I find it interesting that 79% of the riders that responded to the poll prefer a seat tube angle (okay, maybe it should be worded “effective seat position”) STEEPER than the seeming industry standard 76 degrees… And those companies that make frames “out there” on the steepness spectrum are “pushing the envelope” at 78… (QR specifically). My personal feelings are that if you need a “forward” seat post to achieve your preferred seat position, you’re on the wrong frame (and there may not BE a production frame out there that will do it). I just find it interesting that the poll results are THAT skewed to the steep, and there are so few production bikes made in that range.
Yep, this is why I went with Ves at Yaqui and got the DE frame which is built for 81 degrees with the seat
in the middle of the rails. I wanted it designed to fit, not fit to design.
Dave
I wonder how many of these people have actually accurately measured their effective seat angle position. Many could be less steep than they think they are.
I’ve just gone to 76ish “multisport” position on a Kestrel Talon after several years riding FISTed on a QR Kilo and Cervelo P2K. Set my PB fastest bike time this weekend by about 2 minutes over 30 kms at our local area sprint tri which was my 7th season at this race. And that was on training wheels since I had a hub problem on my aero wheels. My bike split was in the top 12% OA (I’m 56 yrs old) out of around 280 entrants. Obviously I’m not a top trathlete or TT’er but just an older rider that likes to hang with the young pups at the recreational level.
The best part was that I had none of the crotch or neck pain that I’ve always suffered through and forced myself to tolerate while riding steep. And yes, I was always set up perfectly on my steep tri bike, first initially thru my own research and then fine tuned with one of the top FIST shops, Endurosport in Toronto.
I’m going to write a big article about this at end season, but I am convinced that the FIST type steep position is not the best for everybody, in fact, I suspect it’s actually a minority of triathletes that truely benefit from this position and that the many of us non pro, non elite ordinary recreational AG’ers would probably do better in a multisport style positon and should stop buying into the idea that riding like Bjorn is the best for all of us. I realize this revelation goes against the preaching at the ST church, but my recent experience is that I’m a lot more comfortable and faster in a "multisport position’ than getting steep. Riding aggressive just for the sake of doing so makes no sense to my body. There is no getting away from the fact that in a steeper position you put a lot more pressure on your taint area and more strain on your neck by holding it more in extension. That’s why we see so many short head tube tri bikes being rode with a stack of spacers. Maybe some people can do better than me, but I could ride in an aggressive position on my steep bikes for about 40 kms max before it started to become noticeably uncomfortable. On my Kestrel in my new position, I can ride all day. I’m also ABSOLUTELY convinced I put out more power in the new position than I did steep. This was something I always suspected based on hill climbing on my road bike opposed to tri bike.
So to answer your original question, maybe the industry people really do know what they are doing. Maybe that’s why they’re not jumping to make super steep bikes.
Can you elaborate more on your “multisport position”? What position exactly is this?
Thanks.
Well, depends on how you define the industry standard. Felt & Cervelo both make bikes meant to be ridden at 78-79 deg. Same with the Trek eTTX. The top tube is way too long if you ride it slack. Kuota is releasing a 78deg seatpost for the Kalibur, and the Kuake is being built at 78. QR’s new geometry, seen on the new Ti Lucero, and all the aluminum bikes, is based around a 78.5deg STA. The industry is finally getting it. They release a bike at 73/74, people flip around a post and jam the saddle forward on the rails. At 76, they just jam the saddle forward. So finally, we get bikes at 78, where we can actually have the saddle set up with some rail showing at that the back. People have known what they want for a long, long time. It has taken the bike companies (some more than others) a while to realize this. But they are starting to.
“Can you elaborate more …”
A road position is defined as around an effective 72-74 seat angle. Most road bikes have a seat tube angle within this range.
A tri position is usually regarded at around 78 degrees or so. Most tri bikes are made with seat tube angles at about 78 degrees. My QR Kilo had a fixed seat post at 78 degrees. Cervelo tri bikes have multipositional seat posts. My P2K when the seat post mechanism was flipped forward gave an effective angle of about 78 degrees.
A multisport position is an in between these two positions. There are bikes that are built with a fixed 75 or 76 degree seat post. The Cervelo Soloist and kestrel Talon are road bikes with a dual position seat post when in the forward position gives around 76 degrees. In the rearward position these bikes would have a standard road seat angle.
Saddle position can add/subtract about a degree or so by jamming forward or backward on the rails. On a well designed bike it’s not as simple as just changing the seat angle. The whole geometry is effected and head tube/fork angle are effected. Bottom line is as the seat tube gets steeper you’re sort of rotated and lowered in the front. The good thing is this improves your aerodynamics. The bad thing is that it puts more strain on your crotch area and neck. Some people can handle this, others can’t. There is lots of argument regarding power loss in this position. Some say yeah and others claim nay.
The multisport position is a compromise between the two extremes of road and tri. A lot of the top triathletes have rode this way. It’s fair to say that Lance Armstrong’s TT postion was more mutisportish than tri.
Very interesting and insightful. Thank you.
“stop buying into the idea that riding like Bjorn is the best for all of us”
Is Bjorn riding FIST these days?
“Most tri bikes are made with seat tube angles at about 78 degrees.”
Well, this is true only if you consider the short list of those already mentioned in the thread. Still seems the majority are 76. Don’t know if you consider that “about 78 degrees”. Multi-positional doesn’t count to me, as that’s just compromising the geometry (which position is the front end really designed around? – I found most of the front ends WAY too short for stability, yes, Cervelo included).
I rode at 77 for my road riding (on a custom TiCycles Softride, and yes not only was I riding an odd bike, but an odd position, though I’d never measured it until a couple years after I stopped USCF racing). I arrived at my (steep) tri position by a process of evolution on another Softride road bike, where I eventually maxed out the front end (got really scary to ride). THEN I measured it. And then I went about trying to find another frame built around that kind of position, and came up with… Zilch. I got REALLY close when Andrew posted an old QR ti frame on the classifieds.
My put is that, basically, most frame makers are designing around the ITU position, which I find interesting that the Triathlete editor just had to whine about the fact that we don’t give it the respect it deserves" (ITU racing, and draft legal in particular), and yet it seems that the market (the people that ride the bikes, at least here on ST) doesn’t want the bikes that comply…
I can agree with more neck strain (though I’ve adapted quite nicely, thank you), but crotch strain I haven’t found to be the case. Just my personal observations.
My comment meant “low and aggressive” in the front. Great if you can do it and sustain it comfortably, but many of us can’t.
I’m not sure how Bjorn rides now, but I remember seeing photos of his P3C with the saddle set in the slack position with the low front end, so technically that would definately not be a FIST positon.
I’m not knocking the FIST position per sae or the logic behind it. I rode that way for four or five years but could never find the “sweet spot” on either of my two tri bikes. Then I found it almost instantaneously this past weekend riding less steep on a different geometry bike. What’s particularly interesting is that I’ve been riding the Kestrel in the road position all season. I set it up for tri just two days before the race and only did a half hour test ride. No fine tuning or finnicking. Nobody was more surprised than me.
What I am saying is the FIST position may be good for many triathletes, and if so then stick with it, but if you’re one of the people who isn’t able to find the position comfortable, then you should rethink it. I wish I had earlier.
the survey results do not surprise me at all. and i think you have to give people who chose a specific angle the benefit of the doubt. my suspicions are opposite of cerveloguy’s. i think there are more people who ride effectively steeper than their 76 degree bikes than there are those who ride shallower than their “steep” tri bikes because, as you put it, there aren’t historically as many bikes in the market that are 78 or steeper.
if you look at everything that i’ve written on this subject over the last few years it all amounts to a warning to bike manufacturers and retailers that steeper is coming. this year felt, giant, QR, cervelo, trek, all made bikes that can be ridden between 77 and 81 degrees, and all did so because they see that’s where the market’s going. the kwake/kwinta/kasm is likewise going to be 78.
no, that bike geometry isn’t right for everyone, and i don’t know anybody who says it is. but if i couldn’t ride a steep tri bike, my second choice would be a standard road bike, not something in between. i suspect two-thirds of everybody racing in triathlons has a body and a physical ability that can ride a 78 or 79 degree bike, tho they may lack the fitness, or the body awareness and bike skills, or the technical knowledge of how these bikes ought to be ridden. but if you look at tour time trials, or in triathlons, you’re finding very few now who aren’t riding steep bikes steep, or at least nose riding mid-steep bikes. most people racing in triathlons will be fastest on a 78 or 79 degree bike, but there are several caveats that attach to that statement.
I think one reason to explain why there aren’t that many steep fixed angle bikes is that then the manufacturer has painted themselves into a corner. My QR Kilo had a fixed 78 degree seat angle so was useful for only one thing - triathlon. In contrast the P2K could be used for either tri or ICU legal TT’s, albiet as Rappstar mentioned, Cervelos in the slack position are long top tubes bikes.
I was under the impression that your original post was questioning why there aren’t more bikes made with seat post angles steeper than 78 degrees, say 80+. If that’s what you meant, wouldn’t these bikes would have a limited purpose and limited market.
“I was under the impression that your original post was questioning why there aren’t more bikes made with seat post angles steeper than 78 degrees, say 80+. If that’s what you meant, wouldn’t these bikes would have a limited purpose and limited market.”
Wasn’t really questioning why, just making an observation that the manufacturers don’t appear to be serving the majority of their market. And to have the editor of Triathlete bemoaning how we don’t respect draft-legal racing… Essentially the ITU format, which the majority of manufacurers seem to be serving (and which comprises not only, I would guess, a minority of triathletes worldwide, but a VAST minority of US triathletes).
“My QR Kilo had a fixed 78 degree seat angle so was useful for only one thing - triathlon.”
Exactly. Isn’t that their market?
“In contrast the P2K could be used for either tri or ICU legal TT’s, albiet as Rappstar mentioned, Cervelos in the slack position are long top tubes bikes.”
And I’d submit that they’re a compromise in both positions. Most likely with not only a very long top tube in the slack position, but a very short front center in the steep.
I can’t speak for all Cervelo owners, but suspect most would agree when saying that I never considered my P2K as a compromised bike because of the flippable seat post. It worked great as a tri bike and was a well thought out, smartly engineered and nicely built bike. It’s just that I was never all that comfy on it on long rides due to my the inability of my neck/crotch to adapt to the riding position. I did use it once in a TT where the 5mm behind the BB rule applied so was compromised for that race with the seat post in the slack positon, but had I been racing under those rules regularly a shorter stem could have taken care of the problem. The QR in contrast could never have been made to meet the rules for that TT.
with all due respect, i find your conclusions from this to be unfounded, to put it lightly.
and i think you have to give people who chose a specific angle the benefit of the doubt.
for one, i think you trust internet surveys a lot more than is prudent. uh, any idea how many people who answered this survey actually went out to their bike and did ANY measurements, or had a highly qualified fitter (and it’s gotta be one who uses your arbitrary {and not industry standard} STA measurement methodology) give them a reliable STA no.? i don’t know either, but my guess is one in 10 at best.
it may sobering news, but i think your survey reflected nearly exactly what you wanted it to say, nothing more. nearly everybody on this forum knows your fitting philosophy. and, big surprise, human beings are highly susceptible to group psychology (they say that such peer dynamics can even influence humans’ voting behavior). and cyclists even more so. just look at the history of the sport to prove that beyond any doubt.
but if i couldn’t ride a steep tri bike, my second choice would be a standard road bike, not something in between.
this is remarkably strange logic. you operate on a different planet than many. imagine this for a minute: hypothetically, objective data collected and based on my power, height, and riding style has clearly indicated that the optimal crank length for me for triathlon is 180mm long. then, i am offered a vast range of cranks each only 1 mm different than the other, with only one exception: i am not offered a set that is exactly 180mm long, or longer. so, since i can’t ride 180’s, you think then i should pick 150mm or 160mm or 170mm cranks? well, i sure as heck would not: i would use my head and pick the 179mm cranks.
most people racing in triathlons will be fastest on a 78 or 79 degree bike,
i have discussed here this before, but this assertion is based on zero evidence other than your personal opinion. and, yes, your personal experience carries weight, but the way you state it implies that you have some kind accurate data to back it up. you might as well say something even goofier :“most people racing in triathlons will be fastest on a 78.83 to 79.21 degree bike.” the STA numbers you give in your statement imply a precision* that simply is not there*. i mean the friggin’ bike manufacturers can’t seem to even agree on how to measure this arbitrary STA angle, so how in the heck can one base any conclusions on 1 degree of an angle people don’t even know how to quantify?
of course, i agree with you that there is something to riding steep in some situations. as matter of fact, i’ll even go one better than you: if set up correctly, i think riding a little steeper is better for nearly ALL kinds of bike riding except those where weight planted directly over the rear wheel is essential to climbing steep hills (i.e., technical mountain biking), or when tooling around at 10 mph on a 3-speed.
and if you said that it appeared “that most people racing in triathlons will be fastest on a 80 deg. bike, vs. a 70 deg. bike”, heck, i’d even agree with that observation.
but the focus on 1 or 2 degs. of (non-existent) precision is where, for me, the credibility goes out the window and the quasi-science flies right in.
I wonder how many of these people have actually accurately measured their effective seat angle position.
bingo.
with all due respect, i find your conclusions from this to be unfounded, to put it lightly.
I can tell you that this poll affirmed conclusions drawn for the experience of fitting hundreds of cyclists, and teaching people who have fit thousands, with remarkably similar results…
but the focus on 1 or 2 degs. of (non-existent) precision is where, for me, the credibility goes out the window and the quasi-science flies right in.
And yet, at every FIST camp, roughly 8 out of every 10 people consistently picks 78-79deg (as defined by the measurement system I described), over 76-77 or 82-83deg. Repeatedly. Without any prodding or information, other than asking them what “feels best.” Funny, you have concluded that 180mm cranks are best for you, yet you don’t think the same precision (177.5mm vs. 180mm) can be applied to bike fitting in general? Whether you believe it or not, the precision is there. And it is repeatable.
Re: your bit about choosing a road bike, the reasoning is quite sound. Unlike with cranks, there is a proper fit on a road bike (i.e. a bike with a STA of ~73deg) and there is a proper fit on a tribike (defined by us as a bike with an effective STA of ~78deg). There isn’t really a consensus fit for bikes in the middle of that road. So if you can’t have what you really want, at least settle for something that you know will work in it’s intended application. This choice bears little to no resemblance to your analogy of cranks. If you want to ride aerobars at 79deg, you will not be comfortable at 75deg. So why not just pick a setup where you will be comfortable? That is the road bike… If you try to ride a tribike at 75deg, you will end up with too closed a hip angle OR not enough weight on your arms and too much on your taint. Again, this is all stuff you’d know if you’d fit hundreds of triathletes or had a basic grasp of tribike fitting. But of course, you haven’t, and you don’t. And, I said previously, I suspect to a certain extent you enjoy being contrarian. So carry on…
I would guess that most people would pick the 78/79 seat post angle. Until this past weekend I would have given you the same reply.
The problem with this survey is knowing how many people have accurately measured their effective seat angle and what method did they use for their conclusions. The old chart that Dan had posted on the front page was inaccurate since it measured the front of the seat to the BB without considering variance in saddle rails and how that effected seat center.
I’ve seen people claim to be running an 82 degree angle on a Cervelo for example. That seems highly unlikely given the geometry of the bike even with jamming the seat all the way forward.
You have to find a way for everybody to measure from point A to point B and use a given math formula. Then tell us the seat angle you are riding at. I’ll leave that to the engineering types with more math abilities than I have. If you can come up with some sort of a standardized system for all survey participants to utilize then the survey would have a much greater chance of being more accurate.
It’s not that hard to do the math.
arcsin(horizontal distance from BB center to **center of where you sit on the saddle **/ saddle height measured to the same point)
The hard part is figuring out where you sit independently. You really need someone to look at you while you ride. However, having done the FIST workshop, and having seen enough other triathletes on appropriate bikes at races, I can tell you, the survey results would be virtually identical…
82deg on a cervelo is not hard at all.
Funny, you have concluded that 180mm cranks are best for you, yet you don’t think the same precision (177.5mm vs. 180mm) can be applied to bike fitting in general?
about the cranks, please note the word i used before the crank example: hypothetically. i.e., it was a hypothetical example. and the case of bike cranks is good one for other reasons. the fact that manufacturers make cranks every 2.5 mm but over an extremely small range is hilariously goofy (but saves bike makers and sellers money). making them over such a small range shows how little thought is actually behind their manufacturing choices. what they should do is make cranks every, say, 5 mm but over a much larger range.
so if you were the rider in the hypothetical crank example, would you pick the 150mm or 160mm cranks over the 179mm cranks?
anyway, you misread what i wrote: I actually DO BELIEVE that precision can be applied to bike fitting in general. it is just that I DO NOT BELIEVE the current two (conflicting) STA measurement methodologies presented on the ST pages are currently anywhere near precise, in spite of their claims (claims which are not supported by any visible evidence).
If you want to ride aerobars at 79deg, you will not be comfortable at 75deg.
this is an interesting and puzzling statement. if i take it as true for you, can i ask you then to answer these questions?:
-If you want to ride aerobars at 79deg, will you be comfortable at 76deg.?
-If you want to ride aerobars at 79deg, will you be comfortable at 77deg.?
-If you want to ride aerobars at 79deg, will you be comfortable at 78deg.?
-If you want to ride aerobars at 79deg, will you be comfortable at 78.5deg.?
-If you want to ride aerobars at 79deg, will you be comfortable at 78.2deg.?
Again, this is all stuff you’d know if you’d fit hundreds of triathletes or had a basic grasp of tribike fitting. But of course, you haven’t, and you don’t. And, I said previously, I suspect to a certain extent you enjoy being contrarian.
jordan, it so easy to see on ST when someone is running out of ideas. the poster will make claims about what they think the other person knows or does not know. or about them being contrarian. or maybe make claims about their height. or just otherwise attack the messenger. the fact is, you have no idea what i have a grasp on, or do not have a grasp on, or who i have fit on their bikes. but we are not discussing your or my fitting resume. i am simply trying to get folks to think critically and to point out some major and glaring inconsistencies.
i do not enjoy being contrarian. but i do enjoy using my head and my biomechanics knowledge to point out that there are some big problems in the methodology of the fittng philosophies presented here (even though i generally agree with the fitting philosophy). not acknowledging the existence of these problems and variability destroys the credibility of the idea.
that is my problem.
here is ‘frank day’ analogy:
do powercranks work? probably. do powercranks improve your ability to ride or run faster? probably a little.
but can they make you improve as much as the wild claims frank day likes to make on this forum? probably not.
does frank day lose his credibility by making such wild claims? yes.
yes, it appears the forward position works. and i think a little forward (i.e., an in-between position) works well too (but apparently you do not believe this).
but the claims of dissecting each degree when there is still enormous disagreement and variation on how to even measure the STA is where the credibility leaves the show.
then add in the mix the variability of frame design (and associated conflicting STA claims), the variability of seat constuction, seat shape, rail shape, rail placement, etc. there is no way there is a precision of 1 degree …