+ 1

Really?

I'm very flexible but don't slam my stem? And I do have "proper" setback, equally balancing the use of my quads, hamstrings and glutes...totally worth it for the feeling alone!

You should try it some time?

_________________
"It never gets easier, you just go faster..." - Greg Lemond

"Because technology alone is a poor substitute for experience." - Richard Sachs

Wingnut, to each their own, obviously. What I'm trying to say is that lack of flexibility should not be an excuse to not ride an efficient position, because it can be trained just like other fitness aspects. And efficiency obviously is the sweet spot of comfort, power and aero.

_________________
Bikes: Raceur, Beateur

Just curious - what is your age, and what is your purpose for cycling. This isn't an argumentative question.

Because, if you're young-ish and/or with the purpose of going as fast as possible or competing, I can see why you might have a different view of the efficiency sweet spot and the value and purpose of putting effort into flexibility training compared to someone who is either older, or lacks natural flexibility or simply wants to ride a lot for simple enjoyment.

Note, I'm not saying I disagree with your general statement, but don't assume that people are making excuses for their lack of flexibility. Maybe they just aren't flexible due to natural limitations, age, or just don't feel it increases their enjoyment of the ride or benefits the reason they ride.

Having frame options for less saddle-bar drop is not because people are too lazy to fit themselves into racier frames. They exist because people actually need them or at least want them.

Now, if you'd said "a lot of people could really benefit and make their cycling more efficient by working on their flexibility" rather than "lack of flexibility should not be an excuse to not ride an efficient position", we wouldn't disagree at all. Hope that makes sense.

I'm 33 and ride about 4-5 times a week on average, mostly for the pure joy of it. I follow some sort of loose training schedule though, and do (at most) a handful club races and sportives each season.
Definitely you put things nicer than me, and the obviously the priority of each of power, aero and comfort is a very personal thing. So it seems we agree

_________________
Bikes: Raceur, Beateur

Perhaps its because slammed stems are not the only way to achieve an aero position. Two others I can think of are using the drops and bending your elbows. Someone on a bike with a slammed stem with their elbows locked out as its the only way they can reach the bars looks much worse than a comfortable rider with spacers; although the bike looks more pro when no one is on it!

There's also the old berti vs coppi picture to show similar positions can be achieved with vastly different head tube lengths

jon

Cookie, totally. Hogg has a nice rule of thumb for the drops position -- you should be able to ride in the drops for the last 30min of a 4h ride¹.

¹ http://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/blo ... sitioning/

_________________
Bikes: Raceur, Beateur

Maybe this is just a case of things happening in the same general time opposed to actually cause/effect however I have noticed how as head tubes got shorter/more slammed stems/less spacers compact and short reach+drop bars have become more popular. It seems that as people are bringing down the entire bar set up via less spacers, lower headtubes and -17degree stems they are switch over to bars that have less drop and reach to compensate.

Instead of having a more modest set up and using the more traditional bar shapes with deeper drops, people are running oddly extreme set up's with "tiny" compact bar lengths to balance it out in a sense.

_________________
Looks like I made a new 90 Proof friend

Although some people are doing what you say, and it makes sense, it isn't the dominant trend ... more people I'd suggest are choosing bikes with tall headtubes AND compact, shallow bars.

Jens Voigts bike. Jens says shut up. End of story.

I'd like to gently remind this group that when the industry went to the integrated headset standard, we lost approx 15mm of front end height almost universally.

In addition, a certain Lance Armstrong guy used to run 25mm-35mm of spacers pretty much throughout his career, and he was fairly "pro" as far as I could tell.

Engineers will all agree that a taller head tube is lighter and stiffer than a short head tube + spacer setup.

Bottom line -- I don't think this is a case of rich fat old people trying to squeeze young and hardcore racers. People get too hung up on the "pro-ness" of head tubes. People come in all shapes and sizes. Manufacturers will have to run their math to cater to the majority, coz being stuck with a huge stock of 56 top-tubed frames w/ 105mm head tubes ain't funny.

This is not that different than 177.5 and 180 crank lengths. And no, I don't think 180 cranks are more "pro" either.

_________________
Fast falcons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
twitter: Falco_bike
Facebook: falco.bike

.

The problem is not do much talk head tubes, but tall head tubes in proportion to top tubes. I hate a position that puts my head way past the front hub with a 120 stem. Weight distribution is a problem here. Positions can be replicated with different setback options and stem lengths, but the riding will experience is going to change.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2