70sSanO

Yep. Time to check out from this thread.

John

genejockey 

The horse falls over dead in the stream from which he refused to drink.

seypat

Sweet, another chance to post the film/video! If you want to see the setups from yesteryear, in action, from all angles, this is probably the best way to look at it. Plus, there is cool surfer music. You can discuss all you want.


https://www.nfb.ca/film/60_cycles_en/

Kapusta

After three pages, facts expire, and timtak need not be hampered by them.

Now he has shifted his argument to being in favor of bikes set up for a “jackknifed” riding position…. Or as people who actually understand anything about cycling call it: “slack seat tube angles”. (Whether STAs were actually any slacker back then… I don’t know. And I am sure he does not either. He was wrong about head tubes)

This of course completely flies in the face of his (warped) notion that “amateur” cyclists are more like time trail riders…. Who in fact run much STEEPER seat tube angles, as evidenced by the picture or the time trialist he himself posted last week. (But apparently that no longer counts because it was 10 pages ago and therefore expired as evidence).

livedarklions

I think we should just post our own bike position role models. Here's mine:


Notice the countersteering on the scooter, btw.

livedarklions

What was the horse's BMI?

3alarmer 

.
Question: I was gone for a while. What's this thread about now ?
Answer: Oh, about 44 pages.

seypat

Germany_chris

I'm just a fat guy on a bike aka a jib this gent doesn't seem particularly low.

Which brings me back to my comment n pages ago about modern thought with aero is get narrow not low since you can reduce frontal area by either means.

imma gon go back to tacking into the wind

Germany_chris

dup

seypat

These manufacturers would agree:

https://freightliner.com/

https://www.peterbilt.com/

https://www.volvotrucks.us/

https://www.kenworth.com/

genejockey 

Not low, but with a level torso, and with the seat well forward to open up the hips.

tomato coupe

... because the horse was riding a bike that was too comfortable. The horse would be alive today if it had a proper bike setup.

timtak

Thanks. Groovy.

Dealing with your second point first, I think that amateur cyclists are like time trialists in so far as they are not racing anyone except perhaps the clock, and not drafting anyone so, if they enjoy speed, and since they need less visibility than those riding in group, they would be well advised to get into more aerodynamic position than group riding cyclists.

As far as I know there are two ways of getting into more aerodynamic position.

One of them is to use the standard time trial position used today by folding the top of your body down and making it narrow like an upside down L shape like this Γ generally with toes pointed down. Of course there is a lot more refinement involved.

The other way as, I have explained previously, and as demonstrated and explained in Cobb's video, is to rotate down and forwards so far that you rotate your hips forward as well, resulting in your weight being supported, not by your sit bones but by the abductor muscles in the back of your thighs (as I think Jacques is doing when looking at his watch). Doing this you do not need to change the seat tube angle to get into "jackknifed" (not my term) position, and an ankling, heel down, pedalling style, where ones legs and arms point in the same direction to an extent, like this ⊂.

As an aside, Carbonfiberboy and I feel that the modern pro-peloton tends to use the toe down style of cycling in all stages of the tour, and that ankling = being bunched up at the back = jacknifing (a new term, introduced on this thread) has gone to an extent out of style. I am keen on this old-school style less because it is faster (the jury is out, Carbonfiberboy and Koala Logs thinks it is better for longer rides, Carbonfiberboy for climbs) but because my butt muscles got weak, and in the modern style where one pushes down there is very little upwards pull (so much so that it is argued that clipless pedals are hardly needed apparently). In the old-school bunch/jackknife/ankling style there is forward push followed by a backwards (not upwards) pull which gives my old butt a good and rejuvenating exercise and helps prevent painful knees, and weak hips prevalent in old men, and women. I read that Mike Tyson (a year my junior) is now walking with a stick. He should do some ankling.

There is more in depth discussion of Cobb's sitting position here
https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycl...scovery-2.html

Tim

genejockey 

Okay, one more time:
Your assertion that modern aero bikes put the rider in an unaerodynamic position are the purest hogwash, and can only have been concocted out of ignorance. Here is a shot of the peloton from the recent Tour de France Femmes. Notice that these women are riding standard bike frames, not customs. They're using standard stems, not elongated severe negative rise stems. They're using compact bars.

And what else do you notice? Most of their torsos are close to level - WHILE ON THE HOODS, and not with level forearms.



SO, the idea that these are somehow unaerodynamic comfort bikes is just totally inane and bears no relation to reality. Modern aero bikes allow the rider to get into a comfortable position that is also pretty aerodynamic for riding long distances, but also to get into a more aerodynamic position when required. So, the claim that Big Bike is forcing pro riders to struggle with unaerodynamic aero bikes, so they can sell them to The Great Unwashed is all in your head. I wish you'd leave it there.

Oh, and if you're going to try make a point about bar height, you realize you don't just measure bar-to-floor, right? You have to measure BB center to floor as well and then subtract that, because - and I can't believe I have to explain this to a nominal adult - BIGGER TIRES RAISE THE ENTIRE BIKE.

timtak

I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

It seems to me that that the most aero position to get into is to use the hooks, ideally with bent elbows so as not to expose the forearms to the wind. People mention bent elbows a lot but I doubt you need many degrees of torso depression (as in the opposite of elevation) are needed to achieve the same decrease in frontal area as ones forearms. Thus for the same degree of torso elevation having bent elbows, and no forearm frontal area, is preferable but move the torso up a little and you will soon, almost immediately negate the importance of bent forearms.

If the riders were "jackknifed" (I like this new expression) then their centre of gravity would be above the saddle so they would not need to put much weight on their hands. The more forward, toe down, pedalling style of the modern peloton however, suggests to me that they will need to put some of their weight on their hands if they intend to get their torso low for very long. As in the photo above, the riders are using the hoods with some weight on their hands.

Those that are bending their elbows are getting fairly low (how low, it is not clear without a photo from the side) but it seems to me that they are not getting as horizontal as Jacques, Eddie, or Robbie.

It is particularly the compact bars of modern aero bikes that give me the impression that they are not to be ridden for long distances in a very aggressive position.
The drops being higher mean that weight on the drops position will be higher.
The drops being higher means that even the most aggressive position: elbows bent in the hooks will be slightly higher
The lack of a angled front makes them look like the bars made for using the hoods, with brief periods in the hooks.
It looks like the were designed for those at the front of the pace line to use the hooks and get low, and the rest use the hoods.

Bikes from the 20 century such as were ridden by Jacques and Eddie, and are being mimicked by Cobb-Robbie, look like they were designed for longer periods at lower drops, and hooks positions. Robbie seems to be aiming for low hoods all the time position.

One other thing. The toe down style of riding prelevant today results in a push down (and perhaps a bit of pull up, at least in sprinters) style of riding. When pushing down and pulling up it is possible to use the upper body to increase the force applied to the pedals by pulling up on the bars. This is why, imho, modern cyclists use the parts of the bars that can be pulled up -- the hoods and the drops in a sprint. With the old push forward and pull back style of riding however, riders needs something that you can push forwards and pull backwards (not upwards) on. It is difficult to pull on something that is parallel to the bike (the drops and the hoods) so you will often see pictures of Eddy and Jacques using the tops and, the most aero position, the hooks. Modern bikes depreciate (? - make less important/likely) this most aero position -- the hooks -- except for shorter periods of time.

This does not explain why Robbie prefers his hoods however.

In any event modern aero bikes are a group ride bike, so solo amateur riders, as most of us seem to be, might be well advised to use them a bit more aggressively, and modify them to make them a bit more aggressive since we are riding on our own, since we won't be getting a turn a the rear of the peloton/pace line and we won't need so much forward vision, such as by using a negatively angle stem. I think that just a bit of torso depression/ back flatness thus achieved, will negate the extremely expensive (and difficult to maintain) aero-improvements.

It seems to me that the height of the front of the bike is an important metric, without measuring the rear.

Yes, you have mentioned this before that bigger tires raise the entire bike.

I think that you are still of the opinion that saddle to bar drop determines torso depression / flatness, so raising both the bars and the saddle do not, in your view (I guess this is your view) result in a reduction in aerodynamics since the saddle to bar drop remains the same.

I have tried to persuade you, however, that such as demonstrated imho by Jaques Anquetil using a different pedalling style one can even have nearly level saddle and bars and still have a flat back. So saddle to bar drop need not be important.

Additionally, since both the front and the back of the bike are lower, this results in a lower frontal area of the bike. I don't doubt that the aero modifications and deep rims make the taller modern bikes more aero, but *perhaps* if the UCI were to make longish (100km?) road bike time trials, riders would go back to using jackknifed, lower off the ground bikes (with aero modifications and wide rims), as they did when their were (again imho) in the late 20th century.

tomato coupe

Has anyone ever encountered a person that said "I tried cycling, but I gave it up because I couldn't ride fast enough on the road bike the shop sold to me. If I could have gotten into a more extreme position, I might have stuck with it."

timtak

Well, to an extent, that was me. Perhaps I am the only person like that in the world?

[ I got the bike(s) but at first I could not explain to myself why I was slow, or why I found it unsatisfactory. I gradually lowered my bars and found it more fun, until I had a funny bike, and found it a lot of fun. Then my knees and hips got old so I moved to ankling. ]

How many people buy an "entry road bike" and then don't use it?

I feel sure many not use their road bike for the converse reason, that the bike is not comfortable enough -- others will put a riser stem on it.

tomato coupe

Ummmmm ... you didn't give up cycling. So, there likely isn't even one person in the world.

Herzlos

No. The only vague resemblance between amateur cyclists and time trialists is that they often ride on their own so don't have any advantage of group riding. Period. End of.

Time trialists are focused purely on speed, so ride bikes in positions that no amateur (or even veteran) rider would want. It's all about speed, power and aerodynamics; lightweight bikes, aero bars, aero helmets, skin suits, specially shaped water bottles, 53t chainrings, disc wheels and so on that all combine to make something pretty much unridable. Even the TT riders I know don't take their TT bikes out for fun.

Amateur riders are interested almost exclusively in fitness and enjoyment. I doubt many care if they get to 22.5 or 22.6mph on that fast bit there.

Have you spoken to any amateur riders?

livedarklions

Y'know, I've had a bit of cat 6 with people on tt bikes. From what I've seen, they're clearly faster on the flats, but crap on hills or bad roads. I'm in New England, so good luck avoiding either of those.

If recreational riders were serious about aerodynamics, then cowled recumbents would be popular. Oddly, people seem to prefer their road bikes be suited for riding on actual roads.

livedarklions

Here's a crazy thought--people who want to ride on a tt style bike are already buying tt bikes.

timtak

Your confidence is inspiring.

What did I say?

"I think that amateur cyclists are like time trialists in so far as they are not racing anyone except perhaps the clock, and not drafting anyone so, if they enjoy speed, and since they need less visibility than those riding in group, they would be well advised to get into more aerodynamic position than group riding cyclists."

You see group riding as an advantage. It certainly helps people go faster and can provide some competition. But it helps people go faster thanks to the effort of others. I haven't done it but I think I would see demerits in group riding, like "have I done enough at the front" "did I push the pace enough or too much at the front," and other such concerns, that would detract or distract from the enjoyment.

One the other hand...
While I agree with your first sentence, I think that we amateurs do care about our speed and the clock. Strava competition and KOM taking is motivating (I got my thinnest ever, by the end of the summer, in my year of the Strava) as is clear from the number of people using it. I generally procrastinate and leave home, on a circuit to return home for breakfast, to go to work, or to come home for dinner, at the last minute, so I am up against the clock, and I find that motivating. I burn back home and to work so as not to be late and get thrilled when I arrive early. Competing with oneself, and others via Strava, is I think part of the enjoyment.

So presumably, since people do use TT bikes, the reason why TT bike riders take their bikes out is to practice for TT races against people. With TT bikes as they stand, I am inclined to agree with you. Even if I had a TT bike I would not get on it for "enjoyment and fitness", nor to get a Strava KOM. I would require the kudos and applause of a real live time trial event (on its own or in a triathlon) to want to get on a bike that dangerous.

This is a problem with solo-ride bikes as they stand. It is a shame to me that the only solo event (other than the hour, and sort of the Madison -- perhaps there are others) is one which uses/allows such a dangerous bike, because there is no UCI bike, nor genre of riders, corresponding to all my, only, solo riding on roads with traffic. That is why I set up the petition for (a return to) UCI road bike time trials.

But in the meantime, I do like to put pedal to metal, to see how fast I can go, chase cars, trucks or at least mopeds (which I can fairly often still draft). I do like to go fast because it is far more thrilling than that parachute, that warms my chest a little. So, first of all I made my bike into a funny bike (like Moser's hour record bike) by putting road bike bars a long way forward, and then I realised that 20th century riders were also riding more on their own, so I currently attempt to copy them, and Cobb-Robbie's return-to-the-past-ism.

Not other than here. And as you can see I generally only meet with a stream of invective so maybe Tomato is right to say that I am the only person that enjoys the feeling of flying on my own.

You have presumably talked to other amateur riders and I presume therefore your experiences that they want to be "comfortable," as they "enjoy," riding for fitness.

A question and a point

1) Do they achieve and maintain fitness and their figure on comfort bikes? I know Koala does, but perhaps because Koala goes up hills, dancing like Pantini. I have also been told that some here are into just fitness not slimness. I am narcissistic and or just surrounded by thin Japanese people to whom I compare myself unfavourably, so both are important, the slimness more.

2) You are talking to me also. Thanks to you and everyone here, I have achieved and maintained my semi-slimness (not Koala level), only just about by, as far as I can, going low. I write in the hope that my experience is useful to just one other -- a lurker I guess -- should one exist.

Herzlos

I like Strava for motivation and performance tracking, but what I'm really tracking is how well my fitness is or isn't improving, and would find it sort of cheating to get better times by changing the bike and not my fitness.
I do love beating a previous record and the sense achieved by that.

I'd regard your bike setup as more dangerous than a proper TT bike, for all apart from crosswinds. Your visibility is terrible, you've got a spike right in front of your face and the handling is presumably pretty twitchy.

I go on a lot of 'open' group rides with varying abilities, though I'm usually at the top end making the rest certainly amateurs. I've never heard any of them mention going faster, though plenty about pain or comfort.

It's usually part of an active life style, rather than just cycling.

seypat

You must be talking about me.