Would have to do the study to see at what distance x for a given rider height the scale is tipped between quad and glute muscle recruitment. As it is, many fitters are placing riders further back towards the bb to engage the posterior chain without examining if the distance x is the driving factor for that decision, and how crank length affects that distance x and quad vs glute engagement, or how that affects the rider on race day in terms of the rider inching forward to get their center of mass more forward, then having to scoot back persistently during the race, and how that affects the run.

Frodeno and Laidlow are definitely examples of athletes getting their centers of mass further in front of the bb. Would Laidlow have had less issues outside of IMWC’s this year with different cranks? I don’t know. Would Frodeno’s position this year looked better than it did? I don’t know; it definitely did not look as good this year as year’s past.

In the OP, I reference quad vs glute engagement during weighted squats with knees further over or behind the person’s toes, for which there is published research, but I haven’t heard anything about that - the OP and my later responses were a lot less about profiling pro’s than how distance x affects muscle engagement.



100% need frames with longer pad reach/x.
- I'd also suggest taller stack seeing just how may spacers are under most pro's and amateurs aerobars nowadays. And, filling in the space between the frame/bento-box and torso could contribute to the bottle-down-the-jersey aero benefit.
- for a frame with a stack/reach of 54cm/42.4cm, suggesting an updated stack/reach of 56cm/48.4cm.
- the bike in the image below has a 78deg sta. look how far forward the saddle is and also how far forward many pro's currently have their saddles.
- update the frame to have an 82deg sta.

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram