Nick Dinsdale has produced a convincing medical article explaining the benefits of pre-empting potential bio-mechanical problems. Please read below- The benefits of anatomical and biomechanical screening of competitive cyclists

There are several clear reasons why cyclists, from Tour de France professionals to sportive riders, should change to Osymetric. To read about how they work, click here.

1. Increased Power- Everyone is looking for increased power, and Osymetric rings give a staggering 5 to 15%. This far outweighs any advantages gained from more expensive equipment such as stiffer, lighter frames, or the latest aerodynamic rim profile. Team Sky, famous for their ‘marginal gains’ policy, have started to use them for several riders, most notably Wiggins, Thomas, and Cioni. Those that will notice the biggest increase in power and endurance are likely to be amateur riders with less developed pedalling styles. The peaks and troughs of power throughout the pedal cycle will be larger and even more suited to the Osymetric rings. That isn’t to say that a rider with a smoother pedal stroke should not adopt O.rings. Bradley Wiggins has one of the smoothest pedal strokes in cycling but still benefits from the elliptical shape. For the science behind the increased power- please see the Osymetric site.

2. Decreased Strain on Knee- This study suggests that the forces on the knee are reduced by 7.5% compared to a standard chainring. Over the hundreds of thousands of pedal strokes that you may ride over your lifetime, a 7.5% decrease in knee strain is a significant amount.

3. Shifting is not significantly compromised- One concern of many riders when switching to Osymetric is that they will derail their chain. This is not the case if the derailleur is correctly adjusted. The pro peloton is the toughest testing ground for equipment, and the chainrings have not produced issues. If you are concerned however, installing a chain catcher may be a good idea.

4. They are not expensive when comparing speed to cost ratio- A Zipp 808 absorbs approximately 15w less power than a Mavic Askium at 50 km/h (see http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html). A rider whose threshold power output is 300 should increase power by 15- 45 watts by using Osymetric chainrings, yet the cost is around a tenth of a set of Zipp 808s. This comparison is also done at the rare speed of 50 km/h which is giving the advantage to the aero wheel, where as the power increase via the chainring will remain the same regardless of speed.

Many riders would benefit from using Osymetrics. I recommend the compact chainset (38/ 50), combined with a 13-28 cassette for sportive riders who have to battle Alpine or Pyrenean climbs. The 42/52 Standard combination is ideal for road racers, and the 44/54 TT combination is perfect for the time trialist looking to slash times off their PB’s.

Happy Riding!

Please read this PDF- cyclewedges

What is important to bear in mind is that riders without a significant forefoot varus did not achive higher power, which highlights the importance being assessed cycle fit specialist.

Thanks to Nick Dinsdale for providing the article.

1. Fizik Aliante Saddle

Excellent support for the sit bones which helps maintain a solid platform for pedalling. A very agreeable shape given that the handlebars do not have too much drop.

2. Lake CX401 Shoes

Nice wide toebox, very supportive around the heel area, come in wide and half sizes, snug closure system, well placed cleat fixtures, and very stiff

3. Speedplay Pedals

The ultimate in adjustability and quality, one nice add on to this product is the fore aft extender plate, which allows you to place the cleat further back than using a 3 hole system

4. Bikefit Wedges

Still one of the most overlooked products for improving performance and comfort

5. Custom Insoles

Be it Sidas, Esoles, or any other brand, an essential piece of equipment for any performance cyclist. Why spend £250 on a pair of shoes without maximising the transfer of power between the sole and the foot?

Lance runs his Madone with a 25mm layback seatost and Concor Saddle

Here is a lowdown on how each of these affects where you might place your saddle-

1. Femur length- Very simple, the longer the femur, the more layback you may need to maintain a balanced weight distribution on the bike.
2. Weight distribution- This is important to make sure that there is not too much pressure on the hands or the saddle; both of which can cause serious problems. The optimum perception of distribution lies around 60% weight on the saddle to 40% on the bars. Of course this might change based on the individual (this doesn’t apply to time trial position).
3. Handling- for a bike to have optimum handling (as judged by Keith Bontrager), the rider’s centre of gravity should be through the centre of the bottom bracket. Have a read of Keith Bontragers explanation on Sheldon Brown’s website below http://www.sheldonbrown.com/kops.html
4. Aerodynamics- for those looking for aerodynamic gains over comfort, handling, and possibly power, the seat is put further forward so that you are able to maintain a lower position for less flexibility.
5. Flexibility- The less flexible you are, the further forward your saddle needs to be placed to maintain power throughout the pedal stroke. Either that or you raise the handlebars. Think of when you make a really hard effort on the turbo or in a time trial and slide forward. You are trying you open up your hip angle for more efficient pedalling.
6. UCI Rules- Except for the most vertically challenged, riders are forced to keep their saddles on TT bikes 5cm behind the bottom bracket. This is why you see riders like Landis risking becoming impotent to search for that extra power and comfort- see the point above. Ideally they would move the saddles far enough forward that they can sit comfortably, as in triathlon. 
    

   

   Ouch! Landis in his famous 'praying mantis' position

7. Handlebar position- If you want to maintain the same weight distribution between your hands and saddle but have your handlebars further away, you must move your saddle back also. This is why most of the protour riders have their saddles rammed as far back as possible to complement their aggressive handlebar position. 
    

    

   

   A 35mm Setback 3T seatpost for Roger Hammond- not as extreme as it sounds though due to the limited range on the seatpost

Sorry to all of those looking for a self help guide! Knee over pedal axle generally gets you in the correct region of saddle layback providing you don’t pedal extremely heel down or up.

Make sure that you do not take any of these points individually as they need to be viewed as a whole. For example, don’t go putting your saddle really far forward because you are inflexible. You may have a more efficient pedal stroke, but the weight on your hands would then be unbearable and your saddle height too low! If I mentioned all the side effects of each factor, the article would be an extra thousand words.

There are other factors that I haven’t mentioned and I have only really touched on the subject, so please feel free to comment.

Happy Riding!

Alex Rasmussen's Track bikes have a very forward saddle position, presumably to accomadate for the unusual amount of drop, doesn't look comfortable

This is relevant because I occasionally read the bikefitpro blog written by bikefit founder, Paul Swift. He often posts details of his fits showing how many cleat wedges, ITS Wedges, and speedplay extra length spindles he uses. What jumped out at me was how many longer spindles were used on his fits. I very rarely see the need for a longer spindle, but Paul Swift used them quite regularly (simplified explanation, increase stance width if knee/knee are tracking outside the pedal).

Initially I thought it may be that Americans are generally fatter than the British; statistics don’t lie. Their extra size was causing their knees to track outwards to avoid the stomach. I very rarely have had to greatly increase stance width on a skinny rider. After all, how many riders do you see in the protour with their knees tracking outwards, compared to your local club run?  The problem with this theory is that the difference between our fits doesn’t match with figures for obesity.

One of the possible reasons for this I am not using them enough (a definite possibility given Swift’s experience). I asked his opinion,

-It is true most bike fitters do not go far enough. I often bring up the thirsty man story. Give a thirsty man a half glass of water and he feels better but imagine if we give him a full glass which is what he really needs. I am sorry to say that today most bikes fits are not offering (providing) a full glass of water.

In doing this one must not be afraid to pour in too much water (go just over the brim) and worry about getting a towel to dry up the excess. In other words, the fitter may need to go a little too far, acknowledge the results and back up a bit, if needed. There are many adjustments in bike fitting which we must go a little further to see what may happen. It is amazing at how many times that extra adjustment or two is actually something you stick with and you do not adjust it back.

These extra attempts are what help bring us or rather allow us to offer a full glass of water.

It is just like wedges. I spoke to a fitter the other day who said he uses wedge about 20 percent of the time. This fitter obviously is missing a simple but important aspect to the majority of his fit.

So I asked him, “You mean to say you take out wedges 80 percent of the time?”

This question threw him a bit and after a moment he explained that he did not take out wedges 80 percent of the time but only used them about 20 percent of the time. I asked, “You never let your customer try and feel the wedges?” The conversation ended soon after. I feel sorry for cyclists that do not get the opportunity to try the wedges. Again, we can always remove a wedge if it is not right yet almost 100 percent of cyclist fitted properly need not just a wedge but multiple wedges.

So with that said, I am willing to say I removed about 3 or 4 wedges this past month. And I think one or two feet did not get a wedge at all.

Why do I bring up wedges here in this light? Well, it was not until I applied a similar thought to stance width did I realize how many of us do not try enough with different spindle widths.

You will be amazed at how much stance width people need when proper knee alignment is achieved. Perhaps I should have just asked how often you try a different length spindle. Just like with wedges, if you do not try them you will never see the benefit. You will never learn to understand the need.

Personally, I add pedal spacers or longer spindles when the knee is tracking outside the centre of the pedal for the majority of the pedaling stroke (not just at the top- this is usually caused by lack of flexibility and is often fixed by reducing the reach). This type of pedaling can be caused by wide hips and a large torso that obstructs the natural pedal range, and sometimes tight glutes. If not fixed, it can cause discomfort and lateral (outer) knee pain.

Paul replies:

The knee at the top of the stroke dictates where your foot should be. When stance width is too wide the reason a knee moves inward more at the bottom of the stroke is because it has to follow the foot. The foot is stuck in the pedal. So what if the knee crosses the toe line….you still move the foot out because at the top of the stroke the knee is closer to where it wants to be. When you pedal the knee has no choice but to follow the foot which is usually misaligned at the pedal.

I have a lot still to learn about fitting from one of the world’s experts. I need to experiment a little to agree with all the points given by Paul. My initial reaction was that when you add stance width to one or both legs, it requires much more effort from the inner quads (VMO) to maintain as solid contact on the pedal and keep the knee from dropping inwards. If the VMO’s fail from overuse then the knee will go inwards at the bottom of the pedalling stroke which could cause other issues. There is still a lot to talk about when it comes to stance width.

Many thanks to Paul for his input and time. Not only has he answered about stance width, but highlighted one of the main reasons for having a bike fit even if you think you are an asymptomatic cyclist.

Claudio Chiappucci

There are subtle differences in Chiapucci’s postion. The handlebars certainly look longer and higher than todays standards. The setback on the saddle also looks quite rearward and the nose tilts upwards. Saddle height is also quite high. If only we had a modern day Chiapucci to ignite the mountain stages.

Gianni Bugno

Bugno’s postion could quite easily pass in today’s peleton. He had a super smooth style and quite a large amount of drop. The time trial bike he is pictured riding above looks very aggressive with a sloping downtube, but I don’t think the drop would be that much more than today’s time trial machines. It wouldn’t suprise me to see London Couriers riding around on something similar.

Pedro Delgado

Delgado’s position, like Bugno’s, wouldn’t look out of place in 2010. The main point I can see is the nose of the saddle points upwards.

Greg Lemond

Greg Lemond is probably not the best person to look at if we are making an overall assessment, but is representative of Cyrille Guimard’s (influential Direct Sportif) bikefitting techniques, which Lemond has been preaching for some years. He favoured an exceptionally long position, which looked hellishly uncomfortable climbing Luz Ardiden. He didn’t look great on a bike, but it seemed to work well for him in terms of speed. His knee tracking was abysmal, possible caused by such an aggressive position, but maybe this was his incentive to produce ‘LeWedges’?

Miguel Indurain

Indurain rode an exceptionally high saddle height, which forced him to plantarflex (toe down) at the bottom of the pedal stroke and caused some hip rock. He also follows the theme of an unsually long position. His TT position… I’ll leave you to decide.

So what where the main differences I noticed among the riders compared to 2010?

1. Higher Saddle height- I think this affects the stability of their hips while climbing, especially if there are any imbalances or differences in leg mechanics. There is far more movement in the saddle than today’s standard. This may be due to inferior saddles also.

2. Saddles tilted upwards- maybe neccessary for comfort, but seems to encourage rocking in the saddle (back and forth)

3. Longer postions- While today’s fashion is lots of handlebar drop, top tube length looked fashionable in 1990. All the riders seem to be clinging to the top of the bars while climbing, and do not look particularly comfortable. The amount of upper body movement is huge, and this may be a big factor.

4. Lack of attention to pedalling mechanics- many of the riders have terrible knee tracking; probably because of lack of knowledge about shoe set up, lack of core stability work, or their handlebar set ups. Maybe they were riding longer cranks?

Have a look at this Video of Luz Ardiden in 1990 and let me know if you agree or disagree with my observations. The tour is going up here again in 2010 so could make an interesting comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=702mu0o3xXY

Here are five patterns I have noticed within the pro peloton. I may be completely wrong and it could be a coincidence that they are all set up this way, but I think there is probably an external influence. I don’t have much data to back this up, but I think it is an interesting discussion. Please comment if you think I am wrong or if you have noticed any themes, and don’t take anything too seriously!

1. Cervelo Test Team- Using a frame one size smaller than standard and having very large amounts of drop

Almost all the teams riders seem to running frames smaller than their body size would normally suggest (maybe one size?)- even by professional cyclist standards. This leads to very large amounts of drop. I guess that the thought is that by riding a smaller frame you will be lower and therefore more aerodynamic (I think they may have even done wind tunnel tests). The problem I see with this is that the riders are rarely seen in the drops, and adopt the gear levers as their default racing position. I can’t imagine it being too comfortable either with all that tension running through the back and hamstrings. Read my previous posts for the downsides of too much drop.

2. HTC- Columbia Riders running saddle higher than average

HTC make a big deal about their bike fitting with cyclefit.de, so I was surprised to see some slightly unorthodox saddle heights throughout the season. Tejay Van Garderen and Michael Rogers in particular seemed to run them very high. Maybe they used this before they joined HTC? It looked quite uncomfortable from the sofa anyway; a large amount of flexion in the back to reach the handlebars and quite a lot of movement in the hips.

3. Liquigas – Very Externally rotated cleats (heels in) to compensate for lack of varus support

This one I am convinced is linked to a bike fitter at the Liquigas team. Each of their GC contenders has the same set up, a relatively wide stance and no varus correction causing the foot be externally rotated to maintain contact with the pedal. Wedges are needed!

4. Xacobeo Galicia- Internally Rotated Cleats (heels out)

In contrast to Liquigas, whoever set up the XG team seems to favour using cleats with little float and holding the feet internally rotated (heel out). I couldn’t find many pictures but many of the riders seemed to have this set up when I was watching the Vuelta. This forces the knee to track inwards towards the top tube. I don’t know the reason for this.

5. Sky Team- Unusually aggressive handlebar position

I am the least certain about this trend. A lot of the Sky riders look like they have extremely stretched out positions, especially Geraint Thomas and Brad Wiggins. They are both exceptionally flexible but I think that the metabolic cost and discomfort to maintain such a postion must be greater than the aerodynamic benefits. This relationship becomes more crucial on the climbs (speed low =aerodynamic benefit is low), where Wiggins is looking for every advantage possible.

From a fitter’s point of view, it was horrific. The drop from the handlebars to the stem was approximately 15cm. He had a 140mm/-17degree stem on a special pro short head tube model frame, combined with having the brake hoods low on the bar! I remember reading that his hamstring flexibility was something in the range of 60-70, which is the average flexibility we have with our clients at Cyclefit (mainly city workers). In my experience, an Olympic Gymnast would have issues with a 15cm drop.

The only explanation I can see of having such a huge drop is some kind of macho theory that the more drop and longer stem you have, the more of a man you are. It seems to be rampant among the pro peleton with virtually every rider with the longest lowest set up possible, regardless of frame geometry, body shape, or flexibility. The position has far too many drawbacks to be for any other reason.

• His back is rounded like a scared cat to try and open up the hip angle to produce power.
• His legs are going everywhere because he cannot control the lateral movement (see previous post) in such an extreme position (maybe the cause for his early season knee troubles?).
• His hips are rocking in the saddle due to the tension in the hamstrings
• He seems to have a recurring Achilles problem- maybe due to constant high tension in the hamstrings and calves?
• His bike handling and descending is widely accepted to be sub-par. How can you descend or handle the bike correctly if you are straining to reach the hoods and don’t have a hope in hell of reaching the drops?

Considering how close he was to winning the tour this year, he’s doing pretty well with all these handicaps. Obviously he doesn’t need to be set up like a sportive rider, but I feel a more conservative position would optimize his performance. Maybe he could beat Contador (with or without Clenbutorol) next year if he came to Cyclefit?!

1. possibility of shorter cranks

2.more aggressive (shorter/ lower) position as using smaller frames and always on drops

3. narrower q-factor

4. g forces pushing when through the banking

5. Non- symmetrical riding

6. very little out the saddle effort

7. higher cadence

8. fixed gear

My estimates are only rough. I can’t go down there and put tracking dots on their knees! But the theme of the results for leg extension were interesting.

-Bruno Risi 32.5°

-Leif Lampater 40°

-Schep 35°

-Andreas Beikrich° 45-50

-Keisse- 43°

-Zabel 37°

With the exception of Bruno Riso, Schep, and possibly Zabel, all the riders seem to have very low saddle heights. When I am fitting at Cyclefit I get an average of about 32/33°. The demands of the track are obviously a lot different. I feel there are several reasons.

1. It enables the riders to maintain a more stable pelvis for the much higher cadence’s used

2. The lower handlebar position puts more strain on the hamstrings so reaching a larger extension is very difficult- especially repeated night after night

3. the fixed gear at high cadences puts less torque on the joints (just speculating)

4. It is more stable when doing a madison change

On the other hand, the wide range (32.5° to almost 45) shows that I might be completely over analysing their reasons for having a lower leg extension, but the mean of the extension’s is 39 degrees. Personally, I think that around 35-37° (on average) is perfect for the Gent track if we look at the two extremes, Keisse and Risi. I am not convinced that Keisse is achieving his full power output, as we can see when he drops his heel during a sprint to achieve a larger angle. I think that Bruno Risi is slightly too high as his hips are rocking and he grips the handlebars quite tightly in comparison to the other riders to stabilize himself. Just some thoughts…