I thought I would add this to the discussion to elaborate on DesertDude's point about increasing frontal area (i.e. no free lunch).
They're not taken at the same angle but I think I have the scaled about right. You can see the 15º position has a lot more frontal than the hastily put together ~0º position. Also, you can imagine there is going to be a lot more forearm showing. Whether that forearm is going to help route air around the body, I'm not sure. Bike vs Bike I would pick the one on the right to test faster. My YouTubes
That's interesting as hell. I think I could train a tight position at 0º with the right cups/pads, but it's so easy to do with the 15º setup. Looks like it is the opposite for you. Your data makes a ton of sense now.
BTW, if I hadn't said it, your position is really really nice. It is quite apparent that you have spent a lot of time refining it. I love that process. My YouTubes
Your back has a sharper hump with low hands. Not sure why that is, but it's there.
Are you really outside UCI regs for saddle setback and extension reach? You can do 0 on saddle and 75cm reach or -5 and 80cm as I recall.
Oh, and UCI measures from center of pad to top of extension (or shifter).
That could be the position in that particular frame or it could have to do with the feeling like my shoulders were being pulled forward with the 0º setup. Not sure on that one.
Those are the regs I recall as well, but I'm outside on both: 72mm saddle setback and 817mm BB to Shifter Tip.
If Glen makes up those inserts then I would be just fine as far as rise is concerned if they are measuring from the center of the pad. Without the insert, though, I don't think I gain any height with the cup design.
You're saddle is fine, you can go back as far as you like. But the extensions can't be past +80cm. Are you sure they are? It's hard for me to believe someone your height with electronic is having an issue with reach.
An insert on the cups would help a lot. Probably be more comfortable too... ;)
You're saddle is fine, you can go back as far as you like. But the extensions can't be past +80cm. Are you sure they are? It's hard for me to believe someone your height with electronic is having an issue with reach.
An insert on the cups would help a lot. Probably be more comfortable too... ;)
Right, they give you one allowance and don't bother measuring it. But since I am already taking the saddle then I have to be at 75cm, do I have that right? I just measured it again and I am getting 820mm maybe you could call it 819mm. This really only comes into play at Worlds so I am told. My last trip to Nats they didn't even look at my bike. I run really stretched out, I am sure some would say too stretched out. Anyhow, if I do make the trip to Worlds or they start caring for Nats then I might have to choke up my extensions a bit and get me some inserts printed. ;)
I don't even feel the void of the cups. Plenty of support from the bits that cradle my arms and that is with only running about 1mm of foam padding on the bare carbon. Put those cups through some proper trials riding in and around Minneapolis this past August....their roads are shite!! My YouTubes
The basic requirement is at least -5 and no more than +75. You can take a 5cm exception on one of those. You can go -5 (or more) and +80. Or you can go 0 and 75.
I'm trying to adhere to UCI rules except for shifters. I measure only the shifter mounts, which is how they should do it anyway. And I made a fiberglass cover for the front brake that is surely illegal.
The basic requirement is at least -5 and no more than +75. You can take a 5cm exception on one of those. You can go -5 (or more) and +80. Or you can go 0 and 75.
I'm trying to adhere to UCI rules except for shifters. I measure only the shifter mounts, which is how they should do it anyway. And I made a fiberglass cover for the front brake that is surely illegal.
hahaha...I had it in my head the requirement was 0 setback, not -5. Just goes to show I am probably spending too much time around triathletes. ;)
Yeah, I think if I needed to I could run 80cm, but where I am at right now feels right. My YouTubes
In that position, how far forward can you see ?? That's a pretty aggressive position for IM or even Olympic.
I have to admit that if I am too aggressive my eyeballs start to bounce somewhere about the 4th hour. Which would be great if my bike time was 4 1/2 hours, but it ain't.
I do not tri and I wasn't really concerned with that fact wrt to the topic at "high" hand.
I can see far enough when I was TTing(20-25', which is enough to avoid a pothole given my current perception reaction time on the bike), but would glance further up the road every so often to scan for cars, bikes, drives, dogs(the closer those items are, the more frequent upward glances). high hands for me would make sight lines worse as hands would be in the way. good thing they tested worse for me :)
I thought the aero benefit of high hands was that the hands and arms combined with the head created more of a "point" directing air either up and over or down. Looking at Jeffp's pictures, his head is so low in either position that he doesn't need high hands for the "point" but still gets the drawbacks of increased frontal area and possibly not jiving with aero helmet. There are many people that with flat hands have a relatively big opening between their hands and head (see below). For this individual, wouldn't the frontal area be the same with high hands, except high hands would create that "point" instead of that big opening for air to hit the body? I wonder if people like this, i.e. the ones that can't get their head low like Jeffp, would benefit aerodynamically from higher hands.
I'm not sure that's that guy's position. Looks more like he is glancing up the road. But, I could be wrong on that. Anyhow, if he merely lowers his head he looks a lot better even if he doesn't fill in that gap. And is it even necessary to fill in that gap? If you're rolling with a flat chest and flat back, are you not presenting the minimal amount of frontal area already? Therefore, if you raise your hands you are increasing your FA. The only thing I would suggest to that rider is to get his head down. That lid has a greater FOV than what he is utilizing. So, by tucking his chin into his chest and looking up through the tops of his eyes he gets into a much better position. Also, it's hard to tell from the profile but it looks like he is pretty narrow on the shoulders. Now, if he needs to elevate his hands to get that head down, well.....
I apologize for not clicking through when you first posted this, but I finally did. Now looking closely at the photo below my initial takeaway here is they are trying to get their arms up and away from their base bar (I could be so wrong on this). Now when shooting for a high pad stack and trying to keep a low position it helps to angle your hands/arms up, because if you hang your elbows off the back of the pads (as I do) it helps bring your shoulders/back down where they otherwise wouldn't be if your hands/arms were held level. Could this be the reason that they are testing faster with this position? I'm not sure I could state that as the case with the HUUB boys, but it is one of the reasons I went to a high pad stack as I am trying to gain any advantage I can.
And is it even necessary to fill in that gap? If you're rolling with a flat chest and flat back, are you not presenting the minimal amount of frontal area already?
The other question I'd ask is do you even need to worry about a flat chest/back? Why you ask, would I ask that? Great question, let me give you something to ponder. I've seen multiple CdA's < .208 w/ rounded back, helmet tail 2-4in above the back, things that everyone tends to think of as wrong.
1 test is worth 1000 guesses to paraphrase something on the wall at A2. (as much time as I've spent there the last 4-5 years you'd think I'd know that one by heart...sigh) Maybe I'll write it on the whiteboard 1000x Bart simpson style next trip!
on a side note if anyone is interested in testing PM me your email. I'm currently setting things up and going to shoot an email out to everyone that's interested in the next week or so. Brian Stover USAT LII Accelerate3 Coaching Insta
And is it even necessary to fill in that gap? If you're rolling with a flat chest and flat back, are you not presenting the minimal amount of frontal area already?
The other question I'd ask is do you even need to worry about a flat chest/back? Why you ask, would I ask that? Great question, let me give you something to ponder. I've seen multiple CdA's < .208 w/ rounded back, helmet tail 2-4in above the back, things that everyone tends to think of as wrong.
1 test is worth 1000 guesses to paraphrase something on the wall at A2. (as much time as I've spent there the last 4-5 years you'd think I'd know that one by heart...sigh) Maybe I'll write it on the whiteboard 1000x Bart simpson style next trip!
on a side note if anyone is interested in testing PM me your email. I'm currently setting things up and going to shoot an email out to everyone that's interested in the next week or so.
Here are some of my thoughts from years ago WRT head position and filling the gap between your shoulders (turn up the volume):
I'm not everyone, but, since you shared your observation of CxA's < 0.208 w/ rounded back and helmet tail 2-4 in above the back... what were these subjects height, weight, saddle height, shoulder width, hip width, reach, and drop? IME, these variables are quite important when "internet measuring Johnsons"...so to speak! :-D
I, too, agree in principle that 1 good test is better than 1000 guesses...but 1 test in any circumstance can be misleading as well...test appropriately, folks. :-)
WRT high hands: I tested this quite a few times in the tunnel when it was all the rage back in the Floyd Landis days. I found that when controlling for elbow x/y position, it was all lost in the noise - probabilistically worse, IIRC. I made a video that qualitatively shows how much I believe hand position affects important bits while controlling for elbow x/y:
Furthermore, even after directing 1k+ tunnel runs (and doing more field testing laps than I care to admit to), my opinion is that a pair of humanipers, a full length mirror (or if you are really nerdy - measuring frontal area...RIP, Lucho :-( ) along with a mindset of fearless experimentation, and an open mind, are all that folks really need in order to prove that faster is faster! ;-)
Measuring frontal area seems to be a reasonable rough estimate, but doesn't it ignore aerodynamic shapes and how they all play together, to a certain extent? E.g., a cylinder and airfoil may appear to have the same frontal area, but obviously much different drag. So maybe an aero helmet with greater frontal area than no-helmet, actually yields less drag (just an example, I'm sure it depends on all of the variables that aren't accounted for when just measuring frontal area). Anyway, you have more experience than me in testing aerodynamics, so maybe measuring frontal area is good enough in detecting order of magnitude type of differences. On the other hand, it just seems like a more precise eye-ball wind tunnel test.
E.g., a cylinder and airfoil may appear to have the same frontal area, but obviously much different drag.
At subcritical Re# (which is probably all the parts of the bike), it doesn't matter as much as many believe. A 3-1 airfoil would have ~30% of the cylinder's drag with the same frontal area. There is nothing airfoil shaped on your body though. Body parts are getting big enough to be in the critical Re# regime, which is why lots of attention is being paid to trips and clothing textures. Ideally you'd like just enough "trip" to make the boundary layer turbulent and delay separation. This is a tricky business, but gains can be made with suits and helmets. But also note that changing your posture, head and shoulder position, and arm/hand position, and wind conditions are going to effect this as well. In other words, change one of those variables and a different helmet or suit or arm position may be ideal.
Frontal area is primary. I think that's what Kraig is getting at. It can take a lot of work and $$$ to nail the more esoteric aspects.
I have only done 2 tunnel sessions, but both times the things that looked better in the mirror were better in the tunnel. Changing Cd is tricky, but smoother shapes (helmet integration) and filling in low pressure areas usually seemed to help. Big A can be addressed with a mirror. It seems anything that makes you narrower works.
Frontal area is primary. I think that's what Kraig is getting at. It can take a lot of work and $$$ to nail the more esoteric aspects.
Fast Bike Fit has a FA calculator. Wish it wasn't iOS only. I used it back in the day when I was an apple fanboy, maybe I'll download it onto one of my iPads and play around. But yeah, when in doubt, just get smaller.
All that being said, it's really not going to show up in a mirror or a FA app if raising your hands doesn't allow one to get narrower and or a lower one's head. Also, I'm inclined to think exposing those forearms will show up in the tunnel/field testing as higher drag even if it does help route air around the body.....just thoughts.
Anyhow, I think I've come up with an idea on how to get more comfortable and get a little more drop with the 0º setup. Didn't ride into work today, due to not wanting to get pissed on, so maybe I will screw around with that tonight. My YouTubes
Boardman would grab a mirror and outline a marker around his position and would tweak things to get smaller than that outline....or at least I think it was Boardman. Anyhow, with AeroCoach and Boardman testing at 5º doesn't it make sense to look at yourself from an oblique angle? I was chatting with DesertDude over the weekend about 0º wind angle and that is so damn rare that maybe those Brits are on to something. The tunnel testing I plan to do will likely not use 0º and more than likely check 5º, 7.5º, and 10º. The basis for this has nothing to do with speed and everything to do with calm days being close to nil, unless you're in the south pacific.
Therefore, this talk about exposing the bottom of your forearms might be nonsense in real world application. And the Fast Fit App, and others like it, are not going to get you were you want. So, where does that leave us? Counting pixels from oblique shots? I cut up some of the video from this past weekend and picked the best of what I was able to hold in the 0º hand position. Thoughts?
Replying to the last post and not reading the whole thread. My current take on hand position in the fit studio is a bit of a balancing act. For years, I have used higher hands to facilitate overall better front end shape, shoulder relaxation, and general comfort. My eyeball wind tunnel was fairly sure it was most likely more aero most of the time. I also follow guys like desert dude, and was interested in all the tunnel results. So much so that I went with DD to the tunnel with Adam Otstot and saw 1st hand that every time we put the hands higher, he was less aero.
I am still looking for overall front end shape, low head, etc. At this point I am trying to achieve that with the lowest hands possible, instead of pushing for high hands. In the past, I was probably averaging about 10 degrees of forearm tilt, and presently I am probably averaging about 5 degrees. But still, it's overall shape first. Mostly a low head. If we can get a low head and acceptable comfort while forearms are flat, we do it. Most of the time, a very little bit of forearm tilt goes along way towards shape and comfort.
That's where I am at. I think that after helmet, clothing, and nutrition placement, hand position is a primary consideration for tunnel or field testing, as it does seem to vary a bit rider to rider.
