Chinertown
Chinese Carbon Road Bikes => Road Bike Frames, Wheels & Components => Topic started by: patliean1 on May 04, 2026, 10:22:11 AM
-
My Monday morning rant...
So I've been struggling to get an optimal bike fit on several newer frames within the past 9 months. While I always pay very close attention to the stack and reach measurements when selecting a frame size, something always felt off.
Recently I discovered the shortcomings in my understanding of geometry and design - Seat tube angle. And by extension, "effective overall reach." Many new frames are being designed around 73.5° or 74° seat tube angles supplied with zero offset seat posts. This does work for me...at all. It's basically impossible for me to get my saddle far enough back even when going beyond manufacturer suggested saddle rail limits. Extremely frustrating. Both back pain and knee pain immediately occurs when my saddle isn't far enough back during harder efforts.
I want to be clear: I am in the minority of individuals where this new geometry trend is killing me. The difference between 73° and 74° seat tube angle is very tangible. My arms are super long for my height. Short torso. And my saddle fore/aft is around 9.5cm behind the bottom bracket. 140mm stem. Apparently I have an old school style of bike fit, so I'm more Luke Plappy from Jayco than Remco.
My Tavelo Arow has been in rotation now for two years. The longest bike in rotation since my original Winspace T1500. It is absolutely the benchmark for setting up all new bikes for speedy rides. But sadly I haven't been able to do so because of....seat tube angles.
Am I the only one here? I emailed QuickPro to order a 15mm setback post. They said it will take a month. I also immediately offered this feedback to Peter at XMCS and now he is releasing a 20mm setback post for the new AERYS frame later this Spring. The Velobuild Aero Trace should have been a cautionary tale that I completely overlooked. What's the solution lol?
-
Weirdly, I have long arms, but regular legs + torso and I find I like a saddle forward position with lots of reach. Voicevelo Echo is at the top of my list fit wise.
Thinking about it..... IDK man. A tri frame with road bars might be worth considering. It will get you the reach you need for sure, and in the right size + setup might get your lower body in a more powerful position w/o tons of pain.
-
A 15mm offset seat post combined with pushing your saddle back 20mm would be an apparent STA of approx. 71° to 72° when starting from 74°. Unfortunate as moving away from round seatposts means this is entirely dependent on the frame manufacturer or expensive bespoke solutions.
-
Somewhat of an aside but frames like the AERYS with a partially-curved, partially-straight seat tube pose a particular challenge for online purchase because STA is somewhat meaningless in these cases; you need to know what point on the seat tube they use to determine STA. And what you really want to know is the STA for your saddle height.
-
Unfortunately, you might be in the minority, wanting slack seat angles on a race bike. My preference is extremely forward, where a tri/tt bike with drop bars might be the only currently existing option. As a bandaid fix though, you could look at https://www.fairbicycle.com/product-page/drop-best-uc-road
-
The steep seat tube, high-stack thing isn't / shouldn't be for performance drop-bar bikes. Yeah, it's a minority opinion that only really gets heard by the designers who make WT-spec race bikes, who are now starting to lower stacks again. /rant
The problem is that you are using stack and reach to solve a problem that sounds like it's actually a saddle-to-bar distance (resolved to X, Y components) problem. One of the assumptions of the church of stack and reach is that your pedaling position is fixed and optimized. Because these new geometries intentionally shift your pedaling position, using stack and reach to translate your fit won't work. I would recommend going back to the basics and refitting accordingly.
If I remember correctly, you are slightly between sizes. I suspect refitting will lead you to the bigger size, but then the issue might be that you can't get low enough, so you need to look at a brand with more aggressive geometry, and we can rant together.
-
While I generally think steep seat tubes and long frame reaches are here to stay, I do think stack height is an area where all bikes should be low. In principle it could make perfect sense: just accommodate different stack philosophies at the level of the handlebar/stem. It's lighter and more aero as well.
-
While I generally think steep seat tubes and long frame reaches are here to stay, I do think stack height is an area where all bikes should be low. In principle it could make perfect sense: just accommodate different stack philosophies at the level of the handlebar/stem. It's lighter and more aero as well.
Ive heard there are problems with running too many spacers. What those problems are I dont know but Ive heard to just size up vs adding more and more spacers. For the folks who dont need a ton of reach that gets tough.
I do feel like frame builders should just offer different geometries. IMO stuff like the 130mm stem Im running shouldnt be so popular. Frames just need to be a little longer. Sizing up doesnt even help as the next size of my frame only has 10mm more reach and a 15mm longer TT, which I feel like gets eaten up by the fact that I will be running the seatpost much shorter. I really need my frame with like 30-35mm more reach to run a "normal" stem length.
-
Ive heard there are problems with running too many spacers. What those problems are I dont know but Ive heard to just size up vs adding more and more spacers. For the folks who dont need a ton of reach that gets tough.
I do feel like frame builders should just offer different geometries. IMO stuff like the 130mm stem Im running shouldnt be so popular. Frames just need to be a little longer. Sizing up doesnt even help as the next size of my frame only has 10mm more reach and a 15mm longer TT, which I feel like gets eaten up by the fact that I will be running the seatpost much shorter. I really need my frame with like 30-35mm more reach to run a "normal" stem length.
I think he meant handlebar/stem solutions such as integrated bars with rise (like tavelo, lightcarbon), or more slack angles, -7 vs -17 for example. As an added convenience of one piece stems, some you can just flip to get the positive angle, even up to 35 degrees for example.
-
What doesn't get talked about enough is the fact world tour riders are training their bodies to accommodate the modern road bike position. Core exercises, strength training, yoga etc. And GC riders tend to be on the shorter side overall. Even Egan Bernal looks tall and slender, but in reality is only 5'9".
The fix for brands in general in my opinion would be to simply make the top tube and front centre a tad longer. And offer both a zero and 20mm setback post.
Funny enough I was chatting with a professional race team who is running the QuickPro ER One this season. Turns out the general critique among the team is that the supplied zero offset doesn't work for the majority of their American riders. This give me a little validation that the problem isn't just myself.
-
What doesn't get talked about enough is the fact world tour riders are training their bodies to accommodate the modern road bike position. Core exercises, strength training, yoga etc. And GC riders tend to be on the shorter side overall. Even Egan Bernal looks tall and slender, but in reality is only 5'9".
The fix for brands in general in my opinion would be to simply make the top tube and front centre a tad longer. And offer both a zero and 20mm setback post.
Funny enough I was chatting with a professional race team who is running the QuickPro ER One this season. Turns out the general critique among the team is that the supplied zero offset doesn't work for the majority of their American riders. This give me a little validation that the problem isn't just myself.
Feels like Quick Pro is sponsoring half the Pro 1/2 teams / clubs out there.
Re fit: I don't think much of this is really true. Pro riders aren't doing much more off the bike work than before. Modern road positions don't require changes in core strength and demand less flexibility in the hips and lumbar spine.
Also, it's not Egan Bernal, but riders like Pogacar, Remco, Matteo Jorgenson, and Jonas Abrahamsson who are on the forward fits right now. Jorgenson is 6'3" and Abrahamson is like 6', so its not just for short riders.
-
Also, it's not Egan Bernal, but riders like Pogacar, Remco, Matteo Jorgenson, and Jonas Abrahamsson who are on the forward fits right now. Jorgenson is 6'3" and Abrahamson is like 6', so its not just for short riders.
Correct. I just meant that Egan Bernal is on the taller side of typical GC riders. Irrespective of his bike fit. Then again, him and Tadej are around the same height. It was funny seeing Tadej on the Y1Rs early season last year during the UAE Tour. He didn't look nearly as comfortable on it as he did later in the season during TdF.
-
The tiny GC rider hasn't been the norm for quite some time now. Bernal is about average, maybe even lower side of average for a GC guy. As climbing speeds rise, absolute watts gain more importance. And if you can't TT or ride on the flat in this age, you aren't winning big GCs. The days of the Quintana body type at the forefront of GC are over.
When you watch a WT race, pay attention to how many riders have a lot of the back of the saddle showing. Most saddles are designed to be sat on in a way that would result in almost no saddle showing behind the rider. MvdP and Pog both sit basically on the nose of their saddles. This has been a staple of many pro bike positions for a long time and is a clear indicator that the rider needs the saddle further forward. It's only now that something is finally being done about it.
-
"Steep seat tubes? High stack?"
IMHO STA yes.
If someone could make the math and rotate the Ridley Noah Fast 3.0 geometry counter clockwise around the BB to a "normal" STA of 73 degrees I'd like it be insteresting what stack we'd have.
Noah Fast 3.0 starts with a STA of 76.5 degrees in the smallest size. So veeery centered rider position. Not in the bigest frame size though.
IMHO stack, the trend ist not so clear as I thought it was.
Cannondale lowered the stack. But in the classisc we could see EF riders with nice towers of spacers under their stems. So does the new gemetry makes any sense?
Canyon copied the geometry of the Aeroad to the new Endurace. So less stack and more reach for their endurance bike. Does this make sense for an endurance bike?
-
It's time to go to Jerry Gerlich, Colby Pearce or Brian McGuian for a comprehensive bike fit :D
-
It's time to go to Jerry Gerlich, Colby Pearce or Brian McGuian for a comprehensive bike fit :D
I hate to say it since their fit sessions cost more than a lot of the frames here, but this is probably the answer.
I am still confused as to what the issue or observation is. Originally I thought the complaint was that @paliean1 wanted more setback and lower stack. Given the later comments about Bernal and Pogi, not sure?
Either way, there are two ways to fix this.
1. Get a bike fit to see if you can make a modern geometry bike work for you
2. Find a frame that allows you to duplicate both your saddle position (as measured in both height and setback from the BB) and stack and reach, and stop using stack and reach in isolation for sizing and then complaining that bikes don't fit. It was never intended to be used that way if you read up on the FIST fitting method that popularized it. https://www.xybikecalc.com/ has an amazing toolset for this.
-
I feel blessed because I have long legs + short torso and a proper bike fit has been impossible since forever without buying a new stem/integrated barstem.
This new trend allowed me to have a regular saddle fore/aft instead of having it slammed all the way to the front + sacrifice weight distribution + requiring new stems.
I first noticed this in my Trek Madone SLR gen 7, where did all my pain go?
-
183cm tall, 88,5cm inseam and (only) 58,6cm armlength (measured from top of the sholder to the wrist), so I do like the modern trend and having steeper seattube angles is something I kinda like because I did lots of MTB as a kid.
That said, it would be enough if each company would allow you to pick between a classic offset and a zero offset saddle and have their regular handlebars + some with 20 or even 25mm of extra stack.
I do think the whole prog geometry discussion is something different, where those newer frames like Ridley Noah Fast 3.0, Factor One, the Dare and even the Aerotrace or even something like the Simplon Pride 2 (don't laugh, 2 positions for the seatpost clamp and 3 different stack height stems, each with 15mm reach adjustability, you can get that one dialed in pretty good) make sense. Trying to replicate your traditional fit on those bikes will probably be a bit of an uphill battle.
Slightly off topic, but someone should give Paty a Storck Aerfast, long low and stiff as hell ;)
-
I like °0 offset seat posts, forward saddle positioning and high stack. In conjunction with shorter cranksets and narrow handle bars, I can ride all day in comfort. Nowadays it's how I have my road and gravel bikes setup even on my less-modern geometry framesets.
-
I'm built a bit like Pat with longer legs. 186cm 94.5cm inseam 197cm wingspan. He might have even longer arms than me. I remember he mentioned he's running 9.5cm setback because of old leg injury and if he moves it forward it starts to hurt.
I used to run a lot more setback too close to 10cm but past few years I've moved my position forward about 2cm and I feel a lot better on the bike. Also my crank length has gone down from 175 to 165. I remember when trying to be aero my legs were hitting my stomach and it was hard to produce power there.
When I moved my saddle forward I did get some feelings in my right knee but it got used to it quickly and now it's fine. Are you doing any strength training Pat? Strong muscles help protect the knees. I wonder if you could get used to running less setback too by slowly moving the saddle forward and strengthening the legs and using short cranks.
-
The nice thing with shorter cranks is the reduced hip impingement in conjunction with that forward saddle position. Though it emphasizes more quad use. I've been adding leg extensions and/or hack squats to target that muscle group in conjunction with regular barbell squats. I've also been adding more running to my off-bike training as well to make sure my legs get well-rounded muscle use. While it might not give me the advantage on long steady climbs, the moment I hit a short punchy climbs, I can attack hard on those sections while other cyclists are just dawdling. Only problem is once we're back to the long steady climbs I still get dropped by the lightweight cardio climbers! ;D
-
I will say, shorter cranks plus seat forward plus "don't worry about seat too low" seems to have done a number on my left knee, which had previously been immune to anything I could throw at it on a bike. I already run my cleats as far back as they'll go, but I think a true midfoot cleat fit might be ncessary to make the rest of it work for me.
-
Definitely should worry about "seat too low" at least a little bit. Not as much as "seat too high", but it's still bot something to write off. Yeah lower seat is better for aero, but biomechanics should still be the main concern. Shorter cranks and forward saddle both reduce your terminal leg extension if you don't change seat post extension.
-
I'm always getting annoyed by high stack "aero" bikes because they're basically just a bigger frame maybe with shorter reach. I end up having to size down to be able to stand over the bike, negating the benefits of higher stack.
That being said, I do like the new trend of riser bars. That could certainly help my stack issue. Maybe I can get the size down with a riser bar and not have to use a million spacers.
I'm a fan of lower bottom brackets too. I think they could go lower than they have been. I feel like 70-72mm is pretty normal right now but I prefer 74-80 if possible. Road tires have gotten 5-10mm bigger and many people are running cranks that are 5-10mm shorter but bb drop has probably only increased an average of around 5mm (don't double check those numbers, they're all rough estimates). I think people care about pedaling through corners more than they used to so maybe that's why they haven't lowered them more.
-
I mean, in response to the general sentiment of this forum: its a good thing that there are HEAPS of options out there.
Realistically there is only a few "aero" frames that truly fit the steep STA, high stack and long reach criteria?
-
Tbh, "high stack and long reach" just means bigger size frame
-
I will say, shorter cranks plus seat forward plus "don't worry about seat too low" seems to have done a number on my left knee, which had previously been immune to anything I could throw at it on a bike. I already run my cleats as far back as they'll go, but I think a true midfoot cleat fit might be ncessary to make the rest of it work for me.
Definitely should worry about "seat too low" at least a little bit. Not as much as "seat too high", but it's still bot something to write off. Yeah lower seat is better for aero, but biomechanics should still be the main concern. Shorter cranks and forward saddle both reduce your terminal leg extension if you don't change seat post extension.
On this, I will also note that the Wove Bike guy, who is otherwise pretty into "progressive" road/tt fits, seems to put most people on 170-175mm cranks for approximately this reason, see e.g. https://wovebike.com/blog/bikefit and https://forum.slowtwitch.com/t/tri-bikes-need-greater-pad-reach-x-and-the-role-of-crank-length-in-bike-fits/826776/2 (I believe he's the OP there.).
-
I don’t know if you are reacting to Nick from Wove—but yeah he has a lot of interesting things to say and while i dont love how much those saddles cost as a wear item, they are pretty awesome.
Nick tends to take a nuanced approach to this stuff which is not well received on a lot of places on the internet. I think there is a situation where people are looking for quick answers, a linear process to acheive what they want from a fit, be it aero gains, comfort or both. The reality is that the quick answers didnt work that well for “traditional” road bikes and with the bike geometries designed for forward fit or progressive road fit still evolving, they are still too immature for folks to be saying that shorter cranks are needed or that you cant have a seat thats too low.
For me, at 169cm, ive stopped at 165mm cranks. There are no impingement issues for me, my knees track straight, hips are stable, and going lower its probably not possible on my road bike. As I go to shorter cranks, my power band gets narrower. A lot of this has to do with glute recruitment. In theory a shorter crank can help glute recruitment, but a higher base cadence tends to put the load on the cardio system and mechanically on the quads—so it ends up as a bit of an optimization question depending on the style of riding you do in addition to a fit question.
-
I'm 6'0"/183cm tall - Saddle setback around 9.5cm - Saddle height 78cm center to center - Size 56 frame
Typically I run a 140mm stem with no more than 15mm of spacers depending on the frame. 170mm cranks.
Once the outdoor season is finished I plan to completely retool (no pun) and experiment with a new bike fit.
Try out some 165mm cranks, move the saddle forward, and push my cleats further backwards. All I really and truly want is for my knees to track straight. Would be cool though if I somehow magically unlocked 10-20w more watts with an updated fit.
Earlier this week I did move my saddle forward around 5mm. Feels a tad more stable without introducing knee pain.
I just turned 43 and no I don't do strength training. But I actually did religiously up until I started cycling in 2020. Then I lost around 10kg from the bike. Seems like everyone is lifting now so I guess I better do the same.
-
I would advise you to go to a reputable bike fitter but the best fitters I know lives faraway from your city lol. I know that you despise bike fitters based on one of your youtube comments but these fitters are the best in the world and are progressive the way they fit their clients. Brian McGuian or Chris Balser would be the closest fitter to you and for sure he can make you fit to modern standards.
-
All I really and truly want is for my knees to track straight.
Stability starts from the feet. I would look into proper fitting shoes and arch support . Also your current shoes might not let you adjust the cleat far enough back especially if they're too big. I use the midfoot cycling adapter and I like it. I only need a little more adjustment than my Lakes allow but it makes all the difference.
One of the most common reasons for knee pain is having the cleats too far forward. If the shoes are not right no amount of fiddling with the rest of the bike fit will help much.
Your position is very long I would definitely look into shorter cranks. My legs are much longer than yours and I like 165s much more than 170. Combined with moving the cleats back your power phase / torque when pedalling won't even change.
Strength training definitely, next fall / winter is the perfect time to start and never stop. It will take some time to make it work for you with cycling but it's so worth it. As you've done it before strength will come back quicker.
I'm no expert these are just the things that have helped me over the years with knee pain and foot tracking. I almost gave up cycling when I started because of never ending knee pain cycle.
-
I didn't read through the entire thread so I'll just reply to the first message.
I am totally on board with higher stack, steeper STA and no offset.
As a taller rider I was always struggling to get my saddle forward far enough. I have apretty long legs and my saddle is always very hight up. The problem is, the higher your saddle is the more it moves back behind the bb and slacker sta only makes it worse. I actually run a positive offset on my gravel bike currently. Higher stack also solves another one of the problems which is a massive saddle to bar drop i usually have.
-
My only concern with the high stack + steep STA + no offset is ride quality. Seat + chainstays and tire size will have to handle the bulk of rear compliance as the seatpost is basically out of the equation. I have heard good things about the Voicevelo Echo in that regard
-
Stability starts from the feet. I would look into proper fitting shoes and arch support . Also your current shoes might not let you adjust the cleat far enough back especially if they're too big. I use the midfoot cycling adapter and I like it. I only need a little more adjustment than my Lakes allow but it makes all the difference.
One of the most common reasons for knee pain is having the cleats too far forward. If the shoes are not right no amount of fiddling with the rest of the bike fit will help much.
Complications like this are one of the reasons why it’s good to see a good bike fitter.
Midfoot has huge benefits for triatheletes because it reduces the role of the calf which you need to run. It also reduces instability which can lead to pain on the front of the knee / kneecap as you try and stabilize the lower leg from the upper. A fitter might think this is a good idea.
On the other hand, the calf plays a really important role in helping spread out the loads on the knee during the pedal stroke more, so if cycling is your primary form of exercise, in the long term you are under developing your calves which are critical to preventing long term knee injury. An ortho is going to worry about this.
Hip or knee impingements are also a reason why a knee might not track straight as they can affect movement particularly a the top of the pedal stroke. Figuring out which is something probably best done by a physio during a bike fit, but also is something that could be figured out during a visit to PT for knee pain, etc.
A great fitter is going to put all these pieces together, balancing what you do on the bike vs. off of it.
-
Yeah it's complicated going to a bike fitter is always the best option. As for cleats I'm not advocating going full midfoot. Some shoes even in the most backward cleat position the pedal axle is barely under the ball of the foot and pretty much every fitter agrees it should be behind it.
-
Patrick, I've seen your videos and know that your proportions are not common. It's true riders with longer legs typically need more setback. However, I do believe you can benefit from this new style fit from everyone else. The point is open up your hip so that you could do the sphinx position for longer without interfering with your power ouput.
The immediate consequence of a steeper seat angle is that your weight is shifted forwards, so the front centre has to increase so that you don't lose grip on rear wheel or tip over in extreme cases. A longer frame reach can avoid having to use a stem too long as to ruin the steering handling. As for the stack, it really depends on the rider's proportions. You are among the ones that don't need additional stack at all. For those who do, they could always achieve an ideal stack with a riser, which is why high stack is not really mandatory for this fit.
-
Such a fascinating conversation. I really do appreciate all of you chiming in. Thank you!
This is my current bike and fit that I use for my harder efforts. 130mm stem because the Tavelo Arow in a size 540 (size 56 equivalent) has a reach of 399mm. I've done everything on this bike from crit races, 6 hour Z2 rides, sustained climbing efforts, and everything indoor training related.
No knee or back pain. It just "works" for me. But that doesn't mean this is my ideal bike fit especially with gains to be hand in the stability department. I tried using a sizing up to a size 58 Ventum NS1 last year. And I couldn't get the front end low enough. I like to be super low in the drops for my faster group rides.
So I guess the question moving forward is - What frames out there have a longer reach and front center without adding too much stack? I'm not looking to be faster aerodynamically. Being a breakaway rider is not my skill. But if there are watts to be had more efficiently...awesome.
-
Right now, probably the lowest cost, purpose built platform for this is probably the Ridley Noah Fast 3.0. I felt like there was a rumor of a Seka but it hasn’t shown up yet. Maybe Tavelos 2nd gen Arow will closer?
In terms of what you might have: The Velobuild 368 might be an OK platform to experiment. The other one would be the Quick Pro Er:One if it’s an XL and you are willing to give it a try.
Rather than start with short cranks. I would keep your 170s for now. If it’s the Quick Pro you probably would want the zero offset post if you dont have it.
If it were me, I would do the activity described below:
—-
Set the bike up on the trainer and set up two video feeds, one in front and one to the side. Measure your saddle to bar distance.
Then just move the saddle forward in “coarse” adjustments of 10mm to see if you can get rid of the knee movement. If that works, then move the saddle up like 20-25mm, enough to make the pedal stroke a little choppy. Slowly in 5mm increments move it down. Note where it comes smooth again. Continues to slowly move it down until the knee movement returns. Then back up 5mm. Note the position. Move the saddle forward 10mm and repeat until you run out of rail of it just feels strange continuing to move it forward.
You should now have a range of saddle positions that work for you. If nothing works then you definitely should try shorter cranks.
Try out a range of these positions in and out of the saddle, sprinting / sitting back down, climbing etc. Find the one that feels the most natural and see if you can get the same saddle to bar distance with an available stem and bar. IF you cant then, try a combo that works.
As i get older and because of injuries from when I was young, I increasingly find that the lower positions are better as long as they dont cause other issues.
-
Acording to PP Joe, there is a 76° STA bike coming sometime "before the end of the year".
-
Even steeper than v5rs wtf
-
It might be just the pic but the saddle height looks way too high. Also if you're not already using Shimano +4mm axle pedals I strongly recommend them for us larger riders.
-
Such a fascinating conversation. I really do appreciate all of you chiming in. Thank you!
This is my current bike and fit that I use for my harder efforts. 130mm stem because the Tavelo Arow in a size 540 (size 56 equivalent) has a reach of 399mm. I've done everything on this bike from crit races, 6 hour Z2 rides, sustained climbing efforts, and everything indoor training related.
No knee or back pain. It just "works" for me. But that doesn't mean this is my ideal bike fit especially with gains to be hand in the stability department. I tried using a sizing up to a size 58 Ventum NS1 last year. And I couldn't get the front end low enough. I like to be super low in the drops for my faster group rides.
So I guess the question moving forward is - What frames out there have a longer reach and front center without adding too much stack? I'm not looking to be faster aerodynamically. Being a breakaway rider is not my skill. But if there are watts to be had more efficiently...awesome.
The best thing would be if they made the bikes long and low, with a steep Sta, but offered 2 different handlebars, a regular one and one with extra stack gain. I do think brands could solve a lot of problems by just diversifying the handlebar options instead of increasing the number of bikes.
-
Such a fascinating conversation. I really do appreciate all of you chiming in. Thank you!
This is my current bike and fit that I use for my harder efforts. 130mm stem because the Tavelo Arow in a size 540 (size 56 equivalent) has a reach of 399mm. I've done everything on this bike from crit races, 6 hour Z2 rides, sustained climbing efforts, and everything indoor training related.
No knee or back pain. It just "works" for me. But that doesn't mean this is my ideal bike fit especially with gains to be hand in the stability department. I tried using a sizing up to a size 58 Ventum NS1 last year. And I couldn't get the front end low enough. I like to be super low in the drops for my faster group rides.
So I guess the question moving forward is - What frames out there have a longer reach and front center without adding too much stack? I'm not looking to be faster aerodynamically. Being a breakaway rider is not my skill. But if there are watts to be had more efficiently...awesome.
If there’s no pain whatsoever, I would not change anything to your bike fit as long as it works. Though if you want the most optimal and progressive bike fit, I would really advise to visit a very reputable bike fitter. Not the one who relies on a bike fit system but the one who would understand and assess your body while riding a bike, not the one who relies on machines and angles. Competent bike fitters would also consider the injuries and your bike’s use case and decide on how they will fit you (eg aggressive for racing, comfort for long distance or balanced fit in-between).
The thing with the geometries of the bikes nowadays is they are getting comfortable because of the trend of the stack getting high and sta getting more steeper. This is to open up the hips and get comfortable on an aero position while holding the hoods. Gone are the days that you need to be so low because most of the riders would want to have a sustainable and comfortable while on aero position rather than getting more low and aero while having many kinds of pain.
-
Not the one who relies on a bike fit system but the one who would understand and assess your body while riding a bike, not the one who relies on machines and angles. Competent bike fitters would also consider the injuries and your bike’s use case and decide on how they will fit you (eg aggressive for racing, comfort for long distance or balanced fit in-between).
Last season I won a raffle through my team for a $350 :o RUTUL fitting at our local Specialized shop. The fitter is an avid rider himself and standup gentlemen. All the machines, lasers, and cameras were cool, but in the end I didn't feel like this was the solution I was looking for. I ultimately ended up going mostly back to my original fit.
I'll ask around to find a fitter that understand the goals we're trying to achieve. And perhaps I can then articulate better. Thanks again everyone.
-
One place to look for specific geometry is Geometry Geeks. I forget what you need to do to get the "advanced search" access but that basically lets you plug in whatever parameters you are looking for.
https://geometrygeeks.bike/advanced-search/
-
Last season I won a raffle through my team for a $350 :o RUTUL fitting at our local Specialized shop. The fitter is an avid rider himself and standup gentlemen. All the machines, lasers, and cameras were cool, but in the end I didn't feel like this was the solution I was looking for. I ultimately ended up going mostly back to my original fit.
I'll ask around to find a fitter that understand the goals we're trying to achieve. And perhaps I can then articulate better. Thanks again everyone.
I can recommend you Brian McGuian as he is the closest Steve Hogg certified bike fitter around you. (Same as Neill Stanbury from RCA), though you really need to commit your time for this.
https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/fitters/brian-mcguigan/#1552925076610-729e5b36-82d8
Other options would be Colby Pearce and Jerry Gerlich. Or Chris Balser, though not one of Steve Hogg guys but a really good fitter.
-
Colby Pearce
If his podcast is any guide, he probably wouldn't put you in a "modern/progressive fit", although of course that may be the right decision for your overall riding comfort and performance anyway.
-
I think the big question folks need to answer is why they want to go for a longer, more "modern" fit in the first place. It's not a silly philosophical question, but a key consideration that guides the kind of experimentation you do.
For example:
- Be faster. This one is pretty simple but also requires the most work to test. The key is to be more aero without reducing power. Potential validation ideas: If you can do virtual elevation, ideally with an aerostick or wind speed sensor, you can measure aero. If you cant, a proxy is to reduce frontal area, which generally correlates. Go lower, into the bike with a lower saddle position, go longer to reduce back angle, and put the bars where they allow for a 90-degree bend at the minimal back angle. Go test your sprint at 2min and 20 min power to see if you have drop-offs.
- Increase comfort / reduce back injury and pain. This one is harder to validate without the help of a medical / PT professional. At the extreme, the progressive fit seems to transfer the work of keeping you stable from the lower part of your core towards the upper part. I think a lot of people experience new soreness in the back, shoulders, and traps, but also reduced lower back pain.
- Increase comfort / correct pedal stroke, work around impingement issues to reduce knee and hip injuries. Again, harder to validate without the help of a medical / PT professional. Opening the hip angle also allows you to make more choices regarding cleat position and crank length, potentially enabling you to run longer cranks and find a combination that leads to more hip stability / less impingement. This can also help correct knees that swing out of alignment, which can cause overuse-type injuries on one side of the knee. Greater freedom to get the right crank/cleat position might also help address patella-related injuries
- Increased saddle comfort. This is pretty easy to check. Your saddle feels different in a more forward position, and for me, adding weight back onto the hands and legs and taking off the saddle is something that helps, particularly on gravel rides that are >8 hours.
- Improve handling. Some riders have positions that are too far back and might want to move forward to correct their weight distribution, particularly when descending or entering tighter corners without braking. Others may want a less upright position to get lower for more consistent, more reactive handling. This one is pretty easy to roughly validate. Just send it through a corner repeatedly and see if you feel more confident at higher speeds. For some smaller riders, moving the weight too far forward is a drawback of the position, as it requires a bike with a longer front center. Personally, this was the primary motivator for experimenting with new bike geometries.
While there are other reasons, if it's not something you can articulate as above: with a proposed benefit and how you are going to try and check it, it's going to be really hard to convince yourself that a new fit is doing what it should and really difficult to communicate to a fitter why you want to consider a change that is outside of what works--particularly if your fit currently has no pain and allows you to do what you want to do on the bike.
-
I normally run a full backwards cleat position, but today I moved them 2 mm forward, nothing was changed on the bike. I immediately noticed it was easier to "get over the top of the pedalstroke" and much less constricting in the aero position, this should be because I was able to "drop the heel" more at the top of the pedalstroke. Unfortunately after 40 min of riding I had to stop and slam my cleats back again because I was getting severe hot feet and this was with the extremely stiff sole of a Bont shoe. I have had similar issues in the past but at the time I attributed them to oversized and flexible shoes. After moving the cleats back, I instantly noticed more hip closure in the aero position again, even when I was consciously trying to drop the heel.
So I would say if your interest is being fast, you should definitely at least see if you can get along with a more forward cleat position. Now I'm thinking I might need to look into adapter plates to get my cleats even furter back to see if that can completely eliminate my hot feet problems.
-
I normally run a full backwards cleat position, but today I moved them 2 mm forward, nothing was changed on the bike. I immediately noticed it was easier to "get over the top of the pedalstroke" and much less constricting in the aero position, this should be because I was able to "drop the heel" more at the top of the pedalstroke. Unfortunately after 40 min of riding I had to stop and slam my cleats back again because I was getting severe hot feet and this was with the extremely stiff sole of a Bont shoe. I have had similar issues in the past but at the time I attributed them to oversized and flexible shoes. After moving the cleats back, I instantly noticed more hip closure in the aero position again, even when I was consciously trying to drop the heel.
So I would say if your interest is being fast, you should definitely at least see if you can get along with a more forward cleat position. Now I'm thinking I might need to look into adapter plates to get my cleats even furter back to see if that can completely eliminate my hot feet problems.
I would also play around with inserts a bit if you aren't using ones fitted to your feet, or at least consider trying different arch support options. The foot does move a little in the shoe, so you still can get pain even with stiff soles.
-
I have a custom inserts that did fix the sole fit issues I had at the start. The only problem with it is that it's not overly grippy, nowhere near as the stock Bont insert which is great at this, so I have to tighten the upper quite a bit. Gluing a thin layer of sandpaper-scuffed EVA foam to imitate the surface of the stock insert is the best Idea I've come up with, but I just can't get around to figuring out if there's a particular type of EVA foam I should use and actually doing it
-
I bought new shoes earlier this week. First ride with them was yesterday.
For context, my previous shoe setup was a bit of a mess. Not only was I using internal wedges for pronation as determined by my bike fitters, but I also had 3rd party insoles to support my ultra flat feet. And on top of all this I also needed a 2mm cleat shim on my right shoe since my right leg is shorter than the left.
As an experiment for the new shoes yesterday I simply just installed the new cleats in a rather neutral position. While I did use the same internal wedges, I opted to just use the default insoles supplied with the shoes. And I did not install the 2mm cleat shim.
Results? After a 2 hour ride that included sprints and VO2 efforts, my knees seemed to actually track a tad better and more symmetrical. No random hot spots on the ball of my right foot either.
I don't really know what to make of all of this. But I will keep validating.
My old shoes were S-Work 7s. The new ones are Supacazz Kazze...which are basically S-Work 7s.
-
I immediately noticed it was easier to "get over the top of the pedalstroke" and much less constricting in the aero position,
My impression of the Internet fit consensus (not 100% endorsed, merely mentioning it for discussion) is that this is a sign of cranks too long. Of course, it's easier to adjust cleat fore/aft than it is to adjust crank length, but then again if cleat fore/aft causes foot pain and you have to start screwing around with custom insoles, etc., it may be a wash.
-
I do not have a general crank length/hip closure issue. The above was observed in a position with more forward pelvic rotation than you're likely to see from 99% of starters of a WT TT. I do intend on shortening my crank length some time in the future to hopefully make that position at least somewhat sustainable, but I'm not currently in a rush, as what most would consider an aggressive position is still relatively unimpinged for me.
-
ultra flat feet.
Have you tried fixing your flat feet?
-
Sorry if this has been explained before...
But what is the purpose of a positive angled stem riser bar versus just having a frameset with a higher stack/headtube?
I'm looking at Jonas Vingegaard's Cervelo S5 for The Tour and I'm trying to understand the logic. Thanks
-
Sorry if this has been explained before...
But what is the purpose of a positive angled stem riser bar versus just having a frameset with a higher stack/headtube?
I'm looking at Jonas Vingegaard's Cervelo S5 for The Tour and I'm trying to understand the logic. Thanks
In the case of the S5, it reduces frontal area, so it's more aero than using a spacer stack. This is why some aero bikes are designed around this concept.
The bikes with aftermarket riser bars, not sure if there is any real benefit.
-
Also great (and largely unexplored) potential for streamlining production costs by using a very aggressive stack and reach combo for those that can handle those positions and providing riser cockpits for those that can't, instead of having to burn more money producing a second set of frames with slacker geometry that are potentially less desireable, because the have an "endurance" tag or sth like that.
-
I am at the point where it seems increasingly likely that my next road bike will be a TT bike conversion using one of the lighter framesets, like the Quick Pro TT One. Between an eccentric BB and a custom riser stem, I should be able to get it dialed perfectly, and after the customizations, it would likely be cost-neutral vs. a fancy Ti bike.
Honestly, it would probably be lighter than my current custom Ti bike too. Of course, I have the ability to design a custom riser stem and the means to get one made now that it's not super expensive to get things 3d printed from Ti and vacuum heat-treated.
-
I am at the point where it seems increasingly likely that my next road bike will be a TT bike conversion using one of the lighter framesets, like the Quick Pro TT One. Between an eccentric BB and a custom riser stem, I should be able to get it dialed perfectly, and after the customizations, it would likely be cost-neutral vs. a fancy Ti bike.
Honestly, it would probably be lighter than my current custom Ti bike too. Of course, I have the ability to design a custom riser stem and the means to get one made now that it's not super expensive to get things 3d printed from Ti and vacuum heat-treated.
(https://escapecollective.com/content/images/size/w1920/2026/06/59c2d241-97b0-4983-ba9b-bbc9bb90d579.jpg)
https://escapecollective.com/q-a-dan-bigham-has-built-a-drop-bar-specialized-shiv-tt/
-
I am at the point where it seems increasingly likely that my next road bike will be a TT bike conversion using one of the lighter framesets, like the Quick Pro TT One. Between an eccentric BB and a custom riser stem, I should be able to get it dialed perfectly, and after the customizations, it would likely be cost-neutral vs. a fancy Ti bike.
Honestly, it would probably be lighter than my current custom Ti bike too. Of course, I have the ability to design a custom riser stem and the means to get one made now that it's not super expensive to get things 3d printed from Ti and vacuum heat-treated.
You mean, the Jan Wilhelm van Schipp setup?
-
The bikes with aftermarket riser bars, not sure if there is any real benefit.
I would like to think the aftermarket riser bars offer an optical benefit.
Slammed stems seem to be desired for look and social media, riser bars help combine aggressive / racy look and decent fit?
-
I am at the point where it seems increasingly likely that my next road bike will be a TT bike conversion using one of the lighter framesets, like the Quick Pro TT One. Between an eccentric BB and a custom riser stem, I should be able to get it dialed perfectly, and after the customizations, it would likely be cost-neutral vs. a fancy Ti bike.
Honestly, it would probably be lighter than my current custom Ti bike too. Of course, I have the ability to design a custom riser stem and the means to get one made now that it's not super expensive to get things 3d printed from Ti and vacuum heat-treated.
A Bianchi Aquila RC turned roadbike would be bikeporn.
-
You mean, the Jan Wilhelm van Schipp setup?
Lol, unlike him, I can size up for length and, using a TT bike, avoid the custom seatpost. I think the stem would be +6 or 0, depending on the frame. Honestly, I might even need a -6 with something like the Avenger Tm7, which wouldn't work anyway since I want 2 water bottles.
(https://escapecollective.com/content/images/size/w1920/2026/06/59c2d241-97b0-4983-ba9b-bbc9bb90d579.jpg)
https://escapecollective.com/q-a-dan-bigham-has-built-a-drop-bar-specialized-shiv-tt/
Yeah, aware of that bike. I would like to increase compatibility with different bars and stems and avoid going full custom this time around. Money isnt infinite for me and the time lost to waiting for the next batch of something custom when testing configuration changes is a PITA.
-
I would like to think the aftermarket riser bars offer an optical benefit.
Slammed stems seem to be desired for look and social media, riser bars help combine aggressive / racy look and decent fit?
This was in the context of the rest of the comment, which concerned aero, the reason why the S5 uses that setup.
Nothing against people using whatever they need to make their dream bike work for them. I also have nothing against a spacer or two — the only thing that concerns me is seeing a bike with a long-stem riser bar, saddle setback, and spacers, which is a sign that the rider bought the wrong-size bike.
-
I would like to think the aftermarket riser bars offer an optical benefit.
Slammed stems seem to be desired for look and social media, riser bars help combine aggressive / racy look and decent fit?
Im planning to run a riser bar on my next build. Im between sizes (54 & 56) and looking to raise my bar position. Riser bar will let me get the stack of a 56 w/the more exposed/comfy seatpost length and lower weight of the 54. I do generally prefer the look of 54 over 56 sized frames but the main driver is fit.
-
A few caveats before I get started:
1. My approach to overhauling my bike fit was completely janky and unprofessional. It took 4-5 weeks of frustratingly making small adjustments to finally land on a setup that felt like "Hey I think we are finally on to something..." - I would not recommend doing this without a professional bike fitter unless you plan to go full idiot mode like myself. There's gonna be days where everything just feels completely wrong. From a time wasted perspective it would have been cheaper to just go see a fitter.
2. Regardless of how I look on the bike from an outsider's perspective, how actually feel on the bike now has been night and day. I expect folks to have a strong opinion against all of this. And that's totally cool. There's always room to learn.
My starting point was based on @hubba @Sakizashi @Dark17 advice from earlier in this thread. In fact, I read Steve Hogg/Brian Mcguigan blog as was recommended. What a fantastic deep dive. The blog post really gave me the foundation and logic to methodically change stuff around. Even if I wasn't perfect.
What did I change?
-Moved my cleats back about 8-10mm. Where the ball of foot is rather than in front of it. :-X
-Moved my saddle forward around 8-10mm
-Lowered my saddle about 2mm
-Kept the cleat shim on my right leg (leg discrepency)
-Removed my insole wedges from each shoe. (Originally due to foot pronation)
What were the effects?
-Smoother pedal delivery and higher cadence in Zone 3 and above.
-Significantly improved power delivery
-Increased foot stability
-No more occasional or random foot hot spots
-No more inner thighs rubbing the top tube or seatpost
-Hip angle more open
-Sit bones FINALLY sitting sqaure and stable on the saddle. On the exact part of the saddle where the sit bones are supposed to sit. Not the nose ;D
Overall I'm about 90-95% satisfied with my results. Somehow all of this also fixed my foot pronation issues without needing my insole wedges anymore. Including no more "jumper's knee" fatigue on my left leg from being a one-foot jumper in college :o - Perhaps having more foot and hip stability improved everything up the stack. Could small tweaks be made? Of course. But being able to feel super planted and stable now on 4-5 hour rides without any small hiccups appearing around hour 3 has been splendid. I really want to thank everyone in here for your help.
Have a great weekend.
-
A few caveats before I get started:
1. My approach to overhauling my bike fit was completely janky and unprofessional. It took 4-5 weeks of frustratingly making small adjustments to finally land on a setup that felt like "Hey I think we are finally on to something..." - I would not recommend doing this without a professional bike fitter unless you plan to go full idiot mode like myself. There's gonna be days where everything just feels completely wrong. From a time wasted perspective it would have been cheaper to just go see a fitter.
That's the point of a good bike fitter. They can solve your issues for a day vs weeks to months of fiddling your own fit. But the thing is, it's worth it and makes you know what your body really wants. I was advised by my bike fitter (which happens to be a Steve Hogg approved) that while I wait for my fit schedule, I should dial my bike to the most comfortable position that I can and it takes lots of time, which is fine.
-
@patliean1: so what did you modify at the front? Did you increase your reach / stack, is the distance between saddle and handlebar now different compared to your past set-up? With past setup, I mean mainly your old bikes, rather than the VRT where you were searching from the beginning for a manageable fit.
It would be interesting to hear in more detail about those changes.
-
I didn't make any changes to the front end on any of my bikes. Since I had gotten used to sitting on mostly the nose of the saddle all these years, moving my saddle forward kept my overall reach the same. Just that now I'm sitting square on the correct part of the saddle. If that makes sense.
This goes for all the bikes in rotation. Not just the VRT. Though I should mention Peter sent me a 15mm setback post which helped a ton.
I love experimenting and tinkering around. Something about investing in my own sweat equity is fulfilling. Same reason I typically build a complete bike at home across 2 days, when I could just pay a bike shop to do it in 4 hours. I'm rarely crunched for time.
-
@patliean1 good to hear that you are working through the fit issues.
Re: Progressive fits and where we are at. There are actually 2 separate questions to answer.
1. Are progressive fits the future for elite riders?
I think this is still up in the air. While pro fits are moving further forward, the reason seems less about opening the hip angle than using the forward position to allow for a flatter back. When you hear about fitter who currently work with pros like Colby Pearce talk about using the whole body to move the bike, its not clear how much advantage there is to gain without the use of narrower bars and extending the front end to get more aero. While that kind of fit still remains possible for some of the larger riders on the WT, most of have been locked out of it due to the UCI rules.
This kind of rider typically has elite fitness and physiology. I think “rules” of bike fit like building “stability” up from the feet and minimizing movement dont apply to this rider because even with significant movement, be it ankle flexion or hip rocking, they can sustain that over the length of a 100 mile ride every day for a week.
2. Do progressive fits offer a performance alternative to the short reach, low saddle fits that a lot of fitters have been prescribing to non-elite riders?
With the caveat that a lot of early adopters are among the stronger amateurs (a lot are >4 w/kg, most >3.5), for both short distance intense riding as as well as long events like Unbound—I think the idea of a more open saddle, and a long front end positioned for a 90 degree aero hoods position is proving to be a winner vs. upright endurance fits. Riders who try it are finding it to be both more aero as well as more sustainable.
This rider probably needs to be more mindful of what kind of movement remains consistent and stable a mile 10 of Unbound vs. mile 216–or at 200w vs. 1000w+. This is where the opening the hip angle or having leeway to play with the right combination of saddle setback and height becomes important. Conceptually the progressive fit has always had an advantage because unlike a short reach+upright position, a long reach flat back position offers similar range of adaptable motion while allowing a frame designer resolve issues like being scrunched in the drops, weight balance, etc. that are tradeoffs with most endurance bike frames. Plus you get the benefit of a position that probably likely has a benefit to your CDA that is an order of magnitude greater than you would get from a bike with aero tube shapes.
The caveat here is that the rider needs to be able to hold a close-to-flat back position. IME making that position sustainable requires precise bar placement which also runs counter to trendy things with bikes like one piece bar stems.
These conversations have come a long way.
-
-Kept the cleat shim on my right leg (leg discrepency)
-Removed my insole wedges from each shoe. (Originally due to foot pronation)
This topic is an interesting read (plus the blogs you recommended), as I’m constantly tinkering with my bike fit myself. ;D
I had one fit done by a “bike fitter” in the past, but that actually left me with more discomfort than before, so I eventually started to go about it myself.
In the past — due to quite a lot of BJJ and tennis — I also developed pretty bad patellar tendinitis on my left side. I saw a doctor and two physios about it. One said I had a ~1–1.5 cm shorter right leg. The other agreed that there was a discrepancy, but thought it was more likely caused by pelvic tilt rather than an actual difference in bone length. I stopped both sports, and with therapy the tendinitis eventually went away, so I never really followed up on it.
@patliean1:
How do you approach the whole cleat shim/wedge height topic? How do you determine how much shim height u actually need? trial and error?
And has your own leg-length discrepancy ever been measured conclusively?
I assume that a discrepancy originating in the femur would have a different impact on bike fit than one originating in the tibia. Is that correct, or am I overthinking this?
-
I didn't make any changes to the front end on any of my bikes. Since I had gotten used to sitting on mostly the nose of the saddle all these years, moving my saddle forward kept my overall reach the same. Just that now I'm sitting square on the correct part of the saddle. If that makes sense.
This goes for all the bikes in rotation. Not just the VRT. Though I should mention Peter sent me a 15mm setback post which helped a ton.
I love experimenting and tinkering around. Something about investing in my own sweat equity is fulfilling. Same reason I typically build a complete bike at home across 2 days, when I could just pay a bike shop to do it in 4 hours. I'm rarely crunched for time.
I had a chat with the AI on seat position optimization and received the same suggestions as you did (lower saddle height, move saddle forward) but also to tilt the saddle by -1,5 to -2,5 degree. Did you take this into consideration?
-
Visually my overall bike fit is quite unorthodox. Some would say even retarded. But even when I don't address the handful of disagreeable comments or feel the need to publicly defend my approach, it doesn't mean I'm not taking the criticism into consideration. Because there could be some grains of truth to evaluate later. I'm not infallible. It's what pushed me to demo a size 58 bike for a few months over my typical size 56.
@patliean1:
How do you approach the whole cleat shim/wedge height topic? How do you determine how much shim height u actually need? trial and error?
And has your own leg-length discrepancy ever been measured conclusively?
I assume that a discrepancy originating in the femur would have a different impact on bike fit than one originating in the tibia. Is that correct, or am I overthinking this?
I had full tear achilles tendon surgery on my right leg in 2019 from playing basketball. Part of my rehabilitation and full recovery was low impact sports, in which my doctor recommended cycling. Literally picked up a road bike and never touched a basketball again.
Anyway, My RUTUL fitter last year confirmed that my same right leg was shorter than the other. Could be from the surgery or just a natural discrepancy. Either way I just went conservative with 3mm of shim. Seems to be the sweet spot after trail and error. I can look at photos at myself standing and tell that one leg is shorter than the other.
I had a chat with the AI on seat position optimization and received the same suggestions as you did (lower saddle height, move saddle forward) but also to tilt the saddle by -1,5 to -2,5 degree. Did you take this into consideration?
I run Selle Italia SLR S3 saddles on all of my bikes. Basically I make sure the flat or front half of the saddle is level to ground. But if you were to measure across the entire length of the saddle then yeah it's probably about 2-2.5 derees overall.
Spend time in any Reddit Bike Fitter thread and you'll see that not even two professional fitters can agree. So I chuckle when folks speak in absolute terms about another rider's fit. Perhaps they are plenty comfortable and are still achieving the results they're looking for.
-
Yes, same here for the saddle (level to the ground). But AI recommended to adjust 2/3 of the saddle to -1,5 to -2 degree. I will try it with my indoor bike.
-
A few caveats before I get started:
1. My approach to overhauling my bike fit was completely janky and unprofessional. It took 4-5 weeks of frustratingly making small adjustments to finally land on a setup that felt like "Hey I think we are finally on to something..." - I would not recommend doing this without a professional bike fitter unless you plan to go full idiot mode like myself. There's gonna be days where everything just feels completely wrong. From a time wasted perspective it would have been cheaper to just go see a fitter.
2. Regardless of how I look on the bike from an outsider's perspective, how actually feel on the bike now has been night and day. I expect folks to have a strong opinion against all of this. And that's totally cool. There's always room to learn.
My starting point was based on @hubba @Sakizashi @Dark17 advice from earlier in this thread. In fact, I read Steve Hogg/Brian Mcguigan blog as was recommended. What a fantastic deep dive. The blog post really gave me the foundation and logic to methodically change stuff around. Even if I wasn't perfect.
What did I change?
-Moved my cleats back about 8-10mm. Where the ball of foot is rather than in front of it. :-X
-Moved my saddle forward around 8-10mm
-Lowered my saddle about 2mm
-Kept the cleat shim on my right leg (leg discrepency)
-Removed my insole wedges from each shoe. (Originally due to foot pronation)
What were the effects?
-Smoother pedal delivery and higher cadence in Zone 3 and above.
-Significantly improved power delivery
-Increased foot stability
-No more occasional or random foot hot spots
-No more inner thighs rubbing the top tube or seatpost
-Hip angle more open
-Sit bones FINALLY sitting sqaure and stable on the saddle. On the exact part of the saddle where the sit bones are supposed to sit. Not the nose ;D
Overall I'm about 90-95% satisfied with my results. Somehow all of this also fixed my foot pronation issues without needing my insole wedges anymore. Including no more "jumper's knee" fatigue on my left leg from being a one-foot jumper in college :o - Perhaps having more foot and hip stability improved everything up the stack. Could small tweaks be made? Of course. But being able to feel super planted and stable now on 4-5 hour rides without any small hiccups appearing around hour 3 has been splendid. I really want to thank everyone in here for your help.
Have a great weekend.
Slowly joining the dark side? Sounds like you had some big changes in fit and fit philosophy since your original post here where you wanted to push your saddle further back. I was similar. It was such a weird thing to slam the saddle forward. I moved mine about 4cm forward in total. Yes, 4cm. But it’s been the best thing I’ve ever done in my cycling career. More power. More comfort. It took some time getting adjusted but I’m fully on board with the progressive geometry.
-
Slowly joining the dark side? Sounds like you had some big changes in fit and fit philosophy since your original post here where you wanted to push your saddle further back. I was similar. It was such a weird thing to slam the saddle forward. I moved mine about 4cm forward in total. Yes, 4cm. But it’s been the best thing I’ve ever done in my cycling career. More power. More comfort. It took some time getting adjusted but I’m fully on board with the progressive geometry.
I'm in the same boat. Both my bikes I'm on 0 offset posts with the saddle as far forward as it will go (74 degree STA on both). Never been more comfortable.
-
I moved mine about 4cm forward in total. Yes, 4cm. But it’s been the best thing I’ve ever done in my cycling career. More power. More comfort. It took some time getting adjusted but I’m fully on board with the progressive geometry.
I am on the verge of moving my saddle 2cm froward and moving from 90-110mm stem. When you did the 4cm move, did you do anything with your cleats?
-
Spend time in any Reddit Bike Fitter thread and you'll see that not even two professional fitters can agree. So I chuckle when folks speak in absolute terms about another rider's fit. Perhaps they are plenty comfortable and are still achieving the results they're looking for.
From my reading around I've found that to be the case, people can't agree. Some fitters will try to get things to be in numerical ranges vs just trying to get the person comfortable on the bike.
-
I am on the verge of moving my saddle 2cm froward and moving from 90-110mm stem. When you did the 4cm move, did you do anything with your cleats?
No, but that’s because I’ve been running my cleats slammed rearward for close to a decade now. It’s funny seeing it pop up more now because that was something I got told to do years ago. I remember seeing those modified custom shoes with the cleat in the middle so I experimented with moving mine back as far a they could go. That was around 2017.
The only other change I’ve made is getting longer stems.
-
With the topic of seat setback/fore-aft, don't just put your saddle as forward as you can as it can be very dangerous. Here's (https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/bikefit/2011/05/seat-set-back-for-road-bikes/) a very nice read regarding setting your saddle fore-aft position.
-
I feel like a lot of Steve Hogg content seems logical, but the more you think about it, the more you start to see that he makes some assumptions that generously states are reflective of his own physiology and lifestyle.
I will never forget reading a long-winded thing about why midfoot cleats might be interesting--and it came down to "you walk up stairs not on your forefoot but evenly with your whole foot, which = midfoot loading. Not only does that not make sense, but I also walked stairs for like 30 minutes trying to figure out how Steve would have come to that conclusion and decided it had to be that he has never paid attention when walking a staircase barefoot and made assumptions based on how a typical sneaker (not running shoe) supports a foot, which is not the same thing as how loads are managed by the foot.
There are shades of that here too. The premise is balance, but static balance on the trainer is different than balance in motion, as moments matter. Balance when accelerating is going to be different than balance when climbing. How often are you actually going to be going at a constant speed on a straight, flat road with no wind or external forces? For what percentage of your riding is the scenario outlined in the post relevant? 1%? 2%? Balance might take effort; holding yourself up might take effort, but if the goal is less exertion for speed, I think most people will find the idea of static balance on a trainer rather irrelevant in the face of aero concerns.
IME, I can move my saddle all the way forward on my Kickr bike with no adverse effects, except for changes in muscle recruitment between my glutes and quads. There is a saddle position where I can feel my glutes work when I do intervals--to me, this is where I like to be as primarily an endurance rider thinking about yet another Unbound 200 or some equivalently long event. It's got nothing to do with balance, and it's still really far forward--I would guess it's ~4-5cm forward of where I was in 2018-2019 when I started to question this stuff. (going from 15mm setback on a 74-degree STA bike to 15mm forward on a 75-degree STA bike)
But what do I know? I am not a fitter.
-
From my reading around I've found that to be the case, people can't agree. Some fitters will try to get things to be in numerical ranges vs just trying to get the person comfortable on the bike.
I had a fitter who did just that, pretty much turned his back to me to look at his computer and only turned around to make changes to the bike that fit in the angles the computer wanted. I was on a bike where native stack/reach was already 560/390, he added an additional 45mm of spacers and put me on an 80mm stem, and saddle almost fully pushed back on the rails. I said its painful but didn't seem to matter.
I'm 5'9" or 175cm with an inseam of 32" or 81cm. I went to a new fitter and she did't look at numbers or angles a single time until I was in a comfort zone, now I'm on a QuickPro AR:One size small with a slammed 110mm -17 stem, and 25mm offset seatpost. So over 8cm difference in stack height between fits.
I struggle with the modern progressive fit because a higher stack loads my hands and wrists. With anterior pelvic tilt and a good amount of flexibility i need saddle to bar drop to be high to get hamstring and core engagement and unweight my wrists. It seems the more forward I move the saddle the lower I need the handlebars to be.
-
Ben Cathro did an interesting piece on cleat position in mountain biking a couple of years ago. I've personally aways run my spd cleats as far back as they'll go and did the same when I got some spd-sl.
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/video-the-science-nehind-cleat-positioning-with-ben-cathro.html
-
I will never forget reading a long-winded thing about why midfoot cleats might be interesting--and it came down to "you walk up stairs not on your forefoot but evenly with your whole foot, which = midfoot loading. Not only does that not make sense, but I also walked stairs for like 30 minutes trying to figure out how Steve would have come to that conclusion and decided it had to be that he has never paid attention when walking a staircase barefoot and made assumptions based on how a typical sneaker (not running shoe) supports a foot, which is not the same thing as how loads are managed by the foot.
;D I was just mansplaining to my wife earlier this week about my new bike fit. She's not a cyclist. So the stairs analogy was the best I could think of to explain it to her. Hilarious in retrospect.
We live on the 3rd floor. And I used to experience minor fatigue just below my left knee when walking up stairs after 2-3 hour rides. In regular shoes that is. But since moving my cleats back that discomfort and post fatigue has completely disappeared.
I'm learning that all of this is really about stability through the entire stack.
-
I had a fitter who did just that, pretty much turned his back to me to look at his computer and only turned around to make changes to the bike that fit in the angles the computer wanted. I was on a bike where native stack/reach was already 560/390, he added an additional 45mm of spacers and put me on an 80mm stem, and saddle almost fully pushed back on the rails. I said its painful but didn't seem to matter.
I'm 5'9" or 175cm with an inseam of 32" or 81cm. I went to a new fitter and she did't look at numbers or angles a single time until I was in a comfort zone, now I'm on a QuickPro AR:One size small with a slammed 110mm -17 stem, and 25mm offset seatpost. So over 8cm difference in stack height between fits.
I struggle with the modern progressive fit because a higher stack loads my hands and wrists. With anterior pelvic tilt and a good amount of flexibility i need saddle to bar drop to be high to get hamstring and core engagement and unweight my wrists. It seems the more forward I move the saddle the lower I need the handlebars to be.
This has been exactly my experience to a T as well. I'm of similar height and inseam (173cm 76.2cm inseam) and have actually gone with the AR:ONE too (to be built soon), coming from a CAAD10. I'm a guy with longer arms and torso than legs. So my bikes often don't have as much exposed seatpost, but has a lower front end to compensate for that.
Both run 20mm setback seatposts, slammed saddle forward (I found my favourite saddle to be the new Fizik Arione - I plan to buy another copy in the future for my CAAD, gonna poach that one for the new build) and 100mm stems (-7 and -8). CAAD10 is slammed with a 5mm headset cover but I may try getting lower with the AR:ONE since it has a lower stack. Ever since I got lower and got the saddle position in range, my back, hand and ass pain has COMPLETELY gone away on long rides.
-
I had a fitter who did just that, pretty much turned his back to me to look at his computer and only turned around to make changes to the bike that fit in the angles the computer wanted. I was on a bike where native stack/reach was already 560/390, he added an additional 45mm of spacers and put me on an 80mm stem, and saddle almost fully pushed back on the rails. I said its painful but didn't seem to matter.
I'm 5'9" or 175cm with an inseam of 32" or 81cm. I went to a new fitter and she did't look at numbers or angles a single time until I was in a comfort zone, now I'm on a QuickPro AR:One size small with a slammed 110mm -17 stem, and 25mm offset seatpost. So over 8cm difference in stack height between fits.
I struggle with the modern progressive fit because a higher stack loads my hands and wrists. With anterior pelvic tilt and a good amount of flexibility i need saddle to bar drop to be high to get hamstring and core engagement and unweight my wrists. It seems the more forward I move the saddle the lower I need the handlebars to be.
Most people who have spent a lot of time working on progressive fit and the bike designs don't support the idea of a higher stack. Just look at the Ridley Noah Fast 3.0 and the Factor One. It's a half-truth popularized by influencers.
I would say that positions are more stack-sensitive because you really want to minimize the back angle and then drop the arms more or less straight down, or very slightly forward, then have your forearms parallel to the ground in the aero-hoods position. This is to manage triceps fatigue and lower the frontal area.
-
Most people who have spent a lot of time working on progressive fit and the bike designs don't support the idea of a higher stack. Just look at the Ridley Noah Fast 3.0 and the Factor One. It's a half-truth popularized by influencers.
I would say that positions are more stack-sensitive because you really want to minimize the back angle and then drop the arms more or less straight down, or very slightly forward, then have your forearms parallel to the ground in the aero-hoods position. This is to manage triceps fatigue and lower the frontal area.
Can confirm this. The only modern trend that made a huge difference in my power output and comfort on the bike was shorter cranks, but that makes sense already cause I've got a shorter inseam. 170mm to 160mm cranks literally gave me at least +15W based off my training history - especially in Zone 2. My heart rate was lower for the same effort. I don't know the science behind it but it's clear that longer cranks were making me uncomfortable.
After the length, stack and reach change - I was able to do the aero-hoods position really comfortably, and I'm at the point now where I can hold it indefinitely.
-
With the topic of seat setback/fore-aft, don't just put your saddle as forward as you can as it can be very dangerous. Here's (https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/bikefit/2011/05/seat-set-back-for-road-bikes/) a very nice read regarding setting your saddle fore-aft position.
Pretty dated article. TT and Tri guys have their saddle way further forward. They don’t seem to have any issues. If anything, since I slammed saddle all the way forward I’ve had less discomfort than ever. Opens up the hip angle. More power, more comfort. I think more people should at least try it.
-
I think more people should at least try it.
So, considering a typical road fit, how did you guys adjust the bar position as you moved the saddle forward if at all? One would assume you also bring it forward buy maybe that's actually a bad idea in terms of shifting weights on the hands / triceps fatigue.
-
With the topic of seat setback/fore-aft, don't just put your saddle as forward as you can as it can be very dangerous. Here's (https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/bikefit/2011/05/seat-set-back-for-road-bikes/) a very nice read regarding setting your saddle fore-aft position.
I actually copped a knee injury from saddle too far forward (plus maybe too low) and I still say "very dangerous" is kinesophobic Hoggwash. It's not felling timber or BASE jumping, you know?
He used to bang on about taint pressure with forward fits, which I think was probably a legitimate concern in the original Selle Italia Flite days but significantly mitigated by ISMs and so forth.
-
Most people who have spent a lot of time working on progressive fit and the bike designs don't support the idea of a higher stack. Just look at the Ridley Noah Fast 3.0 and the Factor One. It's a half-truth popularized by influencers.
I would say that positions are more stack-sensitive because you really want to minimize the back angle and then drop the arms more or less straight down, or very slightly forward, then have your forearms parallel to the ground in the aero-hoods position. This is to manage triceps fatigue and lower the frontal area.
Fair point, I'll blame my morphology. I considered the Noah Fast but had to rule it out, I would need an xs for stack height but id be at or exceeding minimum insertion for the seatpost so I had to rule it out.
-
I actually copped a knee injury from saddle too far forward (plus maybe too low) and I still say "very dangerous" is kinesophobic Hoggwash. It's not felling timber or BASE jumping, you know?
He used to bang on about taint pressure with forward fits, which I think was probably a legitimate concern in the original Selle Italia Flite days but significantly mitigated by ISMs and so forth.
I said very dangerous because it affects handling as the weight is shifted at the front of CoG of the bike, which in turn make the bike more sketchy to handle in descents or in a group ride. It also messes up with your body's biomechanics. We had a discussion with a Steve Hogg approved fitter that the reason why there's a lot of crashes lately is because of the saddle far too forward. There's now a UCI ruling that saddle setback should not exceed below 50mm.
"It's not felling timber or BASE jumping, you know?" - Well yes, but descending in 60kph - 80kph or even 100kph+ will cause you a lot of injuries too, or worse you even die.
Pretty dated article. TT and Tri guys have their saddle way further forward. They don’t seem to have any issues. If anything, since I slammed saddle all the way forward I’ve had less discomfort than ever. Opens up the hip angle. More power, more comfort. I think more people should at least try it.
If that's outdated for you, [url = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqc2d2o0N-Y]this [/url]is a most recent discussion/podcast about saddle setback. Colby Pearce is the bike fitter for EF Education team, and he was also mentored by Steve Hogg. And as the title of the article said, it's for road bikes.
I actually tried to get my saddle as forward as possible and it just overloaded my hands and made them numb during rides. Yes, my pedaling is good but I feel that the balance is too forward that I can't ride with no hands. And i already have a 120mm handlebar length and very slammed stem. It was corrected by my fitter when he set my saddle a little bit back and I have the most comfortable position I had- cores are getting engaged and few to no pressure on hands when putting down some zone 2 power. In short, a very comfortable and sustainable position on the bike- one reason why on my next aero bike, I will request a comfortable position as possible without compromising the speed.
-
I said very dangerous because it affects handling as the weight is shifted at the front of CoG of the bike, which in turn make the bike more sketchy to handle in descents or in a group ride. It also messes up with your body's biomechanics. We had a discussion with a Steve Hogg approved fitter that the reason why there's a lot of crashes lately is because of the saddle far too forward. There's now a UCI ruling that saddle setback should not exceed below 50mm.
There is some bad physics terminology and it’s likely misleading. Gravity is not the only force—what you care about is center of mass and how the moments change as the bike turns and leans. Moving the rider forward is not inherently dangerous as long as you compensate for it by changing the axis of rotation during the motion. This ends up being really complicated, but the summary is to fix this you reduce the horizontal distance between the BB and the rear wheel, increase the horizontal distance between the BB and the front wheel, or do both depending on what is needed.
The reason we tend to abstract this into F/R weight balance is to simplify things. To be generous let’s say that something like 57-62% of the weight on the rear is ideal. For smaller riders a progressive fit bike like the Noah Fast 3.0 is actually moving the COM back in terms of F/R balance as measured at the wheels. For riders on the largest size they are actually more rear biased than ideal today. The Noah also improves that. Basically it’s a fix all the way around. Of course the cost is a new fit and some physiological demands there.
Furthermore, I don't think there is evidence that forward fits are causing more crashes, though one could theorize that it could have been a contributing factor in incidents like Chloe Dygert’s TT crash at Worlds a number of years back. The reason for this is that the performance envelope of the system changes, it’s not some static thing. Certain turning and braking scenarios, for example that were fine before might be compromised; but I haven't heard of any actual analysis done that shows that in the cases of crashes, rider positions pushed the systems outside of the limits that a dynamics model suggested was safe. If you have, please share it.
The UCI 5cm setback rule is also gone. Not a thing anymore.
-
So, considering a typical road fit, how did you guys adjust the bar position as you moved the saddle forward if at all? One would assume you also bring it forward buy maybe that's actually a bad idea in terms of shifting weights on the hands / triceps fatigue.
No one really answered your question, so I will give it a go. It’s easier to do if you have something like. Kickr bike or Zwift bike with the mutiple crank length options.
Step 1: Move the saddle forward.
I personally would do it until the pedal stroke feels like it’s getting a hitch going over the top. When that happens, you have 2 options. First, move the saddle back; second, lower the saddle. Both of them will close up the hip. They will load the glutes vs. quads differently. I would play with this across a few rides that push you into a fatigued state. I would pick the one that results in more consistent stroke and hip movement, comparing your results early in the ride and when fatigued. This is your new saddle position.
Step 2: Work out the back angle and check crank length.
You want the back angle to be as low as possible. Luckily, this one is pretty simple. You will feel when it’s too low to sustain, so just move the bars up. If your knees are moving out or in as you pedal, I would consider a shorter crank and repeat Step 1. I think of step 1 as moving the range of motion. A shorter crank reduces the range, so if you do move to a shorter crank, you need to go back to step 1. The reason you should consider these together is that this is a paired optimization with a clear condition for checking the fit again.
Step 3: Set the front end.
I think for a progressive fit this becomes straightforward. Using the back angle from step 2, drop the upper arms straight down or slightly forward with the forearms flat. Where your hands go is where you need the hoods. Find a stem-and-bar combo that works.
Step 4: Iteration to a new overall fit baseline.
You need to reconsider steps 1 and 2 in light of step 3. This is functionally more of a check to make sure everything is still working as you expect. If you find that hand or wrist pressure is intolerable, that might be a reason to go back to Step 1, though I feel like even for people spending 6+ hours on the bike at a time, it's pretty rare. This is also the point where you should take the bike outside and check things like descending and uphill sprints to make sure the bike still feels good,
Step 5: Front end optimization.
Once you feel confident that you have a new fit baseline, this is about taking notes as you ride and adjust accordingly. E.g., Upper back pain at the end of long rides, between the shoulders, might mean your position is too low. This is also where it might be a good idea to check aero things like arms coming out.
Hope this is helpful. It’s more or less how I do it.
Edit: I did this on a phone last night, so I fixed some formatting after realizing it's a bit hard to follow.
-
Thanks that is very helpful. I will try some AI video analysis with ChatGPT after this tutorial.
-
So, considering a typical road fit, how did you guys adjust the bar position as you moved the saddle forward if at all? One would assume you also bring it forward buy maybe that's actually a bad idea in terms of shifting weights on the hands / triceps fatigue.
I increased my stem by 20mm, and probably should have gone 30mm longer. Dropped 1cm spacer. Saddle was raised so that the BB to saddle surface was the same. The best way to think of it is taking your old fit, then rotating it around the BB (gif below). It's a little more weight on the hands but not much. Does require a little more core strength but again, not a lot.
Exaggerated but shows the basic idea: https://imgur.com/tuyRbeX
I thought the weight on the hands would be too much but even 6 hour rides I'm fine.
-
I said very dangerous because it affects handling as the weight is shifted at the front of CoG of the bike, which in turn make the bike more sketchy to handle in descents or in a group ride. It also messes up with your body's biomechanics. We had a discussion with a Steve Hogg approved fitter that the reason why there's a lot of crashes lately is because of the saddle far too forward. There's now a UCI ruling that saddle setback should not exceed below 50mm.
"It's not felling timber or BASE jumping, you know?" - Well yes, but descending in 60kph - 80kph or even 100kph+ will cause you a lot of injuries too, or worse you even die.
If that's outdated for you, [url = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqc2d2o0N-Y]this [/url]is a most recent discussion/podcast about saddle setback. Colby Pearce is the bike fitter for EF Education team, and he was also mentored by Steve Hogg. And as the title of the article said, it's for road bikes.
I actually tried to get my saddle as forward as possible and it just overloaded my hands and made them numb during rides. Yes, my pedaling is good but I feel that the balance is too forward that I can't ride with no hands. And i already have a 120mm handlebar length and very slammed stem. It was corrected by my fitter when he set my saddle a little bit back and I have the most comfortable position I had- cores are getting engaged and few to no pressure on hands when putting down some zone 2 power. In short, a very comfortable and sustainable position on the bike- one reason why on my next aero bike, I will request a comfortable position as possible without compromising the speed.
Still disagree with it. Newer bikes are getting longer wheelbases and front centers to acommodate the CoG shift. And if you have adequate core strength it shouldn't overload your hands. If it does, you need to work on core strength. Bike handling and descending are skill issues. Moving the saddle forward doesn't, or shouldn't, negatively affect the handling to the extent that it's dangerous. You're not that far forward where it should cause an issue. You can argue the safety of the supertuck, but with that you're putting your CoG way further forward than is even possible with the progressive fit.
(https://www.mundobici.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Sin-titulo-1.jpg)
Look how far forward Froome is. That CoG is at least 10-20cm (yes cm) further forward than I could ever get with my progressive fit. Saying that the progressive fit is unsafe or dangerous is just a skill issue on your part. With the saddle setback rule, you just can't shift your weight far enough forward to cause problems with handling.
I'm sorry but Hogg's thought about bike fit are simply just incorrect.
Also, the UCI rule is 0mm setback from BB, not 50mm anymore. Changed recently.
-
Core strength will give you up eventually, and not all riders put 400 watts for hours to hold you ip to your position so you won’t overload your hands. Well that’s for your average fred anyway. If you constantly do 400+ watts then slam that saddle forward. Else, try to find a nice balance between holding your position up for hours without compromising the front end of your body which is the arms. As I’ve said, I also had my saddle far forward as possible. It feels great for the first few hours then eventually, my body hurts all over. My fitter then found a nice balance with my fore-aft and it did wonders a lot. Not saying my saddle is in between or all the way back, it is still in front with 0 offset seatpost, just not slammed all the way forward. The actual danger of getting your saddle way forward is the control on the descents. I am still putting my ass back of the saddle when there’s a 90 degree descent because fuck going on front of your saddle on that, I ain’t doing that even in a race lol.
What I am trying to say is, find a nice balance on your fore-aft. It may work for you or the other riders, but it ain’t for everyone. If your zone 2 is a nice 280 watts then I think you’ll benefit on slammed forward saddle. Else, a nice balance would be much better.
And you provided an example that was already banned by UCI. I remember that there was so many freds in my country who did that and they ended up crashing. Also saw a lot of accident vids because they try to ride like Froome. As Colby said, don’t copy the pros position, we ain’t pro.
-
Core strength will give you up eventually, and not all riders put 400 watts for hours to hold you ip to your position so you won’t overload your hands. Well that’s for your average fred anyway. If you constantly do 400+ watts then slam that saddle forward. Else, try to find a nice balance between holding your position up for hours without compromising the front end of your body which is the arms. As I’ve said, I also had my saddle far forward as possible. It feels great for the first few hours then eventually, my body hurts all over. My fitter then found a nice balance with my fore-aft and it did wonders a lot. Not saying my saddle is in between or all the way back, it is still in front with 0 offset seatpost, just not slammed all the way forward. The actual danger of getting your saddle way forward is the control on the descents. I am still putting my ass back of the saddle when there’s a 90 degree descent because fuck going on front of your saddle on that, I ain’t doing that even in a race lol.
What I am trying to say is, find a nice balance on your fore-aft. It may work for you or the other riders, but it ain’t for everyone. If your zone 2 is a nice 280 watts then I think you’ll benefit on slammed forward saddle. Else, a nice balance would be much better.
And you provided an example that was already banned by UCI. I remember that there was so many freds in my country who did that and they ended up crashing. Also saw a lot of accident vids because they try to ride like Froome. As Colby said, don’t copy the pros position, we ain’t pro.
I don't think I remember a single crash in the super tuck. Much like a lot of the UCI's "safety" rules, it's not really about safety.
And my point about the super tuck is that they are so much further forward than you're getting with a progressive fit. The super tuck is safe, and that's 20cm further forward than my position. Your claim that a progressive fit is dangerous is wildly inaccurate. And that's proven by the super tuck which is even further forward. If you think a forward saddle is dangerous, that's a skill issue, not inherent with the position. The position in itself isn't any more dangerous or compromising than a rearward position. The position doesn't make one safer than the other, the rider does. If a rider makes the forward position unsafe, the same rider will be unsafe with a rearward position. What's unsafe is going beyond your personal skill level.
The thing with the progressive fit is that it's still pretty rearward. You're at most, equal with the BB. I'm still 5cm behind. You seem to think this fit puts you in front of the BB or somehow shifts your weight forward enough to make it unstable, neither of which are true. You're still behind the BB. It's more about opening your hip angle to allow higher power output and more comfort. Like any fit change it'll take some getting used to. But to say it's unsafe or dangerous is just wrong. You're fear mongering.
-
Core strength will give you up eventually, and not all riders put 400 watts for hours to hold you ip to your position so you won’t overload your hands. Well that’s for your average fred anyway. If you constantly do 400+ watts then slam that saddle forward. Else, try to find a nice balance between holding your position up for hours without compromising the front end of your body which is the arms. As I’ve said, I also had my saddle far forward as possible. It feels great for the first few hours then eventually, my body hurts all over. My fitter then found a nice balance with my fore-aft and it did wonders a lot. Not saying my saddle is in between or all the way back, it is still in front with 0 offset seatpost, just not slammed all the way forward. The actual danger of getting your saddle way forward is the control on the descents. I am still putting my ass back of the saddle when there’s a 90 degree descent because fuck going on front of your saddle on that, I ain’t doing that even in a race lol.
With respect to your experience — I think it reflects going halfway in figuring out a forward fit. It sounds like your setup was sort of in between and then you went back. Totally fine; it's not going to work for everyone, but the forward fit doesn't add that much weight to your hands because you shouldn't have much weight on your hands to begin with. If you have 10% of your weight on your hands going forward a few cm, and having that change to like 12% or even 15% shouldn't be a meaningful change.
I also am not really loading my core; my tummy is pretty relaxed. I do think there is bias towards fitter riders, but at this point it's more about self-selection. Connected to this point, I am increasingly thinking that this fit offers pro-like results in muscle recruitment and aero without requiring a pro's physiology, rather than being a significantly better option for folks at the highest end of racing. In other words, it's a way to get closer to a fit a WT pro would use when you lack the fitness and physiology of a WT pro.
It's a small thread to grasp, but if your body is hurting all over, is that obviously a bad thing? Or is that a sign that you are using different muscles? Worth figuring out, especially since you seem to be a Colby Pearce fan and his whole thing is about using the whole body on the bike.
P.S. I think there is plenty of video of people crashing over the bars in supertucks to suggest that doing that might contribute. Not sure there is even any analysis out there that suggests that riders who are on forward fits crash more than those that don't. Let's not conflate the two here.
-
Reading about this saddle forward and descends, I just have to chime in. There is a big difference descending at 4-5% vs 10-15% when doing the steep downhills, I have to slide myself all the way back nearly off the seat, otherwise and especially when I try to brake even slightly, I get a major frame shimmy. Took me a while to discover how to stop this, so now I have more confidence.
And that photo of Froomie, he would not be doing this on a steep descent. His center of gravity is very low and thats all good for the nice fast flowing downhills.
Also, to find the right fit, slam your saddle forward and then ride at a hard tempo. Can you remove your hands and not collapse? If you cant, move the saddle back slightly until you can. IF you cannot remove your hands and not collapse at any time, you have a wrong frame.
-
I don't think I remember a single crash in the super tuck. Much like a lot of the UCI's "safety" rules, it's not really about safety.
And my point about the super tuck is that they are so much further forward than you're getting with a progressive fit. The super tuck is safe, and that's 20cm further forward than my position. Your claim that a progressive fit is dangerous is wildly inaccurate. And that's proven by the super tuck which is even further forward. If you think a forward saddle is dangerous, that's a skill issue, not inherent with the position. The position in itself isn't any more dangerous or compromising than a rearward position. The position doesn't make one safer than the other, the rider does. If a rider makes the forward position unsafe, the same rider will be unsafe with a rearward position. What's unsafe is going beyond your personal skill level.
The thing with the progressive fit is that it's still pretty rearward. You're at most, equal with the BB. I'm still 5cm behind. You seem to think this fit puts you in front of the BB or somehow shifts your weight forward enough to make it unstable, neither of which are true. You're still behind the BB. It's more about opening your hip angle to allow higher power output and more comfort. Like any fit change it'll take some getting used to. But to say it's unsafe or dangerous is just wrong. You're fear mongering.
I don't agree with this at all.
First, the supertuck didn't cause crashes because riders only used it solo or in tiny breakaways when they felt safe doing so. No pro was ever supertucking down a steep, twitchy descent in a group.
Second, any fit or position that shifts too much weight over the front wheel is dangerous by default. Unloading the rear tire ruins rear-brake traction, making quick emergency stops in the peloton way harder. It also ruins control—MTB riders lean behind the saddle on technical descents for this exact reason.
Also, rider height matters here. A tall rider creates much more leverage than a small rider, so a progressive fit impacts their weight distribution far more.
To avoid the front-end weight distribution, the actual solution is extending the front-center length of the frame to maintain stability without forcing poor rider posture. This is a must for the modern frames who want to make this solution possible.
-
Reading about this saddle forward and descends, I just have to chime in. There is a big difference descending at 4-5% vs 10-15% when doing the steep downhills, I have to slide myself all the way back nearly off the seat, otherwise and especially when I try to brake even slightly, I get a major frame shimmy. Took me a while to discover how to stop this, so now I have more confidence.
And that photo of Froomie, he would not be doing this on a steep descent. His center of gravity is very low and thats all good for the nice fast flowing downhills.
Also, to find the right fit, slam your saddle forward and then ride at a hard tempo. Can you remove your hands and not collapse? If you cant, move the saddle back slightly until you can. IF you cannot remove your hands and not collapse at any time, you have a wrong frame.
Two things.
1. Regarding the front end "shimmy." This is not normal at all and is a totally different issue. I recommend you find a bike that doesn't do this, as it's not really something you hear about with modern road bikes built up correctly. If your bike is built correctly, what you are experiencing is exiting the stable condition of the bike-rider system and entering a state where energy is stored in the system. This happens with most modern road bikes at a suitably low speed that the rider can easily manage it. This could be an issue on slacker bikes (e.g., taking an MTB on a high-speed road descent, maybe a gravel bike too if it's super slack and high trail), but is relatively unheard of on modern road bikes.
2. We covered the myth of balancing on a bike on a trainer a page back. It's a dated and unrealistic test, built on unreasonable assumptions.
Also, rider height matters here. A tall rider creates much more leverage than a small rider, so a progressive fit impacts their weight distribution far more.
To avoid the front-end weight distribution, the actual solution is extending the front-center length of the frame to maintain stability without forcing poor rider posture. This is a must for the modern frames who want to make this solution possible.
Agree with the solution. The rider height, though, isn't an inherent problem; it is a result of the UCI rules restricting wheelbase. The effective STA is still moving the rider proportionally back relative to their height, so assuming the same back angle the COM of the system also moves proportionally back. You just need to manage the wheelbase to keep everything balanced. If you are worried about stability in the forward/rear direction you need to scale both the CS and the FC too...so the bike gets even longer...
-
As I've moved my fit forward I've gone up a bike size. The old pro trend of downsizing a bike and running a very long stem is not ideal with this fit. But if you choose the frame geometry for it I see no handling compromises. It's obvious not only the seat tube can change you need a longer front center too. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit slacker head tube angles too on road bikes.
-
Guys, which frame models fall into this modern category? I am riding size S Giant Propel MY2023 with +5mm saddle foreaft and 360/90 EXS Aerover integrated handleba with 30mm spacers. Short legs, long torso, short arms. Most of the frames still feel too long and low for me, the closest fit outgoing Enve Melee.
-
The overall wheelbases on both my Winspace T1600 Ultra and ER One are pretty short for my saddle-forward setup.
If I lived somewhere with a lot of sustained mountain descents I definitely would consider using a frame with a longer wheelbase that still allows me to get fairly low on the front end as my primary bike.
The current Polygon Helios-A, and even a sized up Canyon Aeroad come to mind. Shame the Factor One is both ugly and expensive.
-
Guys, which frame models fall into this modern category? I am riding size S Giant Propel MY2023 with +5mm saddle foreaft and 360/90 EXS Aerover integrated handleba with 30mm spacers. Short legs, long torso, short arms. Most of the frames still feel too long and low for me, the closest fit outgoing Enve Melee.
Right now best options are:
- Ridley Noah Fast 3.0
- Factor One
- Merckx 525R
I think a lot of people and the Dare VA AFO to the list too which, IMO its not quite the there. The VB368 also isn't there though it's a move in the right direction at the larger sizes. Similarly, you can also take steps in the right direction by not sizing down an aggressive race geo frame and if you can make the stack work ride a frame size larger for the length and running a 150mm stem on it. This is best done on a size by size basis, so know your your current frame and spacer situation can be helpful.
As always make sure you can safely handle the bike when doing these kinds of experiments.
-
The overall wheelbases on both my Winspace T1600 Ultra and ER One are pretty short for my saddle-forward setup.
If I lived somewhere with a lot of sustained mountain descents I definitely would consider using a frame with a longer wheelbase that still allows me to get fairly low on the front end as my primary bike.
The current Polygon Helios-A, and even a sized up Canyon Aeroad come to mind. Shame the Factor One is both ugly and expensive.
The Stromm might suit you.
I think it is funny that my 2017 rim brake Rose Pro CGF 2017 would actually be kinda good for that with a zero offset seatpost, saddle slammed forward and a REALLY long stem.
https://geometrygeeks.bike/bike/rose-pro-cgf-2017/
I am 183cm tall with an 88cm inseam, but my arms are average length and more important, my forarms are almost as long as my upper arms, so higher stack and more reach actually makes sense for me.
-
I had previously mentioned being on the verge of moving everything 2cm forward. I did and happy so far, although it has been 3 short rides as I recover from an injury. The bike is a lightcarbon LCR018. My goal was to maintain the same saddle to shifter reach while moving everything forward.
The saddle is 25mm more forward -15mm offset to 0 offset post and slid saddle forward on the rails
The shifters are 25mm more forward - 90mm stem to 110mm stem and moved the shifters down the bar a bit more. I have gained 4-5mm of stack with the longer bar.
2 rides on the trainer and 1 on the road, about 60km total. I feel less weight on the hands, position feels comfortable but I do feel it more in the quads. On longer rides, will be curious to see how the weight on the hands are, since I am currently 88kg. Last night I slid my cleats 8mm back, as far back as they go on my mid foot adapters, and dropped the saddle 5mm. Hoping this will get a bit more ham/glute. I haven't done anything over 45km yet but will be very curious to see how the bike feels at speed.
Probably not as crazy as some other modern fits on race bikes, but this is a good way to start as I plan to build an LCR020 over the winter with this more forward fit in mind.
Edit: Correct me if I am wrong but I guess my current position will now have 10mm less saddle to bar drop. 5mm from the longer stem and 5mm from dropping the seat post when I adjusted the cleats. So it would make sense I can drop the front end 10mm while maintaining the same drop as before?!?
-
I thought progressive forward fit will make more weight on the hands/palms and therefore more discomfort in palms.
Anyway, your quads probably hurt, because your saddle is now too low. When putting your saddle forward, you also must raise your saddle . Normal in ratio 3/1. So 3mm forward is 1mm up. So you should have it 6-7mm more up. And that is a big differance, and firstly you notice it in quads. To be exact, you should measure original fit from BB to saddle (where sit bones go) and mimic the new position.
-
I thought progressive forward fit will make more weight on the hands/palms and therefore more discomfort in palms.
Anyway, your quads probably hurt, because your saddle is now too low. When putting your saddle forward, you also must raise your saddle . Normal in ratio 3/1. So 3mm forward is 1mm up. So you should have it 6-7mm more up. And that is a big differance, and firstly you notice it in quads. To be exact, you should measure original fit from BB to saddle (where sit bones go) and mimic the new position.
I would have assumed the same and was expecting to have more weight in the hands. I did 90 minutes yesterday and still less weight in the hands. Not sure why but I will gladly take it.
For the saddle, I maintained the same saddle height when swapping seatposts. I measured BB to where I sit and transferred that height to the new setup. I know moving forward will put more quad focus. That being said, moving the cleats back did take some of that away and I had more glute/hamstring engagement. Beyond playing with saddle tilt a bit, I am going to leave the setup as is and let myself adjust. See how it feels in a few weeks.
-
Edit: Correct me if I am wrong, but I guess my current position will now have 10mm less saddle-to-bar drop. 5mm from the longer stem and 5mm from dropping the seat post when I adjusted the cleats. So it would make sense that I can drop the front end 10mm while maintaining the same drop as before?!?
I would slow down on the changes and make them one at a time. I am not a fan of midfoot cleats and therefore not well-versed in the adjustments required as a result, but you are going all in on an Ironman-style bike fit.
Purely from a motion diagram perspective, a typical rider's kinetic chain extends up to their lumbar spine--maybe up to the thoracic spine when out of the saddle. Assuming perfectly rigid shoes, midfoot isolates/reduces stress on the lower parts of that chain, shifting work upward. That alone makes the quad do more work. It also removes from consideration a bunch of potential solutions to balancing your pedaling effort across more of your body.
Closing the hip angle and increasing the distance the upper leg travels during the stroke both tend to increase glute recruitment, but this doesn't really map to saddle lower vs. higher if you are already opening the hip angle via a forward position. Your ankles also affect the overall distance the upper leg can travel. By switching to midfoot, you also limit ankling's potential contribution to upper-leg movement.
IMO, most non-triathletes should be using their calves as much as they can if they want more glute recruitment (it's better for your knees too!), as it gives you more freedom to find a fit that works across more of your kinetic chain. If you have really developed calves, a good cleat position is probably close to the ball of the foot; if you don't, it's probably about ~10 mm behind. Experimentally, I would move them forward till you can feel it on long rides, and then move them back slowly until calf soreness isn't an issue.
-
I would slow down on the changes and make them one at a time. I am not a fan of midfoot cleats and therefore not well-versed in the adjustments required as a result, but you are going all in on an Ironman-style bike fit.
Purely from a motion diagram perspective, a typical rider's kinetic chain extends up to their lumbar spine--maybe up to the thoracic spine when out of the saddle. Assuming perfectly rigid shoes, midfoot isolates/reduces stress on the lower parts of that chain, shifting work upward. That alone makes the quad do more work. It also removes from consideration a bunch of potential solutions to balancing your pedaling effort across more of your body.
Closing the hip angle and increasing the distance the upper leg travels during the stroke both tend to increase glute recruitment, but this doesn't really map to saddle lower vs. higher if you are already opening the hip angle via a forward position. Your ankles also affect the overall distance the upper leg can travel. By switching to midfoot, you also limit ankling's potential contribution to upper-leg movement.
IMO, most non-triathletes should be using their calves as much as they can if they want more glute recruitment (it's better for your knees too!), as it gives you more freedom to find a fit that works across more of your kinetic chain. If you have really developed calves, a good cleat position is probably close to the ball of the foot; if you don't, it's probably about ~10 mm behind. Experimentally, I would move them forward till you can feel it on long rides, and then move them back slowly until calf soreness isn't an issue.
Would´nt that forward cleat position increase knee stress and so knee pain? Because in that position the feet would be more backward compared to the knee than with a backward cleat position. Am I correct?
-
Would´nt that forward cleat position increase knee stress and so knee pain? Because in that position the feet would be more backward compared to the knee than with a backward cleat position. Am I correct?
No. The same power at the same cadence means higher peak loads at the knee if you shorten the lever arm at the foot end of the linkage and reduce the time component over which your ankle moves. Changing cleat position did almost nothing for my knee range of motion.
Remember, we aren't talking about inducing instability or moving the cleats super far forward. They are likely back of the ball of the foot; just not so far back that most people with most shoes would find the range of shoe/cleat adjustment for SPD / SPD SL / Look pedals insufficient.
I think assuming the foot doesn't move relative to normal during the pedal stroke is how we got KOPS.
-
No. The same power at the same cadence means higher peak loads at the knee if you shorten the lever arm at the foot end of the linkage and reduce the time component over which your ankle moves. Changing cleat position did almost nothing for my knee range of motion.
I am not quite sure, but I think this analysis glosses over the possibility of different effects at different parts of the ROM. Higher peak load at a more open knee angle may be more sustainable than lower peak load at a more closed knee angle.
Actually, I also don't know that the time component of ankle movement is actually reduced with a midfoot cleat position. Naively, I'd expect the ankle to cover a shorter arc over about the same amount of time.
-
I am not quite sure, but I think this analysis glosses over the possibility of different effects at different parts of the ROM. Higher peak load at a more open knee angle may be more sustainable than lower peak load at a more closed knee angle.
Actually, I also don't know that the time component of ankle movement is actually reduced with a midfoot cleat position. Naively, I'd expect the ankle to cover a shorter arc over about the same amount of time.
I think this quickly gets into specific joint mobility issues that I am not really qualified to comment on, given my lack of medical training. Though it's hard to understand how or why these scenarios would play out to a significant degree as you mention, as, again, your ankles aren't static--unless there is something specific going on that restricts motion in a specific way.
I *think* most of the video analysis shows that moving the cleats back reduces the ankle's range of motion (in terms of angles). Proponents of the midfoot also often cite fixing heel drop and reducing pointing as a pro.
Some pro triathletes run midfoot positions. When you look at their position on a gravel bike or on a road ride--they largely don't use adapters or special shoes. Interesting anecdata there.