tomato coupe

TicTac, his neurons impaired.

genejockey 

I'm feeling more Shaka, when the walls fell.

Mojo31

But, you’ll look good when she’s done.

tomato coupe

Oh yeah, incredible. I’m going to ask her to do my passport photo next year.

timtak

Lance Armstrong used EPO, and the cycling posture was for a photo shoot so I don't think it all that realistic but there are lots of (funny bike) past pros that used a similar style.


Jacques Anquetil

Jaques Anquetil


Jacques Antequetil


Miguel Indrian

Eddy Merxx

Marion Clignet

tomato coupe

And for the umpteenth time ... none of those pro cyclists have their bikes set up in the idiotic way you're advocating.

genejockey 

Furthermore, not a single one of those is a "Funny Bike". THIS is a Funny Bike - smaller front than back wheel, tall seatpost, etc. Also, steeper ST angle, to move the saddle FORWARD, not back.


I understand where your confusion comes from - you have no idea what you're talking about.

timtak

I am not sure why you bring up the "funny bike." Perhaps you are talking about my earlier attempt to make my FELT into a trial bike, because it is an easier object of derision?

I have been these last many pages, talking about the Cobb-Robbie set up in which the saddle has (though not as far back as some of the pros a few posts back) not been moved forwards, as far as I know.

Go Robbie Go

What shall we call the style used by pros such as Eddy Merxx and Jaqques Anquetil? The 70-80's pros style? To what extent is the 70-80's pros style style different to that of Cobb-Robbie?

I am suggesting that the 70-80's pros style is different from that of the pros today, and may make a comeback if time trials were held on road bikes, and may appropriate for the solo rider.

And here's me, a Jacques, Eddy, Robbie wanna be

Jacques Eddy Robbie Wannbe by Timothy Takemoto, on Flickr
I am not getting there, but I am trying.

koala logs

The saddle-to-bar drop of the setup above is considerably bigger than pro setup.

I maybe comfortable in that position but it's harder to breath when you're at FTP and I'm already thin with flat abs.

The only times I can get my back almost as low and still breathe OK is when I'm out of the saddle where I'm positioned more forward where the bigger hip angle improves breathing. Perhaps, I would be in a TT position with the forward seating but I never rode a TT bike before.

tomato coupe

Ummmmmmmm ... problems with that short term memory?

indyfabz

Cut off its food supply or it will keep egging you on with BS.

timtak

Quote:Originally Posted by timtak View PostLance Armstrong used EPO, and the cycling posture was for a photo shoot so I don't think it all that realistic but there are lots of (funny bike) past pros that used a similar style.

I think my short term memory is okay, but then, if it weren't I would not remember.

Neither the bike that Lance was riding nor his riding style were that of a 1980's "funny bike" (your appellation) as pictured above, but similar to that of 1970's and 1980's pros also as picture above, which may or may not be similar to the Cobb-Robbie style.

The "funny bike" pictured above is one of a genre of track bikes (and also perhaps precursors to time-trial bikes), upon which Moser broke Eddy Merxx's hour record, so they were pretty serious too.
The US track team also used similar bikes with mismatch wheels, and a downward sloping top tube to win an Olympic medal.
Ho ho.

Getting back to the point of the thread : "Are recent innovations a bad bargain for anyone not in competition?" to which my answer continues to be "yes" because...

It seems to me that the main determinant of road bike speed is aerodynamics.
The main determinant of aerodynamics is frontal area, and the main determinant of frontal area is rider position.
The frontal area and aerodynamics of the bike itself (such as internal cables, non standard headsets and seat posts, frame tube shape, hidden brakes etc) can contribute perhaps a 5% saving in aerodynamic drag, but are pretty insignificant compared to changes in, and improvements of, rider position.
Recent "aero road bikes" are highly, supremely aero when it comes to the aerodynamics of the bike itself. But not only is this insignificant compared to rider position, recent aero road bikes make it more difficult to remain in an aerodynamic rider position for the duration of a ride (or even more than 15 minutes)
Additionally, local BS shops often not only sell only UCI sponsoring bikes (i.e. expensive brand bikes) but also sell people various types of comfort/enduro bikes made by the same brands. These bikes are comfortable but unaerodynamic, and therefore may not motivate those that like, are thrilled by, get endorphins realised by speed.

On the other hand, riding up mountains in a standing position, dancing like Pantini, may make comfort bikes really fine, fun and healthy as @koala logs testifies. 125Lbs! Wow.

genejockey 

I have read that the some folks become addicted to the jolt from the brain's reward system that they get when they believe they've found something the experts haven't, that proves they're smarter than everyone else. This explains a lot of why many people believe one outlandishly ridiculous thing, which often leads to believing in other, more outlandish things.

Why do I mention this? No reason. No reason at all.....

Kapusta

Why you keep posting bike setups that are very similar to modern racing setups and NOTHING like what you are advocating for is beyond me.

70sSanO

Tim,
I agree 100% with this statement.

Hour world record bike. Notice the aero bars and handlebar height. This is far superior in allowing a more aero body position. Also the smaller rear disk wheel that enhances aerodynamics without the crosswind penalties. Quite advanced in my mind. The positioning of the saddle, and material, provides the maximum transfer of power and weight over the drive wheel.



World Record Holder Mark Beaumont


Team Event

Tim, I realize that this may be beyond way your capabilities and it is not for everyone. You don't strike me as someone who just goes along with the crowd. But if you will just be open to breaking free from the bonds and the torment of recent innovations, I assure you it will be a ride that you will never forget.

John

genejockey 

Indeed. Modern Aero bikes have, if anything, MORE saddle-bar drop than any of the bikes pictured, and watching the TdF Femmes (avec Zwift), as the peloton swooshed by, you can see the riders are all in much the same position - torsos nearly level while resting the hands on the hoods - REGULAR hoods, not aero hoods. Why he thinks he's done anything other than prove OUR point while refuting his own, I don't know.

WhyFi

Because he's nucking futs?

mschwett 

funny, my brain corrected that spelling so thoroughly that i wondered briefly if you had special powers to get around the censor.

genejockey 

There is that.

badger1

Indeed! To be fair, though, 'we' have contributed to the continued existence of this silliness by ignoring Johnson's advice to critics re. Cymbeline (emPHASis added):

"To remark the folly of the fiction, the absurdity of the conduct, the confusion of the names and manners of different times, and the impossibility of the events in any system of life, were to waste criticism upon unresisting imbecility, upon faults too evident for detection, and too gross for aggravation."

timtak

I have repeatedly written that I drawing attention to the recommendation of an expert, John Cobb, but when you say "the experts" I think you mean the pros, the pros, the sole arbiters of good bikes and cycling form, sold by bike shops.

Only a few posts above some alleged that pros in the past used a different cycling style which has subsequently evolved, and a post down, I am lampooned for ignoring "recent innovations"
So the pro tour bikes and form have changed, you imply.

You guys are breaking up, content wise, but not in your rhetorical style.

I agree, pro cyclists in the past tended do achieved flatness by lower saddles and generally lower bars, and a "bunched up" "jack knife" position. John Cobb only lowers Robbie's bars.

genejockey 

Saddle heights aren't higher, because the biomechanics haven't changed. People still use the Lemond system to set saddle height. So, no, the pros DID NOT achieve flatness with lower saddles. How the hell would that even work? If saddle-to bar drop is bigger, but saddle height is the same, then the bars must be 1) lower, 2) lower, or 3) lower?

It's the unsupported, and indeed unsupportable assertion that modern aero bikes are more upright than they used to be, without any evidence and indeed in the face of COUNTERevidence. Remember last week, when I proved that the head tubes on modern aero bikes were, in fact SHORTER than TimTaks, not longer as he tried to contend? For a brief time, he seemed to accept that his argument was bull ****. But he seems to have forgotten having been proven wrong, and went right back to wrongly accusing modern aero bikes of being "comfort bikes". This is what you get when you argue from BELIEF, rather than KNOWLEDGE.

timtak

By using rear offset and ankling, pushing forwards with their legs, and bunching their body like a "jackknife."
For example the image search page for Jacques Anquetil
https://www.google.com/search?q=jacq...bih=1540&dpr=1
shows both his bike, with low saddle to bar drop (as also testified above by who reads about them) e.g.

Jacques and his Velo
Dimensions of his bicycle given here 9.5cm headtube and little saddle to bar drop
https://steel-vintage.com/jacques-an...e-1960s-detail
and his aerodynamic racing position.

Master Jacques

Did they? If they were using ankling (with heel drop) as opposed to a more toes down style of pedalling then they would need to lower their saddle considerably.

Please see above.

I remeasured my bikes and found them to be nominally the same size as the current Madone and reported that. I also pointed out that contemporary bars are compact, and asked if their were any attachments that might make the actual headtube size larger than the manufacture given headtube size in the current Madone.

At least one difference is that the current Madone can take up to 30mm tyres (nominally 28mm but there is 6mm clearance apparently) which is not a vast amount but with the compact bars, makes for less aggressive bike than that of Jacques, and even Lance Armstrong (my Trek Madone) which I have lowered to be more in line with Robbie or Jacques.

genejockey 

The picture of Anquetil shows him sitting well forward on his saddle, so clearly NOT using rear offset. He is achieving his aerodynamic position by bending his elbows, just like people do now. So, we're back at "TimTak posts another explicit refutation of his argument".

Also, yes, bikes are using larger tires. ON BOTH ENDS OF THE BIKE. If you raise the front AND the back, you're not raising the front relative to the back, are you?

Seriously, dude. You're just wrong. Everything you say about modern aero bikes, because of your intense need to be "special", to be "the one guy who's figured it out", is wrong. Drop bars have shallower drops but the bars are lower - head tubes are the same length, headset stacks are shorter, and stems are more often slammed. This results in LOWER BARS. Saddles are the same height and saddle height is determined in much the same way.

Everything you say about modern bikes is bull ****. I'd say "give it up", but I realize you can't.

timtak

That picture was a demonstration of his aerodynamic position. You are right he is using less seating position offset in that particular photo. Please have a look at some more photos e.g.

Jacques checks his watch
(The photo above is to show how he is seated, not his aero position)

The pros of today use bent elbows (when they do go aero) but the have a much greater saddle to bar drop so there must be some other difference.

My explanation of the difference is in his ankling pedalling style with heel drop as opposed to toe down, push more forwards as opposed to more push down, and both in terms of the saddle position and where the saddle is (supporting his quads more than his sit bones), and his tendency to be "bunched up at the back" or like a "jackknife."

His style is clearly different to that of the pros today.
My visualisation is
The pros today ride more like an upside down L with their legs beneath them like this Γ
Whereas the pros in the past ride with both legs and arms pointing more forwardlike this ⊂

I am saying the front of his bike is lower. I have also pointed out that the back of his bike is lower, and that he achieves an aero dynamic position with low saddle to bar drop, but you are returning to saddle to bar drop as if it is proof of something. The font and rear of Jacques bike is lower. The front and rear of the contemporary Madone is higher.

I keep saying that I am getting my ideas from others: Mr. Cobb who recommends lowering the font end. I also aim to emulate Jaques Anquetil. I am not saying I am special but that I have different role models to the current pros, and their extremely expensive "innovations" that are useless (to return to the topic of the thread).

Agreed.

My "headtube" measurements of my two c. 2005 bikes included the length of the external bearings (since I know that they are internal these days) and wanted to compare.

It is you that is taking the "wear me down" approach. Ha. I will go to a contemporary Madone selling bike shop and measure the height from the ground to the bars one day.

The saddle to bar drop is clearly massively different, with saddles and bars being at similar heights. So, if the saddles in the past and today are at the same height....that would have to be because bikes of old had in fact higher bars, at current saddle heights!! Which is clearly....

Hmm... I don't have anything to sell.