Dude: Get measured. Buy the bike that fits. Don't compare bikes: Compare fit. Fit=performance. No fit, no performance. It doesn't matter how much Dura-Ace you have on the bike. It is possible to win Ironman Hawaii on every tri bike above $800 retail. What is the largest variable between them? What is the ONE thing that influences performance the most? Fit.

Don't believe me? Try this: Do a 40 K time trial. Write down your time and average heart rate. Now, pull all your Ultegra off and replace it with Dura-Ace. Do a 40K time trial. Write that down. Figure out the difference in time. Now, raise your saddle 2 or 3 inches from where it is now. Go ahead and put a disk wheel, three spoke carbon front, carbon fiber seatpost, tubular tires, an aerodynamic skinsuit, lighter pedals, behind the seat drinking system, one piece aero skin suit, one piece carbon fiber aerobars, Nokian cable housing, inflate your tires with helium like they did in the '88 Olympics in L.A. Now, do the 40 K one last time. I'll be darn: The slowest one was last one with all the fancy stuff on your bike but your seat 2" away from where it should be. Hmmm. Now which bike should you buy? The one your bike fitter tells you to. Let him pick your bike. He buys bikes for a living. You don't. He buys hundreds of bikes per year and fits hundreds of people per year. You don't. His living and ability to eat depend on him making sure your bike fits not just good, but perfectly. Yours doesn't. For you, bike selection is a pleasant hobby. For your bike fitter, it is his living.

If you find a good bike fitter and take his recommendation I bet you will be very excited with the reuslts and you'll likely be faster on a precisely fitted bike- not only on the bike but also on the run. Good luck!

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Tom, I am sorry for this maybe a bit naive question, but I always follow your posts and you always emphasize the fit aspect: what does the fit acctually mean according to you? For example, if I have several bikes of a similar size to choose from, I think that the set up of each bike can be modified such that it will eventually suit your body dimensions. You can play, for example, with a saddle height, stem length, bar size, etc. IMHO all these variables give you freedom to tune the bike like you want. If this is so, I do not really understand the comment you always repeat "choose the bike that fits you the best".

I own Cervelo Soloist team and I am considering a purchase of a tri-specific bike in the near future. But with all these different tri bikes around the choice is rather difficult. How, in practice, determine the best tri bike for you? Make a prelimiary selection and contact a specialised bike fitter? What if this still leaves you with an open question "which bike is the best for you?"

This is not a naive question, it is an intelligent one: What does fit "mean" to me? It is the optimal interface between frame dimensions and geometry (bike selection) combined with optimal positioning on that optimal bike.

Now, think about this: Gerard Vroomen of Cervelo is sometimes fond of pointing out he can ride a 52cm Cervelo P2K or a 61 Cervelo P2K interchangeably. And you kow what? He's right! Gerard can acheive the identical posture and orinetation of the sacred "three points in space" (simply put: butt, feet, hands) on either the 52cm or the 61 cm. Using (as you correctly pointed out) the appropriate stem, seatpost, cranks, pedals and handlebars you can get the POSTURE or POSITION identical on bike frames with very different dimensions and angles, as Gerard is fond of mentioning.

So why the nit-picking over which bike to buy? Position is, at best, only half the fit picture. The other half is the behavior of the bicycle in the dynamic environment of sailing down the road, around corners, up and down hills, while shifting, while eating, while drinking and while braking in a emergency when it accomodates thats perfect posture.

Gerard is right: He can get the same position on either a 52 cm P2K or a 61 cm P2K. But they sure won't have the same fore/aft weight bias, wheel base, turning radius, center of gravity, etc. All these things conspire to make you feel "connected" to the bike (with the optimal posture and frame fit) or oddly disjointed from a bike even though the posture or position feels fine on an indoor trainer.

Now, forgive me this admitedly heavy handed analogy or "Tomism": Driver position and location of controls is of vital mprtance to a Formula 1 race car driver. So much so their seats are molded to their bodies at the constructor's factory. Now, the cockpit of the driver can be duplicated i his Formula 1 race car, or in a Ford F350 pick-up truck. The positions, postures, control proximities are identical, but there is a huge difference between the F1 car's lap time at Monaco and the lap time of the Ford F350 pick-up, yet the driver positions are the same.

So how do you tell what bike is is Optimal for your position and body measurements? There is a succint relationship between the dimensions and gometry of the bike and the corresponding places where the rider's body is designed to bend- especially up top 110 times per minute in the case of the body parts used to pedal the bike. The factor in steering, weight distribution, the issue of stability at speeds in the performance envelope from 2 m.p.h. to 45 m.p.h. on a mountain descent and you have a lot of variables.

When you look at it this way there is a lot of opportunity to make improvements and "get it right".

Did you see Ullrich's crash in the final time trial of the Tour de France this year? I watch that crash on a contiuous DVD loop in our store on a Famous Cycling Videos disc many times through out the day. One thing I notice is that Ullrich's weight bias front to back was very "strained" on his bike. I am not saying his fit and position were 100% responsible for the crash- I could never tell that even from viewing the tape many times from different angles. However, I will go so far as to suggest that his unusual posture, frame choice and resultant weight bias and handling characteristics may have caused the bike to be inherently unstable in some performance envelopes, such as recovery from a momentary loss of traction. I think Ullrich's position and posture and equipment choice was so "performance" oriented that most semblance of stability and handling were compromised. That may have contributed to his inability to avoid the slippery spot to begin with, corner at speed on a wet surface, loose traction on the front wheel and rear wheel, and take reflecsive evasive action to regain control and traction and remain upright. I think fit and position were at least minor factors in his crash. Maybe more than minor.

Look how much more "solid" and stable Armstrong's position looked. As fact would have it, Armstrong did loose traction at several points during the final time trial in the rain. But in each instance he recovered and avoided a crash. Now, clearly, it is impossible for me to attribute that to bike fit, but I am willing to suggest that bike fit and position may have been a contributing factor to Armstrong being able to recover from momentary losses of traction that seemed to send Ullrich sprawling.

Does this make any sense to you? Sorry for the length of my answer. I spend a lot of time thinking about these things.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Tom, nice post, but did not really give anything usuable, you posed the questions but gave no answers, you didn't say what the characterisitcs of Jan's set-up where that made it perhaps unstable, and vice-versa with Lance. (BTW thre were lots and lots of cyclists that tumbled over that day as you would know).

So how do you determine what frame size/style to get if there is no-one in your area with any idea of triathlon specific bike set-up?

I am looking at get a tri-specific bike. I have a road bike and MTB for training and both fit me really good, handle great and I feal great on them. Just did measurements and I am at 73.5 degrees on my road bike. With my clip-ons in aero postition I sit smack bang very comfortably in the middle of the seat, and don't slide forward when I need to go faster. BUT I am not very aero, 3-5cm drop to the top of my arm rests from the seat. I have slid forward on my seat to see what it is like - but that is just silly as nothing else changes as it would if I had a steep set up.

How do I know if going to ~76+ degrees and lower at the front will work? With no-one here to guide me I have to make some tough decisions from info I've gained over the internet - very risky and could be a costly mistake.

Anyone have any suggestions???

No amount of time spent on the Internet is going to help you figure out exactly which bike to buy. To do this right, you need experience, which you only get by doing fittings

Ves at Yaqui can do this over the phone as long as he has detailed measurements, and i believe BicycleSports is getting in to this as well, but I don't personally know of others. Tom may even be able to help with this, but I doubt he will do it for free. It is a very valuable service, and worth paying for.

Good point(s):

1. I am reviewing the DVD of the time trial now and specifically, my observations are as follows:

- Ullrich's upper body weight is inadequately supported by his upper skeleton due to the relative downward angle of his aerobar extension. He appears strained in maintining this posture, as though he cannot adequately "lean" on the elbow rests to support his weight forward of his waist. The visual effect of this is that, if he released his grip on the aerobar extension with his hands, he would slip forward down the elbow pads as a result of thier downward angle. If Armstrong released his hand grip on the aerobar extensions, I maintain his upper body would not slide forward at all.

- Ullrich's elbow rests on his aerobars are at a point closer to his wrists than is my customary preference. At some points in the footage his watchband is touching the elbow rest. I feel this does not provide adequate support of the upper body and changes the nature of steering input. This theory is substantiated by the instructions for fitting Syntace brand aerobars (different that the ones Ullrich used)which recommend the elbow be supported by the elbow pad. This fit aspect of aerobars is also addressed at DAn Empfield's F.I.S.T. school.

- Ullrich's aerobars have a straight extension. Armstrong's have a moderate upward curve. I prefer the comfort, support and security of grip of an aerobar with an upward curve to prevent accidental loss of grip on the aerobar extension should the rider's hands become slippery. This upward curve facilitates a more natural (rested state) attitude of the hand, wrist and arm. I prefer that for reason of comfort and safety.

- Ullrich appears to be in a posture where he is "pulling up" substantially on the forward extensions of his aerobars. I prefer a more restful, supported position which requires less muscular effort to maintain. It is worth pointing out that Ullrich's average speed through a time check at 32.5 Kilometers was reported by Paul Sherwin as 56.91 KM/hour or 35.28 M.P.H. (32.5 kilometers or 20.15 miles in 35:19.06).

- Ullrich must release his grip on his right hand or slide his right hand forward on the striaght aerobar extension to facilitate a gear change. His shift levers are too far forward. They should be farther back (and the aerobar extension shorter as well as being curved upward) to facilitate shifting without compromising his grip.

- As viewed from the front the "base of the triangle" formed by Ullrich's right wrist contact point with the elbow pad, left wrist contact point with the elbow pad and the top of the triangle represented by the top of Ullrich's head, is too narrow. As a result this "head-on" camera angle reveals that Ullrich's upper body moves substantially with every pedal stroke from left to right, offering a "counter force" but also serving to shift his weight from left to right with each movement. This appears to de-stabilize him as compared to a "quieter" riding posture where the upper body does not move from left to right as viewed from the front.

- In side views, as compared to Armstrong, Ullrich's weight appears oriented too far forward onto the front wheel. Armstrong's position appears to be more neutrally (or equally) weight biased over both wheels.

-In the video slow motion of Ullrich's fall his rear wheel seems to break traction a split second before his front. Is this because Ullrich's weight(center of gravity) is being shifted forward slightly by his deceleration into the turn pitch him subtely forward? I do not know, but this is a possibility. I suggest that if he had more weight on the rear wheel of his bike it may have exerted a different effect.

"So how do you determine what frame size/style to get if there is no-one in your area with any idea of triathlon specific bike set-up?"

I don't know the answer to that question. I would suggest traveling to a place where you know there is a good bike fitter. This might be a worthwhile investment of time and money.

I hope that does a little better job of expressing the specifics of my opinions.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Tom, thank you for your answer.

One more questions though. While choosing a tri-bike based on your body measurements, do you have to know first how steap you what to ride (that is, what is the effective seat angle you are aiming at)? Or the effective seat angle should also be a result of your bike-fitting investigations?

just that I am picky I guess...

but the olympics in 88 were in Seoul. LA was in 84.

ACCChhhhhhhhhhhh. You're absolutely right. Sorry.

And for the seat tube angle: IMHO I believe seat tube angle (steep or shallow) is also a function of body measurements.

There are a few people for whom steep never seems to work, and others (like myself) who actually need to be very steep on their tri bike and relatively steep (74.5 degrees) even on their road bike.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Maybe Tom should hire a fact checker?

Perhaps if he had one he wouldn't make factual errors on the geometry of his own ill handling Team Soloist, or the location of the 84 Olympics.

A fact checker might also point out the driver postion (posture) in a modern day Formula One car is basically horizontal in nature and could not be duplicated in an Ford F350 pick-up unless the driver was lying down in the back seat.

However, if you are willing to overlook the obvious factual errors in Tom's posts you realise he is the most entertaining thing we've got going here.

---

=====================================
It's ALL about the bike!

Good point, and you're right about the first two for sure. I guess, in my own defense, I can say those two posts were made at the tail end of a 43 hour period on no sleep. I know, lame excuse, but that;s my sotry and I'm sticking to it. I got some sleep, did some training, saw the new Quinten Tarantino (how do you spell his name?) movie and feel like a million bucks. I did have a fact checker, my externally mounted brain, Michael R. Rabe. He knew everything. His speed dial is still on my phone. He's not around anymore (bought it in a bike accident last year)so I'm dumb now. Normally, I would have hit speed dial and said "Rabe, what year were they putting helium in Steve Hegg's bike at the Olympics?" He would have been like, "That's a JCC situation. It was '84. You just wasted 10 seconds of my life. Bye."

As for the F1 thing, yeah, I knew that. But you could rip out the seat in a F350 and drop an F1 cockpit in there. You just couldn't se out of it. Kinda only reinforces my original point....... :) Just the facts Ma'am.

I did fact check the geometry I put up about the X-Lab Mach 2 after the debacle with the Cervelo. You guys deserve credit for calling me out. I would have looked even more idiotic had I told a customer in the store that.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Quentin...

Kill Bill is a cool movie :-)

It was all about Gogo. I was loving her. MMmmmmmmmmm.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com