yeah I’d give him one size bigger P3 classic
.
Never ridden the mantis position shown just took a couple pics of it out of curiosity since it seems to be gaining popularity and supposedly tests well for many.
you’re misunderstanding the current trends in bike fitting.
The “mantis” was a UCI constrained position that is actually now outlawed by even more restrictive UCI rules.
Triathletes, on the other hand, aren’t constrained by UCI rules. What’s happening in the fitting space, at least from my perspective as a fitter, is that people are figuring out the proper way to fit on a time trial bike in a position that’s not constrained by UCI rules and is comfortable, powerful, and aerodynamic - the three components that make up a good triathlon fit, especially for long course athletes.
As I outlined in this post here, high hands is not actually the point. High hands is an output of a process that’s doing something else altogether. Something you’re totally not doing in your move from your first position to your second as pictured in this thread.
High hands are not the objective. My limited understanding of the mantis trend is that when viewed as a whole of the rider/Bike system that the position of the forearms does not scoop air up into the torso like Jan Ulrich used to do. I do not even consider UCI limitations since I am a triathlete not cyclist.
I used a forearm angled up position in the late 90’s for comfort. Unfortunately I have no pictures of that since it was 20ish years ago.
The mantis pics that I took the other day were on a whim and I didn’t adjust anything other than the angle of the extensions. I’ll gladly take any guidance you can offer with my trial and error process.
I would argue that you’re still not understanding, especially if you’re using the “mantis” moniker.
When a fit session iterative process outputs high (ish) hands for one of my clients, I have zero interest in how that affects airflow for the bike/rider system as it relates to the hands themselves (ie. the “scoop”, or lack of). It’s irrelevant. I’m looking at other more low hanging fruit. The trend is not raising hands, it’s getting comfortable and more aerodynamic through different means.
For you, I’d get a bigger P3 classic and add more reach. I’m a one trick pony though, I say that for everybody. Unfortunately it’s usually always true.
High hands are not the objective. My limited understanding of the mantis trend is that when viewed as a whole of the rider/Bike system that the position of the forearms does not scoop air up into the torso like Jan Ulrich used to do. I do not even consider UCI limitations since I am a triathlete not cyclist.
I used a forearm angled up position in the late 90’s for comfort. Unfortunately I have no pictures of that since it was 20ish years ago.
The mantis pics that I took the other day were on a whim and I didn’t adjust anything other than the angle of the extensions. I’ll gladly take any guidance you can offer with my trial and error process.
Thanks. I will remove the phrase “mantis” from my vocabulary.
I am comfortable and stay in my aero position as long as I want to. My prior experience with up turned forearms was solely for comfort.
So if I understand correctly, the consensus is that my current position is short on reach.
yes, and from the looks of it you are also potentially too low. Hence a frame a size or two bigger for you.
Thanks. I will remove the phrase “mantis” from my vocabulary.
I am comfortable and stay in my aero position as long as I want to. My prior experience with up turned forearms was solely for comfort.
So if I understand correctly, the consensus is that my current position is short on reach.
I appreciate the time that you have taken giving me feedback. You are a professional fitter and as a professional fitter you consider comfort, power production, handling in conjunction with aerodynamic principles while implementing a holistic balanced fit.
When I started this thread, it was solely in the context of CdA for riders 6’2" or taller. This was due to my surprise at my initial aero data collection using bestbikesplit. From the context of aerodynamic drag do you believe my 18 cm drop to bars is causing too much drag? If the data from bestbikesplit of 0.27 is correct for me on a 56 cm classic P3C (516/433 stack and reach), how much could my CdA drop going to a 58 cm P3C (535/445)? What is a more appropriate drop for a 6’2" triathletes?
Out of curiosity, I think you are 6’2" as well. If you don’t mind sharing, what ate your;
- stack and reach
- handlebar drop
- CdA from your wind tunnel testing
So if I understand correctly, the consensus is that my current position is short on reach.
A little short on reach and very short on stack, IMO. Raise the pads a lot (5-10cm) increase reach a little, and work on posture. Neck and head dipped down, shoulders towards your ears.
You don’t need a new frame, but a long stem and decent highly adjustable bars (like the Felt Bayonet 3s) would be a good start.
There’s no cookie cutter right answer for pad drop… low enough to make the magic happen and no more.
My stack is 620, reach is 540 to back of pads, and my CdA is .22 optimized for Ironman racing and hydration, so I could probably get better. These numbers are from the A2 tunnel.
Get yourself a 58 and learn the posture of time trialing, instead of the lowness. Work on Cd instead of A
Your seat is too high, and your bars are far (far!) too low, Recommending a new frame to remedy that is a bit silly, as your reach isn’t actually too bad. I’ve not seen you from the front, but i’ll put money on you being too wide, particularly at the elbows. Once you’ve got those dialled in, just ride the position over and over for as long (and as often) as you can.
Yes, the P3C in 56 is long bike, and stack can be achieved with an angled stem or bars that have risers.
…Raise the pads a lot (5-10cm) increase reach a little, and work on posture…
Put some syntace bars on and raised drop from 18cm drop to 14 cm drop.
With Syntace plus risers drop came up to 11 cm.
https://kbdproject.tumblr.com/post/181304296663/feedback-on-my-low-profile-aerobar-position-with
I might try a longer stem for that additional reach.
Plan some deliberate practice on riding posture.
Once I get my bar end shifters moved to New bars I’ll try to collect some data on bestbikesplit and see if this improves my baseline CdA any.
Your seat is too high, and your bars are far (far!) too low, Recommending a new frame to remedy that is a bit silly, as your reach isn’t actually too bad. I’ve not seen you from the front, but i’ll put money on you being too wide, particularly at the elbows. Once you’ve got those dialled in, just ride the position over and over for as long (and as often) as you can.
Reach is bad.
Much too short.
Look where the butt is… where is the saddle ?
With a right saddle for TT position, right butt position on the saddle, the reach of this frame + stem will appear… much too short.
Eric reco for larger frame is not silly.
If only someone had said that 17 posts ago…
Yes, you said it first 
I know I’m just stating the obvious…
Unfortunately, still some peoples to say the opposite.
The answer is basically never ‘a new frame’, although I should have known better about replying to this thread once it had been stated that high hands was actually about comfort…
Keep going with the long and low philosophy guys! 🤣🤣
…My stack is 620, reach is 540 to back of pads…
I’ve been starting to see what’s out there in the various used bike marketplaces and cross referencing the slowtwitch stack and reach database.
What bike are you riding? 620/540 sounds HUGE!! Are you not using the Dan Empfield defined stack and reach definition?
For someone who is tall those coordinates are not out of this world… It takes a certain body type and position (e.g. high hands)/
I’m normal height 5’11" and my coordinates are 615 / 540 (mid pad). In my case I’m barely stretched out but sit pretty forward. If I added a couple cms of reach it wouldn’t look too ridiculous.
I ride a L Speed Concept. There’s not too many bikes out there that can be configured with this much reach. The SC will take 580 reach in the L size with some tricks.
http://i67.tinypic.com/a9pziv.png
…My stack is 620, reach is 540 to back of pads…
I’ve been starting to see what’s out there in the various used bike marketplaces and cross referencing the slowtwitch stack and reach database.
What bike are you riding? 620/540 sounds HUGE!! Are you not using the Dan Empfield defined stack and reach definition?
I believe that we are talking apples and oranges. When I refer to stack and reach I am meaning the frame dimensions not the riders fit coordinates which factor stem length, aerobar stack etc. I’m not sure about all of the vernacular, but I thought stack and reach is an attempt to standardize bike sizing by referencing dimensions between bottom bracket and headtube. Is the measurement that you and Eric are referring to stack and reach or is it something else? I believe you guys are talking about pad x and pad y when I originally asked about stack and reach.
I believe that we are talking apples and oranges. When I refer to stack and reach I am meaning the frame dimensions not the riders fit coordinates which factor stem length, aerobar stack etc. I’m not sure about all of the vernacular, but I thought stack and reach is an attempt to standardize bike sizing by referencing dimensions between bottom bracket and headtube. Is the measurement that you and Eric are referring to stack and reach or is it something else? I believe you guys are talking about pad x and pad y when I originally asked about stack and reach.
Stan, is that you?