the TT was with a tight 180 degree turn at 8 km, otherwise I think my pacing was pretty close, ap and np

good points. I do move a little bit forward on the saddle normally, but not much since I have grip on it.

I measured as Dan Empfield prescribed in his article, and yes it is the low version

Same unless it's a SPOCO.

except you don't need error in measuring since you have direct access to actual numbers from the cervelo chart based upon frame size and rest placement fore/aft

I think that it's a poor position and he's giving up a heck of a lot of power.
The set-up looks like it was positioned toward a low.cda. But focusing on that aspect...it's still poor.
Falling off the front of the bike won't make you ride as fast as you can.
A lot of work to be done here.

Perfect, thanks :)

Can you give me a little tips to where excactly my position is poor and what could be done to achieve a better balance between power and aerodynamics?

I am pretty sure you are trolling but I'll bite.
You realise this is a triathlon forum? I'm willing to bet the above position if truly representative of the OP actually riding, is in the top 5% on here. Your average triathlete is more upright than I'd be on a dutchie.

How do you know he is giving up a lot of power? I'm a little higher at the front but a lot more turtled/sagged in the shoulders to achieve a similar profile. After 2 years of riding exclusively on the TT bike I am giving up v little in terms of power vs an open hipped road bike position. Maybe the OP is similar?

I'm intrigued as to what you consider a good position, any examples you care to demonstrate?

How do you know any of this? You don't know his CdA or how much power he's giving up (if any), so you can't say with any certainty that it's not right for him. Eyeball aerodynamics is as scientific as tarot card readings.

My 20 min FTP test on road bike has been 336w, and in the start of my triathlon- 2012 I could only do 290w in ftp-test, but gradually I have been able to minimize the gap, last year I was doing 322 ftptest on tri bike, so not that much of a gap now, I think. But i am also a lightweight guy 180cm and 65 kg, so I should probably be happy and contend with my power in a fairly low position it seems after all.

How many feet in front of you can you actually see?

when I look ahead on the picture I can app. 30 feet, It helps with a helmet with visor so I can see further ahead.

A well calibrated eyeball is a useful tool.

---

=================
Kraig Willett
http://www.biketechreview.com - check out our reduced report pricing
=================

I should have been this succinct moons ago. Lol.

---

=================
Kraig Willett
http://www.biketechreview.com - check out our reduced report pricing
=================

Yes, it's coasting biased. Furthermore, I'm not sure why triathletes have ever bothered with it since the bike effort is optimally done below the average power for the entire effort.

---

=================
Kraig Willett
http://www.biketechreview.com - check out our reduced report pricing
=================

Average power for the entire effort? Is that even possible to calculate in a meaningful way? (I'm assuming by "entire effort" you mean swim-bike-run).

Why would it be dubious? I find it very valuable as a succinct metric to characterize success in achieving an isopower power plan. (which I normally try to do). That's in TTs. E.g. it's value comes when it's *not* very close to AP.

In mass start races it's useful as a succinct metric to characterize the type of race it was. If it's one of those races where you're bouncing between 200W and 500W for hours, it certainly does a better job of characterizing the power requirements of the race (if you're restricted to a single number) than AP.

Read Kraig Willet's comments

Read Kraig Willett's comments...A well calibrated eyeball is a useful tool.

If you are planning on falling off the front of your bike...it's better to do it like this....

I lean toward bjorn and dnomelgreg on this one.

Also, I hate to say it, but seat looks kinda high. Right leg looks nearly locked out and the crank arms aren't even fully vertical.

Edit: Since we're using Tom, this is what I'd consider a more proper look when the crank arms are near vertical:

Sorry my Man....but this is about as good as it gets...ask Kraig?
I wish that my sorry ass could look like that...ha-ha

Hey, if it's useful for you that's great. Seems you're using it for the same purpose as VI. I'm not sure why you feel the need to characterize your rides with a single number, but even a cursory glance at your file will also tell you the things that you feel NP is telling you.

But I just find it ironic that a possible issue with the OP's test was identified through his reporting of NP, then NP-bashing starts. And we didn't need him to post his entire file, which shows the value of a single number, at times.

You need NP before you get VI. The OP could have reported VI of 1.02, sure.