# How do the pros ride such low handlebars?



## wongmic75 (May 23, 2005)

How low do you guys have your handle bars? Looking at some of the CSC bikes the handle bar seems almost a foot lower than the seat. Any thouhts on a decent compromise? Do they just run shorter stems and lower bars? What are your thougts?
Thanks
Mike


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

Smaller frames with higher seatposts and much longer stems, no spacers. Look at a custom pro frame, most are 2cm longer in the TT (or 2cm shorter in the ST conversely) to achieve this position.

How: Practice. Core strength. It is an athletic position. The longer you ride a bike, the easier it gets.


----------



## mattv2099 (Aug 27, 2004)

I have about a 5.5 inch vertical drop from my saddle to my handlebar (I'm 6'4")... I guess you need to be relatively flexible.


----------



## ETfromQC (Sep 16, 2004)

That's it. Stretch the lower back and hamstrings in the morning and at night.

Being tall also helps, I'm also 6'4" and have a 6" drop without any problem. Someone a foot smaller with the same proportions would have a 5 or 4" drop.


----------



## crashjames (Jan 14, 2003)

*Smaller Bikes = Lower Bars*

Pros also seem to be riding much smaller bikes than they used to, due to lower weight, increased stiffness, etc. That forces the seatpost to be 12+ inches.

Back in the day, they looked different...if Merckx rode today, he'd be on a much smaller bike. Axel rides a teeny bike.


----------



## VeloRainDog (Jun 4, 2004)

the size of the drop between the top of your saddle and the top of your bars has nothing to do with the size of your bike. it has everything to do with your flexibility. compact frames make it seem like saddles are higher, but that doesn't change their relative height above the bars. the more flexible your lower back and hamstrings are and the stronger your core is, the more of a drop you can have while still being able to pedal efficiently and produce power. the obvious advantage is being more aero.


----------



## crashjames (Jan 14, 2003)

*uh*



VeloRainDog said:


> the size of the drop between the top of your saddle and the top of your bars has nothing to do with the size of your bike. it has everything to do with your flexibility. compact frames make it seem like saddles are higher, but that doesn't change their relative height above the bars. the more flexible your lower back and hamstrings are and the stronger your core is, the more of a drop you can have while still being able to pedal efficiently and produce power. the obvious advantage is being more aero.


actually, when you're talking about carbon steerer forks, size does have quite a lot to do with this. there's an absolute limit to how much steerer can extend above the head tube. 

pros are riding much smaller bikes than they used to, with lower bars. In Eddy's day, they accomplished the "flat back" position by using longer top tubes.


----------



## dnc (Feb 8, 2003)

crashjames said:


> actually, when you're talking about carbon steerer forks, size does have quite a lot to do with this. there's an absolute limit to how much steerer can extend above the head tube.
> 
> pros are riding much smaller bikes than they used to, with lower bars. In Eddy's day, they accomplished the "flat back" position by using longer top tubes.




The bar/saddle heights of Eddy's day are nearer to the correct values. The pros problem is like that of cycling experts, they do not have the correct pedalling technique where bars,
arms, pedals and legs all work as a unit. This is impossible with today's bar/saddle height
settings of the pros because maximum arm resistance cannot be used in that position even if you had the correct pedalling style.


----------



## Americano_a_Roma (Feb 10, 2005)

dnc said:


> The bar/saddle heights of Eddy's day are nearer to the correct values. The pros problem is like that of cycling experts, they do not have the correct pedalling technique where bars,
> arms, pedals and legs all work as a unit. This is impossible with today's bar/saddle height
> settings of the pros because maximum arm resistance cannot be used in that position even if you had the correct pedalling style.


Seems kinda foolish to say that the pros are "wrong"; they get put through a huge amount of testing using power meters to maximize power output and minimize wind resistance, not just on the TT rigs but also on their regular bikes. I have a hard time believing that the whole peloton could improve performance by changing position on the bike. I don't see what arm resistance has to do with seated pedaling; it all comes down to back and hamstring flexibility, and ability to adapt to a position. I recently got a new bike and changed my saddle setback and bar height, and found that I felt considerably weaker for the first few hundred miles on the new bike; I think I was emphasizing slightly different muscles with the new position, and my body had to adapt. Pros are notoriously skiddish about even minor alterations to their positions mid-season, because once they've dialed in a setup and trained for 10,000 miles on it, small changes can really mess up performance.


----------



## dnc (Feb 8, 2003)

Americano_a_Roma said:


> I don't see what arm resistance has to do with seated pedaling;
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does any of the cycling experts, that's where the problem lies. Have a look at the video " The Mysterious Cycling Champion " and see what the perfect pedalling style looks like.


----------



## PeatD (Jun 24, 2005)

*efficiency aside...*

...I believe the pros are able to hold a lower position simply because a race-level effort puts less pressure on your wrists and arms than a more leisurely pace where the rider doesn't push down so hard. That's my impression, I won't even get into pedaling efficiency, etc.


----------



## ETfromQC (Sep 16, 2004)

dnc said:


> And neither does any of the cycling experts, that's where the problem lies. Have a look at the video " The Mysterious Cycling Champion " and see what the perfect pedalling style looks like.


I rode a fixed gear for a little less then 2000 miles this summer, and 1000 miles last summer, the handlebars were quite low, and I could use my arms, my whole upper body, glutes, quads, calves and the whole shebang to muscle up those hills, both seated and standing.

5" drop

Citing a documentary without stating the conclusions does not an argument make.


----------



## dnc (Feb 8, 2003)

ETfromQC said:


> I rode a fixed gear for a little less then 2000 miles this summer, and 1000 miles last summer, the handlebars were quite low, and I could use my arms, my whole upper body, glutes, quads, calves and the whole shebang to muscle up those hills, both seated and standing.
> 
> 5" drop
> 
> Citing a documentary without stating the conclusions does not an argument make.




You imagined you were using your arms. This is about seated pedalling not standing.
This test will explain why you could not have made effective use of your arms. Set your
bike on an indoor trainer, lock your back wheel, set the pedal to the 2 or 3 o'c position
and using your normal pedalling style, apply max pressure to that pedal. Then try to increase that pressure by pulling on the bar(s) and you will find that you will only pull yourself out of of the saddle.
Q.E.D.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

dnc said:


> You imagined you were using your arms. This is about seated pedalling not standing.
> This test will explain why you could not have made effective use of your arms. Set your
> bike on an indoor trainer, lock your back wheel, set the pedal to the 2 or 3 o'c position
> and using your normal pedalling style, apply max pressure to that pedal. Then try to increase that pressure by pulling on the bar(s) and you will find that you will only pull yourself out of of the saddle.
> Q.E.D.


Since you only refer to power production without considering the effect of rider position on drag, even if your conclusions about position and power are correct, they prove nothing about about the resulting change in speed from the change in pedaling style.


----------



## ETfromQC (Sep 16, 2004)

dnc said:


> You imagined you were using your arms. This is about seated pedalling not standing.
> This test will explain why you could not have made effective use of your arms. Set your
> bike on an indoor trainer, lock your back wheel, set the pedal to the 2 or 3 o'c position
> and using your normal pedalling style, apply max pressure to that pedal. Then try to increase that pressure by pulling on the bar(s) and you will find that you will only pull yourself out of of the saddle.
> Q.E.D.


Yeah, damn good eyes you have there to be able to see I was only imagining things. 

Trust me, when I sprint, my ass stays planted on the seat when I torque on the handlebars, I highly suggest you factor in all the other variables before making such a blanket statement. 

Face it, there is a reason why the handlebars are lower nowadays, and it sure hasn't lowered the power output from the riders.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

ETfromQC said:


> Face it, there is a reason why the handlebars are lower nowadays, and it sure hasn't lowered the power output from the riders.


How do you know? see above.


----------



## Neibe (Aug 1, 2005)

To the one's that are 6'-4" what size frame are you riding? I to am 6'-4" looking at a 60 or a 63 this drop from seat to handlebars is my biggest concern. I can touch my finger tips on the floor with my knees straight.


----------



## ETfromQC (Sep 16, 2004)

Neibe said:


> To the one's that are 6'-4" what size frame are you riding? I to am 6'-4" looking at a 60 or a 63 this drop from seat to handlebars is my biggest concern. I can touch my finger tips on the floor with my knees straight.


Well you might relate, but I also have a very long inseam, 39" or so, which puts my seat pretty high in comparison. If you are proportionate and wish to have your handlebars more level, get the 63, which should have a top tube that is 1-2 cm longer then the 60.

I ride a 60 cm, a wilier lavaredo from 2001 that I bought used, being a student and all. I'm pretty flexible, with my knees straight I can touch pretty much my whole hand to the floor. This fitting puts me in an aero position which, contrary to what is being said around here, gives me the best performance. I tried with different fittings for 2-3 days, clocking around 200-250 km on each, and my drop gave me the best performance.


----------



## dnc (Feb 8, 2003)

ETfromQC said:


> Yeah, damn good eyes you have there to be able to see I was only imagining things.
> 
> Trust me, when I sprint, my ass stays planted on the seat when I torque on the handlebars, I highly suggest you factor in all the other variables before making such a blanket statement.
> 
> Face it, there is a reason why the handlebars are lower nowadays, and it sure hasn't lowered the power output from the riders.







It is said by cycling experts that during seated pedalling, the arms are used for stability and balance purposes only and that is correct because all riders are using variations of the same basic natural pedalling style which use vertical pedal pressure as the main power supplier to the cranks. For effective arm resistance to be used, the arm resistance 
and main power application lines would have to be in opposite directions. That is possible but only when you use a completely different linear pedalling technique as that demonstrated in the video referred to in an earlier post above. The pros power output may 
not be lowered with the lower bar position but then they never even heard of this linear technique so they would never have experienced the increase in power that it can give.
With this linear technique, the more aerodynamic your position, the more powerful your pedalling will be and for that aero position, there is no necessity to lower your bars.
You say there is a reason for lowering the bars, What is it ?


----------



## Americano_a_Roma (Feb 10, 2005)

dnc said:


> It is said by cycling experts that during seated pedalling, the arms are used for stability and balance purposes only and that is correct because all riders are using variations of the same basic natural pedalling style which use vertical pedal pressure as the main power supplier to the cranks. For effective arm resistance to be used, the arm resistance
> and main power application lines would have to be in opposite directions. That is possible but only when you use a completely different linear pedalling technique as that demonstrated in the video referred to in an earlier post above. The pros power output may
> not be lowered with the lower bar position but then they never even heard of this linear technique so they would never have experienced the increase in power that it can give.
> With this linear technique, the more aerodynamic your position, the more powerful your pedalling will be and for that aero position, there is no necessity to lower your bars.
> You say there is a reason for lowering the bars, What is it ?


Is this some sneaky plug for recumbant bikes? It's the same sort of stuff you hear from the bearded 'cumbant guys, "better aerodynamics, easier pedaling, and so on!" I don't doubt that there are many ways to sit on a bike, but I have problems with your implication that there is some secret positioning scheme out there that the pros don't know about that would make them all faster. Bikes and riding positions have evolved slowly over 100 years to optimize performance; that alone makes me think that the position the pros use isn't hurting their power output. Not necessarily that it's the best position for a recreational rider doing a century, but it seems to work OK for those that ride 20,000 miles a year.


----------



## dnc (Feb 8, 2003)

Americano_a_Roma said:


> Is this some sneaky plug for recumbant bikes? It's the same sort of stuff you hear from the bearded 'cumbant guys, "better aerodynamics, easier pedaling, and so on!" I don't doubt that there are many ways to sit on a bike, but I have problems with your implication that there is some secret positioning scheme out there that the pros don't know about that would make them all faster. Bikes and riding positions have evolved slowly over 100 years to optimize performance; that alone makes me think that the position the pros use isn't hurting their power output. Not necessarily that it's the best position for a recreational rider doing a century, but it seems to work OK for those that ride 20,000 miles a year.




The man featured in that video " The Mysterious Cycling Champion " is not using a recumbant, he is using an ordinary racing bike with bars slightly lower than saddle.
He is still regarded as the world's greatest ever TT rider and with his "secret" pedalling
technique, unknown to the pros., he could replace that entire dead spot area 11-1 o'c with max pedal power in addition to being able to make maximum use of arm resistance.
Let's face it, pedalling research has been in the doldrums for the past 100 years, the only 
alteration ( for the worst) was introduced by the triathletes with their tri-bars.


----------



## ETfromQC (Sep 16, 2004)

dnc said:


> The man featured in that video " The Mysterious Cycling Champion " is not using a recumbant, he is using an ordinary racing bike with bars slightly lower than saddle.
> He is still regarded as the world's greatest ever TT rider and with his "secret" pedalling
> technique, unknown to the pros., he could replace that entire dead spot area 11-1 o'c with max pedal power in addition to being able to make maximum use of arm resistance.
> Let's face it, pedalling research has been in the doldrums for the past 100 years, the only
> alteration ( for the worst) was introduced by the triathletes with their tri-bars.


Jacques Anquetil developped his pedaling technique in a time when everybody had a similar fitting on their bike, which is simillar to the eddy fit, the handlebars slightly lower then the seat. 

You mean to tell me that, for him, working with the situation in which he was to attain an optimal performance while not deviating from what was regarded as an "optimal" fitting was smart?

What about our current situation then? What is our optimal fitting? We should throw that away?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Guess who.*



dnc said:


> The man featured in that video " The Mysterious Cycling Champion " is not using a recumbant, he is using an ordinary racing bike with bars slightly lower than saddle.
> He is still regarded as the world's greatest ever TT rider and with his "secret" pedalling
> technique, unknown to the pros., he could replace that entire dead spot area 11-1 o'c with max pedal power in addition to being able to make maximum use of arm resistance.
> Let's face it, pedalling research has been in the doldrums for the past 100 years, the only
> alteration ( for the worst) was introduced by the triathletes with their tri-bars.


Why this air of mystery? You're asking us to guess identities and relationships like in a crime novel  

Jacques Anquetil (the mysterious cycling champion you talk about) developed a unique pedaling style. It relied on maximum plantar flexion of the foot (toes down) through the entire pedaling circle. It was neither a secret, nor unknown to the pros. (At worst, it was known to one pro - Jaques Anquetil). To imply that Anquetil's style would do wonders for all those who adopt it, is sheer nonsense. 

Pedaling research has not been "in the doldrums." Many books, research papers, abstracts and academic thesis' have been written on the pedaling mechanics of elite riders. Most of this research used force- and angle measuring pedals, high-speed video, power measuring devices and sophisticated medical equipment. A web search will confirm this for you.


----------



## dnc (Feb 8, 2003)

wim said:


> Why this air of mystery? You're asking us to guess identities and relationships like in a crime novel
> 
> Jacques Anquetil (the mysterious cycling champion you talk about) developed a unique pedaling style. It relied on maximum plantar flexion of the foot (toes down) through the entire pedaling circle.
> ========================================================
> ...


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

Wow!

" Indiana Jones and the Pedal stroke of Mystery "

I suppose all the guys with SRM power meters, Powercranks, and Bobby 'egg' Julich should pop round for a lesson from the master?


----------



## ETfromQC (Sep 16, 2004)

dnc said:


> ================================================================
> What goes on or went in the brain and muscles is obviously known to only myself and Anquetil. Instead of concentrating on applying power with each leg through the pedalling circle, he concentrated on applying max power with each leg for only 180 degrees of the pedalling circle.
> [ ... ] With Anquetil's style these and other problems are eliminated.


I suggest you publish an article in a peer-review journal with your findings so that everybody can benefit from your extensive reserch. What I cannot begin to understand is the amount of elitism and stealth with which you try to surround this well-known technique.

Leave it to the French to keep their secrets to themselves.

I'm French.


----------



## wunlap togo (Oct 1, 2004)

Americano_a_Roma said:


> Is this some sneaky plug for recumbant bikes? It's the same sort of stuff you hear from the bearded 'cumbant guys, "better aerodynamics, easier pedaling, and so on!" I don't doubt that there are many ways to sit on a bike, but I have problems with your implication that there is some secret positioning scheme out there that the pros don't know about that would make them all faster. Bikes and riding positions have evolved slowly over 100 years to optimize performance; that alone makes me think that the position the pros use isn't hurting their power output. Not necessarily that it's the best position for a recreational rider doing a century, but it seems to work OK for those that ride 20,000 miles a year.


Just go check out the Rivendell website and check out their bike fit suggestions- All will be revealed!


----------



## GearDaddy (Apr 1, 2004)

*don't be wooed by large drops ...*

As far as emulating the drops that many pros have in their bike setups, don't. In my case having too much drop I believe actually contributed to a herniated disc problem in my neck. I only had a 2 cm drop or so, and a slight adjustment to that seemed to make a world of difference in comfort, with no effect whatsoever in performance.

Don't be lulled into thinking that these obscene drop distances are going to make you faster. You've simply got to figure out what works for you. Besides, the only times that getting this "aero" is going to make a hill'o'beans of difference is on that long solo break or in a time trial. Getting the most out of your time trial position is a combination of many things, one of the most important being that you are in a comfortable position to generate optimal power. It takes experimentation to truly find the "fastest" setup.


----------



## BikinBrian (Feb 6, 2004)

*I thought it might have something to do with,...*

aerodynamics,..the lower the bars to seat ratio, the more aero one can get provided they are flexible and strong enough to sustain that position,...


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*The bluff is called*

You know, dnc, it may come as a shock to you that there are people who actually remember your pushing this EXACT SAME DRIVEL on cyclingforum.com a couple of years back. Your nonsense was "outed" there, and you disappeared. Now you come to this forum with the same hocum. All this "mystery technique" and "the pros don't know what they're doing" crap. Your bluff was called on cyclingform.com and you failed the test completely. How is it you think you'll do any better here? You claimed you were going to go off and learn the technique and then see huge leaps in speed, but it never happened did it? So why don't you quit bothering these nice people and go back to where ever it is you came from? You've got no data, no results, and nothing credible to say. Full stop.


----------



## Eric_H (Feb 5, 2004)

*Folklore*



dnc said:


> The man featured in that video " The Mysterious Cycling Champion " is not using a recumbant, he is using an ordinary racing bike with bars slightly lower than saddle.
> He is still regarded as the world's greatest ever TT rider and with his "secret" pedalling
> technique, unknown to the pros., he could replace that entire dead spot area 11-1 o'c with max pedal power in addition to being able to make maximum use of arm resistance.
> Let's face it, pedalling research has been in the doldrums for the past 100 years, the only
> alteration ( for the worst) was introduced by the triathletes with their tri-bars.


Isn't there a "lady in white" somewhere in all of this mystery and intrigue? Wait, I'm mixing up Fausto Coppi and Jacques Anquetil.

It's hard to imagine that analytical people (trainers, riders and detail experts) like Bjarne Riis, Lance Armstrong, Michele Ferrari, Allen Lim, Ed Burke, etc, etc have somehow managed to miss the massive benefits of the "secret" pedalling technique. I think you have spent too much time in your wool jersey sniffing embrocation and you are now waxing poetic-historic on Anquetil.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

*Jacques secret friend?*



dnc said:


> What goes on or went in the brain and muscles is obviously known to only myself and Anquetil


Obviously...

What the f k? He must be pulling our taffy or else he's just cuckoo. 

This guy talks like he's part of some cheesy magic act. 

It's the Mysterious Mesmer on his amazing Mercier! 

He dares you to stare at his cotter-less cranks as he powers his pedals in silky circles round and round and round and round... Nothing can stop him except the friction of Mafac brakes. There are no dead spots but your life will no longer be yours as he hypnotizes you with his stroke and his secret partner Jacques plies you with a magnum of the finest Mumm champagne!


----------



## dnc (Feb 8, 2003)

Kerry Irons said:


> You know, dnc, it may come as a shock to you that there are people who actually remember your pushing this EXACT SAME DRIVEL on cyclingforum.com a couple of years back. Your nonsense was "outed" there, and you disappeared. Now you come to this forum with the same hocum. All this "mystery technique" and "the pros don't know what they're doing" crap. Your bluff was called on cyclingform.com and you failed the test completely. How is it you think you'll do any better here? You claimed you were going to go off and learn the technique and then see huge leaps in speed, but it never happened did it? So why don't you quit bothering these nice people and go back to where ever it is you came from? You've got no data, no results, and nothing credible to say. Full stop.




These comments are in keeping with your comments on Powercranks, sweeping statements on something about which you know absolutely nothing. Anquetil was possibly even more unique than people believe, using drugs as a masking agent for his
special power pedalling technique and that continues to work even to the present day.
It is also obvious that you are not a reader of Ric Stern's forum.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

_Anquetil was possibly even more unique than people believe, using drugs as a masking agent for his
special power pedalling technique and that continues to work even to the present day._

He used drugs to mask his pedalling style? 

For sheer entertainment value you win my vote. Please expand on this interesting theory.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

On second thoughts, 5 minutes googling turned up ncrowley who repeated the same thing over and over throughout just about every other cycling forum out there. 

Thanks, but I'll pass.

Until the day you turn up something other than mystic opinion, you seem like a man obsessed.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

dnc said:


> These comments are in keeping with your comments on Powercranks, sweeping statements on something about which you know absolutely nothing. Anquetil was possibly even more unique than people believe, using drugs as a masking agent for his
> special power pedalling technique and that continues to work even to the present day.
> It is also obvious that you are not a reader of Ric Stern's forum.


 You should send yourself in to Reader's Digest...I think they have a place for persons like yourself.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

wongmic75 said:


> How low do you guys have your handle bars? Looking at some of the CSC bikes the handle bar seems almost a foot lower than the seat. Any thouhts on a decent compromise? Do they just run shorter stems and lower bars? What are your thougts?
> Thanks
> Mike


Couple of thoughts on the question and some of the replies:

Don't think that pros are not influenced by fashion/peer pressure just like everybody else.

Just because pros do it (or coaches or whoever) doesn't make it Right. If so, their last idea would have been Right.

TF


----------



## mandovoodoo (Aug 27, 2005)

TurboTurtle said:


> Couple of thoughts on the question and some of the replies:
> 
> Don't think that pros are not influenced by fashion/peer pressure just like everybody else.
> 
> ...


Makes sense to me. But I've always done well enough copying the best. I like the image of Merckx up a ways. I remember that long stretched position. I could spin pretty well, but never felt really powerful. The most power I remember seeing during that period was on the track, and there I felt powerful and fast. Of course, I wasn't particular fast except for me, but it worked and never gave me back problems.

Then I got fitted using that fitkit technology a good while ago. I was never comfortable, but I figured it must be right. Idiot. I could ride nicely, go a long way, go pretty fast, but I wasn't comfortable.

I looked at the pros lots. Too low for me at this point. Thought about stroke. Moved my feet forward over the pedals, set the seat so I am nicely balanced (further back than fitkit or KNOP just a bit) with my hands able to float in the drops at decent effort. At 5'10.5" I'm at 3.5" drop from seat level to top of bars. At 51 years old. I can tell I could use more drop with shorter cranks (175 mm now), but this is amazingly comfortable. I'd also have more drop if I were 25. Nice thing about this position is that at higher power levels I find myself working at the bars strongly and putting much more power into the cranks at the top of the stroke. Much less of a dead spot effect, almost not there. The combination of longer crank and further forward foot seem to play into this a good deal. For some odd reason this overall position reminds me of a rotated back track position and doesn't feel like my old stretched out road position. Interesting. 

I can't really follow DNC, but I can comprehend being able to get the upper body into the pedal stroke and I seem to be doing this. Feels surprisingly like golf - but backwards. Toes to end of club for golf, hands back to pedals for cycling. 

I can also feel myself wanting more drop at high power levels and speeds. I can see how the pros tolerate this through conditioning and very careful position tweeking. I suspect the position gets increasingly critical as the bars drop and mileage stays the same. 

One of my real concerns with DNC's conclusory and rather arrogant posts is the focus on power when one needs to think as much about the air as one does power. Increased power working against increased resistance because of a higher position isn't doing much but wearing down a rider! And I suspect the use power meters is getting the riders to develop and control power well.


----------



## dnc (Feb 8, 2003)

mandovoodoo said:


> Makes sense to me. But I've always done well enough copying the best. I like the image of Merckx up a ways. I remember that long stretched position. I could spin pretty well, but never felt really powerful. The most power I remember seeing during that period was on the track, and there I felt powerful and fast. Of course, I wasn't particular fast except for me, but it worked and never gave me back problems.
> 
> Then I got fitted using that fitkit technology a good while ago. I was never comfortable, but I figured it must be right. Idiot. I could ride nicely, go a long way, go pretty fast, but I wasn't comfortable.
> 
> ...





Just because your bars are higher than the normal setup does not mean your upper body will be less aerodynamic, with Anquetil's linear pedalling technique, the more aerodynamic and lower your head and shoulders are, the more powerful your pedalling will be. With the linear technique, arm to shoulder resistance pulling line must feel parallel or directly opposite to pedal power application line, otherwise both these power sources cannot be combined for maximum benefit and power. This is why correct bike setup and position is so important and when you have got that,you get bars, arms, legs and pedals all working as a unit, the dead spot area 11to 1 becomes part of the main power stroke and the lower back is completely removed from the pedalling action as all pedalling resistance and upper body weight support is supplied by the hips and working arms. Sorry about the arrogant style of writing but then Anquetil was known as an arrogant man and probably you would also be if you had his successful technique. In all natural pedalling styles vertical or direct downward pedal pressure is the main power supplier, with the linear technique vertical pedal pressure is never used, so now you see how very different techniques can be.


----------



## chipped teeth (Apr 18, 2005)

dnc said:


> Sorry about the arrogant style of writing but then Anquetil was known as an arrogant man and probably you would also be if you had his successful technique..


So what's your excuse?


----------



## dnc (Feb 8, 2003)

chipped teeth said:


> So what's your excuse?





The comments I get from the "experts" and their lack of knowledge in the most important aspect of cycling, the pedalling. Cyclists are like sheep, they blindly follow the leader in equipment etc but pedalling is something that can never be copied, it is an internal matter between rider and machine and has to be fully explained and demonstrated before it can be passed on.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

dnc said:


> The comments I get from the "experts" and their lack of knowledge in the most important aspect of cycling, the pedalling. Cyclists are like sheep, they blindly follow the leader in equipment etc but pedalling is something that can never be copied, it is an internal matter between rider and machine and has to be fully explained and demonstrated before it can be passed on.


 Excellent dnc!!!!

Would you like to join The Movement? 

You may just be exactly what we're looking for...just head over to PO and post a thread--and all us friendly folk will be more than happy to greet you


"Yo-Sorelian we got another one!!!!"


----------



## chipped teeth (Apr 18, 2005)

dnc said:


> The comments I get from the "experts" and their lack of knowledge in the most important aspect of cycling, the pedalling. Cyclists are like sheep, they blindly follow the leader in equipment etc but pedalling is something that can never be copied, it is an internal matter between rider and machine and has to be fully explained and demonstrated before it can be passed on.


Still no excuse for arrogance.


----------



## dnc (Feb 8, 2003)

chipped teeth said:


> Still no excuse for arrogance.




Such as, give me an example and maybe I can offer an explanation.
If my claims are proved to be correct, where does that leave the writings of Coyle, Burke,
Ferrari, Pruitt on both the performance and medical aspects of pedalling ? Unlike them,
I am not in it for the money, I get my satisfaction from discovery or making possible what 
to everyone else appears to be impossible.


----------



## chipped teeth (Apr 18, 2005)

*Dude... you're awesome.*



dnc said:


> Such as, give me an example and maybe I can offer an explanation.
> If my claims are proved to be correct, where does that leave the writings of Coyle, Burke,
> Ferrari, Pruitt on both the performance and medical aspects of pedalling ? Unlike them,
> I am not in it for the money, I get my satisfaction from discovery or making possible what
> to everyone else appears to be impossible.


I _am_ enjoying you. Just how shall you prove your claims?


----------



## ETfromQC (Sep 16, 2004)

chipped teeth said:


> I _am_ enjoying you. Just how shall you prove your claims?


I have a pretty good idea, that includes 2 bikes, a 5 minute interval, and devilish road path.


----------



## RodeRash (May 18, 2005)

Spunout said:


> Smaller frames with higher seatposts and much longer stems, no spacers. Look at a custom pro frame, most are 2cm longer in the TT (or 2cm shorter in the ST conversely) to achieve this position.
> 
> How: Practice. Core strength. It is an athletic position. The longer you ride a bike, the easier it gets.


"Core Strength" -- There's a start. 

Pros are damned mean, and in excruciatingly good shape! 

So, they push so hard on the pedals that they don't put much weight on the saddle. And they're so strong in the core that they don't lean on the bars. That's because they're not letting the bike "support them" but rather they're pushing the bike out of shape getting it to move forward. 

They're not "leaning" on anything. They're pulling and pushing on the whole bike. 

You can get some insight into this -- 

Get out with some strong riders on the flats and push the pace to about 90% or better. All of a sudden you're on the bottoms of the drops and you don't feel "curled up." Also, you're butt is not squished around the saddle, but rather just touching it as you apply power to the pedals. 

Now, slow down and you lean on the bars, and settle into the saddle. 

Pros don't "sit" on the bike. Pros use the bike as a frame to get power to the pedals. That means pushing and ripping, not leaning on the bars.


----------



## mandovoodoo (Aug 27, 2005)

RodeRash said:


> "Core Strength" -- There's a start. . . .
> 
> So, they push so hard on the pedals that they don't put much weight on the saddle. And they're so strong in the core that they don't lean on the bars. That's because they're not letting the bike "support them" but rather they're pushing the bike out of shape getting it to move forward.
> 
> ...


I was thinking about this today and about my typical 3 to 4 bike approach of the 1970s to mid 80s. Modern road bike positions for racers seem to be between my then road racing setup and track setup. I'd also have a long distance bike with much higher bars and a relaxed position. And a fixed gear bike for the road, set up like my track bike except with road bars, giving a wider range of hand positions and not quite a much drop.

My current position was just described as "pretty aggressive" by a highly experienced rep. Seems to match my typical rides. We warm up (getting chilly a bit - newspaper under the jersey for the warmup this morning) and then start riding at a pretty decent tempo. By 40 minutes in I'm climbing in 42 x 22 most of the time and topping out the 52x12 on downhills. But we don't go all that far. An hour, or slightly less. About all the time I have before I need open up the shop (in about 8 minutes). I certainly don't feel that I'm leaning on the bars, usually using them for balance and pulling firmly against them on the hills.

This approach really came home to me in trying to get my wife (Gianna of Gianna Violins) to stop having her hands hurt. We figured out it was balance and putting out more power. Now she's well balanced in a quite aggressive position (especially for a middle aged woman) and works at putting out a pretty decent amount of power. We both notice the much greater hand pressure and difficulty in being comfortable at low power output. So we tend to put out moderate power all the time and stay balanced over the pedals, or actively using upper body to drive power into the pedals. She was commenting that she's going to have to do upper body weight work if we're going to punch through the morning workout at this pace.

I suspect after mulling this over today on the road that were I generally riding 3 hours or more I would end up with less drop, probably about the same reach, and a slightly farther back position for the saddle. As was the case many years ago, the relationship of bar, saddle, and cranks didn't just rotate back from track through touring setups. The distance from crank to pedals gradually increased in that progression. When I used to tour long distance with weight I'd end up on the hoods with bent elbows for headwinds, on the drops for seated climbing, and on the top of the bar for ordinary cruising along. I also used to get saddle soreness. That long distance slow cranking was always really hard on my ass. I'd never have problems on fast rides and I don't have problems now.

I suspect lots of this is about thinking. When I think "power" I end up floating on the saddle, pulling at the bars, and driving my legs over the top. When I think "spin" I end up with a little weight on the saddle and bars and a more fluid stroke. The least comfortable position turns out to be "loaf" or "relax" which ends up with the most pressure on the saddle and bars. I also lose the power at the top of the stroke and tend to start mashing instead of powering or spinning. What happens depends on how I'm thinking. 

Anyway, the pro positions make complete sense to me. A rather reasonable balance of aerodynamics & muscles. I can't see them using backs much, looks like arms working at the bars driving the legs & butt. That nice crouch really gets my ass into things and I'm sure that's lots of what the pros are powering along with.


----------



## coralhead1 (Sep 1, 2004)

*entertaining thread...*

dnc is a troll. Do they have trolls in this forum? Anyway, Ill feed the troll because I think he brought a smile to my face...I like fairy tales.

Hate to break it to you, dnc, but your mysterious, super secret, only you and Anquetil have the knowlege pedal stroke is pushed in spin classes all over the US. Yes, soccer moms and ex-runners with bad knees everywhere are concentrating on 'back and forth', not 'up and down'. Sooo, assuming a million soccer moms have a handle on the secret technique, Im gonna guess Lance did too. 

I think its great that you love your technique the way you do...really. And its a very good technique, too (those ex-runners with the bad knees all agree with you). thats what makes you a good troll...theres nothing wrong with the style riding your talking about. You slipped a bit when you said _"all riders are using variations of the same basic natural pedalling style which use vertical pedal pressure as the main power supplier to the cranks"_. Sorry bud, but pros have been working on every aspect of stroke for quite a while...remember the parabolic crank? the idea came from that sentance. you probably own one.

You lost points for _"Anquetil was possibly even more unique than people believe, using drugs as a masking agent for his special power pedalling technique"_ and _What goes on or went in the brain and muscles is obviously known to only myself and Anquetil"_...bad form, old man...much to obvious. Im thinking you were getting tired of your troll at this point and began throwing out stuff that was just rediculous.

All in all, I give you a Troll6.5...it would have been a 7.5 if you would have stuck to the original story, as rediculous as it was.


----------



## mandovoodoo (Aug 27, 2005)

Brings up another aspect of position. Currently I've got my seat perhaps slightly back from where I'd like to try it. To move it forward a smidge I'd have to move the bars forward a bit. Perhaps 1 cm max. Currently the imaginary line between the centers of the forward bends is directly over the front axle. Moving it forward would put the bars about 1cm ahead of the axle. Is this acceptable? Do the pros set things up that way?


----------



## dnc (Feb 8, 2003)

coralhead1 said:


> dnc is a troll. Do they have trolls in this forum? Anyway, Ill feed the troll because I think he brought a smile to my face...I like fairy tales.
> 
> Hate to break it to you, dnc, but your mysterious, super secret, only you and Anquetil have the knowlege pedal stroke is pushed in spin classes all over the US. Yes, soccer moms and ex-runners with bad knees everywhere are concentrating on 'back and forth', not 'up and down'. Sooo, assuming a million soccer moms have a handle on the secret technique, Im gonna guess Lance did too.
> 
> ...







There is spinning and SPINNING, two very different types of pedalling, the secret to success in time trials lies in using a technique that enables you to SPIN a high gear. In order to spin a high gear you have to call on additional forces and I can guarantee that not one of your spinners can do that. Anyone can eliminate the dead spot area but replacing that area with maximum pedal power and making it part of your extended main power stroke is what makes Anquetil's linear style invincible in time trial and pursuit events. The discreet introduction and synchronization of upper body power into pedalling is what makes all this possible. Did any of Anquetil's team mates and training partners ever ask Anquetil to explain in detail how he generated that mysterious extra power and if so, what answer did he give them ? That is a question nobody can or is willing to answer.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*The crap continues to flow*



dnc said:


> If my claims are proved to be correct, where does that leave the writings of Coyle, Burke, Ferrari, Pruitt on both the performance and medical aspects of pedalling ? Unlike them, I am not in it for the money, I get my satisfaction from discovery or making possible what to everyone else appears to be impossible.


Yeah, but you have been spewing this nonsense for years! Just when is it that your claims will be proven? All you've ever said is that 1) Anquetil had a magic pedal stroke, never duplicated and 2) you were going to duplicate it. Assuming we were ever to swallow the first astounding claim (which is complete and total bullsh!t, BTW), we're still waiting for the second. Troll hardly describes your bizzare behavior over the years. You've been laughed out of more bike forums that I care to count, and yet you still keep coming back for more. When will this madness end?


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

dnc said:


> If you are so confident of your facts, would you cover a 5000 dollar bet as to whether my claims are true or false.


 To be sent via cashiers' check-Western Union to some shipping agent in Nigeria...


----------



## dnc (Feb 8, 2003)

Kerry Irons said:


> Yeah, but you have been spewing this nonsense for years! Just when is it that your claims will be proven? All you've ever said is that 1) Anquetil had a magic pedal stroke, never duplicated and 2) you were going to duplicate it. Assuming we were ever to swallow the first astounding claim (which is complete and total bullsh!t, BTW), we're still waiting for the second. Troll hardly describes your bizzare behavior over the years. You've been laughed out of more bike forums that I care to count, and yet you still keep coming back for more. When will this madness end?




Not magic just commonsense and a more beneficial way of using the bodies muscles. For the record, to what do you attribute the success of Anquetil in time trials. The madness or stupidity will end when I give my planned demonstration and then we will see who will be doing the laughing because the stupidity is on your side. If you are so confident of your facts, would you cover a 5000 dollar bet as to whether my claims are true or false.


----------



## coralhead1 (Sep 1, 2004)

*Troll*



dnc said:


> There is spinning and SPINNING, two very different types of pedalling, the secret to success in time trials lies in using a technique that enables you to SPIN a high gear. In order to spin a high gear you have to call on additional forces and I can guarantee that not one of your spinners can do that. Anyone can eliminate the dead spot area but replacing that area with maximum pedal power and making it part of your extended main power stroke is what makes Anquetil's linear style invincible in time trial and pursuit events. The discreet introduction and synchronization of upper body power into pedalling is what makes all this possible. Did any of Anquetil's team mates and training partners ever ask Anquetil to explain in detail how he generated that mysterious extra power and if so, what answer did he give them ? That is a question nobody can or is willing to answer.


Anquetil was a pro. he didnt have "mysterious extra power "...he trained. unless, of course, he was really a Jedi and used the force to win his TT's...but that would be frivolous use of the force and would make him a bad Jedi. My grandmother uses "discreet introduction and synchronization of upper body power ". 

Come on! try harder, or pull the plug! Are you getting tired of your Troll? Cause your slipping. Sad, cause you started out pretty good. Ya gotta know when to let the Troll run itself. Sad...***shakes head and walks away***...


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Attribution*



dnc said:


> For the record, to what do you attribute the success of Anquetil in time trials.


Oh, I don't know. To what would I attribute the time trial success of Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, Bordman, Ekimov, Armstrong, Zabriske, et. al.? I'm going to make a WILD guess that these folks (and others) are good time trialists, with good position, big engines, and the ability to run at the red line for the duration.



dnc said:


> The madness or stupidity will end when I give my planned demonstration and then we will see who will be doing the laughing because the stupidity is on your side. If you are so confident of your facts, would you cover a 5000 dollar bet as to whether my claims are true or false.


Based on your making these claims for several years, with NO results to show, I would guess that would be a safe bet. It would seem difficult to set the terms such that a fair and honest test would be done. A lot of information would be needed to insure that the results were indeed accurate. That said, there would seem to be little point in making bets with deranged people 

I guess I should learn from this. The old adage is to "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it."


----------



## dnc (Feb 8, 2003)

Kerry Irons said:


> Oh, I don't know. To what would I attribute the time trial success of Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, Bordman, Ekimov, Armstrong, Zabriske, et. al.? I'm going to make a WILD guess that these folks (and others) are good time trialists, with good position, big engines, and the ability to run at the red line for the duration.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Unlike all of the above riders, many of Anquetil's victories such as his hour record were
after drinking into the early hours. If you wrestle with a pig, you will get dirty, but wrestling with a pedalling expert will never make you a perfect pedaller, so Kerry you can't win.
As I stated, it's not magic just commonsense or better use of biomechanics. As I cycled home one afternoon, I passed a physically handicapped trike rider who was using only handcranks to power his trike. After that my objective was to biomechanically divert this upper body power back to the leg cranks and within a week I had succeeded but it could only be done by making maximum use of the total dead spot area (11 to 1) and the total elimination of the lower back from the pedalling action. So that is the scientific explanation on which Anquetil's linear technique is based.
If this technique had been discovered earlier, Biopace and all other versions of eliptical chainrings and rotor cranks would never have appeared as there is no need for them. Powercranks have a very different objective, they not only force a rider into using the correct circular pedalling style but also the all important total unweighting of idling leg technique. Now Kerry two pedalling lessons for free as will be my pedalling demonstration when I retire from work and can devote more of my time to it.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

dnc said:


> Unlike all of the above riders, many of Anquetil's victories such as his hour record were
> after drinking into the early hours. If you wrestle with a pig, you will get dirty, but wrestling with a pedalling expert will never make you a perfect pedaller, so Kerry you can't win.
> As I stated, it's not magic just commonsense or better use of biomechanics. As I cycled home one afternoon, I passed a physically handicapped trike rider who was using only handcranks to power his trike. After that my objective was to biomechanically divert this upper body power back to the leg cranks and within a week I had succeeded but it could only be done by making maximum use of the total dead spot area (11 to 1) and the total elimination of the lower back from the pedalling action. So that is the scientific explanation on which Anquetil's linear technique is based.
> If this technique had been discovered earlier, Biopace and all other versions of eliptical chainrings and rotor cranks would never have appeared as there is no need for them. Powercranks have a very different objective, they not only force a rider into using the correct circular pedalling style but also the all important total unweighting of idling leg technique. Now Kerry two pedalling lessons for free as will be my pedalling demonstration when I retire from work and can devote more of my time to it.


 Unfortunately with global warming and all-I don'tthink h*ll is going to be freezing over any time soon


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

_Jacques *simply tries harder than anyone I have met*. In a time trial you can hear him catching you, you don't have to look round, there is this hoarse sound of breath being drawn in gulps, and then he's past you. Then it's like being in a thunderstorm, with the sweat simply pouring off him as he goes by._

A Tom Simpson quote, lifted from the wikipedia article about Anquetil. Note: no reference to any mystical style. Given his anecdotal method of preparation, staying up all night playing cards, is it not likely that some artificial chemical stimulation was perchance involved as well? 

Tell us exactly what to do to try this technique out for ourselves; in the spirit of scientific inquiry it seems wrong to keep it all to yourself.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

coralhead1 said:


> Anquetil was a pro. he didnt have "mysterious extra power "...he trained. unless, of course, he was really a Jedi and used the force to win his TT's...but that would be frivolous use of the force and would make him a bad Jedi. My grandmother uses "discreet introduction and synchronization of upper body power ".
> 
> Come on! try harder, or pull the plug! Are you getting tired of your Troll? Cause your slipping. Sad, cause you started out pretty good. Ya gotta know when to let the Troll run itself. Sad...***shakes head and walks away***...


His "troll" seems to being doing quite well based on this thread. Got you, didn't he? - TF


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

olr1 said:


> On second thoughts, 5 minutes googling turned up ncrowley who repeated the same thing over and over throughout just about every other cycling forum out there.


do a newsgroup search of Anquetil and pedaling and you'll have this thread x1000


----------



## dnc (Feb 8, 2003)

olr1 said:


> _Jacques *simply tries harder than anyone I have met*. In a time trial you can hear him catching you, you don't have to look round, there is this hoarse sound of breath being drawn in gulps, and then he's past you. Then it's like being in a thunderstorm, with the sweat simply pouring off him as he goes by._
> 
> A Tom Simpson quote, lifted from the wikipedia article about Anquetil. Note: no reference to any mystical style. Given his anecdotal method of preparation, staying up all night playing cards, is it not likely that some artificial chemical stimulation was perchance involved as well?
> 
> Tell us exactly what to do to try this technique out for ourselves; in the spirit of scientific inquiry it seems wrong to keep it all to yourself.





I tried on other forums but it has to be explained in detail at a demonstration with both on and off the bike examples of how the power is generated and applied to the pedals. Anquetil was noted for three different ways of doing things. Higher than normal handlebar setup (opposite to today's pros.), toes down pedalling style (not normal for a high gear man) and his use of higher than normal gears in time trials. 
His high bar setting was necessary for combination of upper and lower body power. The toes down style was also a necessity because his linear technique never uses vertical pedal pressure and it was only with the toes down style that max pedal force could be applied at the correct angle throughout the entire 180 degrees of his pedal stroke. The use of higher gears was made possible by the extension the pedal stroke (max use of dead spot area) which reduced the high gear effect on the effort required and it is only by using the higher gears that you can get maximum benefit from combined upper and lower body power. Drugs probably compensated for his late nights and helped him to recover but with his pedalling technique they were not a necessity. If you ever get to see his video, there is plenty of reference to his mysterious pedal power and a chance to see his pedalling action.


----------



## Derailer (Apr 28, 2005)

Oh come on now, how many freaking ways are there to pedal a bike? And if there's one really super-efficient way to pedal, don't you think more than 2 people in the world would know the secret by now?

Regardless, I find this thread vastly entertaining. Anquetil is the Atlantis of cycling.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

Higher bars, higher saddle (presumably, given the toe down position) higher gears.

I still see no mystery. As noted, the fact that of all the people in the world who saw him, raced with him, filmed him, etc., couldn't see it either suggests that you are deluding yourself.

Prove it beyond all reasonable doubt in a decent scientific way, get it peer-reviewed and I will show my arse on whichever town hall steps you care to name. 

A wager that cannot be refused.


----------



## dnc (Feb 8, 2003)

Derailer said:


> Oh come on now, how many freaking ways are there to pedal a bike? And if there's one really super-efficient way to pedal, don't you think more than 2 people in the world would know the secret by now?
> 
> Regardless, I find this thread vastly entertaining. Anquetil is the Atlantis of cycling.




There are two ways to pedal a bike, the natural way and the unnatural way. Cycling experts never bothered to look beyond the natural style and the same applies to pedalling researchers and those scientists attempting to perfect the circular pedalling style which is an impossible task as there will always be that dead spot area.
At one time there was only the natural high jump techniques, that was until Dick Fosbury decided there could be a better way to do it and as he trained and perfected his special flop technique, he was laughed at by the experts. I don't see anyone laughing now.
The same applies in cycling, Anquetil proved that but unlike the Fosbury Flop, Anquetil's technique can never be copied, you have got to use your brains and that is something cyclists are not accustomed to doing and Anquetil had nothing to gain and everything to lose by assisting them.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

All right this has been fun (sad) fun and all but...Quoth Stohler/AJS


----------



## coralhead1 (Sep 1, 2004)

*Lol!*



TurboTurtle said:


> His "troll" seems to being doing quite well based on this thread. Got you, didn't he? - TF


Yeah, I fed him a bit. He was funny, until he got greedy. He could have done even better by leaving it alone for a bit, but hes getting repetitive now. Im done. 

Love Kerrys pig adage...Nice, Kerry!


----------



## ETfromQC (Sep 16, 2004)

It's like a dead pigeon on the road, you just can't help but stare. Or in this case, a very dead, very beaten horse.

Publish and peer-review, and I too will bare on the steps of my town hall.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

.....


----------



## mandovoodoo (Aug 27, 2005)

This thread got me thinking about position & reading about it. Read through all Hogg's technical suggestions on position at cyclingnews. Interesting stuff. Moved my seat back until I got nice "teeter" balance. Expected to need to raise my bars, but didn't. Nice position, I like it. Ran across an idea of why pros and some others can ride with an extended position or a deep drop position while others can't. Hogg calls it "structural fitness."

I can ride in a low position only limited by my neck angle in needing to see and by my knees hitting my chest because I've got this "structural fitness." I don't sit while I work - I stand up. I move around. I do some kind of working out almost every day. Kayak, or cycle, or walk, or whatever. I've had lots of deep-tissue bodywork and chiropractic to recover from a few accidents. Other work on posture, movement, etc. Used to dance (modern & jazz), martial arts, movement oriented stuff. So my body is surprisingly flexible and supple, at least surprising to me. More important perhaps, my hamstrings and quads and back are very nicely balanced and work together. So I can bend over on a bike as far as I want. If I still worked in a cubicle looking at stuff and typing all day I wouldn't be able to do this. I couldn't when I did work in a cubicle - I can tell, because that bike is set up differently. Before and after the cubicle era I used a low position. When I worked in cubicle, my back would hurt in cycling longer distances and I was never comfortable. My back wouldn't flatten out, pelvis was "stuck" and so on. I think I'm lucky I got hit head on and started on the "get everything fixed" program. I still get regular bodywork, mainly focused on untwisting stuff associated with whiplash stuff to my lower back.

From this perspective, the low position of professionals makes perfect sense. They get massage and coaching and practice and so on. Some of them look like they have too much weight in the hands under moderate effort, but when working hard they are balanced OK. 

In this position my calves, quads, hamstrings, glutes, abdominals, lower back, shoulders, and pecs all get worked pretty well. The power muscles more, but I can tell the other stuff gets worked. I lift weights, too, which helps those almost static muscles do better. This is nothing like the effect on my body when I was stuck in a cubicle. Then I'd get roving aches and pains, try different positions on the bike, rotate through hand positions on the bars, and never really got comfortable. 

This "structural fitness" stuff has really got me thinking. Position really comes from the inside and the bike has to match it. If the inside isn't in harmony and working smoothly, then a bike position isn't going to work. If the inside is working harmoniously and smoothly, then a wide range of positions may work, with a well balanced near-optimum position allowing either easy cycling or the application of lots of focused power depending on the cyclist's goals. 

Ties into how people use tools. In the hands of an expert, the tool almost disappears into the person, the person possesses the implement completely and effortlessly to do the job. I get to do this with sharp objects when I make violins. The tool becomes invisible unless it starts failing a bit and then it gets in the way. The focus is on the end, not on the tool. 

A bike is a big tool, but I've been struck at how some people put on the bike like light dancing shoes while others get on it and drive the thing.


----------

