"Jim Martin" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kraig Willett" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
>
news:[email protected]...
> > Lower isn't _always_ necessarily better, though, is it?
>
> All other things being the same, lower elbow positions generally reduce frontal area.
Sounds like we are generally in agreement then. IME, the claim above is difficult to achieve
practically (much easier with an ergostem - not a lot of people have those, though).
> In the web site you reference, you moved the elbows out wide so that they were no longer within
> the profile of the torso. Thus, all other things
were
> not the same and net frontal area was increased by a combination of
reduced
> frontal area of the head and torso but increased (exposed) frontal area of the arms. What do you
> think your results would have been if you had used
an
> adjustable stem (as does Wohlberg) to maintain the elbow width while lowering elbow pads?
I would expect frontal area to qualitatively match the results that a circular cylinder based
analysis would yield.
> Of course you may eventually reach a point at which further lowering the elbows does not reduce
> frontal area because the highest point on the back doesn't change. However, that is SO far away
> from the point that most cyclists will ever reach that its somewhat of a moot point.
You are probably right.
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of getting low. I do, however, see a lot of people going low _and_
wide (the second DeCanio link is an example) - and, IME, there is a perception that _low_ is all
that matters. As you so keenly pointed out, it is _also_ important to monitor width.
--
==================
Kraig Willett www.biketechreview.com
==================
