Originally Posted by
koala logs
I saw a picture of your old setup. You may have over did the downward tilt . You don't need that big downward tilt unless your butt is sliding backward when pedaling. If not, it's only causing discomfort and not really making you make more power.
Yes...I was told I may have overdone the tilt at the time (and subsequently) so in an uncharacteristic bow to peer pressure, I moved my saddle to be more level, but did not notice a difference in comfort, or power. Years later
the UCI changed their time trial bike slope restriction allowing slopes of 9 or 10 %. If I remake my Frankenbike I will try both.
Originally Posted by
WhyFi
Timtak has no grounds for complaining about discussion or comparison to time trials, UCI or not - he's the one that introduced pro time trialing to the conversation, saying that pros rode setups like his when TTing.
I think it is the limiting of certain phrases to UCI time trials that I find burdensome.
I ride in my time trial style because my ride is a time trial. Both the instances of "time trial" in that sentence do not refer to pros.
Originally Posted by
70sSanO
This is the actual topic at hand. The true answer is that a typical bicycle consumer is better riding a new bike than a 44 year old steel bike with a 5 speed freewheel and friction shifters. Whether or not the new bike contains carbon has no impact. Riding position, financial status, fitness level and all the other s#*t that has been posted is not relevant to the topic.
It seems to me that riding position is, or would be, relevant to the topic, since a lot of recent innovation is aimed at improving aerodynamics, and if
1) these improvements were small compared to those achievable by rider position changes
2) these improvements were accompanied by changes that made rider position less aerodynamic (such as, perhaps, compact bars and a higher wheel base)
I do mean if.
I would like tempocyclist to try lower bars on his Trek.