I can’t for the life of me find Dan’s 3 guiding principles about bike fit that he once published so succintly.
I think they went something like this (and the order is important).
Bike fit is all about:
Have I recalled Dan;s advice correctly?
Geoff, damned if that isn’t Steve Hogg’s guiding principles as well.
comfort then power then aero.
seems pretty reasonable to me whoever said it.
That sounds about right.
(Never sacrifice comfort for increased power)
(Never sacrifice power for increased aerodynamics)
Those are cute sentiments, to be sure. But naive, I think.
If I can be a little less comfortable, but sustain higher power over my full race duration…what idiot wouldn’t take that trade? That’s like saying, “Never push yourself in a race merely to get a higher placing.” This is an endurance sport. Golf carts are comfortable. The most comfortable bike is the one leaning against the wall in the garage while we’re watching football on TV. Comfort never won a race.
If I can be a little less powerful, but arrive at the finish line faster…what idiot wouldn’t take that trade? They give out awards for crossing the line fastest – not for “most power.” If an aerodynamic improvement more than offsets any decrease in power, do we really need to talk any further?
I agree with that. Especially given the fact that not every triathlon is an IM.
Do any of these fit gurus make allowances for different distance races, or is it a one size fits all fit?
Do any of these fit gurus make allowances for different distance races, or is it a one size fits all fit? <<
Good point. If I had the $$ I could see a sprint-oly bike, a 1/2IM bike, and an IM bike and the latter would look different depending on the course. The comfort-power-aero thing is quite fluid depending on the athlete and the goals.
hmm. i’ve always found i’ve gone faster when i’ve been more comfortable at a given pace.
If you have figured out how to go faster at a given pace (= mph), I would really be interested in the science behind it 
.
what i meant is if i feel pretty sweet at 35kph and comfortable, then i am more likely to be able to go at a faster speed…
I find that I am most comfortable the easier I pedal. Not wanting to sacrifice comfort for power, I spend most of the time pedaling really easy. But I feel really fast like that. Because comfort is good. Hard is bad. Triathlon too not comfy for me. Switching to golf.
I don’t understand this comfort for power tradeoff. I thought you could explain.
It seems to me that over time the body adapts to the new position so that even if initially a more aero and presumably “less” comfortable position produces less power over a short adaptation time power will “normalize” to where it had been in the “more” comfy position.
It seems to me that over time the body adapts to the new position so that even if initially a more aero and presumably “less” comfortable position produces less power over a short adaptation time power will “normalize” to where it had been in the “more” comfy position.
B’zactly. “Comfort” is a straw man, meant to misdirect people’s attention from the fact that we can adapt to damned near anything. I could set up my bike 15 different ways and end up as comfortable as I need to be, while holding the same power. It’s a relative thing. I don’t know what’s comfortable. What does that even mean in the context of a sport where the winner is often the one willing to suffer the most?
People see my bike and ask if it’s comfortable. I don’t know! I just ride it. I guess it’s “comfortable,” if by that you mean can I stay on it for as long as the race takes. On the other hand, no, it’s not. My beach cruiser is much more comfortable. “Stop asking me these questions!!! There is no answer to that question!!!”
I must admit I find it strange to have so much talk about “comfort” in an endurance sport. I think we should set up our bikes in the position that makes us the fastest, subject only to our ability to tolerate the setup. If, by chance, it happens to be comfortable, so be it. As it happens, my bike is both tolerable and (I hate to even say it) comfortable.
Well, kind of comfortable. Comfortable enough. My cruiser bike is more comfortable.
Am I going in circles here? 
Do any of these fit gurus make allowances for different distance races, or is it a one size fits all fit? <<
Good point. If I had the $$ I could see a sprint-oly bike, a 1/2IM bike, and an IM bike and the latter would look different depending on the course. The comfort-power-aero thing is quite fluid depending on the athlete and the goals.
I thought about the two bike thing but figured I would lose a little power on each bike by having to train on two bikes and giving different muscle groups only 1/2 the attention they should be getting. Does that make sense?
I’m with you (I think. It’s hard to be sure.).
Do you think you’d be able to tolerate a faster (lower, more aero, more powerful, whatever) position for an hour or so, versus whatever you can tolerate for five or six hours?
No doubt its a factor. I was thinking of veterans of the sport. If someone were relatively new to the sport I would advise against a multiple bike approach. Given a 5-9 hr/week training restriction it takes a number of years, and the response rate varies, to optimize neuromuscular development. When you hit the plateau its time to mix things up.
Do you think you’d be able to tolerate a faster (lower, more aero, more powerful, whatever) position for an hour or so, versus whatever you can tolerate for five or six hours?
Sure, they’re not the same. But, on balance, I would suggest that most people stick with one position all the time. When I went up to do Caliman, I threw a 1cm spacer under my stem at the last minute.
Just in case.
Seems to me Dan touches this topic during his Kona bike survey. He noted we didn’t see as many Felt’s there and perhaps that is because they are more of a short course bike. Tend to have shorter head tubes and optimized for more aggresive position.
I get what you are saying though…riding a tri bike is not about comfort. Just look at the damn position…it doesn’t really look very comfortable from an intuitive point of view.