Position

What is going on here? I never messed with my riding position too much, at least I didn't think I did. Other than always living with "fidgety feet" on the bike, my comfort and performance levels generally left me without reason to change. On the road, other than time trial rigs, I've only had about a half dozen or so different bikes over the years. When Selle Italia Turbo saddles got harder to find, I switched to mostly Flites. I have messed with the fore/aft saddle position, but honestly never took good measurements. I've changed it up based on feel and sometimes advice from riding partners who do this sort of thing for a living. Then when I gave up Look pedals for Speedplays, I had to make a big change in height. My Rocket 7s have the thinnest soles out there, and they're drilled for Speedplays, so there is no adapter. The total stack is over a cm less than the Looks. The improvement in pedal action from having the bottom of my foot nearly on the pedal centerline was dramatic. But I had to of course lower the saddle from the measurement that I'd always used.

Here's where things got messed up. Like I said, I'd never taken into account what the actually setback of the saddle should be. Since saddles are all different (even among the same make and model) and don't have a measuring reference point, trying to be super precise didn't make much sense. Like many riders, I simply measured from the BB centerpoint straight up the seat tube to where I sit. And always kept this measurement the same, 765 mm when using Looks, and 753 with Speedplays/Rockets. MTBs and CX bikes I was less afraid to mess around with, as I never did so many hours on those that I worried about it. I felt that slight differences were not as bad as many people believe, as I can imagine potential for both positives and negatives from working the muscles in varied positions. The other place where I tend to stray from conventional wisdom is that I do not alter my seat height if I change crank lengths, which does not make sense to me. Proper seat height comes from having the optimal angle at the bottom of the pedal stroke, the top of the pedal stroke, and everywhere in between. Basing it only on the angle of the leg at full extension doesn't seem to be complete. Not that I change crank length very often anyway. I've been on 175s since long before they became fashionable for riders my size. Nearly everyone still used 170s when I started. Those who dared use 172.5 were thought to be wobbling gear mashers. Then Greg Lemond said he used 44 cm bars and 175 cranks and that was good enough for me to try them both, and I stayed with them, and eventually they became the norm.

The past few years I've not felt as comfy on the bike. I've shrunk. I'm no longer almost six feet tall, in fact I'm barely five ten. As well, I've been mixing up my machines more and more. I have the shitty aluminum bike with fenders for commuting and winter crap. That frame setup does not allow me to get the bars low enough, but I figured that's fine for the bike's purpose. Then I have my crappy aluminum racing bike. While not so-called "compact" geometry, this bike does not have classic dimensions either. The seat tube is extended (bike is 58 C-T and called a 58, but it's 55 c-c), and the top tube is a little short for a 58. Plus integrated headsets generally result in bars being pretty high for a given frame size. Lots of rider are old, fat, inflexible, or some combination of the three, so that's not often complained about. But look at a photo of a masters race versus one of a pro race, and the difference in bar heights is obvious. There has been a lot of emphasis on "comfort" lately, but if you can get lower, it is faster. Anyway, I ride that bike in most races. Then I have my Slim Chance. I was racing this before I got the aluminum bike. It was built in 1994, one of the last frames to come out of the old Chance Somerville shop. It was an employee bike, and I guess the tubing selection involved a bit of dumpster diving, so it's not exactly stock. It has Yo Eddy chainstays, but some of the other tubes are pretty light. It also had a light steel quill fork. The original owner thought that was too flexible, so he then made an ugly unicrown steel unit for it after the fact. Luckily, after I bought the bike, when it was being sent off to IF for a repaint we could not find the unicrown, so I always ran it with the original. The bike had a sweet ride, and was pretty light for a steel frame (under 20 lbs built without anything fancy), but it was a bit flexy for a guy my size (especially with my legendary power) to race on. That's why I bought the cheap aluminum bike, which got me down to 18 pounds and into 10 speed for less than many racers pay for a rear wheel, albeit at the expense of comfort. I've scored about a half dozen podiums on it, so it can't be that bad. But back to the Slim. This bike measures up pretty classic, and last winter I rebuilt it with an Easton EC30 carbon fork (only decent 1" I could source), threadless, and 10 speed Dura Ace drivetrain. When I cut the fork I didn't leave too much (any) room for spacers and the result is the 11+ cm of seat to bar drop you see in the picture above. Yet this bike is by far more comfortable than anything I've ridden lately. I love this bike. No matter what I've been riding, I get on this and feel at home. I tend to ride harder on this bike. I rarely race on it, and until a month ago it hadn't even been out on a wet or dirty road since the rebuild. But I love it. Of course, since I don't race it, I'm not in the drops all that much, and maybe they would be a touch low for that.

You all know that I went out to California for a trip and rode a loaner bike. That's what got me started on this position quest. In my head I was thinking my seat height was still 765, having used that for years; I'd completely forgotten about the change when using Speedplays. So when they set me up at TBOV, right away it felt way too high. We kind of winged it and I don't think I ever really did move it down as far as the way the Slim is set up (my current gold standard for fit). The bike I rode out there was a Madone 5.2. This was not the "PRO" geometry, it was the standard, club racer, i.e. extended head tube version. Yet I loved the bike, even if the position was not perfect. The front end was so much more solid than any bike I've ridden. Go figure though, as the Slim, though better with the carbon fork, is pretty soft, and the Taiwanese aluminum bike, though stiff in the back end, has some sway up front, even with a fork that looks all gigantic and burly. The Madone tracked better, braked way better, and felt more solid standing than what I'm accustomed to. And of course it was lighter. So I bought one.



Of course, I bought the "Pro" geometry. Dura Ace was not in the budget, so it's Ultegra SL, compact, and I went with some Project One options like the flashy white frame, trim, and tires, as well as deeper alloy rims, heavier than the standards but better for Wompatuck. In the picture of course I have my good race wheels. I wanted to see how much it would weigh (7.35 kg as is, sans bar tape and cages). And that brings us to the point of this exercise, getting the position correct. Even with the special order 17 degree drop stem and all the spacers removed, the bars will be a few mm higher than on the Slim. I'm not sure exactly how much, as I'm just starting to map things out with the custom sizing rig you see in the top picture. And I want to try it some before wielding the hacksaw to the steerer.

Right about the time I got back home, this article about the Team Liquigas sizing rig ran in cyclingnews. I did some more reading and found a forum discussing it over on the Salon. Someone over there mentioned this thing and there was a discussion about various ways to replicate it using drywall squares, a door frame, plumb bobs, or what have you. I worked with what I had, a level and a T-square. I have a plumb bob around here somewhere but it's exact location is currently a mystery. The Salon discussion highlighted what was incorrect about my past system of bike fitting, and using a more precise x,y coordinate system provides a much better method of comparing exact fit from bike to bike. There were also quite a few obvious (well, now) and useful tips. I'll be working on this for a while, but I've already been surprised by some things. I had kind of assumed that since most road bikes have similar seat angles, and I was using "normal" setback seatposts, that if I had identical saddles with the rails positioned about the same on the cradle, then the fore/aft positioning would come out pretty close. I expected the Slim to have a more rearward position than my aluminum bike. Not even close. The Slim's way, way more forward. It took me a while to figure all this out. I had the seat to bars (length) dimension about the same but that was with a longer stem and shorter top tube. There was a huge disconnect between perception and reality. My fender bike was even worse. I'm not sure what I'm going to do with that, but I know I won't be riding it except maybe to work or in horrendous weather. Certainly not at 6 gaps (btw, I can't make 5/23, but that's a story for another post) or D2R2 again.

Enough is enough, ramble on. I'll update on this when I'm ready.If I have time maybe I'll pen something about all the crazy buzz surrounding Battenkill lately. I'll most likely ride the Slim there. Also a running/duathlon update, and a rash of event date conflicts. Traffic has been inexplicably way, way up here, and I hate to disappoint by having visitors find the same old shit. Thanks for reading.