A related bit of advice that seems to have disappeared after the 1980's--this was in the "Eddy B" racing book, for instance, is to use a lower saddle height for stage races vs. single day races hence Tour and Giro pictures that show riders with less leg extension. David Feldman
<chasa@classicalradio.org> Cc: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 10:55 PM Subject: Re: Frame size/ saddle-height (was RE: [CR]pic of Schotte/Girardengo/ Lygie)
> The folklore in my neck of the woods has it that lower saddles and higher
> handlebars were used by older riders due to the poor road surfaces. A
maxed
> out saddle height leaves you little room to shift weight while pedalling
to
> add stability on a dicey mountain road. Also higher bars move weight to
the
> back wheel, crucial for additional traction when climbing on dirt/gravel,
> and reduces the likelyhood of an over the bars adventure. The big climbs
in
> the Alps and Pyrenees had some horrific road surfaces before the 60s. I
> noticed this watching some footage of Fausto Coppi: it looked as though
he
> could get his saddle up another 3-4 inches if he wanted to.
>
> Tom Adams, maybe going to ride in KC tomorrow at the Old Town Cyclery
> vintage riding (and eating) event. 8:30 am, ya'll come and bring the old
> iron!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>
> To: Charles Andrews <chasa@classicalradio.org>
> Cc: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 1:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Frame size/ saddle-height (was RE: [CR]pic of
> Schotte/Girardengo/ Lygie)
>
>
> > I have some opions on the issues you've brought up.
> > But you know what they say about opinions and other
> > things that everyone has. (message embedded)
> >
> > > I'm thinking especially of a couple of pics I've
> > > seen of Coppi climbing
> > > hills. He oddly crouched-down out there, with what
> > > looks like a very low
> > > saddle.
> > >
> > > Now, maybe I'm just not seeing this stuff
> > > right...and, to be fair, some pics
> > > of the 20s TdF I've seen show riders with larger
> > > frames, lower saddles,
> > > higher bars with shorter stem extensions, and a
> > > reasonably moderate body
> > > position...so sometimes the example Grant cites
> > > appears to be accurate.
> >
> > I think the older style setup that Grant advocates is
> > a, strictly speaking, a separate issue from saddle
> > height. It is more an issue of relative seat and bar
> > heights. His point is that having these heights set
> > close to one-another can only be achieved if the frame
> > size is relatively large by contemporary standards
> > (extended headtubes and Technomic stems aside). He
> > points out that racers' positions are incorrectly held
> > up as the model, and that this is not a reasonable
> > standard for recreational or "all around" riding. I
> > think he would agree that it is better to be comfy and
> > happy on your bike and to actually use it than to be
> > uncomfortable and strained and be less inclined to
> > ride. For certain, the aerodynamic concerns of
> > ordinary competitive or performance-oriented cyclists
> > are not the same as those of professional racers. I
> > would like to be more aero, but given that I can't get
> > my bike up to 30 mph anyway, aerodynamics are less
> > imoportant, even if I were competing. As for
> > tourists, rondenneurs (sp?) etc, the areodynamics are
> > even less important. Comfort is king at 15 mph.
> >
> > As for saddle height, I think it has been going up
> > among racers even in the last several years. Perhaps
> > this is related to the use of bigger gears. Perhaps
> > this is in turn related to a better understanding of
> > cycling phsyiology. I'm suggesting that racers are
> > pushing bigger gears these days partly because
> > concerns about stress injuries are reduced by better
> > shoes and pedals, better preventive measures by the
> > medical people, and better treatment for the injured
> > riders. Also, riders are just getting faster (better
> > training, better nutrition, better legal and illegal
> > drugs, better equipment) and sitting high and turning
> > the big gear may just be more effective at
> > contemporary pack speeds.
> >
> > > If that example's accurate, can anyone suggest why
> > > more and more extreme
> > > body positions became the norm by the 60s? Much
> > > higher saddles, lower bars,
> > > smaller frames, and, it seems, a very uncomfortable
> > > body position for
> > > someone with less than mile-long arms ;>.. Was it
> > > just that a more
> > > aerodynamic position makes for more speed? Simple
> > > as that? And racers were
> > > willing to sacrifice their bodies?
> >
> > Of course these new speeds are interconnected with
> > other changes. Pack speeds have probably increased in
> > part due improvements in aero equipment (wheels),
> > training, and drugs (EPO). With the higher speeds the
> > comfort/aero equation (trade-off?) gets shifted to the
> > aero end. Have you noticed that handlebar heights
> > have taken an abrupt drop in the last few years? This
> > is in addition to the gradual drop over the past
> > decades. So, yeah, I think it is simply the quest for
> > aero position in the face of increased peloton speeds
> > that has been driving the drop in bar height (of
> > course there's feedback involved here.) What blows my
> > mind is that where racers used to bury or nearly bury
> > their stems in conventional forks, they now set their
> > threadless stems right on top of the headset cup.
> > This means that as low as stems were, they are now
> > lower by the thickness of a locknut and spacer, about
> > 1 full cm. If this practice was limited to the local
> > crit' crowd, I'd say it's just ignorant riders aetting
> > it "as low as it will go," but lots of current pros
> > have 0.0 mm of spacers under their stems. On top of
> > all this lowering it looks like saddles are going back
> > and stems are getting longer. By doing both they keep
> > weight centered over the pedals. Must be tough on the
> > body.
> >
> > Tom Dalton