A lot of the recent "innovation" is a bad bargain for anyone not pushing a competitiv
#1126
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716
Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times
in
110 Posts
A year ago, I had enough saddle discomfort that I spent a week riding out of the saddle, with three rides of between 60 to 90 minutes. Both bikes were single speed and running touring bars at the time.
The bar height and reach meant that standing up was sustainable. But single speed is not suited to standing only because you can’t pedal as fast standing as you can seated. Also, it started to get hard on my feet by the end of the ride.
Otto
The bar height and reach meant that standing up was sustainable. But single speed is not suited to standing only because you can’t pedal as fast standing as you can seated. Also, it started to get hard on my feet by the end of the ride.
Otto
dave
ps. Truly - that sounds almost cruel (particularly if there are steep downhills).
#1127
Cheerfully low end
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,971
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 644 Post(s)
Liked 1,044 Times
in
667 Posts
I do that all the time but I also (for training purposes) put gravel in my shoes, wear wool sweaters if it is hot (bare-chested if below 60 degrees), and if I am feeling strong will simply ride bare-footed :-)
dave
ps. Truly - that sounds almost cruel (particularly if there are steep downhills).
dave
ps. Truly - that sounds almost cruel (particularly if there are steep downhills).
The frustrating part when I had to only stand was the flat parts, where the gearing wasn’t high enough to allow steady pedaling while standing. It was: pedal up to speed, coast, repeat. For that kind of work I really think an elliptical drive and wide range gearing is better.
Otto
Last edited by ofajen; 08-03-22 at 11:10 AM.
#1128
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,095 Times
in
5,053 Posts
I do that all the time but I also (for training purposes) put gravel in my shoes, wear wool sweaters if it is hot (bare-chested if below 60 degrees), and if I am feeling strong will simply ride bare-footed :-)
dave
ps. Truly - that sounds almost cruel (particularly if there are steep downhills).
dave
ps. Truly - that sounds almost cruel (particularly if there are steep downhills).
#1129
Grupetto Bob
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 6,177
Bikes: Bikey McBike Face
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2560 Post(s)
Liked 5,591 Times
in
2,901 Posts
I can’t find the story but there was a guy a few years ago who rode out of the saddle from San Francisco to L.A. Now that was one strong dude. Don’t recall if he entirely removed the saddle.
__________________
Road 🚴🏾♂️ & Mountain 🚵🏾♂️
Road 🚴🏾♂️ & Mountain 🚵🏾♂️
#1130
Senior Member
Tim, It looks to me as if you think riding a road bike set up as a TT bike (probably with his saddle too high) is the way - perhaps the only way - to become thin. Biking has definitely helped me lose fat and weight and gain muscle and aerobic capacity, and apparently it's done the same for you. But becoming thin is still a matter of calories in being less than calories out. Being less aerodynamic and aiming for the same speed might help you lose weight. A couple of years ago I decided to stop at STOP signs so that the acceleration after (frequent) stopping would increase my calorie burn.
The bikes I get ads for seem to be designed for more upright riding than pre-1990? 2000? 2010? road bikes. I suspect that's because the designers are following the adult market, not conspiring to fatten the adult riding public. Most manufacturers make what they think sells. They may come up with something new (or largely forgotten). If it sells well, it gets imitated; if it doesn't, it gets dropped. I expect that the bikes that have the cachet of the pro peloton make up a small portion of the market in numbers of bikes sold.
Like most of the posters on this thread, I think you're doing yourself a disservice in setting your bike up the way you do. If you do a lot of miles with this setup, I expect you'll regret it in 20 years, but it's your bike and your body. I can't buy it. I ride for enjoyment above all. That and safety make me want to keep my head up with as little stress as possible - I want to see where I'm riding, and I want to see potential threats soon enough to do something about them - and even then, I sometimes get caught. Your position on your bike is more risk than I want to take on.
The bikes I get ads for seem to be designed for more upright riding than pre-1990? 2000? 2010? road bikes. I suspect that's because the designers are following the adult market, not conspiring to fatten the adult riding public. Most manufacturers make what they think sells. They may come up with something new (or largely forgotten). If it sells well, it gets imitated; if it doesn't, it gets dropped. I expect that the bikes that have the cachet of the pro peloton make up a small portion of the market in numbers of bikes sold.
Like most of the posters on this thread, I think you're doing yourself a disservice in setting your bike up the way you do. If you do a lot of miles with this setup, I expect you'll regret it in 20 years, but it's your bike and your body. I can't buy it. I ride for enjoyment above all. That and safety make me want to keep my head up with as little stress as possible - I want to see where I'm riding, and I want to see potential threats soon enough to do something about them - and even then, I sometimes get caught. Your position on your bike is more risk than I want to take on.
#1131
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,095 Times
in
5,053 Posts
Tim, It looks to me as if you think riding a road bike set up as a TT bike (probably with his saddle too high) is the way - perhaps the only way - to become thin. Biking has definitely helped me lose fat and weight and gain muscle and aerobic capacity, and apparently it's done the same for you. But becoming thin is still a matter of calories in being less than calories out. Being less aerodynamic and aiming for the same speed might help you lose weight. A couple of years ago I decided to stop at STOP signs so that the acceleration after (frequent) stopping would increase my calorie burn.
.
.
BTW, I do the acceleration thing on a relatively sparsely populated MUP I ride on. I'll slow way down or even stop if I can't pass cleanly and safely, but then speed up rapidly after passing them.
To be clear, not arguing with you. I just think the way you described motivating yourself with stop signs was cool.
#1132
Cheerfully low end
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,971
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 644 Post(s)
Liked 1,044 Times
in
667 Posts
Standing while riding fixed gear down hills would be a very bad idea. OTOH, I suspect fixed gear would be better on the flats for a lot of standing work than single speed, but I will defer to those with experience.
Otto
#1133
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the foothills of Los Angeles County
Posts: 25,243
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8257 Post(s)
Liked 8,978 Times
in
4,451 Posts
I rode across the valley here with a local pro racer, small guy and climbing specialist. It was about 10 miles, some slight grades, and he stood the entire time. I was pushing so as to not embarrass myself and he just rode along, chatting, checking traffic, etc. I didn't ask him why he did that.
Another time I climbed a 9 mile canyon with a friend who raced at cat 3 and he stood the entire climb. He said he was working on standing but I think he had it figured out.
Likes For big john:
#1134
Cheerfully low end
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,971
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 644 Post(s)
Liked 1,044 Times
in
667 Posts
You're right on both. I have used an elliptical machine when first training leg strength for out of the saddle. It is definitely easier. First, you didn't have to sway the machine as it's securely fixed on the floor. That is until I managed to find a good pedaling technique that suits me well, then it's about as easy if not for the back posture.
You must have heard the hunched down posture on a road bike gives more power. That may be true but NOT out of the saddle. The default running posture is still the most powerful posture out of the saddle and the least likely to hurt your back at high power.
You must have heard the hunched down posture on a road bike gives more power. That may be true but NOT out of the saddle. The default running posture is still the most powerful posture out of the saddle and the least likely to hurt your back at high power.
Otto
#1135
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yamaguchi City, Japan
Posts: 1,091
Bikes: Trek Madone 5.2 SL 2007, Look KG386, R022 Re-framed Azzurri Primo, Felt Z5, Trek F7.3 FX
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked 85 Times
in
73 Posts
The crazy setup(no need for quotes, because we all think so) is that Fuji of yours that takes the expression; "nose to the grindstone" in an almost literal sense. It's fast because your locked in to sprinting position. I'm wondering if this "riding style" you keep talking about, is even real, or you just watched Yawamushi Pedal like it was a documentary.
I get the "only way" thing a lot.
A: Cycling is a great way to get thin.
B: Why do you think that cycling is the only way to get thin?
A: I don't.
I used to set my saddle up too high to be able to bend over my belly but these days it is not that high.
I do think however it is a good idea to set ones road bike up more like a TT bike. Before their were TT bikes, I think that road bikes were more hybrid,"roadTT" bikes. But then someone (Cobb? Cinelli Spinachi?) invented aero bars, these were deemed too dangerous for the peloton, and the TT bike was born and used in the individual stages. The "roadTT" bike, that I feel existed in the 1960-1990s changed to become the group-stage-road bike, and the Time Trial bike became so specialised, the handle bars so narrow and lacking brakes, that it is now difficult for amateurs to use it on roads with cars. So amateurs purchase group-ride-road bikes and tend to forget I think (or at least I do or did) that these were designed for group rides. We also forget I think (I did, or do) the extent to which group rides are massively different to individual rides due to the enormous but invisible effect of drafting. So we often ride along alone as if were were riding in a group (an imaginary peloton? an imaginary domestique). This is a bit like using a tennis racket for playing badminton -- a somewhat inappropriate use of sporting equipment in my opinion.
I also think that behaving as if we are in a group, with an imaginary domestique, is a common psychological trope that is representative of what going wrong with the world.
Biking has definitely helped me lose fat and weight and gain muscle and aerobic capacity, and apparently it's done the same for you. But becoming thin is still a matter of calories in being less than calories out. Being less aerodynamic and aiming for the same speed might help you lose weight.
I think that "road bikes" (also called racers) might also be called "body-lowering-bikes." It is not the thinness of the tires, nor the lightness, that makes them fast and exhilarating but the fact that their bars and rearward offset saddle encourage body lowering. A comfort road bike or anyother bike that does not result in body lowering, is a bike that looks like a road bike but isnt. Not that this matters. Lots of people get thin and healthy riding cross bikes, mountain bikes, urban bikes with narrow straight handlebars. But road bikes had their niche, but this niche is being eroded by the spread of living as a third person (like one of today's peloton on tv) and the attractions of "comfort."
The bikes I get ads for seem to be designed for more upright riding than pre-1990? 2000? 2010? road bikes. I suspect that's because the designers are following the adult market, not conspiring to fatten the adult riding public. Most manufacturers make what they think sells. They may come up with something new (or largely forgotten). If it sells well, it gets imitated; if it doesn't, it gets dropped. I expect that the bikes that have the cachet of the pro peloton make up a small portion of the market in numbers of bikes sold.
The most obvious of these are the negative feedback loops that normalise being overweight. If everyone is wearing baggies, driving a big car, eating big meals, riding a comfort road bike (oxymoron!) then these things become normal and to do otherwise becomes stupid, monstrous, castrating. When Jacques Anquetil road his bike like he did it, was a pretty normal way of doing it but gradually "comfort" becomes the new normal.
I think that economics tends to encourage a tendency towards a short term view of merit. That is to say the market supplies that which the market wants now, rather than that which the market would want if it were to take a longer term view. A common "comfort" bike is more comfortable in the short term, but may become less comfortable in the longer term (not always).
And as I just mentioned, I think that there is something psychological, that encourages us to live as if we are one of the people we see on television. This "something psychological" is the self. The self is a self representation, not the lived experience of consciousness. There is a tendency to live in such a way that seems pleasing to the little person on TV, or that we imagine ourselves to be, rather than to please consciousness.
On the other hand, part of the market is the advice that we give to each other on purchasing and setting up bikes. We may keep aiming for comfort, with grand-fondo bikes (though we may rarely travel long distances) and mountain bikes (though we may rarely or never ride in the mountains) and gravel bikes (though we may mainly ride on roads) and group ride bikes (though we mainly or always ride alone) and soon (as suggested above) electric bikes. But at the same time the are people and practices that are inclined to point out and perhaps slow down this tendency, and point out the long term comfort of riding with a lowered body, such as hypothetically, the reintroduction of time trials on road bikes, or my, and others, posts to this forum.
I can't buy it. I ride for enjoyment above all. That and safety make me want to keep my head up with as little stress as possible - I want to see where I'm riding, and I want to see potential threats soon enough to do something about them - and even then, I sometimes get caught. Your position on your bike is more risk than I want to take on.
The most interesting thing to me about your post is the stop sign thing because I think it illustrates the whole problem with saying "x machine is the best for losing weight." What will motivate you to your highest calorie burn is a psychological, not mechanical question. the bike that's going to get me to maximize my effort is going to be the one I most enjoy putting such an effort into riding. That's an individual taste thing, not an objective "more (less) aero means bigger effort" formula.
That was my most serious post. Jesus is our domestique, but if we treat him badly he becomes the other "light bearer".
Last edited by timtak; 08-03-22 at 07:21 PM.
#1136
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,935
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3942 Post(s)
Liked 7,279 Times
in
2,940 Posts
All over the world when people engage in religious activities they bow their heads and look down (Christian, Shinto and Buddhist prayer), in supplication, and prostration (Islam, Tibetan Buddhism) and get into traditional (but not recent) road bike position. I am unable to give the reason but I think that Dali does in his picture below. Please note that the apostles are in road bike position, that Jesus is pointing to himself, and to a torso floating in the air above. Then ride your bike long and low.
The apostles in road bike position
The apostles in road bike position
Likes For tomato coupe:
#1137
Rhapsodic Laviathan
#1138
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2761 Post(s)
Liked 2,534 Times
in
1,433 Posts
The "thin" issue aside, the funny thing is that while he says he advocates a TT setup, his setup is drastically different from a true TT setup, In fact, is is less "TT-ish" than modern race bikes.
Likes For Kapusta:
#1139
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yamaguchi City, Japan
Posts: 1,091
Bikes: Trek Madone 5.2 SL 2007, Look KG386, R022 Re-framed Azzurri Primo, Felt Z5, Trek F7.3 FX
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked 85 Times
in
73 Posts
I am aware that my current set up is drastically different from UCI TT bikes, it is designed for riding on my own against the clock in an aerodynamic, less manouverable and with less forward visibility. This may resemble 20th century bikes but it does not resemble current TT bikes. But this does not mean it is not a time trial set up. There are non UCI approved ways of doing things.
#1140
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,509
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20801 Post(s)
Liked 9,448 Times
in
4,666 Posts
Likes For WhyFi:
#1141
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yamaguchi City, Japan
Posts: 1,091
Bikes: Trek Madone 5.2 SL 2007, Look KG386, R022 Re-framed Azzurri Primo, Felt Z5, Trek F7.3 FX
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked 85 Times
in
73 Posts
I am sorry I misrepresented you. I thought you were claiming that Mr. Cobb's recommendations were ridiculous for different reason than you were. I have amended the post to which you refer and added an apology.
I see no reason why other than that he does not present data, that the position recommended by John Cobb is ridiculous.
The set up recommended by John Cobb is different to the UCI time trial bike. It is extreme in different ways. It provides more manoeuvrability, and less susceptibility to side winds, but it is more constrained. I have no doubt the Cobb set up is slower.
However, in its applicability to those not pushing a competitive edge, since the the UCI time trial bike set up is more unsafe, The UCI TT is more ridiculous, imho, as a bike for use by "anyone not pushing a competitive advantage"
The pros are using a set up which would be ridiculous for us, or those of us who want to go fast on their own in a non-UCI time trial (for a Strava KOM, against the clock, for a good work out). It is in this sense that the pros TT bike is ridiculous. I find that recommended by Mr. Cobb to be quite usable.
In the context of the thread, the pros bikes are ridiculous because to the amateur speed is not everything. It also matters to be safe.
I see no reason why other than that he does not present data, that the position recommended by John Cobb is ridiculous.
The set up recommended by John Cobb is different to the UCI time trial bike. It is extreme in different ways. It provides more manoeuvrability, and less susceptibility to side winds, but it is more constrained. I have no doubt the Cobb set up is slower.
However, in its applicability to those not pushing a competitive edge, since the the UCI time trial bike set up is more unsafe, The UCI TT is more ridiculous, imho, as a bike for use by "anyone not pushing a competitive advantage"
The pros are using a set up which would be ridiculous for us, or those of us who want to go fast on their own in a non-UCI time trial (for a Strava KOM, against the clock, for a good work out). It is in this sense that the pros TT bike is ridiculous. I find that recommended by Mr. Cobb to be quite usable.
In the context of the thread, the pros bikes are ridiculous because to the amateur speed is not everything. It also matters to be safe.
Last edited by timtak; 08-03-22 at 09:19 PM.
#1142
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2761 Post(s)
Liked 2,534 Times
in
1,433 Posts
You have said this before. It is like you can only think in current UCI categories.
I am aware that my current set up is drastically different from UCI TT bikes, it is designed for riding on my own against the clock in an aerodynamic, less manouverable and with less forward visibility. This may resemble 20th century bikes but it does not resemble current TT bikes. But this does not mean it is not a time trial set up. There are non UCI approved ways of doing things.
I am aware that my current set up is drastically different from UCI TT bikes, it is designed for riding on my own against the clock in an aerodynamic, less manouverable and with less forward visibility. This may resemble 20th century bikes but it does not resemble current TT bikes. But this does not mean it is not a time trial set up. There are non UCI approved ways of doing things.
There is nothing in UCI rules that I am aware of preventing them from running their saddle as far back as yours. They don’t do it because they would be slower if they did. UCI rules are what prevent them from running them even more forward (the opposite of your bike)
#1143
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,509
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20801 Post(s)
Liked 9,448 Times
in
4,666 Posts
I am sorry I misrepresented you. I thought you were claiming that Mr. Cobb's recommendations were ridiculous for different reason than you were. I have amended the post to which you refer and added an apology.
I see no reason why other than that he does not present data, that the position recommended by John Cobb is ridiculous.
The set up recommended by John Cobb is different to the UCI time trial bike. It is extreme in different ways. It provides more manoeuvrability, and less susceptibility to side winds, but it is more constrained. I have no doubt the Cobb set up is slower.
However, in its applicability to those not pushing a competitive edge, since the the UCI time trial bike set up is more unsafe, The UCI TT is more ridiculous, imho, as a bike for use by "anyone not pushing a competitive advantage"
The pros are using a set up which would be ridiculous for us, or those of us who want to go fast on their own in a non-UCI time trial (for a Strava KOM, against the clock, for a good work out). It is in this sense that the pros TT bike is ridiculous. I find that recommended by Mr. Cobb to be quite usable.
I see no reason why other than that he does not present data, that the position recommended by John Cobb is ridiculous.
The set up recommended by John Cobb is different to the UCI time trial bike. It is extreme in different ways. It provides more manoeuvrability, and less susceptibility to side winds, but it is more constrained. I have no doubt the Cobb set up is slower.
However, in its applicability to those not pushing a competitive edge, since the the UCI time trial bike set up is more unsafe, The UCI TT is more ridiculous, imho, as a bike for use by "anyone not pushing a competitive advantage"
The pros are using a set up which would be ridiculous for us, or those of us who want to go fast on their own in a non-UCI time trial (for a Strava KOM, against the clock, for a good work out). It is in this sense that the pros TT bike is ridiculous. I find that recommended by Mr. Cobb to be quite usable.
Cool.
#1144
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yamaguchi City, Japan
Posts: 1,091
Bikes: Trek Madone 5.2 SL 2007, Look KG386, R022 Re-framed Azzurri Primo, Felt Z5, Trek F7.3 FX
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked 85 Times
in
73 Posts
This has nothing to do with UCI regs.
There is nothing in UCI rules that I am aware of preventing them from running their saddle as far back as yours. They don’t do it because they would be slower if they did. UCI rules are what prevent them from running them even more forward (the opposite of your bike)
There is nothing in UCI rules that I am aware of preventing them from running their saddle as far back as yours. They don’t do it because they would be slower if they did. UCI rules are what prevent them from running them even more forward (the opposite of your bike)
The pros would go slower if they moved their saddle backwards as you say. They go faster because they have a forward, and narrow set up on their time trial bikes. This forward and narrow set up is allowed by the UCI but it would be inappropriate, or even ridiculous for the amateur rider ride regularly on roads with cars. So the forward offset position has its drawbacks for amateurs. It is a time trial position but another fast position is to use the seat back wards position in order to get low and aerodynamic, and go faster. This the Cobb recommended position is another time trial position. It is a time trial position, in that it is faster than a standard (current) road bike position and may be more suitable to some solo riders who want to go fast, don't need as much visibility a more upright position provides.
#1145
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yamaguchi City, Japan
Posts: 1,091
Bikes: Trek Madone 5.2 SL 2007, Look KG386, R022 Re-framed Azzurri Primo, Felt Z5, Trek F7.3 FX
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked 85 Times
in
73 Posts
In the context of the thread the UCI time trial bike is highly (I would say) unsuitable to amateurs who are not pushing a competitive edge. I still believe that the UCI time trial bike is ridiculous, or highly inadvisable. The UCI time trial bike set up is highly inadvisable because while amateurs want go to fast, speed is not everything. There is a balance between as you say, a number of factors such as
aerodynamics
being or not being so constrained as to not be able to push the pedals
forward visibility
manoeuvrability and the ability to resist side winds
The set ups which provide motivating, health promoting, enjoyable compromises between such factors for the amateur rider, are neither necessarily those provided by the UCI, and in my opinion they are not in fact the compromises provided by the UCI
The UCI time trial bike is too extreme (arguably "ridiculous" -- not a word I would use unless you had used it) and the UCI road bike, designed as it is for group rides, is too relaxed for many amateur solo riders.
Last edited by timtak; 08-03-22 at 10:07 PM.
#1146
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,935
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3942 Post(s)
Liked 7,279 Times
in
2,940 Posts
Likes For tomato coupe:
#1147
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 17,906
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10397 Post(s)
Liked 11,848 Times
in
6,065 Posts
Fixed.
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
Likes For genejockey:
#1148
Dirty Heathen
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: MC-778, 6250 fsw
Posts: 2,182
Bikes: 1997 Cannondale, 1976 Bridgestone, 1998 SoftRide, 1989 Klein, 1989 Black Lightning #0033
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 889 Post(s)
Liked 906 Times
in
534 Posts
This is a case of "missing the forest for the trees" if ever there was one; focused so much on getting the bars ever lower, in the quest for ultimate speed (and thus thin-ness!) based on a mis-extrapolation of a 15-year-old YouTube video from a washed-up trainer, that he's missed whole generations of evolution in bikes design and geometry. Stuck in the Lemond era, as it were. (I'd even go as far as to say that even Lance's bike has more in common with Greg's, or even Eddy's, than it does with Wout's)
All the evidence that he gives for his method being "the true way" are based on his perception and belief in it. I have yet to see him provide any actual data proving it.
Modern cycling, for better or worse, is heavily data driven (marginal gains) something has to prove it's faster or more efficient or it gets left to the side.
I'm also unsure (as are we all). why a TT style mount is the ideal for a solo recreational rider. I don't live in a sparsely populated japanese prefecture with wide flat straight roads, so visibility and manuverability are factors too. TT bikes are meant for going as fast as possible over a closed course . There's a reason why TT/TRI style bikes are not welcome in group rides (or group -start races) is not because they're too fast; it's because their limited manuverability and visibility makes them unsafe for others to be around.
If all I wanted from cycling was to ride as hard as I could, for as long as I can, I'd be on a spin bike in front of zwift or something like that.
When you're out on the road, often times your average speed is dependent on factors outside of your control, no matter how 'fast' your riding position is. I have a bunch of RWGPS data from when I used to commute to work on my bikes. Three of my top 5 fastest times were set on the bike with the slowest top speed of the three bikes I used. (Moving avg was only 0.5 mph slower despite a 18.5mph max, to the fastest bikes 25; fastest time was 48 minutes, door -to-door, the rest fell between 52 and 58, for 12.5 miles)
* Disclaimer: I am a non-Xtian, and my fastest bike actually was banned by the UCI
All the evidence that he gives for his method being "the true way" are based on his perception and belief in it. I have yet to see him provide any actual data proving it.
Modern cycling, for better or worse, is heavily data driven (marginal gains) something has to prove it's faster or more efficient or it gets left to the side.
I'm also unsure (as are we all). why a TT style mount is the ideal for a solo recreational rider. I don't live in a sparsely populated japanese prefecture with wide flat straight roads, so visibility and manuverability are factors too. TT bikes are meant for going as fast as possible over a closed course . There's a reason why TT/TRI style bikes are not welcome in group rides (or group -start races) is not because they're too fast; it's because their limited manuverability and visibility makes them unsafe for others to be around.
If all I wanted from cycling was to ride as hard as I could, for as long as I can, I'd be on a spin bike in front of zwift or something like that.
When you're out on the road, often times your average speed is dependent on factors outside of your control, no matter how 'fast' your riding position is. I have a bunch of RWGPS data from when I used to commute to work on my bikes. Three of my top 5 fastest times were set on the bike with the slowest top speed of the three bikes I used. (Moving avg was only 0.5 mph slower despite a 18.5mph max, to the fastest bikes 25; fastest time was 48 minutes, door -to-door, the rest fell between 52 and 58, for 12.5 miles)
* Disclaimer: I am a non-Xtian, and my fastest bike actually was banned by the UCI
Last edited by Ironfish653; 08-04-22 at 01:44 AM.
Likes For Ironfish653:
#1149
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yamaguchi City, Japan
Posts: 1,091
Bikes: Trek Madone 5.2 SL 2007, Look KG386, R022 Re-framed Azzurri Primo, Felt Z5, Trek F7.3 FX
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked 85 Times
in
73 Posts
You mention bike design (frame design?) as another option but quoting bikegremlin
"Roughly, the average rider power requirements on a course with a zero net elevation gain is broken down into 60% rider drag, 8% wheel drag, 8% frame drag, 12% rolling resistance 0.5% wheel inertia forces and 8% bike/rider inertia. " "rider aerodynamics dominates the power requirements of racing bikes. "
In other words, a really super 2022 aero road bike, such as the Treck Madone aero bike may decrease the drag of the frame of my 2007 road bike by 50% (do you think so? It is a lot.) and thus decrease overall drag by 4%, for a cost of, a lot of money. However, if I could decrease the drag of my body by only 10% I would achieve an overall reduction in drag of 60/10 or 6%, possibly for free. It is for this reason that I my answer to the topic of the thread is "yes."
I don't think Mr. Cobb a "washed up trainer." He was, but is not now employed by the current elite pros. Since he is not longer paid by the best of the best, some (but not me) might describe him as washed up. But I think he remains highly relevant. His most famous advice was to Greg LeMond, using wind tunnel, on especially how to win a time trial on an adapted road bike. These days the pros have dedicated time trial bikes so advice on how to adapt a road bike to a time trial bike is not required.
But to many amateurs, who ride road bikes on their own, thus without the massive effects of drafting, aiming to go fast, against only the clock, while not wanting to bump into cars, the advice that Mr. Cobb gives, on how to convert a road bike to a solo riders fast bike (or time trial bike?) is very important.
I don't live in a sparsely populated japanese prefecture with wide flat straight roads, so visibility and manuverability are factors too. TT bikes are meant for going as fast as possible over a closed course . There's a reason why TT/TRI style bikes are not welcome in group rides (or group -start races) is not because they're too fast; it's because their limited manuverability and visibility makes them unsafe for others to be around.
When you're out on the road, often times your average speed is dependent on factors outside of your control, no matter how 'fast' your riding position is. I have a bunch of RWGPS data from when I used to commute to work on my bikes. Three of my top 5 fastest times were set on the bike with the slowest top speed of the three bikes I used. (Moving avg was only 0.5 mph slower despite a 18.5mph max, to the fastest bikes 25; fastest time was 48 minutes, door -to-door, the rest fell between 52 and 58, for 12.5 miles)
Tim
Last edited by timtak; 08-04-22 at 06:59 AM.
#1150
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2761 Post(s)
Liked 2,534 Times
in
1,433 Posts
If it has nothing to do with UCI regulations why do you keep bring up what is and is not within UCI regulations?
The pros would go slower if they moved their saddle backwards as you say. They go faster because they have a forward, and narrow set up on their time trial bikes. This forward and narrow set up is allowed by the UCI but it would be inappropriate, or even ridiculous for the amateur rider ride regularly on roads with cars. So the forward offset position has its drawbacks for amateurs. It is a time trial position but another fast position is to use the seat back wards position in order to get low and aerodynamic, and go faster. This the Cobb recommended position is another time trial position. It is a time trial position, in that it is faster than a standard (current) road bike position and may be more suitable to some solo riders who want to go fast, don't need as much visibility a more upright position provides.
The pros would go slower if they moved their saddle backwards as you say. They go faster because they have a forward, and narrow set up on their time trial bikes. This forward and narrow set up is allowed by the UCI but it would be inappropriate, or even ridiculous for the amateur rider ride regularly on roads with cars. So the forward offset position has its drawbacks for amateurs. It is a time trial position but another fast position is to use the seat back wards position in order to get low and aerodynamic, and go faster. This the Cobb recommended position is another time trial position. It is a time trial position, in that it is faster than a standard (current) road bike position and may be more suitable to some solo riders who want to go fast, don't need as much visibility a more upright position provides.
What you keep calling “UCI Time Trail” riding positions is really just “Time trial” riding position. You are dragging UCI into this in a failed attempt to confuse the issue.
Yours is NOT a time trial position. NOBODY doing time trails on a competitive level with much success shoves their saddle all the way back like yours.
Further, you say that the proper Time Trial positioning is inappropriate for amateurs do to visibility and handling reasons (which I agree with), but then go on to recommend something just as awkward that you yourself needed to have special glasses made for to see. There is NOTHING safer or more user friendly about your suggested setup as opposed to a proper Time Trail saddle position. Its just slower.
And since you whole premise in this thread is that amateurs want to go as fast as possible, it is a silly recommendation.