login
Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-10-02 7:40 PM in reply to: AdventureBear |
Champion  7136     Knoxville area |  Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving?Originally posted by AdventureBear Originally posted by Leegoocrap Originally posted by AdventureBear What other places in your training could you work on to find similar gains? respectfully, there are no places in training that can be worked to "replace" those gains. At least imo, the two are exclusive to one another. Then my question was misunderstood. A great aero fit frequently compromises power output. but a slightly lower power for a slightly better aero position might be a good trade off. For a rider who can develop a lot of power and feels better more upright...don't force the aero. How about losing a kg (or more) from your body or spinning weight/wheels? Those changes can sometimes be far more than that last tweak of the aero position. sorry didn't see this earlier wasn't ignoring it. Not sure if you were speaking "in general" or towards me, but if it was towards me, sure I could probably afford to lose 4-5kg at least (145lbs @ 5"10) so long as it wasn't a huge detriment to recovery / power output. Losing weight from the wheels is a debate for another thread. I don't put out a ton of power and will probably never put out a terribly high ftp unless I give up running/swimming and focus exclusively on cycling... so, free speed is the most important speed to me (at least for the sake of this discussion.) What are the specific gains you are looking for from a bike fit? More than anything... just trying to get other people thinking. you suggested that "better = faster". OK, how then? More power output? reduced front end profile? Narrower handlebars? What if those things compromise power? a better power/weight vs. drag profile? How else can you achieve that? Not saying that YOU specifically need to a) lose weight b) get different wheels c) develop more power...just that there may not actually BE a perfect fit. Not disagreeing, but if there isn't a perfect fit, why do we put so much emphasis on it, paying hundreds of dollars usually. When looking to optimize speed, there are a lot of variables that are constantly moving.  |
| 2013-10-03 6:12 AM in reply to: Leegoocrap |
Pro 5892 , New Hampshire | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Castroviejo is much more of a prologue rider than a long-course TT... if you look at his palmares, it includes quite a few prologues. His position is clearly gear for short, intense efforts. |
| 2013-10-03 6:27 AM in reply to: audiojan |
Champion 7136 Knoxville area | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Originally posted by audiojan Castroviejo is much more of a prologue rider than a long-course TT... if you look at his palmares, it includes quite a few prologues. His position is clearly gear for short, intense efforts. I wonder why he didn't adjust it (I doubt he's had that Pinarello for long... even Froome barely had one for the Tour) for the longest Worlds TT ever then? |
| 2013-10-03 6:38 AM in reply to: Leegoocrap |
Regular 549 | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Is there a chance you are overthinking things and making too many adjustments? If you do not stay with one thing long enough, how do you know if its good or bad? |
| 2013-10-03 6:46 AM in reply to: hessma |
Champion 7136 Knoxville area | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Originally posted by hessma Is there a chance you are overthinking things and making too many adjustments? If you do not stay with one thing long enough, how do you know if its good or bad? Hmm, and how long is long enough? It's usually months and in some cases over a year between millimeter changes I make... And I ask you in return... any chance you are underthinking it? |
| 2013-10-03 7:17 AM in reply to: Leegoocrap |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Originally posted by Leegoocrap Originally posted by hessma Is there a chance you are overthinking things and making too many adjustments? If you do not stay with one thing long enough, how do you know if its good or bad? Hmm, and how long is long enough? It's usually months and in some cases over a year between millimeter changes I make... And I ask you in return... any chance you are underthinking it? I actually chuckled when I saw this question/response Yes, he is probably over thinking it for himself, but for the broader community I think he is bang on. I don't know what lego's cda is, but I suspect it''s pretty good. Let's say, just for hoots, it's .23 m^2 He will spend a lot of time, probably some money to shave off .01. Lots of pretty complicated testing because you move one thing, thinking the result will be X and it's Y, because while you improved one thing, you changed another. You think you don't impact your power but you do....I have a funny feeling he is at a point where improvements will be small. But you need to know your cda to know if you are close to that. Then there are the people, and I would say a huge majority of people, that have a cda of .3 m^2 (or above) and will kill themselves this winter improving 20 watts when a tweek could get them that 20 watts. Bike fitting is an art. There are guys that can make you comfortable, but the guys that can make you comfortable, powerful and aero...I bet they can be counted on 1 hand. There are probably 3 people in all of North America I would trust. |
| 2013-10-03 7:38 AM in reply to: marcag |
Champion 7136 Knoxville area | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? ^ 2.640 (optimal setup found in 2hours) on a Planet X (not a very aero frame) with training (28/32spoke) wheels. Even that cda is better than the vast majority of superbike/race wheel setups... so yeah, I *could* never think about my fit again and survive... but there isn't any fun in that. Not when you're looking for sub 2.0 cda anyways. |
| 2013-10-03 7:21 PM in reply to: Leegoocrap |
Master 3205 ann arbor, michigan | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? "Not disagreeing, but if there isn't a perfect fit, why do we put so much emphasis on it, paying hundreds of dollars usually. " I posted earlier in the thread aboutt my fairly extreme fit tweaks in the last few weeks before Tahoe. I was really happy with the result and want to spend some more time in my 'improved' position. As we are moving in to trainer season in my neck of the woods, I think I will forego the expensive fit I was considering and spend the winter tinkering. I have my original coordinates. I have my new coordinates. I have a lot of time that I can spend in the aero position on the trainer seeing how small adjustments affect my power and 'feel' on the bike. If it works, great, I have $250 more dollars in my pocket. If it doesn't I know what my first big triathlon expenditure will be next season. |
| 2013-10-03 7:33 PM in reply to: wannabefaster |
Champion 7136 Knoxville area | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Jason, I can't read coherently it seems as that's the second post I've missed in this thread. Want to share a pic of what it was before/after? My last picture (on the blue FELT) was roughly mid-late 2009. This was the position I raced 2010 Rev3 Cedar Point on after buying a bike that actually was a "good" size (med Planet X) and some work with a local fitter. This is still a fairly relaxed position though, I was still overly worried about comfort at this point. (bike.jpg) Attachments ---------------- bike.jpg (35KB - 6 downloads) |
| 2013-10-03 8:26 PM in reply to: Leegoocrap |
Master 3205 ann arbor, michigan | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? I'm not sure tht I have a before and after but it shouldn't be too hard to find them. Your "fairly relaxed" pic above is probably steeper than my "more extreme" (for me) latest fit. |
| 2013-10-03 10:08 PM in reply to: Leegoocrap |
Expert 2192 Greenville, SC | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Originally posted by Leegoocrap Originally posted by hessma Is there a chance you are overthinking things and making too many adjustments? If you do not stay with one thing long enough, how do you know if its good or bad? Hmm, and how long is long enough? It's usually months and in some cases over a year between millimeter changes I make... And I ask you in return... any chance you are underthinking it? i think always tweaking things up is a good thing. i do it occasionally and know immediately almost if its bad/tolerable, but takes a while to know if its best. as far as the adjustments in the millimeter range... how much does your body shift while breathing alone? or if you have a few extra pounds of water weight. i'm not sure that anything under an 1/8" adjustment is noticeable, until adjusted out of range of proper "fit". disclaimer.. i have had absolutely none of my bikes go through the rigorous fitting process everyone claims to be mandatory around these parts. i just make sure i have a good open leg angle, and that my forearms/quads are parallel in aero. beyond that i feel the rest is personal preference. of course im not the fastest guy on two wheels either. |
| 2013-10-03 11:07 PM in reply to: Clempson |
Extreme Veteran 635 Ajo | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Pete Jacobs cda for kona last year was right around .285. Not very aero by TT standards, but he got the job done. I did a reverse analysis of his public training peaks file. I understand your desire for the perfect aero, I was there but I ran out of money and energy just thinking about it. I eventually learned through trial and error that my optimal power and comfort level for triathlons is a torso/hip angle of 94 degrees by the fist system, and I rent zips for the most important races, and just stick with trainers for the rest. I can see in my power files that my cda fluctuates during a ride, as low as .190 and as high as .400(up hills, on the bars and into wind). I don't think that I have ever been at a triathlon where I stayed down the entire ride, only on cycling TT races, but then that's where the high caliber guys and pros have the booties, perfect set ups and skin suits. |
| 2013-10-03 11:52 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Bleh.........you guys need to work on the constant fit tweaking of a guy who grows 10 inches in 16 months......maddening.  Edited by Left Brain 2013-10-03 11:53 PM |
| 2013-10-04 6:07 AM in reply to: Leegoocrap |
Pro 5892 , New Hampshire | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Chris, that doesn't look bad at all. I know you know this, but don't loose track that a bike fit is a balance between aerodynamics, efficiency (power) and comfort. The shorter the distance the more you can sacrifice comfort, the longer the distance, the more important comfort will be. Efficiency is one of those parameters that always be compromised, if you set yourself up for max efficiency, then quite likely, you will actually be slower the increased power is offset by reducing in aerodynamics. Ian Buchanan (a very good bike fitter) wrote a great article on aerobar height a few years back: http://fitwerx.com/how-low-should-your-aerobars-be Lower is not always more aerodynamic... you can hit a point where lower actually increases your CdA. |
| 2013-10-04 7:55 AM in reply to: audiojan |
Master 3205 ann arbor, michigan | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Originally posted by audiojan Chris, that doesn't look bad at all. I know you know this, but don't loose track that a bike fit is a balance between aerodynamics, efficiency (power) and comfort. The shorter the distance the more you can sacrifice comfort, the longer the distance, the more important comfort will be. Efficiency is one of those parameters that always be compromised, if you set yourself up for max efficiency, then quite likely, you will actually be slower the increased power is offset by reducing in aerodynamics. Ian Buchanan (a very good bike fitter) wrote a great article on aerobar height a few years back: http://fitwerx.com/how-low-should-your-aerobars-be Lower is not always more aerodynamic... you can hit a point where lower actually increases your CdA. Two winters ago I "slammed" my bars and rode on the trainer all winter long, working on the theory that "eventually my body would adapt" to the steeper position. My riding sucked all winter long. It was pretty miserable and I had terrible power numbers in the slammed position. In the spring of 2012 I took the bike in to a fitter who told me that I was way too low for my flexibility. He sat me way up which made me unhappy but the truth was that I was more comfortable, more powerful and most importantly, faster, even with the more upright position. I have been working on my flexibility a bit and subsequently have been getting the bars lower and lower without that same miserable feeling I had two years ago, but it is an ever evolving project. I don't think that I will ever be super-low in front for several reasons but I continue to try to optimize aero and power. |
| 2013-10-04 8:14 AM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7136 Knoxville area | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Originally posted by audiojan Chris, that doesn't look bad at all. I know you know this, but don't loose track that a bike fit is a balance between aerodynamics, efficiency (power) and comfort. The shorter the distance the more you can sacrifice comfort, the longer the distance, the more important comfort will be. Efficiency is one of those parameters that always be compromised, if you set yourself up for max efficiency, then quite likely, you will actually be slower the increased power is offset by reducing in aerodynamics. Ian Buchanan (a very good bike fitter) wrote a great article on aerobar height a few years back: http://fitwerx.com/how-low-should-your-aerobars-be Lower is not always more aerodynamic... you can hit a point where lower actually increases your CdA. Oh for sure I agree. There's definitely a point where efficiency is decreased (that is, both in terms of power output AND cda) instead of increased. However, from the power perspective, there is a difference between losing power due to a biomechanical problem and losing power due to discomfort. Discomfort can be worked around / adapted to, and that's part of the reason I'm willing to keep looking. IMO so long as you aren't doing something obviously wrong (seat way too high/low, keeping a hip angle that's workable) and cda is going down... it's at least worth TRYING to adapt to the comfort. I agree with most of what Ian says, (although... in all fairness he IS a fitter. You won't see Slowman fitting your average person off the street into Jordan Rapp's position and saying "get used to it" either...) and Jim Martin is definitely somebody to listen to... but on the same note, Martin is also the guy that said "slam the seat all the way forward, drop the bars as low as you can, tilt them up a little, etc..." Well, him or Coggan one... (I also thought that position was fine other than the low bars. They should have been mounted above the base bar.) *btw Jan, sell me your look stem Edited by Leegoocrap 2013-10-04 8:23 AM |
| 2013-10-04 9:25 AM in reply to: Leegoocrap |
Extreme Veteran 635 Ajo | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? One way that I realized that it may not always be beneficial to go as low as possible, is that I can develop almost 10% more power on my road bike with my hands on the hoods and ride about an 1.25 mph avg. slower than on the SHIV on the same test road. When I originally got fitted to a previous bike, I fiddled with the seat angle and drop until I was at riding at nearly 80 to 81 seat angle and 90 degrees hip angle and I wasn't noticing any decent improvement. This summer I got the SHIV and reconfigued the fit using my original FIST measurement settings with some minor tweeks. The bars are set as low as they can go on the SHIV, plus replaced the shim under the stem with a 2mm thinner unit. With these new settings and my knee angle set at 150 and the seat angle at about 78, the hip/angle fell at 94... my power went up, speeds went up, comfort went up and amazingly my aero numbers improved too. I don't know if this is the perfect fit, but I'm pretty happy with it. |
| 2013-10-04 10:18 AM in reply to: Leegoocrap |
Champion 7136 Knoxville area | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? This was Auguta 2011, pretty close to 2010 with the exception that the cockpit is a bit lower and the saddle is a bit higher (along with a shorter crank 175 to 170) Arms are still "scooping" which is generally accepted as not great... although both Martin and Cancellara looked that way this year at worlds. (bikeside22.jpg) Attachments ---------------- bikeside22.jpg (28KB - 6 downloads) |
| 2013-10-04 2:14 PM in reply to: Leegoocrap |
Extreme Veteran 635 Ajo | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Lego I'm trying to understand your quest...what are your end goals? besides lowering your cda? is it hitting a certain TT time goal or triathlon bike split? BTW, what is scooping? |
| 2013-10-04 2:36 PM in reply to: tomspharmacy |
Champion 7136 Knoxville area | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Originally posted by tomspharmacy Lego I'm trying to understand your quest...what are your end goals? besides lowering your cda? is it hitting a certain TT time goal or triathlon bike split? why to be faster than everyone else of course. BTW, what is scooping? Forearms pointing down instead of straight. Like Cadel Evans TT'ing (especially around '07.) |
| 2013-10-04 2:58 PM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 635 Ajo | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Originally posted by Leegoocrap Originally posted by tomspharmacy Lego I'm trying to understand your quest...what are your end goals? besides lowering your cda? is it hitting a certain TT time goal or triathlon bike split? why to be faster than everyone else of course. That's everyone's goal, but obsessing about cda numbers is not going to make you that faster... looking at your past races, you're cycling ability is equally measured with your running ability, but if you want to get faster at cycling... stop training like a triathlete, get a road bike and join a club with CAT 1, 2 and Pro cyclists... they'll show you the ropes real quick. Keep up with them and you'll get fast.  Edited by tomspharmacy 2013-10-04 2:59 PM |
| 2013-10-04 3:57 PM in reply to: tomspharmacy |
Extreme Veteran 635 Ajo | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? I reread my post, and hope that it doesn't sound mean spirited... didn't mean it that way... anyhow... here's a link about fitting philosophy, I found it helpful and informative: http://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/blog/ |
| 2013-10-04 3:57 PM in reply to: wannabefaster |
Champion 19812 MA | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Originally posted by wannabefaster Originally posted by audiojan Chris, that doesn't look bad at all. I know you know this, but don't loose track that a bike fit is a balance between aerodynamics, efficiency (power) and comfort. The shorter the distance the more you can sacrifice comfort, the longer the distance, the more important comfort will be. Efficiency is one of those parameters that always be compromised, if you set yourself up for max efficiency, then quite likely, you will actually be slower the increased power is offset by reducing in aerodynamics. Ian Buchanan (a very good bike fitter) wrote a great article on aerobar height a few years back: http://fitwerx.com/how-low-should-your-aerobars-beLower is not always more aerodynamic... you can hit a point where lower actually increases your CdA Two winters ago I "slammed" my bars and rode on the trainer all winter long, working on the theory that "eventually my body would adapt" to the steeper position. My riding sucked all winter long. It was pretty miserable and I had terrible power numbers in the slammed position. In the spring of 2012 I took the bike in to a fitter who told me that I was way too low for my flexibility. He sat me way up which made me unhappy but the truth was that I was more comfortable, more powerful and most importantly, faster, even with the more upright position. I have been working on my flexibility a bit and subsequently have been getting the bars lower and lower without that same miserable feeling I had two years ago, but it is an ever evolving project. I don't think that I will ever be super-low in front for several reasons but I continue to try to optimize aero and power. .
A good friend on BT who fits bikes has told me over and over that flexibility is not key to riding in a lower position. It is rotating around the bottom bracket. He has worked with many triathletes that have bad backs and have bad flexibility like can't reach anywhere close to the floor. I've never been fit by him but as someone with a bad back (herniated discs with microdiscectomy) we have chatted a bit about ideal fit for bad back triathletes. |
| 2013-10-04 4:11 PM in reply to: tomspharmacy |
Champion 7136 Knoxville area | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? Originally posted by tomspharmacy Originally posted by Leegoocrap Originally posted by tomspharmacy Lego I'm trying to understand your quest...what are your end goals? besides lowering your cda? is it hitting a certain TT time goal or triathlon bike split? why to be faster than everyone else of course. That's everyone's goal, but obsessing about cda numbers is not going to make you that faster... looking at your past races, you're cycling ability is equally measured with your running ability, but if you want to get faster at cycling... stop training like a triathlete, get a road bike and join a club with CAT 1, 2 and Pro cyclists... they'll show you the ropes real quick. Keep up with them and you'll get fast. Hmm looking at my past races placings in each category, I think it's safe to say my run is SIGNIFICANTLY worse than my bike across the board at all distances. Why is obsessing over cda a problem? It's perfectly acceptable to spend $3000 on a wheelset to go a few seconds faster, but working on your position for those same seconds is blasphemy? *no offense taken, it's all discussion over a forum |
| 2013-10-04 4:27 PM in reply to: KathyG |
Champion 19812 MA | Subject: RE: Bike Fit... sweet spot or ever evolving? If you have a power meter and want to play with your position why not do the Chung method to calculate your drag in various positions. |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK