# Anyone know why so many pros have their seat so much higher than their bars?



## Praetorian27 (Jul 30, 2004)

I was noticing when watching the tour that many of the riders had their seat position in what looked like about 6"-8" above their handlebars! I had a custom fitting when I bought my 61cm Bianchi by a certified Serotta fitter. My seat is maybe an inch or two at most above my bars. If my seat was that much higher I would never be able to reach the pedals! Is there a reason I don't know about?


----------



## omniviper (Sep 18, 2004)

thier bikes are probably smaller for weight savings and they raise their seat to compensate.

also it might be that they are using compact frames


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*One word*



Praetorian27 said:


> I was noticing when watching the tour that many of the riders had their seat position in what looked like about 6"-8" above their handlebars! I had a custom fitting when I bought my 61cm Bianchi by a certified Serotta fitter. My seat is maybe an inch or two at most above my bars. If my seat was that much higher I would never be able to reach the pedals! Is there a reason I don't know about?


It's all about aerodynamics. Lowering the bars (not raising the seat) gets you into a more aero position. Because of their great flexibility and their desire for speed, the pros ride smaller frames and keep their bars much lower than most recreational riders. Their seat to pedal distances are the same as anyone elses' - it's the frame that is smaller resulting in more seat post showing and lower bars.


----------



## Praetorian27 (Jul 30, 2004)

Kerry Irons said:


> It's all about aerodynamics. Lowering the bars (not raising the seat) gets you into a more aero position. Because of their great flexibility and their desire for speed, the pros ride smaller frames and keep their bars much lower than most recreational riders. Their seat to pedal distances are the same as anyone elses' - it's the frame that is smaller resulting in more seat post showing and lower bars.


Ahhh! That makes sense! Thanks!


----------



## Trevor! (Feb 28, 2004)

Yes Aerodynamics is a big part here, plus the fact that the majority are riding Compact frames too.


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

Praetorian27 said:


> Ahhh! That makes sense! Thanks!


It's a matter of preference, purely. I love 5" of drop, which is pretty extreme, but most people would hate it. Don't sacrifice. Drop as low as you want but dont go where its uncomfortable. May be more aerodynamic but comfort will keep you going faster than aerodynamics can.
-estone2


----------



## Peter R. (Jul 11, 2006)

It makes them think they're going downhill all the time, so they go faster :arf: 

Peter R.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Smallest frame possible.*

In the days before bike fitting refined itself down the tenth of a millimeter and became big business, we used to say jokingly that fitting a pro is very simple: proper saddle height with the seatpost extended to the minimum insertion line.


----------



## 53T (Jul 20, 2002)

Trevor, you are not the first person to mention compact frames. Can someone 'splain how frame geometry will effect saddle-to-bar drop?


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

53T said:


> Trevor, you are not the first person to mention compact frames. Can someone 'splain how frame geometry will effect saddle-to-bar drop?



It shouldn't effect saddle-to-bar drop but it will make the seat look like it is much higher. Its just that the top tube is lower.


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

Height will also directly affect how much you can drop below your seat. Let's face it, if flexibility is the same, a 5'5" rider won't drop as much as a 6'2" rider no matter what bike he rides. Of course, we do have to assume that the 5'5" rider has much shorter arms than the 6'2" rider. 

I am 5'6" and I can tolerate about 5-7cm drop. I could probably tolerate about 10cm if I had better hip and neck flexibility, but that is about it.


----------



## Trevor! (Feb 28, 2004)

brianmcg said:


> It shouldn't effect saddle-to-bar drop but it will make the seat look like it is much higher. Its just that the top tube is lower.



Yes thats sort of right. I find however, with say a Giant Compact frame (I had a TCR Composite 1) you have to have more seatpost sticking out and a bigger stem then what you would use on a traditional geometry frame.

Compact for a frame maker like Giant means that they can make fewer frames (S, M, ML, L and XL) and fit a greater number of people on those thus there is a trade off. Somebody like me who was between a M and L at the time had to ride a M which meant lots of seat post sticking out (which makes some roadies uncomfortable) and a 120mm stem. For me the big saddle to bar drop was preffered as on my MTB I like to be long and low.


----------



## Cory (Jan 29, 2004)

*Just FYI, the pro position isn't necessarily best for all*

You've got a good explanation of all the reasons, but nobody's quite brought out a related fact: that low-bar position isn't suitable for most recreational riders, or even pretty strong semi-serious cyclists. Even if you eventually adopt it, it's a good idea to sneak up on it, lowering the bars a little at a time as your flexibility improves and your body fat decreases (used to be easier to do that in the quill-stem days). Trying to force your body into the same position as a pro who's worked out six hours a day for 10 years is certainly going to make you uncomfortable and can lead to injury. Personally, I've gone faster and farther since I RAISED my bars, because I can stay on the bike longer.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Well yeah but if pros use standard geometry frames such as Team Discovery's Madones, then the drop would be considerably less due to the geometry. 
http://www2.trekbikes.com/us/en/News/2006_07_06_238092.php

This ain't that much drop, I doubt it's 6-8 inches.. Probably some 3-4 inches at most I guess.


----------



## hooper (Jul 22, 2006)

It looks to me that the pros today have their arms less stretched out in front than they used too. The back angles look the same (obvously some with more flexibility are closer to parallel than others) as old pictures of Merkx and others. You'd be surprised how much drop you can get when the bike is setup so that your nose is directly over the bars when in the drops. My fit technician explained this to me. I'm set up similar and I have around 105mm of drop without being all that flexible. It feels very stable while descending and cornering. I feel at one with the bike instead of disconnected.


----------



## fbagatelleblack (Mar 31, 2005)

Lower bars are not only more aerodynamic, this position also allows a rider to get more use out of his/her lower quads. Better muscle use => faster.

BUT, as Cory mentions, this is not the most comfortable position for recreational riders, and it can lead to long term health issues. I rode a setup like this for many years, and I have cronic hip and back pain as a result. My coach in college could barely ride 30 miles by the time I met him (he was in his 30s or 40s at this point) because he had such severe back problems.

SO, don't go this extreme unless you are a hard-core racer. 1" to 2" height difference between your saddle and your bars sounds reasonable to me, although the "Rivendell" crowd, yours truly included, will generally raise the bars even further for comfort. I generally keep my bars and saddle heights about the same these days, although my "go fast" bike has the saddle about an inch higher than the bars.

- FBB


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

It's all about aerodynamics. When you're riding at 15 mph, aerodynamics really don't come into play. At 20 mph, you begin to notice that an upright position slows you down. At 25 mph you can really notice it. At 30-35 mph, if you're not aerodynamic, you're not going to last very long.(all these speeds are "on the flats")
The top of the bars on my main bike is 3-1/2 inches below my saddle. More than some...less than many. But then again, I'm older than dirt.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> It's all about aerodynamics. When you're riding at 15 mph, aerodynamics really don't come into play.


Why? Why? Why?
At 15 mph in an aerodynamic position, 65% of the rider's power goes to overcoming drag. If that isn't coming into play, what factors would you say are important? Hands on the hoods or drops raises that even higher. (At 20 mph, the percentage rises to over 70%)
http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesSource_Page.html


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*aero*

I read in a well known cycling training book that it is far more important being *narrow* on the bike than being *low*. Look at Floyd Landis TDF winning BMC ride - a flipped up stem (a first in elite ranks?) and also flipped up bars too. And his TT ride too. Sure he has a bad hip and typically does not set the pace in the head-wind but the point is that his saddle to bar drop is way less than most of the other riders in similar positions. Same goes for Armstrong's drop - he has a well known back problem so his bars are relatively higher and stem shorter (only 110mm) and he rides a Trek Madone 58cm frame that is more *regular* size for his body rather than the smallest he could fit on (i.e. 56cm with 120-130mm stem, for example). The point I am trying to make is that many pro-riders may well perform *better* with less saddle to bar drop than they are currently riding with. But those riders are also dead scared to play with their riding position so only the most desperate will try. But do notice that many elite riders bar hoods are relatively high up these days. Check out Tom Boonen's Time as one of the extremes. And there are many shallow drop bars used these days also. I wonder why? 8^)


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Oh, pish!*



fbagatelleblack said:


> I rode a setup like this for many years, and I have cronic hip and back pain as a result. My coach in college could barely ride 30 miles by the time I met him (he was in his 30s or 40s at this point) because he had such severe back problems.


How do you know this was cause and effect in either case, and how do you know this is "typical". I've ridden with 9 cm of saddle-to-bar drop for 40 years and have none of these problems. I'm not doubting your experience, but I am challenging your claim that this is somehow nearly universal and to be avoided as a result.


----------



## Zwane (Jun 30, 2006)

One thing i noticed was that having the hoods high allows me to keep my back straighter when pedaling out of the saddle. This helps a lot on long climbs as my lower back doesn't come into play as much. I find almost standing upright whilst cranking uphill allows me to recover more fully and puts less weight on my arms/shoulders. That being said, i have my bars 2.5" below my saddle, but that's mostly due to a 36" inseam.


----------



## fbagatelleblack (Mar 31, 2005)

Kerry Irons said:


> I am challenging your claim that this is somehow nearly universal


?! Where did I claim that? I'd say that if the end result occured in a significant percentage of the population, that would be enough incentive to try to avoid it.

- FBB


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*And further*



fbagatelleblack said:


> ?! Where did I claim that? I'd say that if the end result occured in a significant percentage of the population, that would be enough incentive to try to avoid it.


Your statement is true, but there is still no cause and effect shown. My point is that all the guys I ride with have many years on the bike with significant saddle-to-bar drop and none have the problem you cite. Not saying you don't have the problem but I am saying that your suggestion that "this will happen" is far off the mark.


----------



## fbagatelleblack (Mar 31, 2005)

Kerry Irons said:


> Your statement is true, but there is still no cause and effect shown. My point is that all the guys I ride with have many years on the bike with significant saddle-to-bar drop and none have the problem you cite. Not saying you don't have the problem but I am saying that your suggestion that "this will happen" is far off the mark.


I'm not saying "this will happen." I'm saying "this might happen." My statement is based on anecdotal evidence, not scientific. But, enough people have shared similar anecdotal evidence with me over the years to convince me that the risk is significant, especially considering my own experience and those of my college cycling coach.

I am glad you have not been afflicted with any problems related to high seat height.

- FBB


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

Kerry Irons said:


> How do you know this was cause and effect in either case, and how do you know this is "typical". I've ridden with 9 cm of saddle-to-bar drop for 40 years and have none of these problems. I'm not doubting your experience, but I am challenging your claim that this is somehow nearly universal and to be avoided as a result.


I have similar drop and may be increasing it. I have less than the ideal back and neck, having busted both in fun ways, but the only time I've had back/neck problems from the bike have been when I wasn't stretched out enough, i.e. the reach was too short, or when I was muy dehydrated.


----------



## fbagatelleblack (Mar 31, 2005)

Kerry Irons said:


> I've ridden with 9 cm of saddle-to-bar drop for 40 years and have none of these problems.


BTW: 9cm is a whole lot less than the 6"-8" the OP was discussing, roughly half the drop. 9 cm (3.5") seems like a pretty reasonable amount of drop for high performance riding/racing. That's about what I have on my ATB. My drop on my road bike during my racing years was quite a bit more than that, maybe 6". I'm 6'6" and I fell prey to the really bad advice which sez "Never race on any frame bigger than a 62cm."

Also, as alienator points out, having a top tube/stem/handlebar combination that is long enough for you is the most important thing. I can still ride for a few hours with quite a bit of drop, but if the reach is not long enough, fuggetaboutit. However, when I have the right amount of reach, and my handlebar height is within an inch or two of my seat height, I can ride all day.

- FBB


----------



## hooper (Jul 22, 2006)

funny thing is how some have looked at just a couple of pros or their bikes and made the generalization that pros have these massive 6-8 inch drops. Watch the WHOLE peloton next time and you'll see plenty of setups that are not extreme at all. Looking at a couple of sprinters or tall riders bikes does not make the peloton.


----------



## Praetorian27 (Jul 30, 2004)

hooper said:


> funny thing is how some have looked at just a couple of pros or their bikes and made the generalization that pros have these massive 6-8 inch drops. Watch the WHOLE peloton next time and you'll see plenty of setups that are not extreme at all. Looking at a couple of sprinters or tall riders bikes does not make the peloton.


Not one person on this thread is claiming the WHOLE peloton has this setup. This thread is discussing why some riders have it.


----------



## hooper (Jul 22, 2006)

Praetorian27 said:


> Not one person on this thread is claiming the WHOLE peloton has this setup. This thread is discussing why some riders have it.


Point is only a select few have a drop more than 100mm or so. I've read many a post on this and other forums about the "extreme" drop of the pros. Started watching the pros this year and I just don't see all that different of positioning between myself, others, and them. The words were "so many" and all I see are a select few.


----------



## moab63 (Aug 7, 2006)

*Well speed faster more drag, so*



asgelle said:


> Why? Why? Why?
> At 15 mph in an aerodynamic position, 65% of the rider's power goes to overcoming drag. If that isn't coming into play, what factors would you say are important? Hands on the hoods or drops raises that even higher. (At 20 mph, the percentage rises to over 70%)
> http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesSource_Page.html


you need to be more aero to minimize the effect. Here they are actually talking about the wheels, but they explain the speed.

How does slower speed affect air resistance? Drag force increases in relation to the square of the speed. In other words, when you double your speed the drag force increases fourfold, because "twice as many air molecules collide with you and your bike twice as fast" (Burke, 1995). But the energy expended against a resistive force is also directly related to the speed so the overall effect of air resistance is proportional to the cube of speed. Let's turn this around and think about the effect of going slower. If your gain with aero wheels in a 40-km time trial is 2%, and you do the time trial at 40 km/hr, then your savings in an off-road race at half the speed will be only 2%/8, or about 0.25%. That's assuming the aerodynamic characteristics of off-road and on-road aero wheels are the same. There are no data on this question.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

moab63 said:


> Let's turn this around and think about the effect of going slower. If your gain with aero wheels in a 40-km time trial is 2%, and you do the time trial at 40 km/hr, then your savings in an off-road race at half the speed will be only 2%/8, or about 0.25%. That's assuming the aerodynamic characteristics of off-road and on-road aero wheels are the same. There are no data on this question.


If the aero wheels drop resistance (CdA) 2% at 15 mph, they will also drop reisistance 2% at 8 mph. Over this range of speed, Cd is not affected by speed and aero drag is linear in Cd. At 15 mph 65% of power goes to overcoming drag so the wheels save 1.3% (0.2x0.65) of the total power to move the bike and rider at 15 mph. At 8 mph, aero drag is still cut 2%, but now that force only accounts for 38% of the total. In this case, the wheels reduce power by 0.76% (0.2x0.38). These numbers are easy to get through analyticcycling.com if you don't want to do the full calculations yourself.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

*The Real Cause...*

STI / Ergopower.

Time was, shifters were on the downtube, and the most aerodynamic position was in the drops. Hands were suitably close to the shifters, at least as that technology would allow. Bikes looked fairly normal, had very little drop (relative to today) and were ergonomically correct and adaptable to a wide range of situations.

Fast forward. Shifting has moved to the brake hoods, and is better and easier there than from the drops. Improvements in the ergonomics of the hoods make them more comfortable than on the drops. Still, the aerodynamic concerns that the others have mentioned still apply, so the hoods are effectively moved down such that the back is the same place it used to be when on the drops. (Note: that doesn't require an equal addition to the drop, because of the extra reach to the hoods relative to the drops.)

In essence, the pros have largely taken the drops(that is, the hooks) out of play in favor of using the hoods. Bar ends are still useful in sprints, but you have to get off the saddle to avoid thumping the chest with the thighs. 

Those old enough for master's racing will recall coaches yelling to _always_ sprint from the bottoms. Watch the next pro sprint carefully. Not just a few are likely to be up on the hoods.


----------

