I know a pro cyclist who once had a sponsorship agreement so draconian with regards to equipment that, even after going TWICE for SURGERY for saddle-related issues, was unable to substitute a saddle that would treat her better.

Pure madness.

---

Eliot
blog thing - strava thing

Hello AndyF and All,

What bike will she be riding in the near term?

The pic shows her on a Cervélo .


Or am I missing your point that the bicycle choice will be brand independent .... choice being driven only by individual fit?

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

I'm no bike fitter by any stretch of the imagination, but Coryn Rivera was on a bike in Richmond last year that looked REALLY big on her. Hopefully, Wilier will use feedback from the team and recent incidents to offer smaller sizes.

I don't know the details, but I'm sure Xavier Disley will do a good job of finding the right bike for her.

---

AndyF
bike geek

If I were an agent, I would tell my athletes to shut the fuck up when they are disappointed with sponsors. If I were a sponsor, I would not sponsor an athlete who is unable shut the fuck up. Airing this out in the media does not help the sponsor. It does not help her. It does not help anyone. It is just stupid on her part.

Not sure what "beautiful carbon" has to do with anything (unless that's a Wilier slogan?), I assume she will be ditching her carbon team bike and reverting to a different brand of carbon bike (presumably the Cervelo she's riding in the picture). Fit issue has nothing to do with frame material. And not even clear that it's the frame that is the issue, if she's saying the problem was not being able to get narrow enough that's a cockpit thing.

Sorry, Arch, but I have to completely and utterly disagree here. I've had enough riders riding the wrong bike. Often, the bikes get delivered very late and we often don't have the sizes we need. Many times, these things are last-minute surprises. That's not what the riders signed up for.

Olympic medals have been lost. Elite national teams have de-selected riders based on poor performances that arise from poorly positioned riders being forced to race on bikes that don't fit.

Manufacturers have to start listening to riders and bike fitters. That will help everyone. Because some of the trends I see in frame design will have a lot of people riding very poorly for a very long time.

More specifically, women have really gotten bad deals. Too often, the rider is forced to ride a saddle which is not only uncomfortable, but may also be medically contraindicated. Or they ride bikes which are way too tall to bring out the true potential of the rider.

---

AndyF
bike geek

Sorry, I use that term to describe the choice of integrated, unadjustable carbon stems and handlebars over the choice of simple, adjustable componentry. Often, the alloy clip-on bar gives way better performance for most riders than the fancy carbon stuff.

---

AndyF
bike geek

"And they should stay away from constraining bike position decisions"

Slowman has been writing a lot about this. I don't think a manufacturer *can* stay away from constraining position. Outside of a custom frame, there's no size-run geometry strategy that's not going to cause position constraint for some people. Slowman's assertion is that the industry has kind of followed the Trek strategy. Which is fine. Fits a lot of people. But it constrains a significant # of people too.

Also richer, higher volume companies can make larger size runs. Cervelo has a size run of 6 sizes for the P5. Wilier only 4 sizes for the Twin Blade. With Wilier definitely lacking an "XS" model (though it's not clear if Simmonds would need an "XS", at 5'5", which is small, but not "extra small"). It's hard for me to throw those smaller companies under the bus. It's expensive. But then again, maybe they shouldn't sponsor a women's team if they're not dedicated to manufacturing a spectrum of smaller frames.

Another issue is proprietary front ends. It sounds like one of Simmonds' most pressing issues is width. I don't think that would be the fault of "beautiful carbon" (not sure where that term came from). You just swap in a different bar. Which it looks like the Twin Blade fork, though with a proprietary stem system, the steam has the usual 31.8mm clamp. (correct me if I'm wrong) That would point to a team that maybe didn't want to make a special case for a rider, and experiment with different bars vs. maybe the OEM bar.

I think within 1-2 decades or so we'll have additive carbon layup and curing done by robotics. So custom bikes will make a huge comeback. And LBS, hopefully, make a comeback. And the whole problem will go away. And the carbon will still be beautiful.

In the case of the other UHC women who gave up the Wilier. I suspect she just wanted a faster bike. And the pittance salary given to women pros wouldn't be anywhere near enough to convince me to give up 5-10s advantage to Kristin Armstrong in the Olympics.

I should say "unnecessarily constrain bike positions". Why the carbon stems? Why not leave that portion of the decision to the person who is closest to the actual cyclist?

Bike manufacturers should leave stems alone. That way, no matter who it is, I can make the best use of the frame in question.



Yeah, exactly. Because the aero mythology that they are creating is going to have a lot of women on the wrong size bike.

Position trumps absolutely everything. Get that wrong and you'll be aero as a brick. And probably uncomfortable.



The biggest issue *is* proprietary front ends. Because manufacturers have no business deciding how that part of the bike gets fit to the rider in question. That decision belongs to the bike fitter.

I have spent the past 3 years helping solve unnecessary fit puzzles to try to work-around integrated front ends. Manufacturers: if you don't fully understand bike fit, leave this part of the bike alone!



If and only if ... we recognize that:
1. bike fit is the most important deciding factor,
2. bike fit changes over time due to flexibility, strength, injury, etc...,
3. you cannot replace the bike fitter

I am not a bike fitter, btw. I just happen to have worked with the best and have seen them agonize over the mess created by bike manufacturers.



What is a "faster bike", while we're at it? I'm going to say that it's the bike that allows you to be positioned the best. It's certainly not the bike whose riderless frame aerodynamics are the best.

---

AndyF
bike geek

 

I disagree a bit there. I don't think it's something that can be left alone. Manufacturers are an unavoidable stakeholder in the final fit. Particularly since travelling back in time to the standard fork-and-stem just isn't going to happen. And I think there's some responsibility from fitters to feed back information in a meaningful way (and vice versa) This is what Slowman is doing *right now*.






I moved my pretty much exact fit over from a Jamis Xenith to a Felt DA1. And I got *a lot* faster. Riderless frame aerodynamics is maybe oversold. But it's still important. After you've checked the "fast position" box, it's fine to then pick slippery things that don't interfere with that position. Particularly when headed to something like the Olympics.

Does the rider bear any responsibility is signing for a team when they know the equipment they will be using? "UHC just offered me a contract. I better check and see if I can achieve my position on a Willier."

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Maybe some. But I'd argue that it's largely the responsibility of the team to make it work. They hire professional fitters and mechanics. And aero gurus like AndyF to find a way to get the most out of their athletes. They should be the fit experts, not the riders. As an athlete I'd want the team to have my back. Particularly for TT specialists who are the highest-maintenance prima donnas when it comes to fit.

In ProTour TT's there's no shortage of blacked out or mis-badged equipment. Even frames occasionally. Wheels constantly (HED H3's might be most blacked-out wheel of all time). Those are teams getting the most out of their guys, even at the expense of pleasing sponsors. I think it's the responsibility for a team to write into their sponsor contracts, "We're going to try really freaking hard to use your stuff. And we'll hashtag your stuff on every social media post. But if we can't make it work, we reserve the right to ride blacked-out stuff from other manufacturers."

Hard to know from the outside. Perhaps there is an expectation of a new size/option that never materialized. Probably better for the rider to quietly walk away if the sponsor does not meet their side than to make a massive public statement. On the flip side, if there was never any expectation, then it's like signing up for a job and thinking you will get some work tools and realize you do not and you're stuck having to beat the competition with poor tools. So you either keep working there and try to win with crappy tools, or you find new work where you have access to what you need. In any case, there does not seem to be a productive outcome slamming the sponsor/employer in public unless they truly did something bad. If they sponsor a team, seems like they are already (to some degree) in the good guy camp for putting into this sport.

And this is what some brave riders are doing right now, too. Consider it another feedback channel. I absolutely love what Slowman is doing. But the audience is... is... is us. I'll bet the manufacturers' marketing people will react way more to what Simmonds and Villumsen are doing than to what Slowman is doing.

What is a "faster bike", while we're at it? I'm going to say that it's the bike that allows you to be positioned the best. It's certainly not the bike whose riderless frame aerodynamics are the best.



Consider yourself very lucky. Or very very good.

I've worked for no fewer than 5 olympic teams. And I'm going to say that at least 4, if not 5, are limited by manufacturers' integrated stem decisions. Yes, even at the olympic level you can still be limited by frame issues. And no, you haven't checked the "fast position" box yet. You just make do and hope the competition has the same issues.

I wish I was exaggerating here. But most of my professional life as the aerodynamic support person for olympic and pro bike fitters is spent troubleshooting things that we shouldn't be troubleshooting: how to legally tilt a Shimano PRO Missile aerobar, how to fix Look's integrated stem height, how to work around Trek's Speed Concept Monobar, how to nosedive the stem for a small rider on a Cervelo P5, etc... This has been a good part of my life for the past few years.

So, yes, definitely consider yourself lucky that you exactly matched your fastest position on a new bike and that this bike got you a lot faster. I wish I had this kind of luck.

---

AndyF
bike geek

It's more luck than you know. When I got the DA1 I ordered the whole proprietary adjustable stem thing separately and a size run of the little segments. And budgeted a month to figure out how to get it all set up. And listened to fitter horror stories about how you need to use like teflon tape, etc. to get everything to seat correctly.

Then I got the frame built up and just threw on whatever fixed stem that shipped with the bike just to do quick test ride to test the build. Test ride felt awesome.

So I pulled out the tape measure and measured pad X, Y. It was perfect, to the millimeter in both X and Y.

Which I have about $400 in new-in-box Felt Bayonet 3 stem crap if anyone needs them....

If I were the manufacturer or one of their engineers, I'd have been listening and reacting to the athlete's impressions starting 6-12 months prior to the racing season. I'd have been modifying the designs appropriately long before they ever became an issue. Tweaking product designs throughout a racing season is trivially easy for competent manufacturers. If that wasn't being done, it was either because they were working with incompetent manufacturers (unlikely) or there was a breakdown in communication. Who knows, maybe the agent was doing exactly what you suggested. In which case, s/he should be fired for that reason and for not watching out for the client's best interest and health.

It's not like that at all in women's pro cycling. Teams are generally grateful to even have bike sponsors. For women, we're usually talking about the smallest frame sizes, where the stack/reach compromise is most acute.

And, as trail pointed out, many of the seemingly high-end, exotic frame manufacturers have very limited sizes. European manufacturers are often especially oblivious to women-specific frame needs.

You know, I get it ... high-end cycling is not necessarily rich. The high-end bike business is much smaller than we all think.



You mean, making new moulds and laying up new carbon to better fit women during a pro cycling season? I wouldn't say it's never been done... but I've never heard of anything like that. With some companies, you're lucky if the smallest frame sizes have ever even been wind tunnel tested.

Look, I know we all want to think that pro cyclists are waited on hand and foot. But the truth is far from that, even for men's pro cycling. The pro cyclist is an athlete who's survived years of inappropriate equipment choices and still comes out on top. Those riders who can sit on a poorly-fitting bike, wear a less-than-optimal aero helmet, and sit on a saddle that's not completely comfortable... and still win... they're the ones that get the pro team gig.

---

AndyF
bike geek

Heck, this even happens within teams that have good tt gear.
Kristen Armstrong gets all the fly stuff- etap, coated parts and ceramic everything- her teammates?
Box stock- even the ones who ride a good tt.

I was looking at getting the wife a new TT bike this season and my fitter told me that if it wasn't 650c then she'll be compromising her position so much that a new slippery frame would be worthless. Further investigation reveals that only Cervelo and Cannondale are making 650c bikes (unless I've missed some) and neither of them now distribute their 650c bikes in Australia. Awesome! Great work bike manufacturers.

You only have to look at Rinny's position on that IA to know that it's too big.

I'm totally with you Andy. I know a lot of women pros who struggle with equipment (a friend of mine owns one of the top teams). The bikes just aren't designed for them, and it sucks. The sponsors should use the teams to help them develop bikes to fit women properly rather than forcing them to use their stock stuff. The thing is the women's teams beg and plead for anything they can get, and are terrified of losing their sponsorships, and the sponsors don't really give a crap about the women's teams, so the power balance is way off.

AndyF wrote:

how to work around Trek's Speed Concept Monobar

OK so just curious about this one. I think of the monobar as one of the better more flexible designs. What can't you do with it? You know about this, right?

benb wrote:

You only have to look at Rinny's position on that IA to know that it's too big.

Whether on the 650 Felt or the 700 Felt IA, her position looks identical (and rather comfortable).

There was stock at Cervelo Australia of size 45 P2s and P3s quite recently. Has your store checked with Derby lately?
I did have to wait a year and a half for a 650 P3 - then a whole bunch arrived.

You greatly overestimate the scale and competence of bike manufacturers. Only a handful have inhouse prototyping capability. Most have very long lead times on development and simply can't afford to modify moulds (or cut new ones for an extra size) during a models life.

The problem is that there is little understanding of fit (especially for tri) outside a few brands and the design phase is flawed for a lot of bikes. And then, even if a brand has an epiphany, they're stuck with a model for a couple more years to pay it off.

It can be quite depressing discussing their fit philosophy with some brands.