An article by Bjørn Toft, Physiotherapist, Founder of Physioinnovation and PHYSIONRJ Bike Fitting with experience in fitting amateur and pro cyclists since 2007.
We have seen a drastic change in modern bike fit positions compared to the 2000s and even more so compared to the really old days. Anyone in cycling, and old enough to be interested in cycling history, remembers Jacques Anquetil. Him and his competitors had so called superman positions on the bike. Riders back then used a rather stretched position with a longer reach to the handlebars, as well as a position further back from the crank than today. One of the reasons I believe were softer cycling shoes, forcing the rider push more from behind the crank to have a more efficient pedal stroke. They also did not have very comfortable saddles, sometimes with a complete opposite tilt than you would see nowadays. The modern riders in contrary, sit more compact, and closer to the centre of the crank.
Modern bike fitting is, of course, very different from before, partly due to the new equipment. But there have also been several biomechanical studies on the impact of how various positions affect the riders performance in aerodynamics and cycling efficiency over the years. More and more pro cycling teams have also begun to use a more scientific approach to positioning and have biomechanical and aerodynamic experts involved in bike fitting. In the past, it was often a sports director or a “bike fit guru” whom advised.
Now there is also a more easy access to measuring equipment, wind tunnels, and similar tools that can see how the rider aerodynamically performs with their position. A very simple method to measure aerodynamics, according to an old well-known cycling doctor, is to find a place with a U-shaped hill. The position can be tested by rolling down the hill without pedaling hard (just following along), and then measuring how far you get up the next side without producing force in the pedal stroke. For most amateur cyclists, this is probably still the most economical method.
In the past, riders could be very conservative about changing anything with their bike fit. Often, a bike fitter could change the bike during a training camp, only for the rider to change it back as soon as they were home again. New approaches to bike fitting have emerged, which stars like Pogacar have particularly embraced. This naturally also makes other riders try new things. I find it inspiring to see this development. But I can also become a bit concerned that other amateur riders make too quick and drastic changes. This can potentially increase the risk of overuse injuries.
Often, I also see riders who do not prioritize strength training. I believe that it is an essential part of creating a solid base to prevent injuries. This base consists of strengthening both bones, tendons, and other primarily collagen tissues, muscle strength, and neuromuscular speed. My impression is that when a rider has this solid strength and conditioning base by working in full range movement patterns, it will also be easier to handle changes position on the bike. Changing bike positions with a proper base of strength potentially comes with a lower risk of overuse injuries.
One thing that has changed significantly on the equipment front and its impact on bike fitting are saddle shape, handlebars, hoods, shoes, position of cleats and obviously the UCI rule set.
The saddles, which are now much shorter, allow you to move further forward without violating UCI rules for bike fitting on a road bike I.e. The current rule is maximum -5cm behind the bottom bracket. The more modern and shorter saddles often results in the knee coming further forward than before. Who does not remember the “plumb line” from the knee at a 90-degree position of the pedal arm…? This way of fitting with the plumb is outdated, but if a cyclist experience frontal knee pain, going back to this elderly method could be an option.
It has also been allowed for some years to have more tilt on the saddle in road cycling. In triathlon, where there has always been much greater freedom to do what you want regarding bike positions, many trends come to road cycling. Road cycling has, over several periods, had its bike positions adapted by the UCI. For example, triathletes have for years had a saddle that dropped down at the nose, which is simply more comfortable over long distances. However, I have seen extreme tilts in triathletes, some excessive, creating too much imbalance regarding weight distribution on the upper body and saddle. In some cases, this has meant inefficient pedaling technique, with extreme activity of the hamstring and calf muscles just to stay somewhat seated!
Tilting the saddle downwards was not possible for road cyclists for many years to the same extent. It is now since some years allowed to a certain degree, and there are some studies showing how a downward-tilted nose opens up the hip angle and helps with, among other things, pressure distribution on the pelvis’s soft parts. Additionally, the more open hip angle can help with blood flow and activation of hip muscles like the big gluteus maximus.
In other words, through both material and UCI regulations, it has become possible to imitate the Time Trial position more and more. Also mixed with more comfort from triathlon position influences on bike fit trends. One could perhaps simplify and say that triathletes have been responsible for a part of bike fit trends. Some of these bike fit trends have then been studied and proven to affect positively, among other things, aerodynamics, blood flow, neuromuscular efficiency, and similar factors.
The more dynamic cycling position, which is more forward and above the centre of the crank, also means that the knee is much further forward. There are suggestions that it does not increase knee injuries, but I would still be cautious about making such a change recklessly. Additionally, I would be cautious if there is already knee pain present. A knee that is more forward will always give more compression stress around and just behind the kneecap. This can be a too drastic change for a cyclist with long training sessions if the change is introduced too quickly and too much. It would be more appropriate to make smaller changes to the position over some months.
The way of copying the Time Trial position is also reflected in the handlebars and hoods on the road bike. Here, especially, hoods are now much longer, providing a longer/larger surface for support from the hand, wrist, and lower arm. It gives better comfort in the aerodynamic position, approaching a TT position. Some riders often choose to rotate the hoods inward, which can provide an aero advantage if their elbows do not stick out at the same time! But for many riders, it simply does not look very effective; there needs to be special training (including strength training) to handle this forced position over a longer time. There can potentially be some dynamic breathing benefits from having the elbows out when going uphill. But it is very individual, and the higher the speed, the more negative it will be in terms of aerodynamics and speed to have the elbows out…
I will also add that to the amateur cyclist on a road bike, going more forward and having more weight on the hands could potentially increase injury risk. The issue here can be compression issues to veins/arteries/nerves surrounding the wrist I.e. It could also be more tension related to the neck and shoulders. Therefore go gentle with this type of change depending on your level, training capacity, professional occupation and antecedents concerning overuse injuries.
Where the TT position is attempted to be imitated on the road bike on the front part and saddle setback, it is not the same when It comes to saddle height…
Often, a slightly higher saddle height is seen on a TT bike compared to a road bike. One reason being that you simply seek/slide further forward on the saddle while riding a TT bike. This also means you effectively get a shorter saddle height. Together with the aggressive forward tilt of the pelvis, you will need a slightly higher saddle height to counter this.
Looking at more explosive cycling disciplines, like track cycling, there is also quite a difference from the road bike position. Often, a higher position is seen among the more explosive track cyclists, as maximum muscle power needs to be generated over a shorter period. Since they have a “fixie,” there will always be some help to get over the dead spots in the pedal stroke. Therefore, they need a position where maximum power can be generated in terms of muscle strength and length. This can best be done for the quadriceps and hip muscles with a slightly higher position on the track and with a high gear.
Trying the same approach on the road will certainly fail over the often much longer distances. Also, because it is not a fixie, there is no “free” mechanical energy in the dead spots during the pedal stroke. Additionally, it becomes too uncomfortable to sit so high due to pressure and shocks from the road’s surface on the pelvis’s soft parts, risking even compression injuries to the pelvic area. Moreover, what has been discovered for some years now is that there is an energy-economic advantage sitting a bit lower AND further forward than “in the old days”. Now it is closer to 33-43 degrees of knee extension (road cycling, when the knee is maximally extended). On top of that, more forward positioned saddle than before.
However, I believe that one should always consider a rider’s individual mobility, rider type, pedalling type etc. An idea of the rider’s mobility can be obtained through various musculoskeletal and physiotherapeutic tests. This can then further be combined with tests of muscle strengths/weaknesses to give a broader understanding of the rider’s capacity and strengths. Combining the physiotherapeutic and movement science knowledge with what the individual rider wants to excel in, provides a good idea of which bike position is optimal for the individual.
One thing to remember is also what type of pedaling technique is used, what type of rider they are, higher cadence or more muscle strength focused. Additionally, one must consider which cycling discipline the bike fitting is for: road cycling, mountain biking, track cycling, triathlon, Individual Time Trial, etc.! There are many factors to take into consideration when it comes to a personalised bike fitting ! Almost anyone can take a 2 days course and call themselves bike fitters. Even without any physiological, anatomical and biomechanical knowledge. These methods of bike fitting is most often based upon algorithms, however I believe it lacks individual tailoring for the cyclist.
Some cyclists will find aerodynamics more important than others. For example, cycling enthusiasts living in mountainous terrain often prioritize aerodynamics less than if one lived in, for example, Denmark. However, one now sees handlebars that are generally narrower than before, where a 42cm wide handlebar was standard; it is now often more narrow than that going down to a 38cm for the pro riders. Again, it is the development of materials and aeroscience that makes one prefer to be narrow.
However, I do not believe it is necessary for the ordinary cyclist living in the mountains; it is often far more comfortable to have a normal handlebar width. It can also provide a bit more security on descents, which is not insignificant for amateur cyclists. Of course, for track riders, sprinters, breakaway specialists, time trial specialists, and triathletes, aerodynamics are extremely important. Therefore, there will be different measures for these athletes to have the best compromise in terms of comfort, movement economy, and aerodynamics. Generally, one can say the shorter the distance, the less comfort, exemplified by a sprinter on the track. The longer the distance, the more comfort, such as a breakaway specialist in road cycling.
When we talk about time trial bikes, a TT specialist in road cycling will generally have a less comfortable position than an Ironman athlete in triathlon. This is because aerodynamics in a time trial ranging from 20-50km are more important than comfort. Additionally, it is estimated that the cyclist can tolerate this position for the “short time” they are in it. This would realistically be very difficult over an Ironman distance (180km).
Take the example of the Ironman triathlon distance; some years ago, there was experimentation with cleat positions. Some bike fit gurus believed that having a so-called “mid-foot cleat positioning” could save the calf muscles for the long marathon after the cycling distance. This led to some quite extreme positions, which a few people still use today. I remember helping a triathlete by drilling new holes in their shoe to achieve the most extreme mid-foot position possible! One reason I agreed to this was that the individual had extremely flat feet, so with this “mid-foot” position, I aimed to save his calf muscles as much as possible during the cycling distance by creating a shorter lever. This “mid-foot position” has been moderated over the years, and the more moderated mid-foot cleat position has even gained fans in road cycling.
Now, we see riders like Pogacar who have also pushed their cleats far back on their regular cycling shoes! It is believed that there is better foot stability, and therefore energy can be conserved for later in a race. On the other extreme, we find track cyclists… Just forget about moving the cleats back; every single muscle fiber is needed during the short duration of the races! Also, it can feel strange to have 110 RPM with the cleats placed as far back as some road cyclists do, you need that “snappy” feel.
Crank arms in road cycling are now also shorter than before. Triathletes were actually some of the first to experiment with shorter crank arms, as they believed it opened up the hip angle. There was less of an “acute or compressed” angle with a shorter crank arm (165-170mm), allowing them to maintain a more aerodynamic position over an Ironman distance. Later on, it was also understood that shorter crank arms help to “open” the hip angle, thereby reducing compression/closing on, for instance, veins, arteries, and nerves in the hip. It is believed that shortening the crank arms results in better neuromuscular movement economy and aerodynamics, allowing the triathlete or TT rider to sit higher and thus have a flatter back. We should not forget track cyclist though, as they have always had shorter crank arms dur to the design of the track and low pedal clearance, in the corners.
The modern development is that road cyclists are also starting to use shorter crank arms, similar to what track cyclists have always done (often 165mm). This obviously requires adjustment, as most road bike crank arms are 172.5mm, making it a significant change to have 7.5mm shorter crank arms over such long distances. Moreover, it would cost a lot of money for the average passionate cyclist to switch, so it is not something I would immediately consider for the typical road enthusiast. However, if someone is buying a new bike and can choose the configuration from the start, it might be an idea to try a shorter crank arm.
The advancements in engineering and design have revolutionised bike fitting. Now, we face the question: How much further can engineering enhance performance and aerodynamics without necessitating changes to UCI rules regarding cycling positions?
I believe the future of bike performance lies primarily in the athletes’ ability to improve both mobility and strength. The body’s plasticity is a significant asset that takes time to fully exploit. Strength training, which also serves as functional mobility training, can significantly enhance an athlete’s ability to maintain aerodynamic positions over extended periods. This, however, requires a long-term commitment to off-bike training.
For instance, cyclists from flat countries like Denmark must adopt aerodynamic positions to maximise their speed, given the prevalent windy conditions. Conversely, cyclists from mountainous regions like Switzerland or Colombia may focus less on aerodynamics since most of the time is spend going uphill. Nonetheless, developing the ability to maintain an aerodynamic position should start early in a cyclist’s career. Coaches, especially in countries where aerodynamics is less critical due to the terrain, should emphasise the body’s plasticity and the benefits of strength and mobility workouts. Such a focus on strength (and mobility) can potentially help preventing overuse injuries and augment readiness to adapt.
For amateur athletes, regardless of their level, it is never too late to begin strength training. Numerous studies demonstrate the benefits of weight lifting for performance metrics such as threshold power and sprint capacity. Alongside the many global health benefits, strength training could help in maintaining optimal cycling positions. Furthermore it can potentially reduce perceived strain over longer periods. This is not a claim that has been studied, however I have seen many cyclists with this exact profile over the years having a much easier pathway to “re-plastify” their body into new positions.
Good luck!
Physiotherapist, sport and exercice consultant and founder of PHYSIONRJ Physiothérapie and PHYSIONRJ Bike Fitting (PHYSIOINNOVATION Sarl)
Bike fitting amateur to pro cyclists since 2007
Bjørn Toft
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9564639
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31834181
A couple of studies on aerodynamics
https://pure.tue.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/294270853/1_s2.0_S0045793023000889_main.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167610521001574
Studies about crank arm length
