If one were to name the design issues that are problematic with the most radical of tri bikes, they would probably revolve around handling and comfort. One would like a bit more compliance, all things equal, and it wouldn't hurt to have a bit more weight off the front wheel.

"So why not a bit more front/center," I thought? This is the measure of the distance between the bottom bracket and the front wheel axle. If one could shallow the head angle a degree or two, and also add a bit more fork rake so as to keep the steering proper (and retain a similar amount of trail) then the net result ought to be a stable bike with a bit more compliance, and more of the weight off the front wheel and onto the rear. Furthermore, when one is out of the aero position and descending and cornering in the pursuit position, more front/center would be a welcome addition.

So I had my good friend and frame builder Ves Mandaric make me a frame with just under 72 degrees of head angle, and Reynolds Composites obliged with an Ouzo Pro with 50mm of rake. I did this after consulting with the two framebuilders I trust the most when considering all manner of racing and touring bikes, Mandaric himself and Roland Della Santa. Both these fellows have not only built a lot of race bikes, but a lot of touring bikes. I wanted to know what to expect of such a slack and long front end.

Everything was designed to take advantage of something that sits on USA Triathlon's rulebook. The maximum front/center allowable is 65cm. But there's a "morphological expception," that if you've got a bottom bracket-to-saddle top measure in excess of 80cm, then you can have up to 68cm of front center. My saddle height, if one travels straight up the seat tube from the BB, is 80.5cm. The front center of the frame is 68cm on the nose. The wheel base on this experimental bike is, by the way, is a whopping 107cm, compared to wheelbases of just over 100cm on both my existing tri and road race bikes.

This frame also has an extremely steep seat angle of 80 degrees, and my set up probably increases its effective angle to 81. Yet again I'm within a couple of millimeters of USAT's rules. My saddle's nose is just shy of 5cm in front of the BB on this bike.

This bike's seat angle is so steep because the front end is so low. My armrests sit 17cm below the top of the saddle. The idea behind the F.I.S.T fit system I've developed is that the body adopts certain desired angles when riding, and as long as these angles are maintained you can rotate the body as far forward as you can comfortably stand, making the rider's position increasingly low in front. So if I want a front-end that low, I've got to compensate with a steeper seat angle.

The more radical the position, however, the more the body's weight displacement front-to-rear is an issue. Hence the longer front/center.

The story of the building of this bike is related elsewhere under the title of The Odds-and-ends bike, as that's what I used for parts. More importantly than the parts, however, is how the bike rides. I took it for its first 20-miler this morning.

I was surprised at how comfortable the bike rides. As I suspected, the front end is very stable, like a touring bike. At high speeds bikes tend to bounce more as they go over road imperfections, and this bike's ride reminded me of driving Cadillac-style land yachts through the desert at 80 or 90mph. The low front end was quite comfortable considering the radical change from what I was used to. A lot of this has to be thanks to Reynolds' fork, which not only had a lot of rake that flexed, its carbon steerer flexed more than usual by virtue of the vector the force applied to that carbon tube (a function of the slacker head angle).

Cornering while sitting up, and with hands on the pursuit bars, was much better than on my existing tri bike. It was pretty similar to cornering on my road bike. This is because my center of mass while cornering was much closer to that on my road bike. Why is this? Yes, my rear was sitting much further forward of the bike's rear wheel than while on my road bike, because of this bike's steep seat angle. But by placing the front wheel so far out in front of me, my body weight was quite neutral relative to the wheels.

All in all it was a smashing success. Furthermore, I'd have to consider proper the way USAT has its rules written on the subject. This is probably the most radical tri-style bike anyone would want to race, and the rules allowed me to get where I needed to be within a millimeter or 2 or 3 of every parameter. There is only one problem: people under about 5'10" are okay, and those 6'2" and taller are fine. People inbetween these heights, however, will have just under 80cm of seat height but might still want more than 65cm of front center. I don't really see the harm in making the morphological exception start at 76cm of seat height instead of 80cm. That way everybody can play.