Todd is a good sized guy. I wanted to use him as an example because he is a good athlete but has a rather "average" (although SUPER fit) build. He isn't super skinny. What we are doing with him we can do for a guy who is relatively new to the sport. I'm not too excited about rotating Todd down and forward ("clockwise" in Dan's vernacular) since his results in his current position are excellent. But, I thought it was worth the hypothetical illustration with the red lines. For me (myself) I would try the "red line" position in the last graphic. I have less to loose than Todd since I'm not as good an athlete, and more to gain. Thank you for comments. I appreciate you taking the time to look. I hope we now have something for people everywhere to look at and learn from. For bike shops: get to F.I.S.T.! I recommend it. You owe it to your customers.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Well written and great graphics. Question: how was the weight distribution measured?

---

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some are born to move the world to live their fantasies...

https://triomultisport.com/
http://www.mjolnircycles.com/

Tom,

Fantastic! I vist your web site fairly regularily....In facy I was on this morning to see if anything was new. The wait 'til later in the day was worth it! Great information and resource. When the day comes that I drive to MI to visit my sister I will schedule an app't.

Many Thanks!

---

David
* Ironman for Life! (Blog) * IM Everyday Hero Video * Daggett Shuler Law *
Disclaimer: I have personal and professional relationships with many athletes, vendors, and organizations in the triathlon world.

Tom - What is his drop from saddle to pads - where in the formula range is he?

I know you posotioned his arms to the 90 angle on the QR, but it makes him look a little bunched up. Even though he is greater than 90 on his softride he looks more comfortable - what does he say?

Tom:

(I'm new to the site)

Fantastic job and great graphics. It helped me to understand my positioning better after looking it over.

I'm sorry that you aren't within striking distance for me... my ride is a torture device at the moment and I would love to get set up by you!

Jake

Yup, you made two good observations: Firstly, yeah, I didn't include the F.I.S.T. Dan Empfield formula for calculating elbow pad drop. Maybe in a future aritcle or feature on our site. Basically this was an attempt to depict the 90 degree relatinships more than anything (and spread the word that I went to F.I.S.T. so we can sell some more bikes). Functionally, yup, I am using it here. Secondly, yeah- I'm with you- the man looks cramped. But, as the F.I.S.T. manual indicates this is a viable configuration. In Dan's F.I.S.T. manual there is photo of Craig Walton on his Felt- man, now HE is cramped or crunched up. It seems, in looking at photos of myself even, there are a lot of reach measurements out there that are too long. Todd hasn't had enough time on the bike to have many comments. These photos are not even 24 hours old.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Next time you have access to his bike I would be curious to know the drop because you mentioned that he could go to a cervelo to be more aggressive, I wasn't sure what you were basing that on if you don't know where in the range he is. I assume you are just going by looks.

Another option on getting him more aggressive, assuming he needs to be based on the formula, is possibly changing aero bars to something like the new HED bars which have the pads right on the base bar - this is making the assumption he is using a clipon or some bar with high pads.

Great website!

---

Craig

Tom, you've outdone yourself again. Another great article.

The only question that really remains is the lower more aggressive position always the fastest? Guess, the only way to tell is to try it.

His back is already (more or less) parallel to the ground, why would you go lower? I was under the impression that after the back is flat, then there is little or no aero advantage to be gained by getting lower.

I was going to put a line across the top of his head and another across the top of his shoulders to illustrate that I felt his head wasn't as low as it possibly could be, but I kind of agree.... I thought the position was reasonalbly low. I mean he's high, but low enough though.... Know what I mean?

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I was thinking that too.... this is as low as the man likes to go. The angles are right though. That is the reason we put the "hypothetical " (red) position up there too. Thanks for looking.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Excellent graphics... and the FIST method seems pretty much the way I was fitted some 17-18 yrs. ago - a fit base on body angles irrelevant to the bike.

Unfortunately, I see is fundamental weak spot (IMHO). In your graphical illustration you show only the extended leg position side view. The emphasis is upon the hip angle, shoulder heighth and centers of weight - that which would provide comfort and aerodymanic advantage.

However, I prefer to define my body angles by stress points. Once highest stress points are determined, the body angles that develop provide comfort, equitable weight distribution and a strong riding position. But, it may not necessarily produce the most aerodynamic position. Therefore, my priorities are comfort and power first. Using these priorities, I feel that the knee, lower back, shoulders, and ankles/elbows (in that order) are those angles that most crucial for comfort and a healthy riding. The order is defined by stress and movement. Higher the stress and greater the movement, the more crucial the correct angle must be to prevent injury.

When I looked at your nice fitted position, I couldn't help but notice the knee pictured in the background. Putting the knee in that steep of a bend while also at the highest point of pressure against the patella, all I could say was - Chondromalacia! (IMHO) The knee is the most likely candidate for repetitive use injury (and slowest in showing symptoms). While, the lower back and shoulders are the most likely candidate for exertion/stress related injury (and quickest in showing symptoms). In essence, your side view and description only reflects problems/solutions with lower back and/or shoulder and ankle angles. The knee's crucial point of steepest angle (and, greatest point of potential injury) doesn't seem to be a consideration.

Furthermore, if you take (as I have) the knee as that most limiting factor for potential injury, then an active evaluation of the knees up and down movement from the front view would be equally as important as a side view. Did the new position change the vertical knee movement? If so, then that could lead to ITB problems (in addition to maltracking patela syndrome).

As I stated at the beginning... stress points and the angles that develop from reducing excessive stress are my priorities - not aerodymanics. Many times those two issues are not compatible. For me, I have chosen the route to a healthy and powerful bike position. And, if it happens to be aerodynamic... that's a good by-product but not the key intent.

Can you have both? Yes (more or less), but I prefer to start with angles of less stress then work my way to aerodynamic efficiency. This comes from experience riding and slow intergration of knowing your bodies limits and the development of good spinning technique. My biggest fear is that an inexperienced 18 yrs. old will attempt to mimic an aerodynamic fit done by a pro for an experience biker. The net results is an 18 yr. old with bad knee before he/she hits 25. Many a bike fit truly underestimates (and, under emphasizes) the need to develop an aerodynamic position.

All that being said, Your article and graphics were fantastic... but, (I'm sure you would agree) side views only tell only part of the story. Maybe a disclaimer should be attached,... such as, this position should only be attempted by experienced bikers with no signs of knee problems... yada yada yada...geez, then the article would start to sound like drug commercial. I hope my comments are taken only as constructive in nature... but, to say the good things about your attempts (and, the FIST method) would make this already too long of a post even longer. I am very happy to see a name attached to a fitting process that I've been using for myself for many years. All in all, it's an EXCELLENT article!

FWIW Joe Moya

Tom, great article. Two questions: How did you determine the 53%/47% weight distribution? Next is sort of subjective. I feel I'm pretty well fit on my bike but find I'm frequently moving forward on the saddle and have to push myself back. Saddle is perfectly level and I am lost for an answer. Any suggestions?

In reply to

---

So you would advocate raising the saddle? He already looks pretty high to me - knee angle on extended leg is pretty average, but foot is angled down a bit more than average. I bet that if you raise the saddle much at all, he'd have to rock from side to side on the saddle to reach the pedals (and efficiency would decline at the same time).

---

No... I not advocating raising the saddle. Without joint angles shown on the the other side, I don't know what can be changed (if anything). Raising the seat is not the only option to result in opening the knee angle. A key point made by Tom is that this rider is experienced. Experience can make a big difference in joint angle tolerance. My fear is that some riders may not have the capacity to have this steep of a knee bend. Simply attempting to copy this riding form could result in permanent knee problems.

My philosophy has always been to give up aerodynamics in exchange for reduced knee stress (and, lower back stress). Then, slowly develop a more aerodynamic bike position. (IMHO) The ability of achieving a powerful and aerodynamic position without increasing the stress on the knee and lower back are very difficult to achieve without increasing the probability of injury.

Fitting is a process... seldom is the best fit accomplished in the initial position. Fortunately, I believe Tom did an excellent job of providing a good starting point for this particular biker.

FWIW Joe Moya

First off, Thank you all very much for viewing this feature and providing feedback. Also, a gracious thanks to Dan Empfield for letting me prostitute the forum to channel people over to see my work. I appreciate it. It gives some real-world perspective on the value (or lack there of) of what we're doing. As of this morning a lot of people have viewed this feature since it went up yesterday, so hopefully it is informative and helpful as well as being a plug for me to sell bikes in my store. Lots of good insights. I appreicate them.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I am not sure I quite understand some of what is going on with this fit. The rider looks fairly large to me. Having the saddle 1.5 cm in front of the BB would probably put the seat angle at about 80 degrees already. I don't have his saddle height, so my math may be off, but I doubt it would be off much. It may be that he has a short inseam, so maybe he is only around 78 degrees. Let us know.

The point of all this is that a steep seat angle and keeping the hip angle and shoulder angle at 90 degrees would normally yield a pretty low position. This is a big guy and maybe the top part of his arms is long, but he definitely doesn't have a low position.

You proposed potentially moving the saddle forward to 3.5 cm in front of the BB. That would certainly rotate him lower, but I am guessing that would give him a pretty radical seat angle of my 83 degrees or more. I doubt a big guy like that would be able to do an IM that way.

I guess I am saying that it seems that he already has a steep seat angle but he isn't getting the particularly aero position that such a seat angle is designed to create. I have a disconnect somewhere. Please tell me where. I am guessing it is just the unusual build of this very powerful guy, but I just don't know.

Good observation, and right on: One of the many things I learned from Dan Empfield at F.I.S.T. is that people ARE riding much steeper than is often represented. Since returning from F.I.S.T. we have been recording and cataloging the EFFECTIVE (real) seat angles people are riding at . We've looked at aoubt 30 riders now, all triathletes, all fairly well positioned. We are seeing a LOT of 81 degree effective angles. Much steeper than originally we thought. Quick historical note: The "original" triathlon bike had a seat tube angle of 90 degrees, then was dialed back to 80 degrees, then 78- but Dan confessed that rider postiions remained around 80 and even steeper. Despite some (probably) erroneous information to the contrary they have more or less stayed there.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Tom, how about this guy? What seat angle is he at now, and what would his seat angle be if you made the change to 3.5 cm in front of the BB? If his seat angle is already 80 degrees as I am guessing, why isn't he low already? I am guessing the answer is just the way he is built, but I would like to hear it from the guy who did the work.

Hey tom... you should get the feature on your site where you can get an email message whenever something new comes up on your site... I know I would like it