KOPS - Myth, legend, what?

dennisn

Ever since reading Keith Bontrager's "The Myth of KOPS", written, I believe sometime in the late last century, I've wondered about the origins of the idea for KOPS. There doesn't seem to be any info on who came up with this concept. When this concept got started. Why the person who came up with it thought the way he did.

There are plenty of bike fit articles out there . All claiming to be "the way". Some of them using this method and others saying it's a load of bull. Neither side seems able to prove much of anything. Just a lot of claims.

Even Bontragers article, while interesting and fairly convincing, ends with him saying that, basically, he couldn't prove or disprove either his theory(it's all about the bodies center of gravity) or the original KOPS idea.

Even the KOPS idea is sort of vague in that it seems everyone has a different spot on the knee that you're supposed to go to.

Mostly I'm interested in the who, why, and where of the orginal KOPS theory / idea.
I don't really want to start a debate on it's merits, or lack of.
I've surfed the web somewhat but have yet to find an answer to those 3 questions.

Anyone???

sungod

kops is the intelligent design of bikefit

you won't find a proof for it because there isn't one, it's just something easy to describe and apply that people picked up on, over the years it became part of the dogma of bikefit, and with the advent of the internet it takes very little effort to establish 'facts' on a global basis

kops is born out of ignorance, like the widespread blood letting in ye olde worlde healthcare, or the craze for various drinks and accessories containing radium that were popular early in the last century, although kops is considerably less dangerous in most cases

dennisn

sungod wrote:

kops is the intelligent design of bikefit

Could you be a bit more specific?

sungod

sorry, i did an edit which took much longer than intended due to getting distracted by something else!

wishitwasallflat

What's the best alternative to setting saddle fore/aft if not KOPS then?

JayKosta

Legend has it that Friedrich Kops first popularized the style in 1897.
Unfortunately, he soon realized that his original method provided the most power when going backwards. While attempting to improve his backward motion he also coined the term 'road rash'.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=old ... tedIndex=0

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Jon_1976

wishitwasallflat wrote:

What's the best alternative to setting saddle fore/aft if not KOPS then?

I'd guess having a bike fit or trial & error. I tried a kops set up and it felt like it was putting a lot of strain on my knees and quads. I used a trial and error approach using different amounts of set back to find a happy medium between handlebar/saddle weight distribution and leg efficiency/comfort. Think it worked about 15mm back from kops, anymore and saddle pressure started to feel uncomfortable.

sungod

imho there's no method that's 'best' for everyone

a possible 'best' way might be a series of dynamic bike fits where your performance for a target situation can be measured and optimized by tweaking set up

but that'd take ages and cost a fortune

personally i prefer to adjust my saddle so that i'm balanced when in the riding position, if i take a kops position i fall forwards, for me neutral is further back, in this position i fatigue less and am more comfortable at sustained high effort, but that's me, another person could be different

sungod

but i realise i'm digressing from dennisn's terms of thread, so back on topic..

i am finding jaykosta's discovery most illuminating, and wonder if, perhaps, there might be some ancestral connection with the 12th century bratislavan kops community, itinerant sledge builders who first set out the ideal relationship between runner thickness and seat height

dennisn

sungod wrote:

imho there's no method that's 'best' for everyone

a possible 'best' way might be a series of dynamic bike fits where your performance for a target situation can be measured and optimized by tweaking set up

but that'd take ages and cost a fortune

personally i prefer to adjust my saddle so that i'm balanced when in the riding position, if i take a kops position i fall forwards, for me neutral is further back, in this position i fatigue less and am more comfortable at sustained high effort, but that's me, another person could be different

i wasn't trying to debate about the best method.
More trying to find out about the thought process of whomever came up with this idea / theory.

My theory is that he(or she) determined that in that position the pedal was just getting to it's full downstroke and that as much of the legs mass(weight) as possible should be helping the stroke down. In looking at pictures this would seem to be a possible reason for that thinking. Key word possible.

sungod

my point is that i don't believe there was any one person

for instance, many people 'know' that spicy foods cause stomach ulcers, or that if you cut an earthworm in two you get two earthworms, but neither of these are true

i doubt that these ideas came from any single source

for instance, the earthworm misconception probably arose from many people observing that when you dig with a spade and chop an earthworm in two, both bits keep on wriggling: aha! two worms! fact! the digger moves on and the death throes of the fatally wounded worm come to an end unnoticed leaving the 'fact' established (if only a small portion of the tail end is lost, the head end can survive, but only as one worm, not two)

so, while thinking about how to adjust bikes to riders, i'd say enough people observed pictures, film or live cyclists, saw their knees were typically somewhere over the spindle and took it as a reference point, eventually, over time it became a dogma of bikefit, at some point acquiring the acronym 'kops' - there must've been a first person to use the term, but that's different from how the practice arose in the first place

wishitwasallflat

sungod wrote:

so, while thinking about how to adjust bikes to riders, i'd say enough people observed pictures, film or live cyclists, saw their knees were typically somewhere over the spindle and took it as a reference point, eventually, over time it became a dogma of bikefit, at some point acquiring the acronym 'kops' - there must've been a first person to use the term, but that's different from how the practice arose in the first place

Interesting hypothesis and one which makes good sense.

If we accept this hypothesis as correct then part of that is that over time, by repeated observation of cyclists, people observed that the majority have knee over pedal spindle (or close). So, in the absence of any other evidence based method it would not be unreasonable to use KOPS as (at least) the starting point for this aspect of bike fit.

Absence of any other evidence (other than the observatons hypothesised above) for the effectiveness of KOPS is not evidence of an absence of effectiveness of KOPS. Which brings me back to my 1st question - Is there any evidence based method other than KOPS?

dennisn

wishitwasallflat wrote:

Absence of any other evidence (other than the observatons hypothesised above) for the effectiveness of KOPS is not evidence of an absence of effectiveness of KOPS. Which brings me back to my 1st question - Is there any evidence based method other than KOPS?

I keep thinking that something along the line of power meter testing could, at the very least, prove or disprove that KOPS was the optimal(or not) spot to generate the most effective power stroke. Although comfort on a ride is also very important and this may or may not fall into line with the most efficient power stroke. My feeling is that KOPS would give a very small power advantage due to the weight of the leg being over the pedal, more so than positions that have you forward or back further.

As for "....any other evidence based method...", I guess that would depend on whether or not you buy into any of the claims of some bike fitters.

cycleclinic

KOPs sort of work most of the time for alot people without having any basis for doing so. It is ust another rule of thumb. It may not be the best way but it is there as a method.

A lot of bike fitting methodologies have changed over the years. Think of some of Biopace. Shimano swore it worked it turned out their claim was not based on anythig more than conecture and wishful thinking.

So look at the postion the racers take up today compared to 20 years ago and it is different and it will be different in 20 years time. All of these people are faster than I am. I think bike fitting works in the sence it gives you a very good starting point but as I have road bikes all of slightly different frame sizes and because of that I haveslightly different postions on all of them and I am comfortable and equally quick on all of them I am not sure it should be strictly adhered too either.

I am not sure you would be able to control the variable sufficently well in order to prove or disporove KOPS with a power meter, you would need a large sample of cyclists all in the same enviroment ad somehow you will have to compensate your results for rider fatigue. I think this is why no one has yet gone to the trouble of bebunking it.

Use it as a starting point and play from there.

sungod

wishitwasallflat wrote:

Interesting hypothesis and one which makes good sense.

If we accept this hypothesis as correct then part of that is that over time, by repeated observation of cyclists, people observed that the majority have knee over pedal spindle (or close). So, in the absence of any other evidence based method it would not be unreasonable to use KOPS as (at least) the starting point for this aspect of bike fit.

Absence of any other evidence (other than the observatons hypothesised above) for the effectiveness of KOPS is not evidence of an absence of effectiveness of KOPS. Which brings me back to my 1st question - Is there any evidence based method other than KOPS?

kops is not evidence based

there's a cognitive bias to find a nice easy relationship to base things on, like the bony bit below the knee cited by some kops sects, but other kops sects claim it's fron the leading edge of the kneecap, that isn't science, it isn't evidence based, instead it's mumbo jumbo

there is no scientific study showing that kops (according to any sect) is biomechanically best, nor even that there is any single position, for a given rider on a given bike, that will be best irrespective of ride situation (i.e. climbing, time trialing, tempo, etc.)

in reality i suspect that, within limits, it really doesn't matter that much

StillGoing

Without the aid of power meters and filming a rider taking measurements of the various angles in the process to accurately assess the best riding position for that rider, it's surely always going to be guess work fitting a bike. KOPS to me is just one of those rules of thumb methods to gauge fit just like stand over. It provides a base measurement to start from but isn't necessarily the right setting for everyone and don't we all change our position during a ride anyway depending on whether we're climbing, on the flats or in a sprint effectively moving the knee behind or in front of the spindle.

wishitwasallflat

Hard to think who would fund the research as a project but it would make a great Ph.D. for some student somewhere on Sport Sci or similar programme.

FatTed

I know I'm not answering the question but have a look at Steve Hoggs Blog
http://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/bik ... oad-bikes/

mmacavity

Cyrille Guimard?

mmacavity

"Plumb line from the kneecap
It was Daniel Clement, former French national cycling coach, who was the first to look for a method of determining the saddle setback by taking the sections of the leg into account.
"Sit on the saddle in a normal position, shoes in the toeclips, with the cranks horizontal and the bike on a perfectly level surface. A plumb line which passes from the end of the femur of the forward leg, just behind the hollow of the kneecap, should basically fall over the pedal axle."
This method helps avoid riding seated too far forward. But it's limited by the fact that the rider is stationary and not in a working condition. It may be that you can set your saddle back even more. That was the case with Bernard Hinault. Robert Leroux had used the plumb line rule on him but the ergonometric studies later improved on this by setting his saddle back several centimeters in 1979."

Road Racing Technique and Training by Bernard Hinault and claude Genzling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6toi9X1t3Z4

dennisn

mmacavity wrote:

"Plumb line from the kneecap
It was Daniel Clement, former French national cycling coach, who was the first to look for a method of determining the saddle setback by taking the sections of the leg into account.
"Sit on the saddle in a normal position, shoes in the toeclips, with the cranks horizontal and the bike on a perfectly level surface. A plumb line which passes from the end of the femur of the forward leg, just behind the hollow of the kneecap, should basically fall over the pedal axle."
This method helps avoid riding seated too far forward. But it's limited by the fact that the rider is stationary and not in a working condition. It may be that you can set your saddle back even more. That was the case with Bernard Hinault. Robert Leroux had used the plumb line rule on him but the ergonometric studies later improved on this by setting his saddle back several centimeters in 1979."

Road Racing Technique and Training by Bernard Hinault and claude Genzling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6toi9X1t3Z4

Most interesting. Thanx for that.

bontie

wishitwasallflat wrote:

What's the best alternative to setting saddle fore/aft if not KOPS then?

Riding with no hands, when the bike is stable the saddle is in the right place - the weight distribution is right.

YMMV. It works for me.

dennisn

wishitwasallflat wrote:

What's the best alternative to setting saddle fore/aft if not KOPS then?

Not sure if I believe that KOPS is wrong. Or right for that matter. It would seem to be an idea which has neither been proven or disproven.

wishitwasallflat

bontie wrote:

wishitwasallflat wrote:

What's the best alternative to setting saddle fore/aft if not KOPS then?

Riding with no hands, when the bike is stable the saddle is in the right place - the weight distribution is right.

YMMV. It works for me.

Really interesting thanks - I can't ride with no hands, I can't even practice cause when I take hands off my bike is really really unstable. I've always assumed that is because I am older and fatter than cyclists seem to be supposed to be but I've never had any particular balance problems - could it be my saddle position that is the real cause? Should even fat old me be able to ride no hands easily - or - how hard is it to do?

dennisn

mmacavity wrote:

"Plumb line from the kneecap
It was Daniel Clement, former French national cycling coach, who was the first to look for a method of determining the saddle setback.......

Have been sort of scouring the internet for info on Daniel Clement. All I can find is that someone by that name raced bicycles back around the 1920's(I think) and died around 1944(once again I think). The I thinks indicate that I'm not sure about anything concerning this guy.
Anyone have anything about him?????

declan1

I set saddle fore-aft by balance. If I'm sliding off the front of the saddle, I move it backwards (yes, you read that correctly), if I start to get pain in the back of my knee I move it forward slightly. Works perfectly.

mmacavity

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Ancien-Manuel-CY ... 1198405230

dennisn

mmacavity wrote:

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Ancien-Manuel-CYCLISME-SUR-ROUTE-Daniel-Clement-Course-Cycliste-Cross-Velo-73-/251198405230

It would appear that you have solved a mystery for me. It would also appear that the author put more than a little thought into this idea. Thanx

bontie

wishitwasallflat wrote:

Really interesting thanks - I can't ride with no hands, I can't even practice cause when I take hands off my bike is really really unstable. I've always assumed that is because I am older and fatter than cyclists seem to be supposed to be but I've never had any particular balance problems - could it be my saddle position that is the real cause? Should even fat old me be able to ride no hands easily - or - how hard is it to do?

I've had exactly the same problem as you have, only I am not old, (not that old), but also fat.
Getting the saddle in the right place allows me to eat with both hands :-)

No, seriously, move the saddle back, and try riding with no hands.

There are many rules of thumb. The Lemond saddle height method is a good one, as is the bars obstructing hubs when on the hoods etc. My thinking is that if all these are ballpark correct, youre setup is proper. Never had to pay for a bikefit in 8 years of riding.

As for the comment on the plumbline from the kneecap, that is also influenced by saddle height, so not sure how fore/aft would be determined that way.

6wheels

It would be interesting to know how the pro's manage this setting, and why?

dennisn

6wheels wrote:

It would be interesting to know how the pro's manage this setting, and why?

I'm sure that once the pros, and most everyone else, find a position they really like that measurements are taken and recorded so that guesswork and trial and error are not constantly involved. I would assume that most everyone plays with their position on the bike and sooner or later people sort of get that "eureka" moment and say "now this feels real good". Sort of like finding a saddle that you like. Bike fits and the like may or may not satisfy everyone but they will(hopefully, at the very least) get you close. So, once you find THAT position it's a really good idea to record the position of your body parts in relation to the bike(i.e. KOPS or whether you're slightly one way or another from it) and bike parts in relation to bike parts(i.e seatpost height, saddle nose to stem, etc.). It's not easy and not very clear cut, to say the least.