I suspect that LeMond, and also the East German and other Soviet bloc sports factories of Greg's era did advance the place of science in competitive cycling. That said, "scientists" are susceptible to social and political pressure like everyone else and sometimes "prove" "scientific principles" because they fit a theory currently in vogue. The high saddle, low bars, practice advanced by Lemond probably does enhance short term performance, but possibly at the expense of shortening careers due to abuse of the back, neck, etc. After all, Lemond's career was not as long as many others (even taking his hunting accident into account), and included relatively few victories, his fame being based almost entirely on the TdF and World Championship wins. As for the East Germans, their flagrant doping showed no concern at all for the long term health of the athletes, so they probably didn't make this a consideration in riding position either.
As the pressure to win just to make a decent living was probably greater 50 years ago than now, I don't suggest that the oldtimers sacrificed performance to lenghten careers. They probably rode higher bars and lower saddles mostly because of poorer road conditions, and perhaps because the "scientific principles" of the day were influenced by whatever the top stars like Coppi were doing.
I agree with Grant about bar height and have raised my bars as the result of his theories. As to saddle height, I set it wherever it feels right, though this often takes some experimentation on a newly acquired bike. I think Grant's essential point is that one should do what is personally comfortable and calculated to avoid injury. His citing of the racers of the 50's, however, it probably not much more relevant than the fashion among current racers.
Regards,
Jerry Moos
Steve Freides wrote:
> Greg Lemond talked about this in his book, which I own and like to reread
> from time to time. He even talks about how some of his contemporaries might
> have been more competitive with him if they'd learned to raise their saddles
> a bit, but that he was glad they hadn't made this discovery!
>
> I think it's fair to say that, as in many sports, over the years and with
> the increase in scientific study of the human body in action, we've learned
> to take better advantage of what our bodies can do. It's one of my constant
> quandries over the winter, when I continue to ride but ride much less than
> in the nice weather - to keep my saddle where it is or to lower it. It
> always feels better lower in the winter because, I assume, keeping it higher
> requires muscular adaptation of some sort. This winter I kept all my
> saddles at their in-season positions and I seem to be surviving it alright.
>
> Sometimes there is progress, and while Grant Peterson and others may argue
> that the more stretched out, more bent over position of modern riders is
> favoring performance over comfort, it's nice that each of us has a choice.
>
> Steve "would that I had longer and straighter legs" Freides
>
> Charles Andrews wrote, in part:
> >
> > I'm wondering if the racers in the middle years of the last century actually
> > used what we might consider an incorrect configuration: saddle too *low*;
> > legs not nearly fully extended on the down-stroke. I seem to see a lot of
> > this in photos of hill-climbs: the riders appear to have lowered their
> > saddles for some reason, and their legs are not extended to the extent we'd
> > regard as correct... so that if those riders had set their bikes up for
> > full leg-extension, their steeds would look a lot more like Merckx's bike in
> > 1969 or '70.