For years, I've been using the KOPS method of making fore-aft saddle adjustments which has yielded good results. It seems now the current practice is stepping away from the KOPS method to practicing balance, stability and position like in Neil Stansbury or Steve Hogg balance test. So, the question I have is how you would determine which method is best for the recreational cyclist?

Looking for input from people who’ve measured or experimented with cleat setback on Lake shoes, using the first metatarsal head and pedal axle as reference points. My current experience across different brands/models: • Sidi Wire – very limited rearward travel; I need midfoot adapter plates to reach ~16mm behind the first metatarsal. Non-Millennium lasts are even more restrictive; Millennium fit is marginally better but still insufficient. • Lake CX333 Wide – no adapter needed, but cleat slots need to be set at maximum rearward position to reach my target. No margin left, but it works without adapters. • Lake CX239 Wide – insufficient rearward travel without midfoot adapters. • Fizik MTB – excellent range of rearward travel, but too narrow for my foot. I’m now looking at the MX333 Wide for MTB and want to understand if the cleat slot geometry allows comparable setback to the CX333. Unfortunately I can’t find any spec data on actual slot length/position relative to the first metatarsal. Specifically: • Has anyone measured or compared the MX333 and CX333 in terms of maximum achievable setback? • Any other Lake MTB models worth considering that are known for generous rearward cleat travel? For context: I have a wide forefoot, need rearward positioning and am not interested in midfoot adapters as a solution.Trying to simplify my shoes setup. Thanks

Hi everyone, I’m trying to find a good starting point for the tilt of a Specialized Power Saddle, but I’m a bit confused about how the tilt should actually be measured. Different people seem to measure it in different ways: - along the entire length of the saddle (tail to nose) - only on the rear flat platform where the sit bones rest - on the first third of the saddle - on the first two-thirds - or even using the rails as a reference Because the Power has a short nose and a curved profile, these methods give very different angles. So my questions are: 1. What tilt range do you usually use as a starting point for the Power? 2. Where exactly do you place the level when measuring the angle? 3. Do you measure tail-to-nose, or only the rear support platform? Then is the Power with Mirror similar ?

Hi all, looking for some input on a saddle setup issue. Setup: - Saddle: Specialized Power Evo, 143mm - Bike: road bike, ridden in aero/drops position for long efforts - Current saddle tilt: -2° measured across the full saddle length - Measured on the first 12cm (anatomical center area): +0.95° — so the nose is actually pointing slightly upward - To get the first 12cm perfectly level (0°), I’d need to drop the overall tilt to about -2.75° Symptoms: - On long rides in aero position, I get pressure and numbness in the anterior groin area - It typically starts on the right side - I have a slight power asymmetry: 54% left / 46% right, which I can also feel in my legs (left leg pushing harder) - No issues on shorter rides or in a more upright position What I’ve tried: - I’ve already been to several bike fitters, including the only IBFI-certified fitter working between the UK and Italy — without success, the issue is still there - Lowered the saddle by 5mm thinking the pressure might be due to excessive saddle height: no improvement My questions: - Given the Power Evo’s profile (raised tail compared to the standard Power), is it correct to assume that measuring tilt across the full saddle underestimates the actual nose angle, and that the first 10-12cm is the reference that matters for aero riding? - Would you consider 0° on the first 12cm (≈ -2.75° overall) a sensible starting point for this saddle in an aero-oriented position, or would you go slightly nose-down from there? - Could the left/right power asymmetry be contributing to the right-side onset of symptoms (e.g., sitting slightly rotated, loading the right side of the perineum more)? Anything specific I should check beyond saddle tilt? - Should I put the saddle height back to where it was before trying the new tilt? My understanding is that lowering the saddle to reduce anterior pressure is often counterproductive because it rotates the pelvis further forward onto the nose.

Hi everyone, I’d like to share my experience with a recent bike fitting and get some technical input. Background: • Height: 169 cm • Inseam: 79.2 cm • FTP: ~260 W • Mostly endurance / threshold riding • Hip flexion ROM measured at 80° (right) and 75° (left) • Limited hamstring flexibility (can’t touch toes cold) The fitter identified limited hip flexion as the main constraint and aimed to “open the hip angle at peak flexion.” Changes made during the session: • Saddle moved forward by 10 mm• Saddle tilted down by 9° (measured on saddle plane) The rationale was that advancing the saddle would reduce hip closure at TDC given my ROM limitation. Important detail:During the session there was no meaningful load testing. No sustained Z3/Z4 effort. No reassessment after proper warm-up. Everything was evaluated at relatively low intensity. Interestingly, despite showing anterior hip block in clinical flexion testing, I never experience hip pain under load. The only symptom triggered by the forward position was quad overload. This makes me question whether static hip ROM alone should dictate saddle fore-aft decisions. After riding outdoors with this setup, I experienced: • Early quad fatigue already in mid Z3 • Burning in upper quadriceps near the knee • Clear anterior chain dominance • No real improvement in comfort The fitter maintained that adaptation was required and that, biomechanically, this was the correct approach given my limited hip ROM. After several rides, I reverted and experimented myself: • Saddle moved back 15 mm from the “fit” position• Saddle raised 5 mm • Cranks shortened from 165 mm to 160 mm • Handlebar changed to a model with shorter reach (reducing cockpit reach without changing stem length) With this configuration: • Quad burning shifted from mid Z3 to high Z4 • Pedaling feels more balanced • I feel more “planted” and stable on the saddle • Pelvic support feels more secure and centered • My left leg (previously less perceptible) now feels more engaged and symmetrical