OK wow! Thanks for confirming

Edit- what's the clearance in front?

Front clearance is the same. In my mind this bike is basically a giant TCR with 37mm of tire clearance.

I try really hard to avoid spamming the thread with how good this bike is, but in terms of weight and ride feel, I think it’s the rare sub $1K open mold frame as good thats as good as a branded frame. Unfortunately, it’s a bit like the TCR and Aethos: it looks dated from an aero perspective which is likely a reason this frame isnt more popular. There are also the seatpost binder and other issues documented.

I think it’s a bit telling that the Mondinice aero bike didnt seem to work out as well. Whatever they did developing this bike seemed to right thing vs. that one.

Without changing the profiles of the tubes too much in an effort to build on what they did right here, I would like to see a more hourglass + deeper HT resulting in a longer reach by 1-2cm and this thing could look the part of a Noah Fast 3.0 competitor—though it would still be lacking real aero credentials. That said, I would also love to see more BB drop, but that might be messing with the formula too much.

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.

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 was looking at size 54. Which might as well be 56 or M/L

The chart doesn't provide wheelbase but given the chainstay, FC, and effective TT lengths, respectively, it should be on the longer side. It's actually more like a 58 with a low stack.

Its probably one of the better options available right now--but its not a great option.

I would look for lower BB drop and even more length at this size. The chainstay is also a bit on the longer side, and ideally the frame moves both wheels forward.

Have an 11 speed yoeleo r11 with grx 801 2x 48/31, will be changing frames and want to run similar ratios but with a carbon crank. Is there a spider/chainring combination that would allow running the gravel style sub compact cranks on a elilee /cybrei/incolour crank arms on a road bike? I know rotor do a carbon gravel style crank, along with a couple of other brands but they are pretty ugly,

Cheers

Praxis makes chainrings that are 48/32 and you need a 5x100 spider to make them work. The issue is that they need ones with little tabs cut out which I dont think any of these companies supplies. Bingham built makes one that works (Easton to Praxis 48/32) but it’s a bit on the pricy side. I think Power2Max also makes GRX chainring compatible power meter spiders for Easton cranks that should work.

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...

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.

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.