Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!!
Quote | Reply
Saw this at the Gordo forum. Some pretty good arguments against the steep tri-position, how it affects power and all:



Some bike fit notes from the high performance conference that I attended in March. The audience was a group of elite coaches -- I expect that Bruce tailored his comments to the needs of elite triathletes.

While my personal beliefs (that "road" positions are superior for power generation) are the same as Bruce's there are some points to bear in mind:

a -- my current position (73 degree seat tube angle) has been achieved over a number of seasons -- prior to my yoga-immersion phase (12 weeks of 5-8 hours per week in the winter of 2001/2) -- a road position would have been pointless for me as I would have only lasted 90 minutes on the bars due to pain.

b -- observations from riding with various partners over the last few years

i. easy riding on the aerobars enables athletes to build position specific flexibility -- the better your flexibility and greater your TT comfort, the easier it is to switch between bikes (road vs. TT). If you experience discomfort in your TT position then have it reviewed. Once it is reviewed then base training on the aerobars will help your body get used to the position.

ii. many athletes are flexible 'forwards' but tight 'backwards' -- good hamstring flexibility but tight adductors, hip flexors and deep quads -- this imbalance is a leading cause of back pain. It can also lead to other issues. An example, in the summer of 2001, I experienced persistent hip flexor cramping on my long rides. I thought that weak hip flexors were the cause of the pain. In fact, the issue was tightness through the front of my hip region. I was riding a mid-range geometry, having changed from a tri-specific bike. While I had the hamstring flexibility for this position, chronic hip flexor tightness resulted from my hip muscles being unable to relax and contract. Even with my tri-position, I used to experience burning through my low back and, I expect, this was hip mobility related.

c -- your home terrain and riding buddies are important considerations for geometry. While you might covet a tri-specific bike, this type of frame could prove sub-optimal if you lived in hilly terrain and enjoyed group riding. Tri-specific bikes (by this I mean steep geometry) climb poorly relative to road bikes and don't handle as well. If you've spent your entire riding career on a steep set-up then you'll be amazed at the difference. Likewise, if you are used to a road position then show caution when you first hop on a steep frame.

d -- you need to be both lean and flexible to pull off a comfortable "road" TT position. If you are soft around the middle or inflexible then you'll be best served with a steep, more tri-specific position.

e -- if stability, safety and comfort are equal then favour superior power over aerodynamics.

f -- spend a lot of time on your race bike/set-up in the seven weeks leading into your goal race. Once your position is set, resist the urge to fine-tune for race day -- the classic change that IM athletes make is a significant drop in aerobar height for race day. Do not change your bar height for race day! If you think that you can tolerate a lower position then use it for two months before race day.

There are exceptions to every rule -- these are my thoughts as at April 2003!

Cheers,

gordo




Bike Fit Notes
Bruce Baxter, TriNZ High Performance Conference
March 2003

Bruce is a foot doc that has a lot of experience working with Olympic and Elite cyclists/runners/triathletes. He’s based in Christchurch and is Gordo’s podiatrist.

These are his opinions – not facts – Bruce makes the point that his views merely represent a starting point for coaches and athletes.

A forward position is sub-optimal for power production.

Position + Fitness = Power + Endurance

The starting point for a bike fit exercises is a review of an athlete’s muscle balance assessment (the MBA is a report done for all elite NZ athletes – gordo has been through the process, very interesting).

Start with the foot/shoe.
• The shoe needs to fit snuggly, no movement. When sizing juniors, you compromise safety when you purchase shoes that they will grow into.
• The heel counter must be rigid and there should be NO movement through the heel – this is very important for biomechanical safety. A locked heel assists in the prevention of pronation.
• The sole should be completely rigid. Bruce likes the shoe to fit to the toe – GB Note – I know that some athletes find this set-up to be too restrictive and not comfortable – however, Bruce and my other bike fit guy are adamant that this is optimal. Female riders, particularly, should purchase bike shoes at the end of the day when their feet are likely to be largest.
• Shoes should have a removable liner – as the direction of force is down and total stability is desirable, Bruce is a believer in form orthotics to enable an even weight distribution.
• Bruce uses a dipped knee test, to determine if an athlete is likely to benefit from a form orthotic. Stand on one leg in bare feet, do a single leg squat, if knee collapses inwards then a form orthotic will assist with stability. As well, the results of this test will tell you about the risk of going to a fixed cleat system. Bruce is a big believer in the benefits of fixed cleats – although – they haven’t been able to get me fixed yet!

Cleat position – old school method is to bisect the head of the first metatarsal – Bruce’s preferred method is to bisect the whole of the forefoot – with most people this results in alignment about 5-6mm behind the ball of the foot. Athletes with calf or Achilles tendon pain should always check cleat position. A forward cleat position places additional stress and fatigue on the calf and AT.

In triathletes, poor bike position can predispose an athlete to running injuries. A common example would be the forward cleat position fatiguing the calves/ATs and tendonitis being manifested during run training.

Some fit tips:
• While watching one legged pedaling – gaps in the top of the cycle can indicate seat too low, toe pointing can indicate seat too high
• ITB issues and/or pelvis rocking – seat too high
• Patellar Femoral Syndrome – seat likely too low
• Front of knee should align with the middle of the first metatarsal joint at the forward phase of the stroke.
• On the bars, shoulder blades should be back and elbows should be supporting the upper body. If bars and too far forward then athlete will shrug and compress neck when looking forward.

Saddle Tips
• The most important issue with the saddle is to have the pelvis as stable as possible.
• The saddle should provide even pressure across the three points of contact (sitting bones and forward bone).
• Cut-outs create saddle flex and reduce stability – they solve the “problem” of comfort but can create biomechanical issues and loss of power.
• Women are reluctant to discuss saddle fit issues with their bike fit guy – as a result, they often end up with sub-optimal position.
Quote Reply
Re: Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!! [KingK] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think letter d in Gordo's write up says it all. Flexible stringbeans can do a "slam" position with no problem. I rode with a teenager with a road bike the other day. He got down on his aero bars with his 73 degree seat angle and had the flatest back you ever saw with no restriction of motion. Guys that are soft around the middle like me need steep seat angles.

By and large I don't think us MOPs can learn much from the top riders. They are just very different in too many ways.

Flabby in Florida,
Quote Reply
Re: Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!! [KingK] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
These are all pretty interesting points from a biomechanical point of view...I refrained from posting them to this forum because, well, it will probably start a flame war of some kind :^) But now that the cat is out of the bag:

I rode a version of the slam last year, and it was definitely a powerful position for me. I was climbing way better than I do in a steep geometry. I was also appreciably faster in a slam position over 40k than I was in test rides in a steep geometry. Finally, I was more confident descending and turning. I loved it.

That being said, after IM-USA, I developed patellofemoral syndrome. The fact is that my hamstrings are too tight, my back is pretty inflexible, and all in all it was a pretty miserable experience. I cannot hold a roadie TT position for more than about 60k, and when I tried to...Houston, we had problems.

This season, I switched to a P2k at around 77 degrees or so, making sure to practice good hip rotation. This was instrumental in fixing my knee pain. Were I flexible enough, I'd still be riding the slam. As my fitness and training have improved, I am getting faster on the P2K, and more importantly my pain is almost gone. But in timed climbs, I am still faster on my road bike than I am spinning on the aerobars on the TT bike.

I have to agree with Art. If you are flexible enough to ride a more "roadie" TT position, hey, rock on. There are lots of really fast guys out there at 73-74 degrees. Believe me, I'd love to be able to climb as I do on my road bike. I'd also like a TT bike that handles as well as my road bike. (Although the P2K handles better than any steep geometry TT bike I have ever been on, period.) However, if you are less flexible etc, the FIST position makes a hell of a lot more sense, and aside from having my arms slightly more stretched out than a "pure" (90 degree torso/upper arm) FIST position would be, that is how I am riding.

Philbert

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!
Quote Reply
Re: Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!! [Philbert] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why do you see an increase in power in the 73 degree position over the 77 degree position? I ask because if I understand correctly, the steep position as advocated on this site involves rotation of the road position around the bottom bracket.

Richard
Quote Reply
Re: Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!! [Richard R] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I suspect that the more rearward position allows better recruitment of the glutes, which are pretty strong muscles.

The rotation around the bottom bracket argument neglects one important point. Even though you are "rotated" forward around the BB, I think people still tend to pedal the way they do in the regular road position. If the rotation thing really worked, your power stroke would no longer be, say, from 2:00 or so through 6:00 or thereabouts, it would be "rotated" forward as well, so that it might now take place from 3:00 through 7:00. I don't know if that happens or not.

This is just a guess. I have no data to support this, although I imagine it would be a pretty easy experiment to carry out. For anecdotal data, one might talk to frank day, and ask him if people have different "dead spots" in their pedal strokes in the steep vs. shallow positions. I wonder what the experience would be for someone who "never" rode shallow in their lives, in other words, actually learned to ride a bike in the steep position, and then switched to shallow. Do we seem to climb better/feel more powerful in the rearward position simply because we have many more years riding that way and are better adapted to it?

Food for thought.

Philbert

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!
Quote Reply
Re: Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!! [Richard R] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Why do you see an increase in power in the 73 degree position over the 77 degree position? I ask because if I understand correctly, the steep position as advocated on this site involves rotation of the road position around the bottom bracket.

Richard
Quote Reply
Re: Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!! [Philbert] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My thoughts were similar i.e. that the "power phase" of the pedal stroke would occur "later". I guess that if this is not the case then there is a biomechanical difference, but if it is then I fail to see how the two are different.

Richard
Quote Reply
Re: Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!! [Richard R] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah, like I said, I dunno. I on;y know what I have observed with myself.

Interestingly, on the Road to Paris dvd, there are some scenes with Johann Bruyneel and Co working on Lance's tt position. Johann comments extensively on how much more powerful lance is in the more rearward (i.e. 5 cm behind BB) position.

Philbert

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!
Quote Reply
Re: Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!! [KingK] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
From what I understand, the steeper tri position recruits slightly different muscles, which helps you on the run. You lose some pure biking power, but make it up on the run.
Quote Reply
Re: Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!! [KingK] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Some pretty good arguments against the steep tri-position."

interesting arguments, but supported by...?

there are reasons why almost all top no-draft triathletes ride steeply. both anecdotal and *proper protocol* scientific investigations heavily support the idea of steep seat angles for top athletes.

fortunately, however, NZ and AUS are free countries, and you are allowed to ride in whatever seat configuration you want. these two countries generally speaking tend to ride shallow. except of course for the half dozen or so of their best athletes (waldo, cam brown, etc.) who ride steep.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!! [Richard R] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Let's say that the big power phase during the push down in the roadie/slam position (another good name for roadie position...sorry John Cobb, but I agree with everything else you say :-) ) is for ~ 2 O'clock to 5 O'Clock. There is one vector force here that comes into play that assist you regardless of position, and it is the weight of gravity pulling your entire foot/tibia/calf down as you push down. When you rotate into the tri position at 78-80, the gravitational assist still occurs in approximately the same phase, even though your max power applied exclusively by your body moved to say 3 O-Clock to 5 O'Clock. Perhaps this explains why rotating the body position, while in theory changes nothing from a road position and makes you more comfortable in aero position, in reality changes the feel sustantially due to how gavity interacts with the pedal stroke (amongst other things)
Quote Reply
Re: Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!! [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah and these two guys run bloody fast! Another possible factor for the preeminence of shallow angle in NZ is simply that there are not many steep angle bikes on sale, well not that I could find. The principal local manufacturer is Avanti and they produce road bikes, also happen to be sponsor of IMNZ. Importing US (most manufacturers of tri bikes are based in NA) is prohibitively expensive



__________________________________________________
Simple Simon
Where's the Fried Chicken??
Quote Reply
Re: Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!! [KingK] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Controlled scientific tests really need to be done.. actually I remember reading a paper out of the UK regarding steep vs shallow configuration.. faster bike spilts in the steep configuration as well as faster run times. The test subjects came from a shallow configuration background. I wish I has the URL somewhere... anyone??

Personally I went from a 73.5 to a 76.5 degree setup on my Talon. I "feel" more comfortable and powerful with fresher legs after the ride, especially my quads. 78 is a little to extreme for me personally. I've also heard that US crit riders tend towards a steaper configurtion on their roadbikes.

mike
Quote Reply
Re: Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!! [devashish paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sorry, this doesn't wash. As one leg goes down with gravity, the opposite legs goes back up. Gravity is a wash from that point of view. That doesn't mean that gravity isn't a big factor. It has more to do with how gravity interacts with your comfort and ability to recruit various muscles.
Quote Reply
Re: Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!! [SimpleS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Yeah and these two guys run bloody fast!"

one reason they run bloody fast is their chosen seat angle. yes, it's true that the PEAK torque during the pedal circle is greater with a shallow angle. but the overall power output during the entire pedal cycle is roughly the same, steep v shallow (the power amplitude wave is flatter using a steeper seat angle -- not the same peaks and valleys -- but the power is the same). so what difference does it make what your seat angle is?

the difference is this: when you have to put out more torque at a given point during the pedal circle, you recruit your available slow twitch fibers, and you have to recruit fast twitch fibers as well, versus with a steeper seat angle, where you don't recruit fast twitch fibers (or at least not to the same degree). fast twitch fibers exact a heavier glycogen "payment" than do slow twitch fibers. therefore, while raw peak power is greater in a shallow position, overall power is the same in either position, and glycogen usage is less with a steep seat angle (which allows you to run faster, because your muscles are fresher and you've got more glycogen running around inside you).

but since you don't generate as much peak torque, you have to keep the pedals turning. no lagging on the cadence. so, when a person says, as one poster in this thread said, "i can't change my pedaling style," (or something like that) then fine, ride shallow. if you can't manage to get your fingers to change the gears in order to keep your cadence at 90 or 95, you're better off not taking advantage of the efficiency riding steep gives you.

this is why, btw, a high cadence works v a low cadence. you'll generate the same amount of watts riding 70rpm as you will riding 90rpm, and at the same aerobic cost. but riding 70rpm is going to cost you metabolically, because you'll have to recruit fast twitch fibers. you can't determine this via a 10 minute, or 30 minute, test on a bike ergometer. power and HR will remain the same with either cadence rate. but if you perform a muscle biopsy on both subjects, then you'll find out about the differing metabolic costs of these various cadence rates (and you'll see why seasoned riders have known for decades what science couldn't figure out until recently, that 90rpm is right around the best cadence rate on the average).

it's all on slowtwitch. just read the articles. or better yet, come to a FIST workshop, where it's all spelled out in detail, over BBQ and margaritias :-)

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!! [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think it is somehow related to how the body is able to stablize itself against the torsional forces of pedaling.

This is just off the top of my head, and I don't know exactly what I'm talking about from a kinesiology standpoint (which is probably one of the best ways to explore this), but: the rider needs to be able to take the potential power generated at the pedal and efficiently transmit it against something else: such as an anchored body. Core strength plays a big role in this.

Think of pushing off a wall when swimming...the leg extension against the anchored wall really propells you efficiently. If you were to extend your legs against the non-supportive water, you get very little power.

One of the ways to generate power is to pull up on the handlebars...requiring the core muscles to anchor, or stabilize, the forces produced through the body to the seat and handlebar areas.

Perhaps a steeper positioned rider may not as able to pull up on the handlebars to generate power as a slacker-tubed rider because the steeper rider isn't anchored as well? I don't know.

I do know, that for me, I run at least the first mile or so quicker after coming off a steeper position because my back/glutes (and sometimes hamstrings) aren't as tired/tight. I don't really feel differently in my quads/calves based on the position I had been riding. Plus, I think I get better aerodynamics in a steep position, which maybe helps to minimize the effect of wattage lost in the steep position. On a big hill, I slacken my effective seat tube angle by sliding back on the seat to get more power...then go back forward asap.

Try a few different scenarios for yourself. Maybe one will jump out at you as being better than the other. Maybe not. If not, go with the most comfortable.



Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)
Quote Reply
Re: Steep position counter-argument. Here we go again!! [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Somehow, I didn't read this post before I posted. I didn't think about rpm differences in the two positions, I guess because I run the same in either position. The peak power idea does make sense...that's why you don't blast up a hill in a triathlon. You would in a road race, but that's completely different.

If you rode a 56 mile road race, I bet you'd be more wiped out (unless you're a wheel sucker) than if you had ridden a 56 mile triathlon leg...even though your average power would have been similar, and your average speed would be similar....all that jumping and sprinting and trying to drop somebody really takes up the energy stores.

Like I said in my earlier post...I really don't know what I'm talking about! I don't know if body anchoring with your core muscles is a factor in which position is better for a particular individual.



Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)
Quote Reply