Yeah- it is a faster bike, no question. The position naturally makes you feel more comfortable at higher cadence. I think this saves the legs…. also, I think it may reduce hamstring fatigue to help on the run. Some of this could be myth. All in all, the lower you are and more out of the wind, the more aero you are. The tri bike helps with this.

My concern is more from the practical standpoint. When I say huge advantages, I am referring mainly to factors that arise out of external factors and have nothing to do with cycling. I live in a large urban area. Training rides are full of pot holes, stop and go lights, dodging pedestrians and cab drivers. Putting in 300-400 miles a week on a TT bike in that environment is frustrating, uncomfortable, can be dangerous and often isn’t allowed in any group training rides.

We all face different factors. If I lived in a rural area, or had access to a nice bike path, my training would be different. My point is that in my setting, even those of us very serious about racing, have to give up on the TT bike for most of our miles.

Thanks for the article though. Always good to hear what others are doing.

This could be true, to an extent, from a muscular standpoint (as explained below) but for the most part “saving” the legs for the run has little to do with bike choice and more so with pacing choice. *Any* position will fatigue the legs if the athlete is unfit or unwise.

With that said, a road bike generally engages more muscle mass. By incorporating slacker angles (specifically the seat tube angle) the road bike cyclist uses his hamstring muscles to a greater extent than does the tri-bike cyclist. To illustrate it, imagine doing a squat from a seated position or a more upright position. The seated position is an off-balance position and it involves more muscle mass because of it. Of course, the road bike removes the balance necessary in this example but the muscle mass used is still comparable.

The hamstrings consist of major muscles and to fire them takes energy, but this energy is easily trained and the advantages for the road bike cyclist are readily apparent, as mentioned in the above discussion. Moreover, a tri-position is shown to employ a broader range of muscle fibers within the quadriceps, long with the back and neck junction, and so some might argue that a tri-bike would fatigue you sooner. Regardless, any bike deemed uncomfortable would do more harm than would a comfortable bike, no matter its official designation. The key is in having a proper/optimal bike fit and enough training time within that “fit”. Opening the hip angle, for the most part, offers a more comfortable position. And, of course, it usually brings about a more aerodynamic position (the word “usually” is used quite liberally here…some triathletes may have an open hip angle and yet a torso that stands proudly perpendicular to the wind!). This “hip opening” argument is also one of the reasons more and more research seems to be leaning toward shorter cranks when in the tri-position…along with less muscle mass used, lower back potential, faster application of force, etc.

Anyway, all said, the primary key is training/adaptation time (i.e., the body will usually adapt to whatever it is forced to…{there’s the “usually” word again!}).

Secondly, an optimal fit (one that takes in to account the goal that is trying to be achieved—i.e., 112 miles in 6hrs, followed by a long walk)—needs to be employed. A road bike, just as Heather and Trevor mention, is a most likely the better choice for the beginner, while a full-fledged tri-bike is a better choice for those who have the time to put toward adapting to its more radical position. A tri-bike is no “better” than a road bike just as an apple is no better than an orange. Both tastes are acquired.

Also, I have a very nice road bike (2009 Trek Madone 5.5). What kind of additional speed should I expect to get out a of tri bike? 1 mph? 2 mph?

Thanks!