He's alluding, and rightly so, to those bike designs that, although "targeted" at the tri-audience, don't really allow a decent aero position, usually due to an overlong head tube relative to the rest of the bike. Take Cannondale's current low-end offering. Both Dan and Tom Demerly have serious issues with this bike, mostly because it doesn't know whether it is a road bike or tri-bike. There is no way to get even a moderately aggressive position. The point is, some companies are putting out junk in the hopes of capitalizing on SELLING to the less experienced or gifted. These people often purchase these bikes only to find themselves seriously limited when they want to upgrade or get into a better position. By hedging bets to sell to these people in their multisport infancy, they've sold the customer short.

Dan, I'll give this one a shot, as a chance to paraphrase some concepts I learned in your FIST clinic.

As a bike fitter, you begin with the assumption that the rider is a triathlete and therefore wants to be in the "optimal" tri position. We tossed around a lot of words until we settled on optimal.

Optimal Tri Position

• 78 degree seat tube angle
• 90 degree angles formed by torso and leg (hip angle), upper arm and torso, and by the elbows.
• Aerobar tilt is largely a function of rider personality. A aggressive rider, such as Jurgen, might want the bars tilted downward, as they feel they use the bars to get better leverage. A more relaxed rider (Dan calls it "whispering louder") will want the aerobars level or even tilted up.
• You then adjust the drop between the seat and elbow pads to the rider's comfort, while shifting the seat fore and aft to retain the 90 degree hip angle.

You begin with these assumptions and then, by qualifying the subject, you either retain the optimal tri position or work backwards along the spectrum of bike fit: from optimal tri position (most aggressive) to "multisport position" (less aggressive) to road or "slam" position. During this qualification process you assess the subject for flexibility, "thinness," what they want to get out of the sport, what they want to do with their bike, etc.

Three examples:

• Kona AG qualifier: very fit, athletic with aggressive goals. This person would be best served on a tri-bike (78+ seat tube) in an optimal tri position.
• MOP'er, wants to race tri's but also ride in the local road races. Maybe carrying a little extra around the middle. Probably best served with a multisport bike in a multisport position, allowing him to participate on multiple roles.
• 65 year old woman carrying a few extra pounds. Not very flexible or comfortable in an aggressive riding position. Would probably be best served on a road bike with a slack seat tube angle and shorty aerobars, like Jammer GT's.

Your desired endstate is an athlete with a bike and fit combination that fits their body (it's capabilities and limitations), personality, and goals in the sport. What is critical here is that where an athlete winds up on this continuum is entirely fine. It's all good. However, the athlete must be educated about what his best and appropriate fit is, given the limitations of body and equipment.

I think what Dan is saying that the bike companies assume that these athletes are not athletic enough to assume an optimal tri position on a triathlon bike (78 seat tube, short top tube). They then sell road bikes (defined by seat tube angle and top tube length, basically) as tri-bikes, in an effort to jump on the triathlon wagon. Athletes then buy these bikes and try to assume a tri-position which is sub-optimal by definition.

A perfect example is my girlfriend, who purchased a road bike at Supergo before we met, then got fitted on it by some clown who tried to turn it into a "tri-bike." Our first ride together after the FIST clinic I recognized her position as a complete abortion. I'm now looking at how to achieve her best position within the capabilities and limitations of her seat tube angle and top tube length. A better solution would be to buy her a tri geometry bike, but that is not in the cards right now.

---

Rich Strauss
Endurance Nation Ironman 2013 and 2014 World Champion TriClub, Div I
Create a FREE 7-day trial membership

"some concepts I learned"

Rich, this is a really good post. Confirms in my mind what I've posted before that bike fitting is not mysticism nor rocket science but based upon logical thinking.

I want to take the FIST course sometime. It's just hard to justify when you don't work in the industry.

A lot of these companies have come to the realization that top tubes have to be shorter. the areas in which a lot of them miss the boat, i think, is in the seat angle and even more so in the head tube. you can easily make a 76 degree seat angle into a "relative" 78. but why not just make it a 78 to start with? you can LESS easily make a 17cm top tube work for an aggressive position (unless you're 6'5"), and it would be nice if the bikes were built with short enough to start with.

i'm 46 years old. i'm not peter reid. far from it. yet if i have a hard time getting forward and low enough, where's my bike? cervelo made it. a few others do. other companies don't.

when they don't, it's not because they truly believe that a shallower, higher position is better. it's because they are worried that the MOPer won't buy the bike. i'd rather they'd just make the MOPer his bike, and make me my bike.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

alright, mr empfield - slightly off topic but something i am wondering. . . . . .what is with the terminology ? i mean, "aggressive" ?? " athletic" ?? as opposed to what - lazy and sloth-like? this use of term seems a tad over the top to me, sir. if the position has merit i can see it and use it without to need to identify my bike as ..."aggressive". i have sit on both and they both felt like inanimate bicycles to me - how you RIDE the thing determines whether or not it is aggresive - why the need to attempt to interject this with the thing sitting still ? how about calling it " forward", or " low/front" ? wouldn't that be more accurate, and a little less. . . . . . .uh. . . . . .well, you get the idea.

oh, and howzabout this business of a "MOP" geometry and a "true FOP" or even, dare i say "optimum" geometry for riding fast? i can assure you the MOP is chock-full-o-steep angled bikes ( being ridden none too aggresively, as an aside......). and tho i don't really get up there i am told the FOP has its share of 76 or less bikes. so again it seems the colorful adjectives relate more to how a fellow RIDES than how his bike looks on the drafting table, no?

Do all bikes used by triathletes need to be designed for Dan's personal aero position in order not to be compromised? There seem to be quite a few fast triathletes who lack the flexibility to take advantage of a short head tube for example. There is certainly room for a steep, short head-tubed tribike in the market, but there are also plenty of people who require a less aggressive geometry due to physiological reasons. I wouldn't necessarily say it is wrong or heretical to design bikes for both markets.

Great job Rich. Where do you do fitting?

Rich i know you are relaying info you've learned don't mean to hammer you specifically but I have an honest question.

To me the seat tube angles on here are backward. I've read dan's fit pages like everyone else. The theme i get form those pages is:

Steep seat tubes open the hips.

Open hips mean you are more comfortable on the bars.

From this it does not logically follow that the 65 year old with tight hips needs a slack seat tube, the logical conclusion is that she needs the steep seat angle worse than anyone else on the list, otherwise she won't get somfortable on the aero bars.

I have missed something and I'd appreciate it is someone could help me out.

i'm going to attempt to answer three posts by different people, all in my reply to you.

1. take marco pantani riding up alpe d' huez. stick a straight pin in his foot, and without changing anything about his position, rotate him forward. two things will happen, more or less. his trunk will move forward v the BB, and his elbows will move down in elevation. the more you rotate him forward, the more he approximates himself riding on the flats, himself riding in a crit, a time trialist riding a time trial, a pursuiter riding a pursuit, etc. the more speed on the flats comes at a premium, the more aggressive his position, i.e., the more he's rotated forward and low in front.

2. no, i don't believe everyone should be thus positioned. yes, there are very good triathletes who are not positioned that way. i just like the idea that SOMEBODY out there is making a model or two that actually is made to work for those who want a bike that is made for a forward, low, position. i like intelligent, wry, sophisticated movies. no, they are not the biggest box office movies. but i'm glad someone makes them. i don't think ALL movies ought to be made like this. but i'm glad a few are. if you don't think that sort of movie, or that sort of bike, is made for you, i'm fine with that. but can't there be a few movies, and a few models of bikes, for those of us who want to ride that way?

3. yes, there is a correlation between that sort of riding position, and the best riders. cam brown, peter reid, tim deboom, natasha badmann, in short the best riders male and female in our sport, ride in an aggressive (steep seat, low elbows) position. yes, there are exceptions. but that's what they are. exceptions. and i'll repeat my message again, for the umpteenth time. i'll address your exceptions, but then you must address the rule.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

cool, mr empfield. but whattup with * aggressive* ? pantani is not riding *aggressively* sitting up as he hammers up the ventoux? since the only thing of consequence that changes is the relation to the bb why not dispense with the colorful and unilateral terminolgy and just call it " forward" or " low/front" or something which does not beg the question of anything else being *nonaggresive*. really man, i am secure enuf in my machismo that i don't need my bicycle to tell me if i am aggressive or not - it just seems kinda silly to me, and i honestly don't know how you guys go around calling being a little more forward and lower in front......aggressive....with a straight face.

At the risk of taking a jaw shot from jumping in the middle here, Dan's use of "aggressive" refers to the aero posture of the position. All else being equal, if a rider is more upright they will 99% of the time be less aero, therefore less "aggressive" in this instance. This usage has nothing to do with how FAST, POWERFUL, HARD the person is riding the bike. If that were what we were talking about, then indeed, we'd all be riding "aggressive" relative to our own ability.

my use of the term "aggressive" seems to be the point of contention. i like "muscular" prose. i like "athletic" jazz trumpeters. those aren't adjectives i made up. they've been used elsewhere, and i borrow them for the purpose of illustration. by "aggressive" i mean something which i believe you now understand after my previous amplification. if you want to quibble with my semantics i'm fine with that. perhaps there's a better--tho less prosaic--word i should use.

i'm more concerned, for the moment, that the IDEAS about bike fit and position be properly transmitted. if we both agree as to what my term means, i'm happy enough with that for now.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

fair enough, good sir. " aggressive" it is then. " hoooooyaahhh", and all that. :) i ride it nowadays, and like it well enuf. i'll have to work on that laughing at myself thing, as i note how .............well, you know.........i am as i saddle up.

beats arguing about PC's for a spell, in any case. :)

Not to quibble but... The original term used in the magazine article was "athletic" not "aggressive." I think most of us are used to the terminology "aggressive" vs "relaxed" which is probably more palatable than "athletic" vs "indolent sloths" ;-)

[reply]Do all bikes used by triathletes need to be designed for Dan's personal aero position in order not to be compromised? There seem to be quite a few fast triathletes who lack the flexibility to take advantage of a short head tube for example. [/reply]

That's a misconception. You don't need to be flexible to take advantage of a short headtube any more than you need to be flexible to take advantage of a long headtube on a road bike. Remember that the position on the two bikes is the same, the tri bike position is simple tilted forward. But the angles of the rider (hip, knee, torso) are the same, and hence require the same flexibility.

So all you need to take advantage of a short headtube is not flexibility, but a steep seattube angle. Roughly for every cm your seat goes forward, you can put the bars 1cm down without any additional flexibility needed.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

well gerard that is what i thought. and, that is why i find it amusing and hyperbole to refer to one as "athletic" or "aggressive" . they are the same position, assumable by the same people - just seems like trying to pump one up, or something. i guess it's just me - at least it makes me laugh. :)

Well yes and no, while you don't have to be more flexible for a forward position, it does help to be athletic. Butthis has nothing to do with the body angles, but rather with the way your body weight is supported in the tri position. With some extra weight this can be an uncomfortable position.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

i don't mean "aggressive" and "athletic" to be used synonymously. i say that the optimal (or i sometimes use the world typical) tri position is an ATHLETIC position, or a MORE athletic position than, say, a road race position. by this i mean that perhaps 98% of all riders can accommodate a road race position, because it requires less athleticism. a superman position is one which requires an extreme amount, it is a VERY athletic position, and perhaps only 10% or 15% of all bike riders could properly access that position for themselves.

an optimal tri position is inbetween, i.e., it's a reasonaly athletic position. inside of the optimal, or typical, tri position is a bit of a range. you might be set up slightly more aggressively than somebody else, with both of you falling inside the category of being in an optimal, or optimized, or typical tri position. i might have a slightly more aggressive tri position than you do, or vice versa.

the terms are nuanced, and i hope you can understand the differences, tho perhaps slight.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman