BICYCLES

Thanks for the Velonews UCI article link. You are much more update on UCI matters than I am. As sherpa23 pointed out, it is a matter of personal taste which saddle a rider prefers and similarly whether they choose to tilt their saddle. I also suspect much of what drove the UCI to acquiesce on the "flatness rule" had to do with pressure from saddle makers as opposed to pressure from influential riders. You must remember, pro riders are sponsored in part by the saddle makers and in order for some of these riders to use the poorly-fitting saddles from their sponsors, they have to tilt their saddles. If UCI rules forbids them to do so, these riders would indeed suffer unnecessarily... but it's not because the saddles are working properly or are properly-designed to begin with. The UCI in turn, needs a vibrant pro circuit and sponsorship program in order to fund its own existence.

If saddle makers made proper-fitting saddles, riders would not have to tilt them to make them fit better. Since saddles are designed for level fitting, when you tilt them, they will cause you to accept some drawbacks, which admittedly may still present an improvement for you... for that saddle. However, this does not mean you have the best-fitting saddle for your riding needs. You may well find a much more comfortable saddle that either requires less or no tilting at all.

I've attached a photo apparently showing an ISM saddle next to a Fizik Arione saddle, ironically, the same saddle shown in the photo accompanying the Velonews article. The sleek sexy-looking Arione is very popular but I cannot bear more than a couple of minutes on one because it is simply too narrow. I can also forget about using it on my TT bike because, as you have also observed, a saddle's long nose will press into my body when I assume a TT riding position. OTOH, the odd-looking ISM saddle provides a very comfortable fit for me.

Most saddles like the Fizik Arione inexplicably only come in one, usually very narrow width, and cause problems for many riders. Riders on narrow saddle who experience pain after a short ride will try to tilt their road saddles up (like the one in the Velonews photo) in an effort to place their sit bones more to the rear of the saddle. Unfortunately this also causes the nose of the saddle to press against their private part resulting in other problems. IMO, most saddles are too narrow. Notice how much wider the ISM saddle is compared to the Arione.

OTOH, some riders discover they get numb in their private part after about 15-30 minutes on their saddle because the nose of their saddle pressed too tightly against their private part. Specialized and ISM makes saddles with cut-outs and/or openings along the ridge and noses of their performance saddles to address this issue. So you don't have to tilt their saddles down to avoid excessive pressure on your private part.

Some saddle makers have yet to learn the lessons of not placing aesthetics (and profit) above function and I suspect they are amongst those who complained the loudest about the "flatness rule" to the UCI. The connection between bike makers and the UCI has never been very transparent or lacking in controversy but a simple fact of the matter is that no one would need to tilt their saddle if the saddle fitted them properly to begin with. IMO, Specialized and ISM are to be hailed for their pioneering work on offering proper-fitting saddles.

Finally, the female author of the Velonews article is of course quite wrong about the saddle problem; it's your other private part and not your "balls" that "breaks".
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The key to saddles and saddle design is to allow the ride to slide to where he/she needs to use the power and cadence necessary at the time.

You don't sit on all of the saddle at any time. When you're climbing, you are usually on the back and push over the top of the pedal stroke, thus using the back of the saddle as leverage, and pulling back at the bottom of the stroke. These tend to be long pedal strokes and the leg extension is more. You want a strong base from which to push, which is wide and firm.

When you're going extra hard and need maximum acceleration, you have a natural tendency to shorten the pedal stroke, so you slide to the front of the saddle. There, you want a narrow (but not too narrow) and flat (but not too flat) tip so that you can comfortably anchor yourself to pedal fast.

Companies like Specialized realized this and so they made the same saddle is different sizes, based on pelvic size. Because different riders not only different sized pelvises but different pelvic tilts, the shapes also have to be different, hence the different models from the same manufacturer.

To be a complete cyclist, you need to be versatile in the saddle and a properly sized, shaped, and positioned saddle is key to this.

I'll try to find some pics that explain this. hold on. I might have to post one at a time.

Here's a pic of riding "on the rivet" where the stroke is shortened.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Here is pic of the same bike and saddle but in the US elite/pro national championship team pursuit gold medal final. I'm the third rider in line. See that I'm planted firmly in the middle? Average cadence for that was 135 rpm but there's little acceleration after the first lap as you're up to the 63 kph or whatever it is.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Another pic, same bike, same saddle, but planted firmly at the base for a stable madison exchange at speed.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Last one for now. More "on the rivet" for a solo breakaway.

None of this is rocket science, but it's all easily overlooked. A saddle is essentially your base of operations. You have different missions while riding a bike and you need to be capable of doing them all. If you don't have a saddle that allows you to move comfortably to do everything that you need to do at different times, you will never become a dynamic cyclist. You'll simply be one of the people that rides all day long at the same speed.

As I said before, to be a complete cyclist, you have to be able to be both proactive and reactive and that demands three distinct pedaling styles and three separate positions - but only one saddle. Keep that in mind.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

sherpa23, thank you for your expert input on this topic.

There are indeed considerations to be made for varying body position on your saddle of choice in response to riding terrain as well as degree of effort to put out. (Long) hill-climbs, especially in a race, do require riders to sit further back on the saddle as well as set up their bikes, place their hands, breathe differently, when tackling a hilly course. Track racing, even though it is done on a smooth "level" surface, depending on whether it is a pursuit, one of the other more dynamic omnium events or a Madison also requires altering riding technique, sitting position and bike setup. You are of course, most qualified on that topic.

So as you indicated, being able to change positions on the saddle contributes to a rider's ability to dynamically adjust to riding demands and is what we should all strive for. Aside from yourself, another really incredible pro rider (and funny guy) who demonstrates this ability in spades is Peter Sagan, who in addition to his many achievements (and stunts) won the last Road World Championship in Richmond, VA last year.

Regarding a desirable saddle fitment, IMO, assuming everything else is correct, any imbalance in saddle fitment will be felt when you try to ride no-hands. That's another indication why a level saddle is ideal.

 

A couple of notes:

1) Peter Sagan and most of the Grand Tour road racers are/were way better than I was. I was just lucky enough to find a spot in pro cycling where I fit in. It came from a lot of learning and dissecting and figuring things out as I was never blessed with huge natural talent. As a result, I saw a lot and observed a great deal of interesting things that hopefully is helpful to others. Also, not that it's a big deal but I did win a national elite road racing title and competed in one World Championship on the road, and I rode sub 49 minute 40k TTs so I could do well on the road too, albeit not like those other guys. When we raced together, it was obvious that I was never going to be a Grand Tour rider.

2) Everyone I know who had a saddle sponsorship had custom saddles. The saddles looked identical but were completely different underneath. I was approached by one of the big ones to do it and asked them to explain it to me. They do it like this: they have labs with test saddles. The saddles have sensors all in them and they send the readings back to a computer. From there, they determine the type and density of the material underneath and then they construct a saddle specific to the rider. They may look like something off the shelf but they're completely different underneath.

The whole thing seemed like a recipe for disaster to me so I passed. One thing that I value above all, especially when it comes to performance, is freedom of choice. If I couldn't choose to the best tools to help me win, I didn't want to be in that situation.

Maybe it's different now but in 2012 when I retired, that was how it was done.

 

We interrupt this very interesting discussion of saddles and nut-comfort to bring you an important message:

Downhill, and on the flats, my new Rovals absolutely kick the llamas ass! Uphill, they are unimpressive. Nonetheless, on anything but big climbs, they transform my bike. I did another 6'000 ft this evening over 50 miles. It felt good -- in a painful kind of way.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

OK, when I mentioned your riding skills in the same paragraph as my praise of Peter Sagan I wanted to highlight dynamism, how both of you demonstrate a broad repertory of cycling skills and I was not necessarily comparing your trophies with Peter's. Not every pro racer can do well across multiple cycling disciplines (road+track) like you and Peter (road+cyclocross+MTB).

I commend you for your high standards for performance and love of cycling. Unfortunately, many other are quite willing to compromise their athletic integrity for money.

My understanding of UCI rules is that the sponsored equipment used by pro tour riders must be the same as the items the equipment sponsor already (or will soon) sell to the public. So if the sponsor modifies a saddle for a pro rider, the same modification must be also available to the cycling public who buys the saddle. Of course, both the saddle and any modification must be approved by the UCI.

If the saddles you mentioned are actually custom items disguised to look like the regular models I think they would not be approved. The pro tour events are in essence advertising events for the equipment sponsors so you can see the unethical nature of disguising highly-customized (one-off) items for a mass-marketed standard item.

Of course, there are some things you cannot disguise by just changing the material used under the skin of the saddle - if the saddle did not provide sufficient rear support and needed to be tilted, there's no way to make it wider or turned up at the back without having it look quite different from the regular item.

At any rate, the fact that some saddle makers had to tweak their saddles to make them work better for their sponsored riders proves exactly what I have been saying, that many regular saddles simple don't work satisfactorily.

 

The wheels you have appear to be stiff aero wheels more designed for high speed running on flat and rolling courses. Hill-climbing is usually slow work so aero is not that useful. Stiff is good but lightweight is equally important. Heavy rims sap energy on steep grades. Your cassette also looks a bit small for serious hills.

This is why pro teams and bike nerds with money to burn tend to use different wheels (tires, cassettes, and bikes) for hilly courses. You may also simply need to get used to hill-climbing.

 

Um yeah... I know that! Without my Team Sky support car, I'm generally rolling with a single set of wheels per ride. Sucks being an untrained poseur.... it really does.

These Rovals are actually 90g lighter (in other words not much) than my Ultegra wheels that I generally use. I had them on the bike because I didn't know I was getting dragged out of the office yesterday to ride with some friends. The cassette is what it is... I need something that is "general purpose" enough to survive all types of riding in my region, bearing in mind of course my status as "untrained poseur".

 

Regarding UCI rules for products being available to the masses, that stuff was coming into play around when my career was ending. I know that I had to switch to a national team issue Look 496 track bike but I don't think that I extended all the way to saddles at that point. I have to confess that I don't know how deeply it applies.

The idea was that they wanted consumers to feel like they could have exactly what the pros had, keep costs down (GB was outspending everyone) and to not make it a battle of technical wizardry. Good enough idea in theory, I suppose, but I know it was also commercially motivated.

Funny story about the Look: at that time, the 596 or whatever was being supplied to the national teams and I didn't like it. I had a choice between Felt's aero track bike or the Look. Look said there were no more 496's and I would have to ride a 596. I was about to do a trade with the Swiss for one of their used 496's when someone found a three year old NOS 496 on a dealer's shelf and the team acquired it for me.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Daniel, fwiw a recreational rider gets more out those wheels than a professional cyclist. Enjoy them in good health. And check to see if your saddle is level.

One important thing for anyone riding carbon clinchers: be careful how much braking you do on downhills. Because of its properties, carbon braking surfaces concentrate the heat at the edge and I have seen people blow tired off the rim on descents. We have a climb called look out mountain that has lots of switch backs. I picked up a 55 year old man from side of the road. He blew out BOTH tires at the penultimate switch back from braking too much and too hard. This may be remedied now but in 2011/12 it was still a major issue. Tubulars don't have that problem.

 

Lucky you to have nice areas to ride like that. I'm in the market for a bike to do my first bi or triathlon

 

Funny thing is that a "bigger" cassette would actually be more general purpose. I started out on a 12-25 (with compact crank in front) as that was how the bike came configured. I moved onto a 11-28 and it is a world of difference - especially when climbing - as you have a bailout gear if things get too rough. You can get top level quality rear cassettes for well under $100.

 

I recall someone familiar with the LOOK 596 comment that (they) didn't like it either, something about it being mostly a carryover of a road frame. Maybe that was the result of the cost cutting that may have resulted from the new rules.

 

The 6800 Ultegra wheels are nothing special. I prefer Campy and Fulcrum wheels as well as Zipp. The Roval 60s are decent but are not light. Good wheels for the hills will be 500 gms lighter. That's a pound less in unsprung weight for your legs! Tubulars are much better than clinchers if you want to get fancy wheels like those.

You are very lucky to have great hilly terrain to enjoy (suffer) on. 😆

 

The whole thing was a huge pain in the butt. The French get all the new Look bikes first and Morgan Kneisky and Christophe Riblon had them. That was right when I was having to switch. Morgan let me ride his 596 for a couple of laps and I didn't love it. Fast forward a couple of months to the start of the Six Day season. I had my 496 but it came with a ridiculously short stem and Look said that they had no more available. I asked Morgan and Christophe to see if they had any solid 496 stems (not the ergo stems, which they liked for some reason) to sell or trade to me. They said the French team took all of their old 496 parts when they got the 596 frames. Morgan somehow had one that he traded to me and Gideon Massie sold me a special sprint one that the had so between those two, I got longer stems that worked.

Here is a pic of the 496 with the first stem I got. You can see how short it is. My partner in this race was Rabobank's Jenning Huizenga, former world record holder in the pursuit and a really great guy.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Yes that looks quite cramped, must have been very uncomfortable when you got on the gas.

I remember for a while I was very interested in the 695 because it was so different and innovative but then it dawned on me that the fancy stem and seatpost wouldn't do much for me anyway. They were also asking ridiculous money for them. Proprietary parts, especially stems, can getcha if you don't pick up the correct length unit in time

 

My thoughts, in no particular order:

1) The bike handles extremely well. It's very heavy and very stiff and it's obvious why it's generally the bike of choice at the international level for track racing (I also appreciated the fact that it's easy to find spares if something breaks at a world cup because all the mechanics have parts). However, it's not the rake that makes the difference; it's the trail. You can use use different rakes and head angles to make an identical trail and the front end handling will be nearly identical. However, just like cars, you need different tools for different jobs. For a track bike, you need a short wheel base for several important reasons (I can get into that later, if you want). So you make the trail with a steep head angle and shallow fork rake.

2) I don't actually think that it's equivalent of shortening the top tube and increasing stem length and I'll explain why. As I've said before, your body only recognizes three places on a bicycle: the saddle, the pedals, and the handlebars. Everything else can be anything and the fit will be identical. That "everything else" however, affects handling and balance. With a traditional fork and steerer tube, you have an angle (let's choose 73 deg) where the stem comes back toward the rider the higher is goes, effectively shortening the reach for a given stem length. The higher the stem is positioned, the more the reach is shortened. You also have a very indirect way of getting there. Once a handlebar is in the right position for the rider, the handlebar is connected the bike by something that looks like a 7. With the Look, you can achieve the same handlebar position but in a far more direct manner with something that looks more like a _ or a \ with a very torsionally stiff stem design. It's very nifty in application.

Given their weight and stiffness, I'm not sure how great those integrated Looks would be on the road. For the track, however, they work quite well and are pretty neat.

 

I think the integrated stem could potentially reduce head tube height which would stiffen the steering setup. The standover height would also then lower and the main triangle of the frame would become tighter, again stiffening the frame. However you would then likely want to use shallower track bars to retain regular hand position for the same frame size. This effect reminds me of the frame geometry of the TMR01, one of my road bikes. Instead of a level or inclined top tube it has a declined top tube that dips down from where the seat post emerges. This has the effect of lowering your upper body and stiffening the frame.

The crankset on the 695 allowed the rider to easily alter the length of the crank arms if he needed longer ones than 170s. LOOK also had a special seat post in the 695 that allowed the rider to alter the degree of shock absorption through use of different rubberized post extensions.

They had some interesting innovations but you had to contend with high prices and non-standard parts, ok if it is team issue but potentially problematic if you source your own gear.

 

To be honest, the integrated headset bikes handle a fair amount differently than a traditional bike. It's more responsive than a long stem bike but direct feeling like a smaller frame. I have ridden a few different ones and they all have some of those same characteristics.

 

There are a lot of different conversations going on in this thread... but this weekend I was finally able to enjoy some new "in ride" data. These are Powertap P1 pedals, and yes, I know there are positives and negatives of every power-meter on the market. These fit my budget, and more importantly give L/R balance information and can be swapped to my other bike without any drama. The downside? It's kinda a Look Keo cleat, but not exactly. Although they are chunky, I'm not likely to hit them on corners based on my riding style and decidedly amateur activities. The weight penalty isn't to be ignored, but I figure net difference is about 250 grams, which I can gain back by taking a slightly longer pee before riding


And the truth, it shall set you free!

(p.s. Bet ya didn't know that one of the authors of the definitive resource on training with power is also a member of the Ferrari community!)
Image Unavailable, Please Login