I’ve read through multiple of Ronan’s articles and am a bit confused: I get that it is a more forward saddle position, (a short nose model that allows you to rotate forward), plus longer reach. Sometimes I read that higher stack is likely more comfortable and thus allows the more aero position to be maintained longer, but this wasn’t the case in the recent wind tunnel test article.
I get it that everyone’s position is different, but generally I would think that a much more forward position would put more weight on the hands. For someone who is motivated and willing to sacrifice for performance, they can work to adapt to a more forward position, but that’s always been the case. What is new about “progressive geometry?” Just longer frames instead of long stems?
Most of it seems to be “what if we did what triathletes figured out 30 years ago, but without aero bars?”.
I think it’s fine for pros or riders who are able to maintain decent power output (and hence bear the load with their legs instead of arms), but as someone competing for the title of “Least km per year 2020-2026” I know my triceps would blow up after about 5km.
I am no bike fitter, but in my opinion you are exactly right. I am in no extreme position, but already failing the “Naruto Run” test. It is not a problem on a TT bike where you have arm rests.
It seems to me the hip rotation point is not necessarily connected to lowering your bars. Just having a more forward position in relation to the bottom bracket and opening up the hips, avoiding rounding the lower spine can be done while keeping the weight distribution relatively unchanged.
I thought Escape had an article on Pogi’s position over the years a while back with a couple of good comparison photos, but I cannot seem to find it right now.
I’v been watching this trend and observing that even bikes with non-progressive geo are spec’ing zero offset posts across their range to help riders sit further over the BB and thinking how it’s going to result in bike fit issues, particularly too much weight on hands and on the front of the bike generally, especially as rear centers have also crept out from 400-405 to 410 or longer. As for triathletes having figured this out years ago, let’s not forget who we cyclists always criticize for their lack of bike handling, maybe it’s not them but rather the compromised positions and geo. Road riding/racing is also not a TT. We need to be able to ride fast through corners, up and down mountains, etc. all of which benefit from a different geo than ‘go fast on a straight flat road’ type bikes.
To my understanding (30+ years riding, no framebuilding or fitting or PT experience or credentials), it is a combination of
a) Shallower HTA;
b) Steeper STA;
c) Longer reach, so shorter stem
d) higher BB drop, esp. with shorter cranks.
e) a somewhat shorter/higher total reach to the bars, to take some weight off the arms.
I think this has been facilitated by shoes that offer more cleat setback and riders who are happy to use it. I’m not sure if this last point has been taken up by pros, but it has been taken up by some of the middle-aged amongst us seeking relief from foot pain. My own cleats are now 34mm behind the 1st met head, and the custom bike I had built has an effective 75 degree STA (size 43 shoes, my regular bike size = 54 or 56).
I can only speak for myself, but plenty of road bikes these days would make getting to this position a struggle (e.g., Cervelo, the 2025 Specialized Tarmac…). Plenty of 54s still come with 172.5mm cranks.
FWIW, I’ve not seen any signs of slacker head angles on progressive road bikes - MTBs yes, and maybe a bit more trail on tri bikes(?), but triathlon now resides in a different universe to cycling so it’s hard to tell what they’re up to.
Given a steeper STA is mandatory for progressive fit, reach must increase or the rider ends up cramped. On MTBs, one of the goals is to increase the front centre to prevent trips OTB; one way to do this is to increase the reach as much as feasible, slacken the head angle, and use a very short stem to compensate, with the short stems also claimed to improve steering with very wide bars.
Road bikes are increasingly using bars as narrow as possible without breaking the UCI rules, and while the front centre should increase as weight moves forward - to maintain fore-aft balance - if doesn’t need to be as long as possible. Stems are not getting shorter with progressive fit, and narrower bars effectively reduce reach resulting in longer stems; up to at least 170mm are commercially available (maybe up to 190 or 200). There are arguments for both lower and higher bars for the “aero hoods” position, but what works seems to be very individual. Some people are experimenting with longer reach bars too.
I’m currently trying to figure out what progressive gravel geometry should look like so the bike will handle okay everywhere, maybe a lost cause. My guess is it needs to be somewhere between progressive road and MTB geometries, but just where is a can of worms.
Criticising triathletes for their lack of bunch riding skills is like them criticising you for your inability to float or run a marathon. It’s not a question of geometry, it’s a question of the needs of the sport.
It’s only a few mm in the right direction, but the Cannondale Supersix has a ~30mm longer front centre and slacker head angle than most competitors, the reach is pretty similar though from memory. I’m not familiar with the geo numbers but understand the new Ridley and Factor ONE are both longer reach, not sure about front centre, HTA etc.
Good question. For the average weekend warrior it’s a term that you can use to justify a new bike purchase. I.E, “my bike doesn’t have progressive road geometry, I need a new bike”.
Ronan (and others) have been going on about progressive geometry. And Ronan showed that he could adjust the Merckx bike to within a few watts of the S5. He referred to his idea about “useable aero,” meaning a position that works for the rider and a bike that can reasonably be adjusted. But the article is about the many hours he spent in a windtunnel to get within a few watts of the non-progressive Cervelo. So I find his conclusion that the Merckx has useable aero that makes it almost as fast as the fastest non-progressive bikes to be a bit silly. I mean sure, it’s useable aero if you have a wind tunnel in your garage. The consolation is that, for the rest of us, there are still plenty of watts to be gained the old fashioned way.
That article is one of the most insightful explanations of bike geometry I’ve ever read. “Moving riders from a jogging position to a running position” paints the perfect picture for me! Thanks!
I had two issues with that article: first, that the whole premise was that you could get the Merckx to a position that you couldn’t on the S5–and then we find out late that actually you could get the S5 to the same position, and that same position was neither achieved nor tested on the S5 (and clearly would have been much faster). And second, the whole point of a bike with progressive geometry (versus a bike with traditional geometry where you then overlay a progressive position) is that you’re allowing for the progressive position without any ride quality or safety compromises. In other words: sure you can get the S5 to his position, but would you want to? Would it be safe to descend with that much weight on the front wheel? That was barely touched on and is to me the biggest point (particularly when that article reinforces that the S5 is that much more aero).
Except that he didn’t actually test a “progressive” position vs. a standard position–he just kept increasing reach and found that drag dropped as rearch increased (which is exactly what I would expect, as it put the upper arms at a more favorable angle to the wind). You can also increase reach by moving the saddle back. He didn’t actually test in a more rearward position, so there’s no way of claiming that a more forward position is more aerodynamic; for many people it is not.
A more forward position is more sustainable for some because it potentially opens up the hip angle at the top of the pedal stroke. Of course, shorter cranks in a more rearward position can do the same thing.
Moving forward is one tool in the toolbox, but it’s not the magic elixir some make it out to be.
One aspect that is difficult to quantify is “comfort in the aero position”. the aero position (90 deg elbows ) couldn’t be held for long on the S5, but apparently this was more comfortable on the Merckx. But I’m not clear why that was.
Side note: regardless of fit, I don’t like the 90 deg arm position with only 2 fingers on the hoods, no contact with the brakes and uncomfortably resting my forearms on the bars! These touch points need some new designs!