AndyF wrote:
BikeTechReview wrote:
I'm saying I can get ~90cm reach and be UCI legal without an exemption on one of my TT bikes. If you can find me a low cxa frame manufactured in the last several years with which I can achieve the same setup, I'd be interested.
I apologise, I may not be following the thread carefully enough. Just to be sure... you do mean, reach, as in BB centre to tip of extensions?
From a CxA perspective, if I was trying to easily quantify how stretched out a rider was, I would use terms like reach and drop...and I wouldn't define reach as the UCI conforming dimension. I can get ~90cm of reach and still conform to UCI regs without an exemption on one of my TT bikes - and I'm only 1.83m tall with about 8-10cm of drop. I don't think folks should blame the UCI for not being able to stretch themselves/their riders out - they should blame today's mfrs and yesterday's idea of "
rotating around the BB" which fueled a disease of "lowness". If you are only 7cm behind the BB with a normal saddle at a saddle height of 80-85cm and you play by UCI rules, you should be saying WTF to your bike sponsor.
getting back on track here..."High hands" where the center of rotation is not the elbow, is just another way of modifying the point in space of the elbow vertically and axially within the UCI rules (i.e, this rotation effects how stretched out/low the elbow is)...so why wouldn't one explore it?
IME, if you control for elbow position vertically/axially, cxa doesn't change much - just for fun check out this vid I did moons ago:
http://www.biketechreview.com/images/the_shrug.wmv you can do all sorts of crap with your hands/forearm angle, but if your elbow doesn't move much vertically/axially, how low/stretched out your torso is doesn't change much.
=================
Kraig Willett
http://www.biketechreview.com -
check out our reduced report pricing =================