Carbonfiberboy 

Yes, that's true, but torque isn't the issue. It's shock. I don't know how to explain it but try this: Stand bent over a padded chair, arm hanging straight down. Pound your fist against the chair by flexing your elbow. Now kneel down so that your shoulder is at chair level and your arm straight out. Pound your fist on the chair with the same force. Feel the difference in your shoulder? Your extended arms are like springs, the elbow taking up the shock, just like skiers bending their knees. That's the reason bicycles are designed the way they are. We bend over, not for aerodynamics, though that's nice, but rather for shock absorption. MTB riders have about the same hip angle as road riders. Same with arms. We reach out for shock absorption. Leaning forward, obviously our hip joints experience higher torque than they would if we were upright, but shock force is less. Many people are confused about this, thinking that as we age we should sit more upright and use a shorter reach, when the reverse is the case.

Edit: I should have mentioned that if one is properly balanced on the bike, one's arms can flex or just go up and down because the hands are almost unweighted. One just lets them bounce. Reach allows the bounce to be more at right angles to the arm. Shorter reach forces more the of bounce to go up the arm, rather than just up and down. Shoulder rotation can't happen so easily because rotation would involve the hands going more fore and aft, which they can't.

philbob57

I know you didn't post about your arms, oik, but I've ridden like you seem to ride, and my whole armsystem eventually hurt.

It looks to me like you have to choose between: 1) lots of shock to your arm joints (no elbow bend); 2) getting your back more horizontal/bending over more; 3) moving your butt forward; 4) raising the bars; 5) shortening the stem.

Your choice. As Steve Hogg says, it makes no sense to let a focus on one sub-relationship between body and bike outweigh the overall relationship.

With a leg length mismatch, why didn't the fitter shim your shorter leg? Just asking - I haven't read much in that area. If you have equal effective leg lengths, wouldn't that make it easier to place the seat?

Also, you say you changed the stem because of a bad habit. wouldn't it have been better to replace the bad habit with a good one and kept the right fit (assuming the fit fit was right, of course)?

Carbonfiberboy 

Your fit is actually well within the bounds of "good." It's a smaller frame with a lot of drop and that's very popular these days. It's light, stiff, and easy to get aero on. You look to be about at the limit in terms of forward lean/hip angle. It'd be interesting to see a photo with cranks horizontal, hands on the hoods, forearms horizontal, IOW your fast pulling/TT effort/coasting position. You might be a little bit more comfortable on long rides keeping your hip angle the same, but moving your bars up and out. That'd give you more elbow bend (comfort) and slightly more comfortable shoulders at a possible cost in aero, hence the photo. For short fast rides, maybe no advantage to changing what you have.

AnthonyG

Nominally, having your saddle just a little further back, and just a little lower than some theoretical "perfect" position, is just placing you in a slightly more comfortable position, rather than a maximum power position.
If your a recreational rider who isn't racing, and your happy with your performance then there's no need to change.
if you were racing and maximum performance became a goal, then moving the saddle a little further forwards and just a fraction higher could be desirable.
Personally I find having the saddle back a bit to be more comfortable (as most people do), yet I definitely find that it limits my ability to spin higher cadences. Moving the saddle forwards increases my cadence at the cost of placing more weight on my hands and shoulders.

oik01

On the trainer Ive been limited to 1-2 hours. Come spring time I definitely do long days out on the saddle. Any thoughts on experimenting with a shorter stem as opposed to going up with the handlebar? I tend to feel more uncomfortable stretching forward than I do stretching down. I think I have a 90 mm and an 80 mm lying around.

jadocs

Yep, which is why time trial bikes are setup like they are...need to find the right balance for yourself. Instead of moving my seat forward, I will have it in a position more for comfort and just slide forward if I'm really getting on it....but that requires finding the right saddle as well.

Carbonfiberboy 

Not really. You have my thoughts on the subject. I don't know your definition of "uncomfortable." My view is, barring some disability, rather than change an optimal fit to suit the rider, change the rider to suit the optimal fit. On the over 50 forum, we see aging riders wanting to modify their fits to suit their decrepitude. That's the wrong way to go. Better to get physically fit to suit the bike, rather than the other way 'round. Could be you need to stretch and strengthen your back and shoulders. I do these stretches every morning: https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycl...l#post15372967, then a McKenzie series:


Then I do a set of 25 pushups.

It's also the case that one gets used to a particular position and finds all other positions uncomfortable. That changes with practice. Every spring I have to get used to riding on my aero bars again for long periods.

All this may have nothing to do with you, but it's something to keep in mind. I still ride the same bike I bought 20 years ago at 55. Not the same position though - in the first and only pro fit of my life, the fitter moved my hands back 3 cm, so that I have a 90° upper arm angle instead of 100°. He said everything else was good. I got used to it.