if you did not slide forward anymore, he recommends you to move it forward.

one key thing here that shouldn't be overlooked is that when your bike is on the trainer the front wheel needs lifting to ensure your saddle is level (or in the same position) as it would be on level ground - otherwise you've missed a really important factor. I'm not saying you've missed this, but I bet tonnes of people don't consider this properly. Even with a riser my front wheel is slightly lower than when the bike is on the ground.

Thank you!

Yep. And also, working on thoracic spine flexibility will allow you to reach further without having to tilt your pelvis forward. That way you keep you sit bones holding you on your seat and not your sensitive parts.

@@iwontreplybacklol7481so keeping saddle forward is better ? In my bike have saddle all the way forward , it’s what I’ve found the best in terms of comfort and power , I have a hybrid bike

+mcclausky apologies, especially on that first video I got stuck in my PT-centric speak a bit -- positive sign/failed test, negative sign etc. If you slide forward, have to use abs excessively, or increase cadence a lot then you may want to try the saddle back a little. A little movement can go a long way. And you'll have to decide based on your fitness, mobility, riding style etc how much you want to bias your weight back versus on the front end of the bike. But most riders can make a very small aft saddle adjustment (with perhaps a stem adjustment to equalize the cockpit length) and feel more stable on their saddle. There's no requirement to move the saddle until you can do the test without any of the negative outcomes (hips sliding etc) but if you're having issues in the bike -- whether they're saddle discomfort or hand pressure, neck pain...whatever -- changing the balance in this way could be a means of remedying them partially or entirely. Thanks for watching....

have to agree. I am a PT with several decades experience with GC riders, and this was painful and confusing to listen to. 'using your abs excessively'? compared to what? Not a lot of genuine pro rider tech makes it down to the local bike fitter and shop level imo. 1. Pros overall buy one frame size down on what is recommended by the manufacturer. Why? because they want to get their stem down lower for aero advantage. They also work like hell on spine flexibility and low bodyfat%, and have a skeletal system that can tolerate the higher hip flexion angle associated with a lower back angle. How much you use your abs when you sit up from the bars will depend on the height diff between saddle and stem. This PT doesn't consider that. 2. There's been a trend in the last 15 years to move the saddle further forwards. Why? because it allows one to use a higher cadence, especially ascending. 3. pros use longer stems for two reasons - they use a frame 1 size too small, and because having their center of gravity further forwards gives better bike handling when descending and cornering. If you want to stop death wobble, move your center of gravity forwards by leaning down lower towards the top tube and stem. if you want better control in corners, your saddle is better forward as much as legally allowed and use an appropriate length stem to maximize your back angle without compromising hip joint angle, breathing, and power generation. 4. as for cleat position, that comes down to power generation for a individual courses. ideal cleat position for climbs is not the same for flats. 5. knee angles? the old adage that 25-30 degrees is a good starting point for triathletes, and 30-35 for road cyclists. What trumps all this though is individual rider comfort on the bike. Without exception, riders have asymmetries and pain issues that take precedence over what's theoretically ideal.

Criticism taken, not my best video, and I'll do better next time. With all due respect though, you've never done a bike fit, have you? Be honest. Because your point #5 about knee angles isn't even arguably correct...it's just wrong. The "old adage" of 25-35 degrees hasn't been used in about 25 years since we've had the benefit of dynamic measuring in bike fit. Additionally a triathlon setup will generally (on average) have slightly more knee bend, so less extension than the typical road position. (As a test, you should pull 10 triathletes out of a local race and give them all a dynamically measured knee extension angle of 25-30 degrees and I guarantee you'll have 10 unhappy triathletes). Before you condescend about the information not getting to "local bike fitters" please do your homework....

Have I ever done a bike fit? Wow! If you are asking that based on point 5, can you read it again with a cool head. I said the old adage is a good starting point, a distinction you must have overlooked. optimal knee angle varies based on course terrain and cadence. Being the seasoned bike fitter you are, I am sure you aware of the pitfalls of recommending one knee angle for all occasions. Have a great day!

To be truthful, yes, your recommendation on point #5 did make me think that. I'm sorry, but the "old adage" and how you noted it, is a terrible starting point -- as I said before the range is wrong (recommending too much extension) and it's dangerous to propose that a cyclist should expect to have more knee extension on their triathlon bike than on the road bike. That's actually the only reason I decided to weigh in in the first place -- I'm only stepping in on some of these threads when the information provided by someone could set back or harm a rider who decides to take the advice. Have a good day as well...

Isn't that incorrect? Moving forward does open up the hips more but removes more of the larger glute from the power cycle. So it's more aero but less powerful position. That's why most people don't produce as much power on their TT bike even when not tucked into the skis. It's because they are further forward of the bottom bracket so less glute activation. At least that's my understanding.

Absolutely, and I think each of us has a different amount that we want to be behind the bottom bracket

Do you remember what website that was?

@@Ansf3R I think it was Bike Radar, have a hunt around here.... www.bikeradar.com/search/?searchTerm=pro+bikes

Word

@Unknown Yep, definitely meant mm.

yeah I've also found the middle works best.. I've fannied about a lot and found that 'somewhere in the middle' is a good compromise.

@@syrus3k ah yes! one of the best sayings, 'to fanny about'

ehm.. if you balance on a bar and feel you are falling to the right, do you try to shift your center of gravity further to the right?

@@markuswahl2281 - That isn't what's going on here as on the bike without bars you're not in free fall like the example you're making. You're still attached to the bike in two locations - the saddle and the pedals. To stabilize the upper body you use leverage from those two contact points.

@@Vermonstered I'm sorry my friend, that doesn't make even the slightest sense.

@@markuswahl2281- I'm sorry then, you seemingly are not understanding leverage, the effects of pedaling dynamics or what is affected when moving the rider cog further back. Unfortunately, per your example, we aren't standing bolt upright when riding a bike. We're bent over with the primary balance point being the saddle position relative to the bottom bracket. Not understanding this makes it kinda pointless to explain but just try the extreme experiment of your version. Throw the saddle as far back as possible and try and sit up while pedaling, you're going to drag your butt forward to sit up because of the increased force necessary due to how far outside your butt is outside your body's COG and the change in direction of the leverage needed to sit up. Because of the increased forces and more acute hip angle you're forced to pull on the pedals to stabilize your upper body which pulls the rider toward the bottom bracket - which is now further in forward. So by your own fail state one would move the saddle further backward which only exasperates the problem until you simply can't mount the saddle to the bike anymore. Try it. Edit: Or even try the opposite. Flip the seatpost around if you have an offset seatpost and slam the saddle all the way forward. You're going to find yourself trying to push yourself backwards on the saddle to sit up. Both of these results are exactly opposite of your understanding. Your understanding is of a 1) static object and 2) an object balanced at it's ends. Neither of which is what we'd consider a cyclist.

@@Vermonstered Easy there, cowboy. I would advise you to be more careful when throwing around these semi-academic words if you don't have a good understanding of them. I think I will agree to disagree with you. I'm sorry for offending you!

Well his description of symptoms is weird too... Cadence increasing is good ✔ having to use abdominals ✔ sliding forward is bad???

If you slide forward when you lift your hands from the bar, it's because you are too far forward in relation to the pedals. If you move the saddle back then, you will be pushing yourself back onto the saddle more with your peddling (hence increased cadence)

I think not always. It could put you in a position where you initially feel comfortable but could end up developing a bad habit or putting your knee in a weird position por an injury

no because there's nothing holding you in that position. You'll just slide forward to te point where your legs are at the correct position for peddling...

Yes. Your hips normally tend to move to the right spot during pedaling. Because of this, using a flat saddle that's leveled, the fore/aft- positioning is not that big of an issue. How ever, with a curved saddle that raises from center to tail and nose, it's a completely different game. Sliding your hips 1 cm forward from the center and your pelvis starts tilting backwards. Sliding your hip 1 cm backwards from the center, and your pelvis starts to tilt forwards. That's why the fore/aft -positioning is very important.

I think he dead...

Nevermind. I get your point. I was just kind of fiddling around on the office chair after watching your vid. then realized that if position of hip is more to the back you do not topple forward, I was thinking this in correlation to the reach so much so that what you said did not make sense. now it does. have to think reach separately.. completely take it out of saddle position equation.

If you get a positive It means that your balance is off and should try moving the saddle back a bit or that your reach is to long/low

Level saddle for this test as this just establishes a starting point. Then tilt the saddle as needed for flexibility and adjust fore/aft to stabilize the pelvis after the tilt.... but like always changing the rider position over the bottom bracket changes the pelvis angle which may warrant a saddle change.

Martin Lynch Just about -- if you raise your hands up and your hips shift forward your saddle could be too far forward -- or -- it could be perfect or too far back and the problem is that the reach to the bars is too long which draws the pelvis forward. The solution would be to come close to normalizing the reach, then re-do the test. We need to eliminate the reach as the problem before moving forward. Once we do this, if the test tells us to move the saddle (either direction), we can take appropriate steps to keep the reach the same by changing the stem length.

Adam Mills what about your neck, does it hurt fr days after you ride

@@fgalan1956 Not anymore. Regular rides get you used to the position.

He said toward the end of the video that you can perform the test on the road by lifting your hands slightly off the hoods and seeing if your position changes.

Arguably? How do you know "spinners" are not climbing faster?

+Joao Godinho you don't necessarily need it to be back. If in your current position you're well balanced, you don't have any saddle problems and your overall comfort on the bike is good, then this could be just fine. A lot depends on the reasoning behind moving you forward in the fitting...if it was done for solid mechanical reasons then great. But if it was done to satisfy some arbitrary rule like KOPS then probably not such a good idea. There's a chance that with your saddle back slightly and your stem shortened an equal amount, you'd be just as aero but perhaps with overall better balance (not saying this absolutely would be the case, only that it's possible). Your bar position would still be as low and the relative length of the cockpit would be the same but your weight wouldn't be as forward on the bike.

Don't try and do what the pro's do. They're in extremely aggressive forward positions (aero) on usually bikes a size or two too small for them (smaller frame, lighter weight). This is why the UCI created the forward limit on the saddle, to try and keep pro riders on relatively correctly sized frames and limit the crazy forward aero tucks on the road bikes. More pressure on the hands isn't a big deal if you're saving 40 watts by being more aero. In the end, for this test, it's a balance test. If you're fitting for comfort you move the saddle around to establish the balance, not simply move the saddle backwards all the time like this hack does.

Agreed, in an aggressive position these metrics are very different.

I think you need to take your typical riding into account. Not sure if ovals have an effect, just use your bike if possible.

That's why you do a fit dynamically on a fit bike, before you buy a bike in the first place.

@@Geeios1 Ah, such insight. So every time you buy a new saddle one must buy a new bike. Gotcha.

@@psycheout4733 no, since you have the correct bike and fit in the first place. All you have to do is take measurements remove and replace the saddle, position it to measurements. No guess work or trial and error. , might be hard for you though.

@@Geeios1And where do you measure the new saddle to be millimeter perfect? The seated position is not the same on every saddle relative to the nose, tail, side profile of each saddle. You won't have that accuracy with measurement unless it's the same saddle where you can take the same reference points. So might be hard for you too. ;) Though per your bike fit you're right. Take measurements and transplant the fit onto a new bike. Hence you don't need to get "fit dynamically on a fit bike before you buy a bike in the first place." Stack and reach ranges is all you need to know when buying a new bike and it's fairly easy finding what suits a rider w/o having to pay for a dynamic fit on a fit bike to get the very basic range of what range they're looking for. But think that might be getting too technical for you.

@@psycheout4733 why are you changing saddles? The title of the video is determining fore aft position of the saddle. Where would you start? How would you know it felt better or worse if it isn't positioned exactly where the other saddle was? Measure from the nose of the saddle to the center of the topcap bolt, don't forget the adjust to the correct height. It will be a combination of the two until it's set.

This.

yup.. 100% everything feels fine at the start of the ride.. it's only into a longer ride will you *know* whether you made a good adjustment or a silly one.

also intensity of the ride can help speed that knowledge up

@@dcolum23 What he said

Agreed his fucking annoying!!!!! I'd hate to be paying the prick you would have no money left by the time he actually gave you advice 😂

Seriously..... If you knew anything about bike fitting you'd know it's relevant, dude gives his expert advice and you just shit all over it.

He knows how to regurgitate stuff out of a book and basically nothing as to the why or how. The conclusion from all that talking is always move the saddle further back. It's nonsense.

I guess I'm not a real bike rider then.

I suppose I'm not either... ;-)