wingguy wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 7:39 am
Mr.Gib wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 11:21 pm
wingguy wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 8:48 pm
Mr.Gib wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 4:26 pm
Overlooking the "generally" qualifier, longer and lower is not more aerodynamic. Having a very high handlebar, perhaps as high as the seat, and a shorter stem is much more aerodynamic.
I'm sorry what?
Unless you're referencing the Obree tuck I'm really not sure where this could possibly have come from. And if you are referencing the Obree tuck, it obviously has zero to do with a usable or sustainable road riding position.
Exactly. The areodynamic superiority of this position is massive. Obree won using much less power.
Exactly, It's a pointless and daft thing to say in the context of road riding.
That's interesting, people said Obree was daft. But what he proved that is relevant in the context of road riding, was that bent elbows are faster. In fact, he didn't really prove that as it was pretty much common knowledge. What Obree showed was what could be gained by maximizing this position. I think it is obvious that I am not suggesting setting up a road bike to acheive the Obree tuck.
With the massive industy (manufacturers and consumers) investment in aerodynamics for the road, I can't imagine why optimizing the body, the part of the system that has by many magnitudes the greatest influence on aerodynamics, would ever be considered pointless.
Here's another one for you - assuming a fixed saddle height, which is more aerodynamic - peddaling with the toe down or with the foot level? No idea of the answer, but I am curious (with appologies to the OP for the hijack).