Steve Hogg blog

[Alan]

I thought I would share the link to Steve's blog. I find his blog to be very insightful for fit and other related issues. If you enjoy the Cyclingnews fitness articles you will like his blog. Link is:

http://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/blog/

Alan

[ultraman6970]

Thought u mispelled hegg hehehe u know steve hegg right?

[zap]

Thanks.

The bloke has a ton of excellent info on fit.

[Gummee]

Thanks.

The bloke has a ton of excellent info on fit.
I started skimming and can verify that statement.

Gonna hafta go back to this one

M

[thinpin]

His positioning is often very distinctive. Expression often heard in sydney is "you've been Hogged"

[Z3c]

Thanks for the link. It is so nice to see someone talk about KOPS being of minimal/unfounded value.

[cmg]

thanks for the link. as always an interesting read. good fitting suggestions. going to try the midfoot cleat position.

[fiamme red]

Thanks for the link, I bookmarked the site. :)

Interesting article about crank length:

http://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/blog/2011/06/crank-length-which-one/

[dekindy]

http://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/articles/

I learned as much in an hour as I have several years from reading just the first 3 or 4 articles. I either missed or forgot about this thread. Thought to do a search before starting a new one. In fact, I think I finally understand how a builder with a true understanding of your physical ability/flexibility could theoretically build you the perfect bicycle and I might even have a clue what information the builder needs and how to communicate with them. Quite a leap for me since even after a few years of reading forums I made this leap in a very short time with his articles. I intend to keep reading!

[RedRider]

Is Steve Hogg certified by SICI? Some of his concepts seem to be in conflict with the Serotta fit.

[zap]

SiCi is fairly new.

[jgspin]

About a year ago after reading his post on midfoot cleat position I tried it and found that for me I could pedal a little harder as my feet do not collapse from weaker/tired calves. I lost a little bit of my spin but I gained a lot more torque. With concentration and practice my spin now is close to what I had before. The biggest improvement for me is that I do not cramp in my calves anymore. I had to modify and drill some holes on my speedplay cleat base so I could put the cleats more to the rear than the aluminum speedplay extended cleat base.

[dekindy]

Is Steve Hogg certified by SICI? Some of his concepts seem to be in conflict with the Serotta fit.

Could you give some examples? I am interested in learning more.

[RedRider]

Could you give some examples? I am interested in learning more.

Examples of a conflict?
The Serotta International Cycling Institute, SICI, teaches a fit process. It's a thorough, very personal and lengthy session.
Without debating Hogg or other fitter's views, I don't find it credible to give specific fitting advice in a forum, email or video. Too many factors need to be considered when giving fitting advice for it to be valuable and it's impossible to do in a thread.
Some fitters use the internet to discuss trends, and give their opinions, in biomechanics, kinesiology, anatomy, neuroscience, etc. with the goal of getting readers to book fit sessions - the only way to properly fit someone.
In my opinion, reading something in a blog and doing your own fitting is like looking at a magazine photo and cutting your own hair... but clearly mine is a dissenting opinion.

[hainy]

You are absolutey right there is no better option then seeing the fitter in person.

I have had a full fit session with Steve and arranged a Baum custom bike that fits my requirements perfectly. I will never sell this frame.

I do have the luxury of living in Sydney Australia and able to see Steve if I am having any issues which only tends to happen when I get crazy ideas in my head that I should change my position. I always end up coming back to where he positioned me.

While Steve originally learnt the basics of fit from John Kennedy he has self taught himself through a lot of trial and error way beyond basic bike fit. There is no such thing as being hogged as a previous poster said. He often gives the example of identical twins in every way that walked out with completely different bikes.

I wouldn't be riding now if it wasn't for Steve.

By the way also a great guy.

Cheers and happy cycling

[bikepro(f)]

I echo Hainy's comments. I went to see Steve Hogg after seeing him give a presentation at a sports medicine conference. He said a number of things during his address that raised a few eyebrows and then spent a one hour workshop addressing every charge and proving himself right and an audience with many sceptical health professionals wrong. Most of the audience were enthralled by his take on human function on a bicycle.

Subsequently I flew 4000 kms (Perth - Sydney) for a fitting that has made a positive difference to my riding comfort and performance. And I didn't really feel like I had any problems prior to seeing him! I went because I was interested in his thinking at the sports med workshop. He has a breadth of knowledge across a wide range of areas and has explored some little known and half forgotten areas in depth. If anyone is entitled to give bike fitting advice via the net or a website, it is this man.

I have pointed a number of local riders who were having problems towards his site. Those who read his stuff thoroughly and displayed some method in putting Hogg's advice into action have benefited. THE man on bike fitting.

[Ti Designs]

I'm gonna have to disagree with this one

One final word here. It is poor practice to compensate for a leg length difference with a differential cleat position. Many in bikefitting circles believe that if one femur is shorter the other, then the cleat on that side should be further forward to allow the leg to reach further. This is the absolute opposite of my empirical experience and the cause of more problems to more people that I have than I can remember over a large number of years. Cleat position has a marked effect on the muscle enlistment patterns of the leg. By having an obviously different cleat position on each side, you have a different loading of the major muscles involved in applying force to the pedals on each side. If there is a difference in leg length the focus should be on allowing the rider to be as functionally symmetrical as possible. NOT on increasing their functional symmetry. Each pedal stroke is an input to, and potential challenge to the stability of the pelvis on the seat. Differing muscle enlistment patterns caused by differential cleat position exaggerate any potential for on seat asymmetry, not minimise them. If you have a leg length difference and your fitter pushes this approach, ask them why. I would be surprised if you are given an answer that makes any sense because I’ve yet to hear one.

When talking about functional symmetry you can't take the leg length as a single number, there are two segments with a pivot between them. The first question is where the LLD is. The femur is mostly a horizontal member on the bike, so assuming hip and SI joint are reasonably lined up, the longer femur would place the knee further forward. If he's talking about symmetrical muscle usage, the two major pivots - hip and knee angle are thrown off my this, so not addressing the femur length directly doesn't do it. Since you can't adjust the hip position independent of the other side, the only horizontal adjustment left is the attachment point of the cleat or the crank length. The tib/fib is pretty much a connecting rod from the knee, if the LLD is there (usually from a tibia fracture) the shim is the right way to go.

There is a lot of valid info there, I just wanted to point out a good reason for changing cleat position instead of shimming. Any fitter with a client with a measurable LLD and motion capture equipment can verify my claims.

[benb]

Don't you have to make some other assumptions such as lowering the seat height to make the assymetrical cleat thing work?

I have a femur LLD and the Serotta recommended method of moving cleats was a disaster for me personally..

No matter how much you move my cleats it will never change the fact that the short leg can't reach as far to the pedal at the bottom of the pedal stroke. If you set me up based on the long leg once my leg is extended it really doesn't matter where the discrepancy is or where the cleat is, my foot is still going to be reaching for the pedal, causing me to "drop the hip" as Hogg so likes to say, causing my sit bones to grind back and forth over the saddle.

If you set me up for the shorter leg I don't need any cleat positioning, because I seem to naturally just bend each leg a little differently to compensate. I end up making slightly less power and I'm more prone to irritate my knee on the long leg. I did this for years before SICI trained fitters sent me down a rats nest by setting me up for the long leg and then trying to compensate with cleat position. Setting up for the long leg and moving the cleats made me incredibly prone to hamstring issues and saddle sores. No matter how many times I went back to the SICI trained fitters they said everything was fine. Monkeying around with the cleat position also meant I wasn't getting the correct part of each foot over the pedal spindle either, giving me issues with my feet.

If I set up per Hogg's recommendations (which agrees with what I have been told by my local fitter who is not SICI trained who helped me solve this problem) I end up with the bike set up for the long leg and a shim on the short leg.. and it works fantastically. No saddle sores, no hamstring issues, much more fluid cadence, legs working equally, better power...

I also like Hogg because he is trying to share information in an open manner. I contrast this with just about everyone else who is trying to make bike fitting a secret society black magic set of proprietary information, at least if you're talking about SICI or Specialized or such.. this stuff is not rocket science if people would share information with riders rather then filling people with disinformation to try and keep them reliant on expensive fit sessions.

I honestly felt like the Serotta guys just couldn't look at what was going on for themselves when I would complain.. they did it according to the book so it had to be right, no matter how much I complained that it wasn't working. The other thing that was ridiculous was the level of faux-accuracy that was being thrown around. Talking about "you need the cleats offset exactly Xmm" when they had absolutely no way of measuring my legs to that level of accuracy.

[RedRider]

I have a femur LLD and the Serotta recommended method of moving cleats was a disaster for me personally..

I'm not sure who your fitter was but using wedges and shims is the method taught by SICI to address a LLD.
Listening to the customer is another technique emphasized at Serotta.


I also like Hogg because he is trying to share information in an open manner.


Sharing information in an open manner can be a great way for a fitter to educate the public and gain credibility and customers. It's what readers do with that info that can be dangerous. I've seen fitting suggestions quoted and reprinted in Forums without the caveats or specific application originally intended. I've also seen riders take an idea from this fitter and an idea from that fitter and end up a mess.

Fitting is not rocket science. It is an art and a science. The science is what you learn by being taught biomechanics, kinesiology, physiology, anatomy etc. The art is how you fine tune your craft from experience.

A fitter has extensive experience working with cyclists and provides this service and the focus of his business. A person that sells bicycles and offers a brief bike fit after purchase is a bike salesman.

My suggestion...find a fitter that you are comfortable with; spend the money and get a complete fitting; then you can spend more time enjoying your riding and less time on forums.

[benb]

Note I said femur... I worked with about 5 different SICI fitters and all of them wanted me moving my cleats and not using a shim. Justification was "SICI says shims for lower leg discrepancy, cleat position for femur discrepancy".

Problem is solved, I finally went to a non-SICI fitter, was told the exact same thing Hogg says, "Cleat positioning doesn't work for femur leg length differences". Cleat got shimmed, problems solved.

Maybe these guys were wrong, but one of them even photocopied a page out of the SICI manual to show me why he wanted me moving my cleats instead of using a shim. I probably still have it in my files.

I agree with you that just printing information on the web is a mess because it gets copied and changed and distorted each time it's copied. It would be great if Serotta would sell it's book to riders so we can educate ourselves and have a better idea if and when we are being taken for a ride.

[Ti Designs]

Don't you have to make some other assumptions such as lowering the seat height to make the assymetrical cleat thing work?

As Mr Hogg pointed out, cleat placement is a large factor in muscle usage. Moving the cleats is the cheating method of balancing out the position, but there are limits. In all the fittings I've done I can think of only a few where I've gone more than 2mm +/-. Moving the cleats so far as to throw off saddle height is a sign that the fitter doesn't get the bigger picture.

Two things to grasp: First, everything is connected. In years of fitting I've come to the conclusion that you are a collection of injuries over time. It's not possible to have a significant LLD without some effect on the SI joint or hips. While the hip joint is capable of making up for some change in angle, the IT band is less forgiving, so other problems pop up when you only look at one piece of the whole picture. Second, everything is connected - this time I'm talking about the bike. Not sure exactly what you mean by "set up for the shorter/longer leg", but you need to be within your range of motion on both sides. A half wrong fit is all wrong.

If you have a LLD that's too large to deal with by standard cheating methods, you need to see a specialist. SICI is a fit school, in less than a week they turn out fitters. They learn cook book methods which work on perhaps 80% of the population.

I also like Hogg because he is trying to share information in an open manner. I contrast this with just about everyone else who is trying to make bike fitting a secret society black magic set of proprietary information, at least if you're talking about SICI or Specialized or such.. this stuff is not rocket science if people would share information with riders rather then filling people with disinformation to try and keep them reliant on expensive fit sessions.

If what you know is learned in a few days, anyone else can learn it just as fast. If it's your means of living, not giving away too much makes sense. In the real world its the other way around. My challenge to SICI has always been to have each of it's fitters create one good rider. That means solving all of the fitting problems and teaching them enough to be a confident rider in just about any situation. From past threads and the amount of advice given I'm guessing that most people think it's quick and easy. Try it...

[RedRider]

It would be great if Serotta would sell it's book to riders so we can educate ourselves and have a better idea if and when we are being taken for a ride.[/QUOTE][/I]

SICI teached from a curriculum that is updated regularly with cooperation from their advisory board. The fundamental fit doesn't change but the techniques used to get there can and have over the years. New understandings of biomechanics and their influence on pedal stroke, for example, are incorporated. There is no Serotta Bible of Fitting.

[benb]

Well there are plenty of us who would buy multiple editions.. I've had no problem buying 3 editions of Joe Friel's books.

It is funny.. there are a lot of cycling books by a lot of "experts" that are filled with not much. I am sure he is great in person but Andy Pruitt's book was really not very helpful for me compared to say Arnie Baker's book. Chris Carmichael comes to mind as one that was a waste of money too.

When you have people willing to spend so much on bikes I just think it is worth consideration.. even if it was a $50-100 book there are lots of riders who would probably buy it... heck there are lots of us who might even take the course just to learn it for ourselves.

[dekindy]

I wanted to make the same comment to TiDesigns that BenB did, that his reply made it sound like adjusting the longer leg position rather than lengthening the shorter leg was preferred, which sounds contrary to Steve Hogg (was not certain so did not reply).

Then when TiDesigns replied back I could not tell if he was backtracking or clarifying regarding cleat movement to address leg length discrepancies.

Suffice it to say that Steve Hogg's explanations are so simple that even a third grader could understand them. First time I have been able to see things more clearly with regard to fitting.

This is not to diminish Serotta's efforts. My SICI trained fitter has done wonders for my comfort and probably performance. But I am going to get a second opinion, probably here (http://vgncds.bsu.edu:82/biomechanics/bikefittingserv/).

[Ti Designs]

I wanted to make the same comment to TiDesigns that BenB did, that his reply made it sound like adjusting the longer leg position rather than lengthening the shorter leg was preferred, which sounds contrary to Steve Hogg (was not certain so did not reply).

Let's take a step back here. Say a client comes in to me for a fitting, always has back pain on the right side over the hip. I watch him pedal and notice range of motion is different on the two sides. First I gauge how he's sitting on the bike and what the relative hip position is. From there I measure the relative femur lengths using a plumb line off the knee. Not an exact science, but good enough to tell if there's enough of a difference to compensate for. There are also methods that PT's use which have the client on their back with the knees bent and their feet lined up. From there if you sight across the knees you can tell femur or tibia length differences (this method also brings the hips to a level) Now, let's say there is a femur length difference, this doesn't translate directly into a saddle height difference. The femur is mostly a horizontal member, it has more to do with setback. In walking or running the foot has freedom of movement when it's up in the air, the bike is the only case where the travel of the foot is controlled. The body doesn't really know there's a difference, so it tries to pedal one circle slightly forward of the other. The pain over the illiac ridge is cause by the constant tension from the longer side pushing forward into the pedal stoke. The easy cheating method of dealing with this is to move the longer side cleat back and the shorter side cleat forward. There are limitations to this, it's pretty rare that I go past 2mm. Much beyond this any you're starting to trade off problems. Creating muscle balance issues is never a good trade off.

As for benb's issues, I don't have enough information. I don't do fittings over the internet, I honestly don't think anyone can. I would be willing bet that it's not just a femur length issue and there's far more to it than will ever come out - this is why internet fittings are such a bad idea.

Then when TiDesigns replied back I could not tell if he was backtracking or clarifying regarding cleat movement to address leg length discrepancies

Clearly I'm not doing so well at that clarifying bit...

[hainy]

The bottom line is if you are looking for an excuse for a holiday and want to improve your effeciency and comfort on the bike come to Sydney, Australia

[dekindy]

Clearly I'm not doing so well at that clarifying bit...

It is certainly not from a lack of effort and patience and I appreciate it.

If I understand correctly, Steve Hogg is saying to lengthen the shorter leg so that there is symmetry of the body, get both legs turning the same circle so that the same muscles are being activated and there is equal force on each side of the pelvis, (and the difference would be made up in the legs having different angles at the point of maximum extension, but within the acceptable range).

Bold is portion of statement that I am assuming because I don't have time to go back and read everything again to see if this is correct.

[Ti Designs]

If I understand correctly, Steve Hogg is saying to lengthen the shorter leg so that there is symmetry of the body, get both legs turning the same circle so that the same muscles are being activated and there is equal force on each side of the pelvis, (and the difference would be made up in the legs having different angles at the point of maximum extension, but within the acceptable range).


Let's go over all three cases.

Case 1) Lengthen the shorter leg. This is done by adding a shim under the cleat to make up for some of the LLD. The problem then becomes differences in range of motion as the shim can only lengthen the tib/fib (what I call the connecting rod), the femur is still shorter and uses more range of motion at the hip. The body can adapt over time to the difference in range of motion, but the speed of that range of motion is also thrown off. The body has no means of adapting a change in timing from one side to the other, so the shimmed side will tend to lag the non-shimmed side.

Case 2) change the cleat positions. This is what I call a cheating method because going beyond a small correction will throw everything else off. The theory is that the femur is a horizontal member on the bike, there's no way of changing the hip position independently, so move the other horizontal point of attachment - the cleat. The result is close to symmetry in both range of motion at the hip and knee. This method does not address the overall length of the leg or range of motion issues in the pedal stroke at the far point from the hip (4:00 - 5:00). Moving the cleats too far also changes how the muscles are recruited within the pedal stroke.

Case 3) different crank lengths. The femur length and range of motion at the hip make up the crank stroke. So, if you're looking for the same range of motion at the hip with a shorter femur you're going to need a shorter crank. In addition the reach to the front of the pedal stroke is adjusted. This fix begins to fail when you look at the knee angle at the back of the pedal stroke. In fitting the hip's limit to range of motion is easy, you run out of range and the hip lifts with each pedal stroke. The knee is more complicated, how the patella tracks and when it's at it's limits can't be seen - they can certainly be felt by the rider the next day...


All this and we haven't looked at chasing problems up stream yet... Differences in femur length pushing the same gear means a difference in torque across the two sides which can lead to balance issues in the muscles of the lower back. Differences in overall leg length without compensation will take their toll on the SI joint over time with hamstring problems also possible on the short side.

As you can see, there's no perfect solution. In the worst cases I've worked with I've changed multiple things. What the clients have to understand is that it's not "come in and we'll fix you". If I change one thing I know what I've done and I can see the result (if my client gives me feedback). If you change all three things you have no clue which direction the problem is going.

[firerescuefin]

Ti...talking to Andy Pruitt when I got my fit...he said he sees very few true LLD, but more that present as that from other injuries/compensations (ie - hiked hip). Which would obviously need to be addressed via other methods..is this your experience as well?..

Enjoy this topic. Have read a lot of Hoggs stuff. Thanks for your input :)

[Straz]

If I set up per Hogg's recommendations (which agrees with what I have been told by my local fitter who is not SICI trained who helped me solve this problem) I end up with the bike set up for the long leg and a shim on the short leg.. and it works fantastically. No saddle sores, no hamstring issues, much more fluid cadence, legs working equally, better power...

I have done the same as benb states. My left femur is 1/2" longer than my right do to a fracture when I was 5 years old. I'm interested to hear from benb how much he has shimmed his short leg with respect to his leg length difference? 25%, 50%, 75%?

Tim

[Kirk Pacenti]

This is a very interesting thread; I've enjoyed following it.

@ Ti Designs... I would be curious to know how many fits have you done that truly required a custom frame? And how many fits have you done for customers with custom frames that could have easily used a stock frame?

Cheers,
KP

[dekindy]

This is a very interesting thread; I've enjoyed following it.

@ Ti Designs... I would be curious to know how many fits have you done that truly required a custom frame? And how many fits have you done for customers with custom frames that could have easily used a stock frame?

Cheers,
KP

Could you clarify what you mean by "need custom"? Is that purely from a "fit" perspective or would that include other subtle effects from an abnormal fit that the rider would notice in terms of improved performance, handling, or other in a custom frame versus standard frame. Like, maybe wanting one type of frame, like pure performance oriented, but settling for a sport frame because it "fits" better. I am not sure these are good examples but maybe you can see what I am getting at and whether this is too obscure to matter! Or I guess another way to phrase that is whether Ti Designs has compared output, weight distribution, or other objective criteria between an optimized standard frame and a custom frame.

[jlwdm]

SICI is a tool not an absolute.

Straz, leg length discrepancy alone will not tell you how much to adjust. It depends on how you sit on the saddle and how much your body has adjusted to compensate. More complicated than just the difference in length. Also where is the difference - upper leg, lower leg and so forth.

Jeff

[Kirk Pacenti]

Could you clarify what you mean by "need custom"? Is that purely from a "fit" perspective or would that include other subtle effects from an abnormal fit that the rider would notice in terms of improved performance, handling, or other in a custom frame versus standard frame. Like, maybe wanting one type of frame, like pure performance oriented, but settling for a sport frame because it "fits" better. I am not sure these are good examples but maybe you can see what I am getting at and whether this is too obscure to matter! Or I guess another way to phrase that is whether Ti Designs has compared output, weight distribution, or other objective criteria between an optimized standard frame and a custom frame.


I understand what you mean. I was speaking primarily in terms of fit; and in broad strokes. I don't want to hijack the thread and get too off topic...

But basically, I was curious to know how may people walk in wanting a Serotta, Seven, IF, etc, assuming they need a custom build, but find out they could easily fit on a "stock" bike? (These probably aren't great examples because these brands typically build to order.)

Conversely, how many people walk in wanting a Trek, Specialized or Cannondale only to find out they will never fit properly on an off the shelf bike and really do need something made to measure?

Cheers,
KP

[RedRider]

[QUOTE=jlwdm]SICI is a tool not an absolute.

SICI is an organization that has 3 levels of certification. It teaches a process that leads to the fit. Tools are used in this process. The fitter's knowledge and experience in using these tools is what makes the process one of the most recognized for fitting excellence. That's not to say everyone hanging an SICI certificate above a fitting station is a great fitter. A plumb bob, goniometer, size cycle and levels are tools but it's how the person uses them that makes them a good fitter. There are SICI fitters that have incorporated other tools such as Retul into their personal process with great success.

[Ti Designs]

Or I guess another way to phrase that is whether Ti Designs has compared output, weight distribution, or other objective criteria between an optimized standard frame and a custom frame.

What we've talked about so far has little to do with the stock/custom frame issue. If you fit on a stock bike you don't need custom - that's pretty simple. The test for this isn't so well defined, but let's say it means that you can ride within your range of motion at any given pivot - what I call a safe starting point. The case of a LLD can push the fit outside of that safe starting point, in which case we could be looking for a custom, more likely we're looking for a stock bike that's closer to the center of it's adjustments as a starting point.

Keep in mind what I said before, correcting problems isn't one stop shopping, it's a process of correction and feedback that can go on for a while. That said, I hesitate to tell someone they should drop lots of money on a custom until we know what's going to work for them. There is (or should be) a responsibility on the part of the bike shop not to sell customers expensive custom bikes that wind up not working - feel free to pass that along...

Performance testing after making corrections is an interesting subject. I coach the Harvard cycling team, we steal athletes from the crew team, nothing messes with the balance of the body like rowing sweep ('cept maybe hammer toss). Most of these don't have large LLD's, but this is where most of my experience is. The trick is to find a balance which allows the body to work in symmetry - I think that's almost exactly what Steve Hogg said. Allowing the side with better mechanical advantage to work harder is a long term disaster. With position corrections in competitive athletes it goes from getting feedback to monitoring what's going on - something you probably can't get many fitters to do. In an ideal case the correction will diminish over time. In the real world, the athlete usually thinks "if one shim is good, two shims are better", and before you know it they've changed all sorts of things and spent lots of time adapting to all the changes. I can think of a few pro team managers who care more about the next stage race than they do about the long term condition of their riders.

Performance and corrections is a tough subject because the fitter is never going to have enough contact with the rider. At that point it becomes a task of explaining what's going on and hope than they listen when you say "small changes" or "one change at a time". It's impossible to get across 10 years of coaching experience, things will be missed, things will be forgotten...

Example: I've gone over three types of corrections and their drawbacks. Like I said before, it's all connected. You don't see LLD's without some compensation at the hip (even if they grew up on a hill...) There's the little know fact that moving up the outside of the heel moves that hip forward in the saddle. If that doesn't screw up alignment (not trying to trade off problems here) it's a way of bringing the system closer to balance. I've spent the past 20 years on the bike making observations like that. That's one of the reasons I don't think a fitting school works that well..

[Unpredictable]

I gotta agree with Ti Designs....Nothing replaces experience and a true working knowledge of body mechanics and how it relates to cycling. Fit Schools are the CPR card of the cycling industry. Does anyone every go and not come home with a certification? I know too many multi-certified fitters that have hardly any knowledge of the human body and how muscle groups work. Its scary to think that you go to school for three or four days and POW...BOOM... you are a fitter.

[Kirk Pacenti]

For as long as I can remember, I have run my Time ATAC cleats as far back in the shoe slots as possible. But the idea of running them even farther back has intrigued me since reading this thread. This weekend, I made a drill fixture that would allow me to slide my cleats further back by 1 cm. This was pretty simple to do. and only took about 45 minutes.

I've only got one (MTB) ride on them so far, so it's much too early to draw any meaningful conclusions. Frankly, I am not sure I was able to perceive much difference. Though, I did feel as if I was better centered on the bike... especially through tight turns / berms at speed. It also seemed that I was able to spin a little faster and maybe had a little more power, but not really certain on these points yet. (spinning faster seems counterintuitive)

I'll keep it up until I feel I can accurately assess what if any benefit this has for me. If anyone here is interested, I'll keep you updated. It would be interesting to hear from those with experience (Ti Designs and others) what I *should* be feeling. I don't want to bias my interpretation, but it would be neat to compare my experience with those who have also experimented with mid-foot cleat position.

Cheers,
KP

[oldpotatoe]

This is a very interesting thread; I've enjoyed following it.

@ Ti Designs... I would be curious to know how many fits have you done that truly required a custom frame? And how many fits have you done for customers with custom frames that could have easily used a stock frame?

Cheers,
KP

I see that you were asking Ti Designs but as a shop that starts all bike sales with a fit, then buys the frame(not a whole bike) vast majority of sales don't need a custom. Most(men and women) are firmly in the middle part of the bell curve.

Of the Moots we have sold, maybe 5% were custom. My fit guy has about 3 decades of experience as well. Good at what he does.

[Kirk Pacenti]

I see that you were asking Ti Designs but as a shop that starts all bike sales with a fit, then buys the frame(not a whole bike) vast majority of sales don't need a custom. Most(men and women) are firmly in the middle part of the bell curve.

Of the Moots we have sold, maybe 5% were custom. My fit guy has about 3 decades of experience as well. Good at what he does.


About what I suspected, thanks!

[Ti Designs]

Of the Moots we have sold, maybe 5% were custom. My fit guy has about 3 decades of experience as well. Good at what he does.

My numbers are also being thrown off by how we sell and which customers are sent my way. I get a lot of clients who just don't fit on anything stock. It's a pretty safe bet that I'm close to 100% custom with that crowd. I also see a large number of clients who were sold customs because they had issues on the bike that were more related to their own body or their riding technique. There are few things more annoying than finding out that a stock bike fits you better then the custom you bought...

[tannhauser]

I see that you were asking Ti Designs but as a shop that starts all bike sales with a fit, then buys the frame(not a whole bike) vast majority of sales don't need a custom. Most(men and women) are firmly in the middle part of the bell curve.



I don't "need" a custom per se if going by my fitter's recommendation (ProTour guy), but I found for where I ride along a windy coast and my flexibility going with a short ht has put me in a lower position.

I had a very hard time finding hts short enough for my tt length.

[Ti Designs]

I had a very hard time finding hts short enough for my tt length.

Tell me about it. I have a custom Serotta which slopes down to the front to get the front end low enough. I could have gone to a much smaller measured frame with the normal upward slope, but I don't like the way bikes sprint as the down tube and top tube get closer. I've found a couple of stock bikes that I can get to the same position without altering the stem or setback too much. I have a 54cm Specialized Allez which is small for me but I take a short top tube. Problem is it handles nothing like my Serotta, which is really almost a copy of my track bike geometry. There are cases where how the bike handles and what's out there for stock bikes could mean going to a custom. The other stock bike that fits is my tandem - it's never going to handle like my track bike, I get that.

It's funny how much the rider's bike handling comes into the decision making process. When I sent in the order for my Serotta Kelly looked at the numbers and the tubing specs and said it was going to be too quick and I would only be able to ride it on smooth roads. I've done D2R2 on that bike.

[Kirk Pacenti]

...I could have gone to a much smaller measured frame with the normal upward slope, but I don't like the way bikes sprint as the down tube and top tube get closer...

Ah, you're touching upon my biggest issue with compact frames! This could start a completely new thread.

Cheers,
KP

[tannhauser]

but I don't like the way bikes sprint as the down tube and top tube get closer.

I'm the opposite - much prefer the two close, not touching, for sprinting, climbing, all around.

Mine's 115mm ht, 575mm tt.

[Ti Designs]

I'm the opposite - much prefer the two close, not touching, for sprinting, climbing, all around.

Mine's 115mm ht, 575mm tt.


Either you're looking at the wrong side or someone sold you a toy bike. I'm talking about the split between where the down tube meets the bottom bracket and the top tube meets the seat cluster. In a sprint, as you pull on the bars to oppose the force at the pedals there is torsional force. The central axis of twist is going to be somewhere between the top tube and the seat tube (assuming both are structural). Where that central axis is depends mostly on the placement and relative stiffness of the top and down tubes. As that axis gets closer to intersecting the contact patch of the rear tire, the contact area of the rear tire changes. In the worst cases the tire "scrubs" against the pavement.

[tannhauser]

Either you're looking at the wrong side or someone sold you a toy bike. I'm talking about the split between where the down tube meets the bottom bracket and the top tube meets the seat cluster. In a sprint, as you pull on the bars to oppose the force at the pedals there is torsional force. The central axis of twist is going to be somewhere between the top tube and the seat tube (assuming both are structural). Where that central axis is depends mostly on the placement and relative stiffness of the top and down tubes. As that axis gets closer to intersecting the contact patch of the rear tire, the contact area of the rear tire changes. In the worst cases the tire "scrubs" against the pavement.

Now that I'm looking at the end to which you are referring, not specified originally, I disagree. Not with the science, but my preference is to have the seat cluster right where it is: not de rigeur compact, not square geo.

More like dropped top tube.

[Kirk Pacenti]

I'm talking about the split between where the down tube meets the bottom bracket and the top tube meets the seat cluster. In a sprint, as you pull on the bars to oppose the force at the pedals there is torsional force. The central axis of twist is going to be somewhere between the top tube and the seat tube (assuming both are structural). Where that central axis is depends mostly on the placement and relative stiffness of the top and down tubes. As that axis gets closer to intersecting the contact patch of the rear tire, the contact area of the rear tire changes. In the worst cases the tire "scrubs" against the pavement.

^^^ This.

And yet the idea that compact frames are "stiffer" persists. :crap:

Cheers,
KP

[Kontact]

Either you're looking at the wrong side or someone sold you a toy bike. I'm talking about the split between where the down tube meets the bottom bracket and the top tube meets the seat cluster. In a sprint, as you pull on the bars to oppose the force at the pedals there is torsional force. The central axis of twist is going to be somewhere between the top tube and the seat tube (assuming both are structural). Where that central axis is depends mostly on the placement and relative stiffness of the top and down tubes. As that axis gets closer to intersecting the contact patch of the rear tire, the contact area of the rear tire changes. In the worst cases the tire "scrubs" against the pavement.
Could you describe this a different way? I would have thought the "axis of twist" between drops and cranks was the down tube.

[Kirk Pacenti]

Could you describe this a different way? I would have thought the "axis of twist" between drops and cranks was the down tube.

TD will certainly articulate the concept much better than I can, but maybe this will help.

Imagine riding a bike without a top tube. For the sake of this conversation, you're descending at 50mph through a sweeping right hand turn on a 10% grade. You're counter-steering hard and loading the outside pedal to hold your line.

Now imagine where you might insert a top tube to best resist torsional forces on the frame. The images below are extreme examples... but one will work better than the other.

Cheers,
KP

[Joachim]

.. but one will work better than the other.

Cheers,
KP

That's easy...the Cinelli because it has disc wheels....

[tannhauser]

TD will certainly articulate the concept much better than I can, but maybe this will help.

Imagine riding a bike without a top tube. For the sake of this conversation, you're descending at 50mph through a sweeping right hand turn on a 10% grade. You're counter-steering hard and loading the outside pedal to hold your line.

Now imagine where you might insert a top tube to best resist torsional forces on the frame. The images below are extreme examples... but one will work better than the other.

Cheers,
KP

I completely get this, and also TD's "scrubbing" comment, but think compact composite frame designers, the best ones any way, take this into account with their R&D budgets.

Surely there are bad ones, but the best are really, really good.

[Kontact]

TD will certainly articulate the concept much better than I can, but maybe this will help.

Imagine riding a bike without a top tube. For the sake of this conversation, you're descending at 50mph through a sweeping right hand turn on a 10% grade. You're counter-steering hard and loading the outside pedal to hold your line.

Now imagine where you might insert a top tube to best resist torsional forces on the frame. The images below are extreme examples... but one will work better than the other.

Cheers,
KP
If we were talking in the saddle, I could see the point, because the saddle braced on the rider could exert more force on the rear wheel through the stays. But for sprinting I can't see it. Whatever gains made by the angle of the seat stays is likely lost in having 4 longer, more flexible tubes.

So if the "axis of twist" is a line from drops the rear hub, I don't see how making a tall 2D triangle above that line could affect that twisting any more than a short one.

I prefer level top tubes myself, but many people, including Tom Kellogg, say that compacts sprint better, not worse, because of both stiffness and lower moment when rocking the frame.

I think this is one of those things that would really require two otherwise identical frames to test. I was surprised to see such a strong general opinion of all compacts.

[Kirk Pacenti]

If we were talking in the saddle, I could see the point, because the saddle braced on the rider could exert more force on the rear wheel through the stays. But for sprinting I can't see it. Whatever gains made by the angle of the seat stays is likely lost in having 4 longer, more flexible tubes.

So if the "axis of twist" is a line from drops the rear hub, I don't see how making a tall 2D triangle above that line could affect that twisting any more than a short one.

I prefer level top tubes myself, but many people, including Tom Kellogg, say that compacts sprint better, not worse, because of both stiffness and lower moment when rocking the frame.

I think this is one of those things that would really require two otherwise identical frames to test. I was surprised to see such a strong general opinion of all compacts.

Imagine this; anchor the two aforementioned and otherwise identical frames to a wall, chest high, by the HT. Install (for the sake of this example) a perfectly rigid rear wheel, grab it by the top and bottom and try to twist the frames.

If the frame structure is stiffer while being loaded / braced from the saddle, it would stand to reason it's stiffer at all other times as well. The increased triangulation does that for you, where ever you may be on the bike. The moment may indeed be lower on the compact frame, and would certainly contribute to a lighter / nimbler feel. Measured in certain ways, the frame by itself may appear to be stiffer, but we don't ride frames alone. I worked closely with Tom for a few years and know how he feels about compact frames. We've discussed it at length and have agreed to disagree.

I settled the question in my own mind in 1995, while working at Bontrager. We were the first (afaik) to build compact road frames. The look of those frames was intended to mimic their mountain bikes, and be lighter than a traditional road frame. I never liked the looks, but rode them a lot and had a similar experience to what TiDesigns describes. I also felt this on the Merlin Magia, but had written that off to the frame being way too light / under built. (If there was an advantage to the compact Bontrager frames I'd ridden, it seemed to me that the bike was a bit more comfortable because of the pronounced rearward flex of the seat post on rough terrain...) But I couldn't convince myself that the compact frame was any stiffer than my horz. TT bikes. In fact, it felt to me that the opposite was true.

It's important to keep in mind that sometimes, like it or not, what you can sell becomes as important as how well it performs, maybe more so... In the early 2000's compact frames were the latest and greatest thing. That a compact frame would be lighter was obvious and reason enough to build them...it was an easy sell. I would be willing to concede that it may be possible to overcome these issues today with a molded carbon frame if that was a design goal from the outset, but I would be very surprised if this issue has ever been specifically addressed by anyone's R&D shop.

Cheers,
KP

[Kontact]

Imagine this; anchor the two aforementioned and otherwise identical frames to a wall, chest high, by the HT. Install (for the sake of this example) a perfectly rigid rear wheel, grab it by the top and bottom and try to twist the frames.

If the frame structure is stiffer while being loaded / braced from the saddle, it would stand to reason it's stiffer at all other times as well. The increased triangulation does that for you, where ever you may be on the bike. The moment may indeed be lower on the compact frame, and would certainly contribute to a lighter / nimbler feel. Measured in certain ways, the frame by itself may appear to be stiffer, but we don't ride frames alone. I worked closely with Tom for a few years and know how he feels about compact frames. We've discussed it at length and have agreed to disagree.

I settled the question in my own mind in 1995, while working at Bontrager. We were the first (afaik) to build compact road frames. The look of those frames was intended to mimic their mountain bikes, and be lighter than a traditional road frame. I never liked the looks, but rode them a lot and had a similar experience to what TiDesigns describes. I also felt this on the Merlin Magia, but had written that off to the frame being way too light / under built. (If there was an advantage to the compact Bontrager frames I'd ridden, it seemed to me that the bike was a bit more comfortable because of the pronounced rearward flex of the seat post on rough terrain...) But I couldn't convince myself that the compact frame was any stiffer than my horz. TT bikes. In fact, it felt to me that the opposite was true.

It's important to keep in mind that sometimes, like it or not, what you can sell becomes as important as how well it performs, maybe more so... In the early 2000's compact frames were the latest and greatest thing. That a compact frame would be lighter was obvious and reason enough to build them...it was an easy sell. I would be willing to concede that it may be possible to overcome these issues today with a molded carbon frame if that was a design goal from the outset, but I would be very surprised if this issue has ever been specifically addressed by anyone's R&D shop.

Cheers,
KP
Hey Kirk,

I'm not really making an argument that a compact is stiffer. I'm mainly just trying to point out that, out of the saddle, the frame is something like a suspension bridge with the seat tube being the bridge's tower. The height of that tower doesn't do anything to prevent the bridge from twisting - unless the tower is braced to either side of the plane of the bridge (like a rider's butt braces the top of the bike in the saddle). A bike is also a mostly two dimensional shape, so I can't see how extending any unbraced dimension in that plane can prevent the shape from twisting or bending.

Another way to look at this: You pick up two picture frames by opposite corners - on rectangle, one square. You are saying that when you attempt to twist or bend each of them from those opposing corners that the square is going to be stiffer than the rectangle, because the other set of corners is further apart on the square.

Not trying to be a jerk about this - I'm really interested in what you guys are talking about. You may well be correct, I'd just like to understand, too. Thanks.

[Kirk Pacenti]

Hey Kirk,

I'm not really making an argument that a compact is stiffer. I'm mainly just trying to point out that, out of the saddle, the frame is something like a suspension bridge with the seat tube being the bridge's tower. The height of that tower doesn't do anything to prevent the bridge from twisting - unless the tower is braced to either side of the plane of the bridge (like a rider's butt braces the top of the bike in the saddle). A bike is also a mostly two dimensional shape, so I can't see how extending any unbraced dimension in that plane can prevent the shape from twisting or bending.

Another way to look at this: You pick up two picture frames by opposite corners - on rectangle, one square. You are saying that when you attempt to twist or bend each of them from those opposing corners that the square is going to be stiffer than the rectangle, because the other set of corners is further apart on the square.

Not trying to be a jerk about this - I'm really interested in what you guys are talking about. You may well be correct, I'd just like to understand, too. Thanks.

I know you're not being a jerk; your tone comes across as genuine. My ability to describe such things is sorely wanting, but I try. TD should jump in right about now...

The "tower" is braced by the seatstays and top tube. The taller tower and increased triangulation of the adjoining tubes stiffen the structure. The fact that they are a little longer and therefore more flexible is intuitive, but I don't believe it plays out that way in real life. The additional bracing may substantially offset that flex for a net gain in stiffness.

I think a better example than a square and rectangle might be a parallelogram (extreme compact frame) and a triangle (standard frame). This too is probably a poor analogy, but triangles typically work better; the closer two sides of shape get to being parallel, the less efficiently they can handle torsional forces.

At this point I've reached the limit of my ability to describe what's happening. My explanation may not even be technically correct, but its consistent to what I've felt on the bike. And not just me; if I am reading TD's post correctly, he's felt the same thing, as has a aircraft engineer I know and a few other great riders who are able to stress a bike far beyond what I can do.

For transparencies sake I'll confess that even if it could be proven that a compact frame, assembled into a complete bike, was unquestionably "better" than a traditional frame I could not bring myself to ride one. The same goes for TD's forward sloping bike. Though he did it to get the HT low enough, it may actually be stiffer than a traditional build, but the look of both designs is more than my aesthetic sensibilities will abide.

Cheers,

KP