There’s hundreds of triathletes looking to take on a more extreme position to go faster. There’s thousands looking for a bike that looks fast and doesn’t hurt their aging joints.
When you first hop on a bike with such a stretched position it feels odd. Given a 30 sec test ride I get why most would opt for the “normal” aero position. Walk around transition and look at the setups, even on the ‘fast’ bikes. Maybe 5 of them outside the pro rack will have stretched positions.
Lastly, this super stretch has only become prominent in the last couple of years and so far only in pros/FOP AG. There will be bikes that have it coming out. Probably not many, but I’d guess we see reach go out by ~3cm over the next 5 years.
My point is that athletes should not have to go buy a wattshop or tririg setup to get their desired fit and comfort. Bike mfg’s should be coming out with stock solutions that many of these aftermarket products solve. And if mfg’s aren’t willing to make their own viable solutions, then partner with PD, wattshop, tririg, or your company so those solutions come stock on the bike.
It’s a big turn off if you are in the market for a new bike and see no one riding the stock front ends. Why do we have spend $1-3k USD on top of the bike just to get the desired fit we need? And some of these custom front ends (Laidlow’s, Magnus, etc) are even more expensive and not adjustable. For the average AG, that’s unrealistic as your fit is likely to change at some point or you will want to change some things. The pro’s can get new front ends made cause the mfg’s are paying for it but for an AG, it would be silly to drop $3-4k every few years.
I’m a huge trek fan and came from the gen 2 bike where I ran almost everything stock (except for the extensions and cups/pads). That bike gave me the ability to run any round extension I desired. It was a great solution. The gen 3 forces their own front end with not a ton of adjustment. I’m almost to the point that I want to buy a new p5 and be done with the bike. But the p5 has other shortfalls as well.
Front tyre looks remarkably like an Aero 111, presume in 26mm flavour (there is no ‘28’; 29s on this rim would measure up as 28mm), complete with “vortex-generating cavities that create controlled turbulence and ensure prolonged airflow attachment to the rim”.
Most of them are not ‘stretched’ like you say. There saddles are just more forward then they used to have 5-6 years ago. Like now in the range of 82-85 degrees and that’s why they need more reach at the cockpit.
I’ve followed some of Jackson’s race reports…and the fact that he has a bunch of hacky stuff on his front end is both endearing and a little par for the course. He also ends up having some hacky level equipment failures at races too. Which isn’t surprising considering he is apparently a tinkerer – which I have no problem with and fully respect.
Ventum partnered with PD because of the range of fit options. The problem is that not all of them are available yet. It was a rush to get enough basebars for their pros and booth bikes. They got an even smaller number of ASC Pro extensions, I know Lauren and Jason got them, but Jackson may not have had the option, or he likes the extensions he already had.
Nearly all of the problems on his bike are already solved and one is in the works.
I can see he has used ASC Pro brackets and tilt wedges, with a bodged BTA bracket, then mounted a FasTTT extender upside down and back to front.
The extender I’ve shown is tested and safe - as a part of the complete system. But there are very few of those available ahead of full production so Ventum only had a set or two to work with.
The bridge with a BTA mount for that bracket system is in the works, I don’t have an example of that.
The A2 Std bracket that will be stock on the Tempus offers 105mm of reach adjustment (allowing for the extender) and 0-30deg of tilt (with the booster).
Most tri frames have a reach range across their sizes of ~60mm. But they’re hampered by the regulations on max front centre. So, even if they can see the trend in elite positioning, not only do they have to allow for the majority rider (who cannot stretch like that) but they don’t want to risk making a frame that can’t be used in all events (like Ditlevs size of Plasma 6). Thus it falls to the bar makers.
My point is that athletes should not have to go buy a wattshop or tririg setup
My point is that athletes should not use aftermarket parts that haven’t been tested as a system. Basebars are designed to handle a certain amount of leverage and a lot of these setups look to me like a deathwish. Especially cnc machined alloy extenders.
Good to know about the bta. I did not see anything on their website or in the manuals. Are there bosses already there ready for cage? Have any pics?
Using the bento or aero bottle for a flat kit defeats the purpose of having those of the first place for calories/nutrition. Attaching to the saddle rails just looks shitty and could prevent you running a bottle bts depending on how big your kit is.
2 bottles bta is an option I’ve considered but I would just prefer 1 and run 2 on the frame for training. Just personal preference.
I had this very conversation with a former teammate of ours- it is going to be very interesting to see what the big bike manufacturers do and if other smaller bike sellers partner with TriRig/PD/ etc to allow buyers the flexibility they are seeking.
I think it’s great than Ventum partnered with PD. PD seems to be the only component mfg that is creating a wide range of fit and price options to suit a variety of users. I’m curious to see all the different fit options and coordinates on the new Ventum.
Could you explain the regulations on max front center? What are the standards and who sets them? How close to those max regulations are current bikes? I could use some education on what bike mfg’s current constraints are.
I get your stance that athletes should shy away from using aftermarket front ends that haven’t been tested but if bike mfg’s would create stock solutions to satisfy longer reach needs, it wouldn’t be necessary to use aftermarket parts. This appears to be a bike mfg issue and not a component mfg issue (eg; PD).
