It looks like your saddle is too high.

What is your crank arm length?

165mm

---

"They know f_ck-all over at Slowtwitch"
- Lionel Sanders

155mm might fix your saddle height issue.

I do have a little bit of rock and roll in the hips, I didn't have any resistance on the trainer when the video was made. I don't think I do that when I'm under a normal load but I could redo it and see. The 155mm crank option is a bit expensive as it's a Stages 2 side PM, I'd like to not go there if possible.

---

"They know f_ck-all over at Slowtwitch"
- Lionel Sanders

I would just like to say thank you for posting a really good fit critique video. It's very rare these days.

The only improvement would be to not wear a t shirt and wear something tight fitting.

ETA - and reading your reply you should also be under load




I'm not sure I agree that your saddle is too high, but it's close. You get some ankle flexion at the bottom of your pedal stroke that keeps your knee angle looking good but might be you flexing to hit that saddle height (it could also just be your natural pedal motion). If you wanted to sort this out you would experiment with different heights and see what your ankle/knee extension does at those heights.


I doubt you have THAT much to gain from going lower/longer. Your helmet/back interaction is quite good already and it's hard to say if lower would be better (nobody on this board will be able to tell you that, only the tunnel/testing will tell you that) and if it's worth the likely loss in power/sustainability (over the short term).

Thanks for your input, I will do a new video with the trainer under load and wearing my race kit. For some reason my wife / videographer (of 34 years) no longer feels compelled to document my every attempt at fading glory but perhaps I can drag her downstairs for another attempt tomorrow. Stay tuned.

---

"They know f_ck-all over at Slowtwitch"
- Lionel Sanders

Just wanna say, at age 67, and still training 7-9 hrs per week to get as fast as possible, targeting 23 mph on the bike, and still being limber enough to get more aero on the bike = TOTAL WIN.

I hope I can be like you (but I doubt it - my ankle arthritis is almost certainly going to fell me before age 67....grrrr.)

Thanks for the kind words, I am definitely blessed with an obsessive trait or two and at least some athletically inclined DNA. Trouble is in my area of Florida there are a number of really fast old guys in the 65-69 bracket including the Aquabike 70.3 national champion. We were both in a little sprint race last weekend - he was doing the triathlon and I was doing the aquabike. I matched his swim time but he smoked me on the bike. I don't like that. BTW my 175 watts got me to 22.5 mph for 40 minutes which is not too bad but I really think I can do better. I'm down to marginal gains, hence the plea for help.

---

"They know f_ck-all over at Slowtwitch"
- Lionel Sanders

+1 to everything above.

Here's a pic of the extension at 6:00. Knee angle looks good, but there is some toe pointing to keep from over-extending. I'd leave as-is though. Your upper body angles are textbook.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

So after a costume change, a reversal of direction (had to zero out the headwinds) and a bit of load on the trainer (86 percent of FTP) I look pretty much the same. My back is not quite as relaxed as yesterday but I usually have to warm up and loosen up before I feel comfortable and I didn't have that opportunity today. After I did the video I dropped the saddle by 5mm because, well this is Slowtwitch. I'll do a few rides with it and review it later.

Based on the recent race I did (22.5 mph at 172 watts) I'm guessing my cda is about .23 That's better than a lot of AGers but I'm not sure if there's any more low hanging fruit to get an improvement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYUCSMiBQOA

---

"They know f_ck-all over at Slowtwitch"
- Lionel Sanders

That position looks fantastic to my eyes. I wouldn't change a thing.

---

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)

I'm not a fitter, and you've got Trent's feedback there, but that seems to be one of the best positions I've seen in a "critique my fit". Never mind that you're 67. You've basically won Slowtwitch.

agree. that's a good one and i think the lower saddle is noticeable (in a good way).

Awesome! I win Best Director of a Fit Assistance Video, Best Aero Position and the Slowtwitch 10/01/2020 award! The bad news is that now the only way to get faster is to suffer a lot more, I can't wait!

Full disclose to jkhayc, the second video doesn't have the 5mm saddle drop, the difference is probably that I'm under load but I think that's my que to leave it the f-ck alone.

Thank you everybody.

---

"They know f_ck-all over at Slowtwitch"
- Lionel Sanders

A shorter crank means higher saddle in relation to BB? Which means higher pads, which leads to greater frontal area?

That sounds like you pulled a great fit trick on me.

Customer: I really feel like I could go a bit higher
Fitter: you think? It looks really good there
Customer: let's try higher
Fitter: ok

(Fiddles with saddle but unbeknownst to customer leaves it at same height)

Fitter: how's that?
Customer: omg so much better

Only if you raise the saddle.

I think Jim's point was that he could switch to shorter cranks INSTEAD of lowering the saddle...to decrease the plantar-flexion at the bottom of the stroke.

Not necessarily. While you need to raise the saddle in order to keep the same leg extension, your hip angle is more open at the top. In many cases, you can keep the pad height the same, and end up with a lower upper body angle and still have a more open hip angle. Or even lower the front end and have the same hip angle that you started with (this was my result)...

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

Bingo!

I mainly wrote it because very often the lowering of the seat and shorter cranks Seem to be the answer most of the times. Surely there must be a cross over, where you Can produce enough torque to be efficient and/or not comfortable. I’m pretty sure my saddle height would scare off most of this forum, on the High side, But thats How I like it and avoid knee pain

As noted, the interaction between crank length, hip angle, saddle height, pad-stack and resultant frontal area (and total CdA) isn't so simple. But, if you have knee pain issues from deep knee angles while applying force to the pedals...shorter cranks may be an option to consider---as its the other side of the same coin with hip-angle.

No, it isn’t that simple. But if, i’m powerful and comfortable, why would I want to lower my seat (wether being actually lowering the seat or through a short crank)? Of course, more open hip angle at the top is beneficial for comfort or getting a lower front end, which, to a point at least, should be faster. Of course, if this means going faster, when comparing lower power and lower drag, it’s worth considering, But comfort should be taken into account. My knee angle is around 155 degrees at the bottom of the stroke and that’s the way I feel the most comfortable. I know it’s on the High side, But when I change things up, I go back after a few rides, because something hurts and I end up at around the same knee angle. It’s not like i’m running 180mm cranks, 165 on my tri bike and my saddle set back is more like a set forward, struggling to get the bar far enough at the front. And a serious toe-Down when riding. I could set the bar lower and not struggle with the top stroke hip angle, But a lower bar always result in saddle problems either creating Numbness or sliding off it at the front. And the “go to a Wind tunnel with a fitter” isn’t really money I’m willing to spend as a recreational triathlete (and I dont Think there are any Wind tunnels nearby).
My point being that people have their funny quirks and preferences and that you might be faster overall with something you find comfortable (not too comfortable though)

No one was making suggestions to you. The OP asked for suggestions, and a couple of comments were made about his seat perhaps being 5mm too high (or perhaps not).

Jim suggested that Fuller could go to shorter cranks (without moving the saddle) in order to effectively shorten the pedal stroke, with the added benefit of slightly opening up the hip angle over the top. You seemed to misunderstand the "don't move the saddle" bit, thinking that shorter cranks would require raising the seat+cockpit and potentially increasing his Frontal area---a point that is not true, which I clarified.

You mentioned that you have some knee problems, as justification for why you have such a "very high seat" (fuller didn't mention any such issues...so, not really relevant to his fit). I pointed out that shorter cranks might be an alternate solution for your knee problem, as something to consider. But, the reality is without a much better understanding of your knee "pain" and exactly where it occurs in your pedal stroke and why...maybe they would help, maybe not. That's why I simply said, "something to consider" and stopped short of making an outright recommendation.

Of course it all comes down to comfort. That's the whole point of a bike fit. It doesn't matter how aero someone is if they aren't comfortable. That's doubly true for crank length...as they have almost zero impact on aero directly. Only indirectly, insofar as they may make a more aero position more comfortable.

Its been noted many times by most of the best professional fitters around here that there really doesn't seem to be a downside to shorter cranks---at least when it comes to actually available crank lengths. Personally, I'm on 150mm cranks (the shortest I could buy)...I jumped straight from 175 to 150. Once the fit was properly adjusted to compensate, my effective power output was unaffected. I did FTP tests the week before and after to be able to ensure that very fact. But, overall my position was substantially more aero. My CdA is about the same as Fuller.

If you are extremely toe-down (plantar flexed) at the bottom of the stroke, you may be losing power through your fit...shorter cranks MIGHT enable you to have a more (or equally) comfortable AND more powerful pedal stroke without necessitating any aero change to your cockpit or riding position. Further, that type of pedaling mechanics CAN create its own issues. But if you're happy with what your doing and you don't want to consider it, its no skin off my nose. I was only trying to make a potentially helpful suggestion.

All the original comments were directed at the OP, anyway.

Well...it went off topic. But, basically Viewed it from my own experience, since I Can’t feel what anyone else is feeling when on the bike. And I do have Odd dimensions to my body. As for shorter than 165 cranks, I did try 155 once and felt the sensation of being in a kids tri-cycle. I do realise the theoretical benefits of a shorter cranks, it’s just not everyone. My point is, wether you like 155 or 165 cranks is probably a matter of individual preferences.

Aside from that, it’s worth noring that when changing crank length, you’re effectively changing the gearing as well.