the ultimate tool

I have never been a car guy. I never got into tools or working on cars (primarily because cars were and are nearly impossible to do any work on anymore, but oh well). Now, however, I really enjoy working on bikes. When you see a lot of clients, like I do, especially in the intense one-on-one nature of a bike fit, you are "on" a lot. It's like being an educator -- some days I talk all day long; or at least it feels that way. I love when I can steal away and quietly work on client's bikes -- it is pretty therapeutic.

So now I love really nice tools, and MC turned me onto www.biketoolmaker.com, which is like a Toys'R'Us for geek bike mechanics like myself. I ordered the Smoothie Headset Press because it is the only one I've found that can press the sometimes long head tubes I build in the custom market.

The tool works like a dream, thanks in part to being able to get leverage at the bottom and top of the press (see the vise grip clamp at the bottom in the pics below), and a nice bearing underneath the "wingnut", which keeps the pressing action extra smooth.

The headset is my old standard -- a Chris King one and an eigth, in red with the stealthy Sotto Voce decals.

The bike is a Seven Sola S (full Ti)single speed 29er with slider dropouts (i'll post more on this bike when it's done).


the headset














the frame






















The tool






















cups on press


















ready for action























finished

"Mid-Foot" running form and Newton Running Shoes

Here at The Bicycle Studio we are known for our bikes and bike fitting. As a physical therapist, I treat all manner of athletes and in addition to cycling I run quite a bit (most weeks more than I bike), and I have been doing Ironman triathlons for about 10 years, and marathons for about 15 years.

Today I am going to discuss running. I have been studying running mechanics and research related to running form for about 15 years now. There is a lot of information out there, not all of it good, but here I will specifically go into running shoes.

I began running for fun and competition almost 25 years ago so as far as running shoes go, I began smack dab in the middle of the running shoe revolution. Shoe companies competing for the most cushioning, or motion-controlling, or energy-returning device available. A lot of gimmicks out there and hindsight being what it is, we are beginning to see that it was solving a problem that didn't exist. In fact, the research is bearing out that these shoes may be the reason for a number of common running injuries, like plantar fasciitis, achilles tendinitis, and generalized knee pain.

The issue with cushioning running shoes is that they alter running mechanics in a profound way. Simply, they make it easier to land on your heels, and in fact with most of these shoes they make it nearly impossible to land anywhere else. I won't get too far into this as there is a lot written about this topic already -- read Born to Run, Chi Running, Programmed to Run, and Lore of Running.

The basic idea behind the mid-foot running revolution is that landing on your heel makes you land with your foot in front of you. In order to progress to the next stride your quads have to eccentrically absorb that impact as your center of gravity then passess over your planted foot and then the quads, hip extensors, and calf muscles must push off in order to propel you forward. When that heel hits the ground in front of you, you have to decelerate first and then accelerate again. It's almost as if that heel out on front of you is STOP sign, repetitively slowing you down and requiring you to expend energy to speed back up every stride. There are a lot of impact forces associated with this running style.

When you land on your mid-foot, you have to land with your foot near or exactly underneath you, so your body/center of mass naturally carries over the planted foot on the momentum you have already generated. Your legs muscles do not have to eccentrically absorb each impact because the foot is planted already far enough behind you that this momentum is enough and less knee flexion/extension occurs. Running in this way, while foreign at first, will feel like you are taking smaller steps (which you are) and has a lighter more nimble feel to it. There is a break-in period where you have to keep re-training your body to stick with this new form. Some calf muscle soreness is normal, but with consistent work it becomes more natural. I can say from personal experience you will have less overall leg soreness and fewer injuries because you have significantly reduced the jarring effect of your stride. I have been a proponent of this running form for almost ten years, and now with the book Chi Running becoming so popular, it has really become more mainstream (there was a book released years before Chi Running called Programmed to Run which touched very nicely on the issue)


The Newton running shoes embrace this "mid-foot strike" running stride in a ground-up design of their shoe to make landing on your heel less likely. It has a lower profile heel and pronounced knobs on the front of the shoe (underneath the metatarsals). When I first laced these up, I noticed they make it nearly impossible to land on your heels, which is the idea, I guess. I did a number of runs on them and I would say they accomplish this task admirably.

But I didn't like 'em.

I think because I have been working on and using this form for years may have made my transition to these shoes less revelatory. In my experience, I found when I changed to shoes with less heel cushioning (lower profile overall) my form cleaned up very nicely and I was able to pitter patter my way around the trails much lighter and easier (and with much more enjoyment). The lugs on the forefoot of the Newtons

felt intrusive, and while they likely made a mid-foot strike more likely for a newbie to this way of running, they seemed to get in the way, or at least seem superfluous. I actually developed some 4th metatarsal soreness after using them on a number of very moderate duration runs.

And then there's the cost. The ones I used were $175. I know that running shoes are quickly working there way up there in price, but these were still in the deep end of the price pool. When I made the transition to lower profile, less cushioning shoes
Idea behind the shoe, one of the added benefits of these was the low cost. I run in the throw-back Saucony Jazz Low Pro

which you can get for under $50, so the jump to a Newton was quite a leap.

All in all, I think that Newton has the right idea -- running with more mid-foot form is better, but I don't know that the shoe is entirely necessary. It does solve the problem of heel striking, but I don't think it is the only way (nor the cheapest way) to go about it.

Guru Sidero Steel Road bike -- closeout sale

Okay, here's your big chance. I am closing out this demo bike to make room for more stuff coming in. It should fit people in the 5'5" range in height.

It has never been ridden.

You can read more of the build and sizing here.

This is a beautiful steel similar to True Temper's S3 air-hardened blend, but Guru has put their own name to it.

Full SRAM Force build, this usually retails for just shy of $4000. I am listing it today for $2800 plus shipping. Payment by PayPal only, first one to fund it gets it.

Questions and PayPal taken at: john at thresholdsport dot com

Cleats forward? Cleats Back?

Is economy of competitive cyclists affected by the anterior–posterior foot position on the pedal? J.R. Van Sickle Jr, M.L. Hull; Journal of Biomechanics 40 (2007) 1262–1267

When doing a bike fitting, changing cleat set-up is the keystone to a good outcome. While we have three contact points on the bike (hands, butt, feet) and all three CAN affect mechanics up and down the chain (i.e. if your left hand goes numb and so you hold it differently on the bar this can affect your shoulder position and induce a twist on the spine, which can affect how your sit bones rest on the seat....) the cleats/foot interface is always the most difficult to address, but also has the greatest gain associated with a correct adjustment. When you nail he cleat position it can often be a dramatic shift from a herky-jerky pedal stroke to a smooth elliptical rhythm.

The only way to truly read the necessary movements about the cleat is with an dynamic 3D analysis as is provided by the infrared systems (like the Retul). Video lacks the on-the-fly capability, is not taking measurements in 3 dimensions, and lacks the accuracy necessary to really make sound decisions. Prior to the Retul system being available, using the older methods of video, goniometers, plumb lines etc, we were just not able to address these small but, as we continue to find out, incredibly important factors.

So the article referenced above deals with one of the more coarse adjustments of the cleat -- the fore and aft positioning. This makes perfect sense because there is not much research out there about bike fitting, and specifically little regarding proper cleat alignment. (Incidentally the main adjustments to the cleats are the fore-aft, medial-lateral, varus-valgus wedging, and shimming for leg length under the cleat.) Marty Hull is one of the authors of this article, and if you're in interested in cycling and don't know who he is, you should. He has probably done more research into the mechanics of cycling than any other person on the planet. If you'd like to learn more about the ins and outs of cycling mechanics, you could do worse than reading his stuff.

In this study trained cyclists were tested at 90% of VO2 max with three different cleat positions: (1) standard forefoot placement (roughly under the metatarsals or "balls" of the feet), (2) midway between the rear of the calcaneous and the metatarsal heads, and (3) midway between 1 and 2.


They were tested on three separate days (with a rest day before each test day) and tested on all three cleat positions each day (in random order). They then measured how efficient each position was by way of how much oxygen was "used" (VO2) in the testing period of each cleat position. In simplistic terms, think of VO2 as the amount of oxygen that is used up (units in mL/min).

They found that there was no difference in efficiency with any of the cleat positions, so the more rear-ward positioned cleats were not an improvement in their cycling economy (more on why the rear-ward cleats might be more efficient later). So this seems to show that mounting your cleats further back on the shoe is not more efficient, but I, along with the authors, believe that there could be good reason why you would still opt for a "mid-foot" or "arch" cleat placement.

The first reason is Achilles/calf problems. When the cleats are further back on the shoe, the foot is "shortened" and so there is less of a lever arm about the ankle and so less muscular stabilization is required to keep the ankle relatively still as the main cycling muscles (quadriceps, gluteals, hamstrings) exert their force on the pedal. We do move our ankle while we pedal ("ankling") roughly 15-25 degrees, but the calves only provide about 7.5% of the total power output, so for many athletes with Achilles problems moving the cleat back can reduce the strain here and keep injuries away.

The next reason you may move cleats back is if you have foot numbness, tingling or pain issues. This may be because you have had prior foot problems (morton's neuromaor bunion, etc)
or maybe you are an ultra-endurance cyclist (the longer we ride, obviously the more pressure is exerted on our feet, but the feet swell slightly, making the shoes relatively tighter and placing more pressure on the nerves and soft-tissue of the forefoot). Many of the Race Across America (RAAM) competitors have been using mid-foot cleat placemen for years because when you push down on your pedals over 100,000 times a day for more than a week those tissues in your forefoot can get sensitive. If you aren't pressing through your forefoot, however, (and you push through the more hearty, muscled mid-foot) it cannot get sore.

You may also shift those cleats back simply if you have a hard time finding a perfect fitting shoe. Many "European" cut shoes are a hard fit for some. Poor fit can mean more pressure, and I've found that a slight shift rear-wards of the cleat can buy you some comfort.

The authors of this study were testing the theory that by moving the cleats back and having a reduction in the force requirement of the calf muscles, an improvement in economy (or efficiency) may be had. While an improvement in efficiency was not seen in this study, I think there is still hope, and the reason is motor planning. In my 14 years as a physical therapist I see people make improvements from many changes that we make to their mechanics, but those improvements don't become fully realized or don't fully coalesce until the person has mastered that new motor plan.

This process can take a few weeks or longer depending on how complex the task is. I have always believed that the pedal stroke is a lot more complicated than most people give it credit. Sure anyone can pedal a bike, but there are few people that can exert a nearly uniform force on the pedals for a majority of the pedaling cycle. In my research of pedal stroke analysis, I found early on that no one (NO ONE) can push/pull through the entire pedal stroke. Everyone, even the best pedalers cannot get their foot out of the way fast enough on the back stroke and so the put a "negative torque" on the cranks.

Then consider being able to activate the quads and hip extensors at that precise (and earliest) moment, to initiate the power stroke in the most efficient way -- the whole cycle, done well, requires a lot of coordination. Need further proof? Take 10 experienced cyclists and get them on a trainer for some one-leg pedaling drills. You will see many floundering individuals. Not withstanding this guy:



So given the complexity of pedaling a bike, with an uninterrupted block of time to adapt to the new cleat position, I think you will find that the improvement in economy would be seen. I have no hard proof of this, of course, just a hunch.

In my own personal experience I find that having my cleats back has prevented foot and heel problems when I was doing 24-hour races, helped me run better off the bike in Ironman races, and generally gave me the feeling of having very solid, consistent power output on the road bike.

It's not for everyone, but many people can benefit from this simple adjustment

Get a fit first.....please!

I am begging anyone who reads this blog to do your friends, family, co-workers, arch-enemies, accountant a favor and tell everyone you know to get a proper bike sizing (by a professional) before they buy a bike.

It happened again -- I saw a client late last week that had just spent $3500 on a bike and it is the wrong size. They said that the salesperson claimed they would do a bike fit to make certain that the client got what they needed, but after some digging it appears the "bike fit" consisted of little more than watching the client ride around the parking lot and declaring, "Looks good!"

It can be difficult to know who to trust. My advice: Don't trust the guy (or gal) who is trying to sell you the bike in front of you. Especially if they don't spend at least 20 to 30 minutes figuring out what size you need. They should be asking you all sorts of questions about you and your riding:

How often do you ride?
How many miles per ride? per week?
Do you plan to road race? Triathlon?
What don't you like about your current bike?
Any injuries, related to the bike or otherwise?


And about 2 dozen more to boot.

At this point it'd be okay to get you on a bike or, even better, on your current bike (preferably on the trainer) and watch you ride. This is where I differ from most bike shops -- I don't think a "quick fit" suffices, in which they have you on the bike for about 5 minutes total. This is the time where the fitter should be asking a lot more questions while you are on the bike as they watch you pedal from multiple angles. I usually hook up the Retul and take a shot of each side to get more information. If you are on a bike less than 15 minutes, or if the fitter isn't asking appropriate bike specific questions you should be wary of the fit advice you are given by this individual.

Even if you are buying a bike for $1200 or less, it is worth getting a bike fit/sizing. I charge $250 for my bike fit service, but that includes a pre-purchase bike sizing session (which usually lasts about 45 minutes and even shows you how to measure the bikes you may look at to make sure they are the best fit for you, if you don't plan on buying a bike from me), a complete dynamic bike fitting (about 1.5 - 2 hours) and a follow up (again about 45 minutes) a few weeks down the line to put the final tweaks on the set-up.

But the bike is only $1000? And the fitting is a quarter of that cost -- that can't be worth it, right? Well, I've seen a lot of bikes in the wrong size, and whether it's $1000 or $7000, if it doesn't fit, then it can become a rather expensive coat rack out in the garage.

Sorry..

...I've been away for awhile. Life happened, but I am working back into the swing of things. I've been playing catch up and have done about 25 bike fits in the last 3 weeks, so I think I will have some good ammo to put out there. I may even have a hand-made steel road bike to sell at a discount as well. Stay tuned...

The Womens Specific Myth

I get asked a lot from my female clients that come to me for a fitting before they buy a bike (which is the right way to do it -- get a professional sizing done first, THEN buy a new bike and complete the fitting process on it) wondering which "womens specific" bike they should get.

First let me say that, certainly there are many ladies out there that are quite comfortable on their womens specific bike; and they can work out great. But in general, the idea that women need different geometry is a myth.

Let's start by looking at it from an industry standpoint. What are the major bike manufacturers doing? They seem to go one of two ways:

1. They take the men's line of bikes, eliminating the sizes over 57cm, stick narrow handlebars, 170mm cranks, a softer seat, and accent the paint with pink or purple.

A good example of this is Cannondale:



Compare the "like-sized" bikes and you'll find no difference whatsoever in their geometry; same effective top tube, head tube, angles, standover, etc. They use narrower handlebars, presumably a shorter stem or straighter (non-setback) seatpost because they tout a shorter cockpit length, and shorter cranks. (Also girlie colors.)

2. Others do all of the above and then shorten the top tube (and possibly lengthen the head tube).

The truth is that some women do well with option number 1 and others do well with option number 2 .......


........but so do most men.



Taking the 2nd option, where they actually change the length of a few tubes on the bike, assumes that relative to their height women have shorter torsos and/or shorter arms (and possibly less flexibility). While many women do have shorter torsos (and therefore are long legged) their numbers do not outnumber their more proportionate or long-torsoed breathren in great enough numbers to warrant a change in all their bike geometry, I think. Even if you accept that long-legged, short-torsoed women represent the center of the bell curve and have that large of a representation, then changes that the bike companies make to design a "woman's" bike are often not different enough to accommodate the women who actually need it -- on the order of a 1 - 2 centimeter shorter top tube and possibly 1 - 1.5 cm longer on the head tube.

Incidentally, this is the approach that Specialized, Look, Cervelo, among many others take when designing a "higher handlebar position bike" or one they tout to be used in Paris-Roubaix. These are designed for men and women. So it's good that they make these changes, but often I don't think they are completely filling the market niches -- which is why when I build so many custom bikes for people who don't fit these niches.

So I know, now it sounds like that first I was complaining that they make the changes at all and then I complain that they need to make even greater changes. But that's what I think they should do....

.....but they should do the same thing for the men's bikes as well. They should have two or three *grades* of sizing from more aggressive to more relaxed.

Some companies are doing this to a small degree, but, again, usually the changes don't go far enough. Or the more relaxed geometries available are built like Bradley Fighting Vehicles and don't come in a performance package at all. I don't think it's wrong for people to want to ride their bikes hard and have nice components and wheels WHILE being comfortable. Our cycling population is getting older, but a lot of these riders still want to compete or at least continue doing big rides.

So I'm okay with companies NOT changing the geometry specifically for their women's bikes. I'm also okay with them changing the geometry -- it just doesn't need to be "womens specific." Even riders with Y chromosomes need geometry adjustment to optimize their fit.

As long as the stock bike manufacturers continue to err on the side of producing bike geometry with a racing-inspired pedigree, this will continue to be an issue. Unfortunately many cyclists will be sold a bike that does not match their riding strengths, simply because it is all that is available.

Custom bike manufacturers (like Seven Cycles) should continue to benefit from this oversight, especially as the cost of a stock bike and a custom bike continue to get closer and closer together. (Take a look at Seven's Gateway Program and then look at some of the cost of Specialized's Tarmac line, Trek's Madone, Cannondale's SuperSix -- many of those stock bikes get up close to $10,000 in their higher iterations!)

So when anyone (man or woman) is looking for a new bike, find out first what size bike you need and if any special considerations to the geometry of the bike ought to be made. There may be a stock option out there for you. If you think your current bike and fit are pretty good take a look at the setup -- if you have a threaded stem that is set to the "Minimum Insert" line or your stem is short length and/or high rise, then you might be in need of some additional adaptations to your bike geometry.

Why not just have the high rise or short stem on there (or the saddle slid all the way forward or backward on the rails for that matter)?

The problem with making these changes is that the handling of the bike is not built around these set-ups. These changes can work to make the bike fit better and be more comfortable, but they can also begin to affect the handling and the balance of the bike.

It's bad enough that the big stock manufacturers make forks with only 1 or 2 offsets and rakes to use on all their bikes -- from their 62cm down to their 49cm bikes.

(SIDE NOTE: Very small bikes and very big bikes should have forks with different offsets, but this costs money, so there are very limited options in forks out there and the big bike companies try to make up the difference with the head angles of the bikes. When doing this, one end of the spectrum -- either the big or the small -- will have compromised handling. Some of the companies, when listing the geometry for different sizes will even list some of the fork offsets and not list the others, saying they are "proprietary". Having used the Zin to log in the geometry and setup of my client's bikes -- which gives you fork rake and trail among many other measurements -- I can tell you that many times the rake of the fork is not different from the other listed sizes, the manufacturer just chooses to hide the fact that it is the same fork.)

So then when we change the handlebar height or seat fore-aft significantly on these bikes the handling and safety can sometimes suffer.

So do some research, go see a professional bike fitter that can help you find what will work best for you, and if you plan to spend more than $3000, don't discount a custom bike if it suits your needs better than the stock offerings.

Ride well.