeball method)