Tri bike geometry: weight forward = bad handling?

  • Thread starter Jeff Potter (of OutYourBackdoor.com)
  • Start date



In article <rcousine-162BCF.08331229052008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article
><a64b97dc-9728-458f-af55-cacc11e81082@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Jeff Potter (of OutYourBackdoor.com)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Further requesting that said aero position offer stable handling is
>trying to make a bakfiets out of a sow's ear.
>
>In my experience, TT bikes are good enough. They're probably close to
>being as good as possible, given the number of professionals with an
>incentive to make them better.
>


I think "as good as the rules allow" would be closer to the
facts. See Chris Boardman and the superman position.

_ Booker C. Bense
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Booker Bense) wrote:

> In article <rcousine-162BCF.08331229052008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
> Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article
> ><a64b97dc-9728-458f-af55-cacc11e81082@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Jeff Potter (of OutYourBackdoor.com)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Further requesting that said aero position offer stable handling is
> >trying to make a bakfiets out of a sow's ear.
> >
> >In my experience, TT bikes are good enough. They're probably close to
> >being as good as possible, given the number of professionals with an
> >incentive to make them better.
> >

>
> I think "as good as the rules allow" would be closer to the
> facts. See Chris Boardman and the superman position.


Well sure, but I am no great fan of recumbents, but even I would note
that rules disallowing aero designs started in 1934 with the Mochet bike.

After that, all innocence was lost,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
 
PS: OK, we got a couple on-topic, informed replies in this thread, but
not much meat. I finally found some good info online on the subject of
tri bike geometry and handling at Slowtwitch, an expert tri site.
Turns out that the writer there basically agreed with all my
observations but also that he needs to do more testing:

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Steering_geometry_for_tri_bikes_224.html

--JP
 
On May 27, 3:29 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 27, 6:47 pm, "Jeff Potter (of OutYourBackdoor.com)"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'm curious about tri bike geometry.

>
> > It seems that putting an aerobar on a regular road bike ends up
> > putting more rider weight forward. This likely changes bike handling
> > quite a bit.

>
> > When I ride with an aerobar I move my seat up a half inch and forward
> > an inch. I also tilt the nose down. --This also indicates that my
> > weight has moved forward.

>
> > So how do tri-specific bikes deal with this?

>
> > Do they change the bike geometry to move the rider rearward for a
> > given wheelbase to make up for the forward-weight? (How do they do
> > that? Shorter stays, curved seat-tube, LONGER top tube, shorter stem?)
> > I see that at least the Cervelo offers a steeper seat-tube---which
> > would put rider weight more forward unless other changes offset it.

>
> > (What is the ideal weight ratio on the wheels anyway? I recall that
> > it's 50-50 but who knows.)

>
> > Weight ratio and C of G would also affect how a bike responds to
> > braking. --It would seem that aerobars put weight forward AND raise
> > the CoG causing a bike that would do an endo if braked hard.

>
> > Also, does the front geometry change? I would think that if a position
> > had more weight forward that one might want a low-trail fork. Long-
> > trail is often associated with fork-flop which is increased with added
> > weight on the front-end. --This means that small changes in body
> > position on an aerobar would cause a bike to wobble going down the
> > road. But long-trail is also associated with race bikes. While low-
> > trail is known mostly in French long distance touring circles---for
> > bikes with loaded handlebar bags, especially.

>
> > Do tri-bikes have longer wheelbase? --They don't have fast handling
> > needs.

>
> > Here's a webpage for the geometry of a Cervelo:http://www.cervelo.com/bikes.aspx?bike=P2C2008#G

>
> > Offhand, it looks like they don't do much special for geometry other
> > than throwing rider weight forward. It looks like they have a slack
> > head-tube angle---which would really increase fork flop with a long-
> > trail fork

>
> > Just wondering...

>
> > --JP
> > allbikemag.com
> > outyourbackdoor.com

>
> I have recently switched from a road bike frame kitted out as a TT
> bike to a real TT bike frame. The front-center (bb to front axle) is
> much longer (12cm maybe?) on th eTT frame and the handling is MUCh
> better. I'm on the big side, so I think perhaps using a road bike with
> a forward aero position was extra sub-optimal in terms of weight
> distribution.
>
> Joseph


I have ridden both road bikes (with saddle forward) and TT bikes and
they both handle fine to me. For me personaly, I prefer a Tri bike set
up as a road bike, than a traditional road bike. My regular road bike
has a 76 degree seat angle. It is the best improvement that I could
have ever done to my riding. I used to always get a sore lower back
after riding more than two hours hard. Since I moved to a steep angled
road bike, I have never had sore lower backs and I can ride for hours
non-stop. In fact, I can also comfortably ride on aerobars for hours
on end with no bother to my back.

I have both a road and tri bike, and use them both interchangeably. If
I'll be doing lots of hills or riding with a big group, I'll stick to
my roadie. For long flat rides or rides with a smaller group of people
I use the tri bike. They are both equally as comfortable and handle
just a nice. The tri bike is of course faster because of the
aerobars.

The advantage of the tri bike geometry is that when your knee comes
up, your hamstring muscles is not in as steep an angle with respect to
your lower back. So, they are not pulling against your lower back as
much. If you ride about two hours or less, this is no big deal.
However, If you like to be on your bike for over three hours, this is
a blessing.

Another thing I found about aerobars is that being being the lowest
possible is not necessarily the best strategy. You want to reach a
compromise between low and narrow. If you try to go to low, your
handling worsens, it is hard to breath, and can be very painful. If
you bring your arms together, you have much better control pf your
bike and you gain a lot in terms of aerodynamics. My aerobar position
in no lower than when I grab the drops on my roadbike. However, my
shoulders are tucked in and my elbows come pretty close together. You
need to develop good shoulder flexibility to do this. But, once you
manage that you'll have great control over you bike.

Andres
 
Tri as we might, we go off track.

The OP started by asking about a tri bike, one for triathlons.
Different optimization than for a TT, a time trial. The positioning on
the tri bike is not only aero, with fine handling be damned-- as rules
are that you are near nobody's wheel-- but, most importantly that you
save the muscles you'll need for running.

Harry Travis
USA

an oldie but goodie thread and an always interesting topic.


Bikesport Michigan Online - Editorial


aerobars-ttclip.jpg

Bolt -on aerobars as used on a triathlon bike.​
The critical elements to maximizing the benefits of a triathlon bike are fit and position. Installing aero handlebars on a standard road bike (as opposed to a tri bike) exerts two changes on a rider’s position: The rider’s upper torso is more stretched out with the hands and elbows farther forward, and the angle between the femur (thigh) area of the leg and the torso becomes "sharper" or more acute. There is less distance between the thigh and the torso at the top of the pedal stroke. These two changes mean the a road bike with aerobars becomes less comfortable. Because of the close proximity of the femur (thigh) to the torso (chest/stomach/abdomen) at the top of the pedal stroke (10 o’clock to 2 o’clock pedal position) the rider will feel too "cramped". At the same time the increased distance from saddle to aerobars on a road bike usually makes the rider too stretched out for stable handling.

This is more than just a sensation. This tight angle from femur to torso can prevent the rider’s diaphragm from contracting fully and make efficient breathing more difficult. Additionally, there is an increased amount of flexion in the gluteus muscles and the semimembranosis (hamstring) muscles on the back of the leg. This means they cannot contract as powerfully. More problems associated with fitting aero bars to a road bike are lower back pain, mostly from a position that is too stretched out and increased saddle discomfort.

A triathlon bike is specifically designed to eliminate these problems. The angle of the seat tube on a triathlon bike is typically 76-78 degrees. A typical road bike seat angle is 73-74 degrees. This steeper seat angle serves to open the distance between the thigh and the torso up, easing muscular tension in the legs and lower back and making breathing easier.​

dia.gif

Differences between Road and Tri Geometry Frames.

06FeltF4C.jpg

Standard Road Geometry Bike​
06FeltS22.jpg

Triathlon Geometry Bike​

 
Tri bike taken one step further...
... but back in 1996.

The 'test mule'

82 degree seat tube angle, 65cm top tube (center-to-center) 72.5 head tube angle and more rake in the forks than anything found in the gardening center of Home Depot. The frame was made from 531 tandem tubing because the downtube was so long it was the only tubeset offered by Reynolds at the time that'd work.

Weight distribution was roughly 52% front, 48% back when on the bars. When on the 'drops' (I know they're not really drops) and sitting a tiny bit farther back for turns it was 50/50. The bike cornered like a road bike and there was enough length in the top of the bike to accomodate riding out of the saddle up hills without 'poojabbing' ones backside.

TimeTrialMule.jpg


Yes, I'm suffering like a pig and that really is something silly like 56/52 (or 54/48)upfront with an 11-19 (8 speed) in the back as there were some courses that featured long steady downhills with a tail wind and the resulting grind on the way back. I normally didn't run the bars that low at the front but I wanted to test the bars there as I had a hilly timetrial coming up and I liked the 'drops' and brake levers where they are in that pic. I ended up mounting the arm rests a little higher.

The top tube is level - it's just that I'm going uphill slightly.

I pulled the frame from it's hanger the other night. Gonna give it a wash and build it back up for some "testing."
 
Swampy, it sure looks as if you have to strain your neck just to see your front tire on that thing.
 
swampy1970 said:

Those wheels look an awful lot like Campy Shamals, the original and best flavor, as well as a great set of wheels that look dead sexy. They definitely reside in the upper reaches of the pantheon of great bike wheels.
 
alienator said:
Those wheels look an awful lot like Campy Shamals, the original and best flavor, as well as a great set of wheels that look dead sexy. They definitely reside in the upper reaches of the pantheon of great bike wheels.

Well spotted. They are Shamals.

I still have them and when I can figure out how to get the end caps off the record hubs without putting small dents into them if I use a flat blade screwdriver then I'll regrease the hubs and use them in a time trial I'm doing in a few weeks
 
roadhouse said:
Swampy, it sure looks as if you have to strain your neck just to see your front tire on that thing.

I could see up the road OK for the most part. I normally didn't ride it that low but as they say "there's no better test of seeing whether it'll work in a race better than actually doing it in a race." I ended up leaving the base bar where it was an used some spacers to increase the pad height.
 
First off....love the hoops. I still run the Shamal HPW12 up front. Never going to part with that one.

If you ever want to sell that frame please look no further.....making some assumptions on saddle height, but I run so much drop it's not a big deal. Are you still sporting a steel/alum fork on that thing? I'm looking at a custom Yaqui that I will have done at 82*, but not ready to part with my P3sl quite yet, not sure I ever will for that matter. Nice rig!
 
Originally Posted by GearMasher .

First off....love the hoops. I still run the Shamal HPW12 up front. Never going to part with that one.

If you ever want to sell that frame please look no further.....making some assumptions on saddle height, but I run so much drop it's not a big deal. Are you still sporting a steel/alum fork on that thing? I'm looking at a custom Yaqui that I will have done at 82*, but not ready to part with my P3sl quite yet, not sure I ever will for that matter. Nice rig!

It's all 531 plain guage. The downtube is so long that it required a 531 tandem tubeset. The top tube is not far off 25". That and the fork rake pushes the front wheel way out front and makes for a very stable and neutral handling bike.

I still have the Shamals - the 16 spoke, ultra rigid versions. A bit weighty but awesome wheels.
 
From personal experience, a bike is more stable with weight forward. If steering gets disturbed for any reason at high speed, steering comes back to tracking straight more quickly if weight is forward and potential instability if your weight is shifted too far back.

In fact, when you encounter a "shimmy" or wheel wobble one of the corrective/avoidance measure is to move your weight forward.