Size looks good to me. She's in an aero helmet now to... I think she's got a lot more high profile wins ahead of her.

Ballet pumps?

I was thinking the same when I saw the DUBAI-pic!
She looks a bit far-back on her (kinda low) seat.
But if she feels powerfull & confortable, this works for her.

The cleats in those shoes are mid sole. Thus maybe looking low.

Eyeballing it I'd move her forward a bit and lower her front end a bit as well. That may not necessarily dictate a larger frame, it does mean a longer reach but a lower stack. But that's just an eyeball fit, maybe for whatever reason that wouldn't work for her and she looses too much power or something like that. I'm not a professional fitter, and it's obviously working for her, but it doesn't "look" ideal.

What kind of shoes is she wearing in the top picture? They look strange

---

"I swim because that's how I get to ride my bike."

She could be going up a hill sitting back but no definitely not a size bigger. I would go a size smaller and adjust the reach with a longer stem so she can get lower. Going up a size or two would put her significantly higher because of a taller head tube. You could also shorten the crank and fix it a bit but I'm not sure what size she is on.

It's a ballet triathlon slipper shoe. It's a new trend: swim, bike, ballet drills (2x Arabesque - À la seconde - 2x Arabesque), Run.

Brett Sutton started these trend...to improve the run technique.

She wore an aero helmet during the IM 70.3 championship race. Not sure if she has ever worn one during a full.

Hence why eyeballing doesn't work.
The trend of bringing athletes forward and dropping the front end as a way of making them more aero is a myth that is slowly being dispelled.
Just look at what is coming out of the wind tunnel.

There is far far more to aerodynamics than this.

When considering elements of aerodynamics consider the vertical component as viewed from the front. With this in mind a set back position starts to make some sense.

Also consider that in long distance triathlon absolute power is not the be all, it's barely even the be.
Timetrialling is different, here you are trying to balance power output with aerodynamics. At the higher end of ones capabilities, i.e FTP and upwards this relationship becomes critical.
When dropping down to cruising speed, i.e. half iron and up then there is likely proportionally less compromise from positions which may be compromising, if that makes any sense. As you will not need all the muscles firing hard to achieve high powers. So, therefore you can attempt positions which may be much more aero, but only loose a small amount of power, relative to what you 'could' put out with a more open hip angle.

Added to the fact that if you are going the same speed, or faster for less watts you are winning, as you will be saving energy.

It's my belief that the idea of bringing athletes forward to open up the hip angle and produce more power has been promoted by the use of systems like retul and the measuring of power in bike fit sessions, rather than considering aerodynamics as key.

Eyeball aero does not work as you are invariably looking at one one component, i.e. frontal area as you cannot 'see' the flow.

Therefore you HAVE to go out and do your own testing.

What is coming out of the wind tunnel?

I heard Tom Brady is looking for advice on his throwing motion after your done here.

3 major things.

Sometimes lower isn't better aerodynamically
Individuality of rider
Set back positions that compromise power may be considerably more aero in some riders, leading to the idea that if aero is more key than absolute power production. i.e ironman, then this may dictate the best position for you.

Those are all plausible. But unless you've seen Ryf's wind tunnel data (if there is any) you're just eyeball wind tunneling yourself. Until there's actual data you can't make any claim whether or not lower is better of she's fine where she is. The only evidence there is is "whatever she has seems to be working." But that doesn't mean it's optimal.

She's a phenom. I'm still kicking myself for picking her in bronze on im-predictions.com in yesterday's race. Wishing her a great season and hope she's in top form at Salzburg and Kona late in the season.

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

But... are you really saving much energy by pushing from a compromised position (closed hip angle) and recruiting smaller muscles or less trained ones. I would think the effort would probably be just as much or more with less watts as a result. Maybe you compensate the loss of watts with aero savings but do you really spend less energy? just asking...

Hence my point, I'm NOT eyeballing. I'm not suggesting that lower and back is faster for Ryf, just refuting the commonly held belief that forward and lower is faster.

This is very interesting.
At first probably not, but as you adapt then generally you end up positive.
The point is that with a more closed hip angle you can actually discourage the use of those small muscles, such as the hip flexors as the angle becomes too tight to make use of them.

Hence why in trained positions with a very tight hip angle the pedal stroke seems to become less round (which is bad) and more downward (which is good).

To put some of my own numbers in as an example, when I first started adapting I lost 30-40w for almost the same heart rate in that position from sitting up.
As I have adapted I have gained 20w back, but my heart rate has fallen by around 10bpm. I can physically push more power but it's a struggle.
However I can zipp along at a 'good' power at a very low heart rate for good speed.

Lower is faster is a myth? Of course what works for each individual varies considerably. Of course you have to test. And yes, some people are faster if they don't go super low, especially in long course racing. And of course there's usually a limit at which going too low is slower. But, by and large, most people could stand to go lower.



Reminds me of the other thread about gaining weight. Sure, some triathletes would be faster if they gained weight, but most are carrying more weight than they need. Likewise, some triathletes would be faster by going higher, but most are leaving speed on the table by going too high.

While long course racing is somewhat different from TTing, it isn't totally different either. I've done both TTing & long course racing and found I only had to make some minor adjustments towards greater comfort for long course racing. Some people may well be more effective with a set back position. A guy that runs a local wind tunnel is a big advocate of a setback position. It's only N=1, but I had a session there last summer and he had me slide back. I tried it, it didn't work for me, many months later after verifying with a few Chung sessions, I'm now back to a forward position and faster. I've also heard anecdotal reports of other riders with a similar experience at the same tunnel. If it works, great, but it's not for everyone.

Easy to get things wrong in the wind tunnel too though.
Consider this data from Cervelo:


If each athlete had gone to a tunnel, started at the highest position, and stopped when drag went up as they went down, they all would have missed a better position.

Perhaps some people are not fully exploring the solution space, and using local minimums to justify easier positions to deal with?

The successful hour records of late have all been "low as shit"

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

A sample of 4 is not really worth looking at, because as you say it's all N=1.

And it's NOT about not going lower, it's about whether you can lower at both the front and the back at the same time, as opposed to the forward rotated position.

Umm, rear height is pretty much dictated by your legs. I wouldn't try lowering that.

Consider that the starting position for most people is a front that's significantly higher than the rear. "Rotating forwards" only has the effect of lessening the gap, thus decreasing frontal area (rule of thumb: less is better) without affecting hip angles. It also makes for a flatter back, which, since you're so keep on talking about airflow, likely makes a better shape for that, which makes for a better Cd part of the CdA.

Recent tunnel data shows that lower is not always faster, but it would be false logic to deduce that higher usually is faster. Likewise, there's no evidence in favour of decreasing hip angles for no good reason.

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

No, sorry, I tried but I can't let this one go. A sample of 4 is N=4, isn't it?

;-)

Rear height is pretty much dictated by your legs and crank length, in fairness.