Here is a case in which the age-group racers are trending in a direction entirely opposite of the pros. While the professional athletes—especially the men—tend to overwhelmingly favor seat angles of 77 to 80 degrees, age-groupers are more and more trending toward shallower angles in this race.

Why is that? A small part of the truth might be found by looking at the demographics of the extra 73 or so contestants in this year's race versus last year's. As far as we can tell, the extras came partly as a result of overseas races like IM France (the French tend overwhelmingly to favor a road race—i.e., shallow—position). There were a few extra media- and sponsor-related entrants. There is also the fact that of the extra 73 race bibs, 45-percent belonged to women as opposed to the 23-percent (or so) women that generally make up the field. To the degree that French men, all women, and movie stars are less likely to ride on a steep-angled rocket ship (which is our observation) you'll get a percent or two of the entire field riding shallow.

Even if all extra 73 contestants were riding shallow, however, we'd stiill be at 50/50, down from the 52.3% of age-groupers that were riding steep seat angles last year. What explains that?

Pros must be prepared to ride on the rivet all day long. They're going 25 or 26 or 27mph, and you just can't ride that fast, at that intensity, without having a position that is the most biomechanically advantageous. That's why four out of five of them ride steeply. But that's not necessarily the case with the age-group field, much of which can turn in a 6 or 6-and-a-half hour ride and still be competitive.

For this latter athlete, racing at their level of intensity, perhaps a steep position does not offer sufficient comfort. Or perhaps these riders just haven't yet found a steep position, or saddle, or aero bar, that allows enough comfort so as to tilt them toward favoring a forward position. It would be hard to pin down the reasons without conducting a person-to-person interview with those who're riding shallow.

A NOTE ON METHODOLOGY: 76 degrees is what i'd consider starting to be steep, 75 shallow. As has been the case for ten out of eleven survey years, it's always the same set of eyes—mine (Dan Empfield)—counting steep v shallow, because there's some art involved, and I think it needs to be the same artist judging angles each year.

I tend to err on the side of shallow, so there might be a few 76-degree bikes I considered shallow.

Here are some examples of my methodology, keeping in mind—when you read below—that certain bikes like Cervelos and Kestrel Talons have seat posts which feature "flippable" clamps...

Generally, I considered shallow-clamp-turned Cervelos shallow if the saddle was midrange on the rails, or backward of that. If the saddle was forward on the rails of a shallow-clamped Cervelo, or if the clamp was turned around steep, it was considered a 'steep' bike.

Talons were shallow or steep depending on whether the shallow or steep setting on the seatpost was used. Trek TT bikes were shallow unless (as was the case with Tim DeBoom and Chann McRae) special seat posts were employed to move the saddle forward. Standard road bikes were shallow unless they had turned-around set-back Thompson posts, or Profile Design forward posts, etc.

There were a few steep seat angled bikes that I considered shallow if the saddle was all the way back on a set-back seat post. If the frame had a standard road geometry I don't think I considered any bike steep if it was just a matter of pushing the saddle forward on the rails of either a set-back or a straight seat post.