Adaptive Human Performance has built a reputation as one of Australia's leading bike fit studios — a science-first approach to positioning that's helped triathletes and cyclists, from age-groupers to elite, race faster and hold their position when it counts. We sat down with Erin and Jordy to talk fit philosophy, the myths around TT positioning, and where AHP is headed next.
How did Adaptive Human Performance (AHP) start? What was the founding idea, the gap in the fitting space you were trying to fill, and how has that vision evolved since?
Credit where it's due, this all starts with Ken. He founded AHP in 2016 as a bike fitting service, built on the idea that fitting should be science-based and built on first-principle knowledge, rather than the typical eyeball guesswork with no real knowledge driving the process. What Ken built with AHP was a highly reputable process, grounded in Health Science and Sports Science, using the best technology for lab-based and field-based position optimisation.
AHP is now the business that we (Erin and Jordy) operate, here in Melbourne, servicing amateur through to elite triathletes and cyclists for bike fitting and position optimisation services – The ethos remains the same and now we are continuing the legacy that started back in 2016.
It's pretty cool that Sync Ergonomics grew directly out of the bike fitting work of AHP, and that I (Jordy) have ridden every prototype part and every version of a Sync cockpit that has been released. Sync remains as the primary TT cockpit we work with, because it solves bike fitting problems. The service we offer at AHP has evolved, and in the same direction as the evolution of the Sync cockpits.
How did the relationship with Ken and Sync come about? What does the working collaboration look like day to day, and what do you think Sync brings to the position work you do?
I (Jordy) have been part of it from the early days, bike fitting, getting into time trial, testing some of Ken's first Sync prototypes, giving feedback. Ken also coached me through a fair bit of that period too — so I was exposed to a lot of the field of Sports Science through him, both on the physiology side and biomechanics side as well.
My partner, Erin, came into the picture in 2022. An Exercise Physiologist by background, with time spent working with World Tour and domestic cycling teams, the transition was quite quick. In 2023, Ken started training Erin to take on the AHP bike fitting work, as Sync started to demanding more of his time. Toward the end of 2024 we were looking at taking the next step into business together, and the rest is history.
Day to day, that shared history keeps the collaboration close, and we've carried the relationship with Sync right through — for the simple reason that the Sync products provide solutions for us to do a better job of TT bike fitting. What Sync brings to the table is the ability to establish the fit properly, without being boxed in by the components. Sync's systems let us reach the ideal position rather than settling for second best.
![]()
What's the biggest issue you see with bike fits in the TT and triathlon space right now? The mistake or misconception that keeps repeating across athletes you see?
Misconception: If the pros do it, it must be right.
The influence of the professional athlete is strong, but not always the most rational template to follow. The trend in triathlon over the past few years was to have a long and stretched-out TT position. That trend seems to be reversing somewhat now, especially with some influential athletes riding exceptionally fast on more compact setups.
Saddles are the other big one. Biomechanically, it is easy to recognise a well-considered TT saddle, there seem to be certain options that have gained traction through influencer status, more than anatomical design.
For us, as the people making decisions on athlete positioning, the equipment has to support the end goal, the philosophy has to support the end goal as well – providing a position that an athlete can hold and produce power there, for the duration of their event.
It's easy to put someone in a position that looks great for the thirty seconds they're in the studio. Holding that same position for up to say six hours, while still putting out the numbers, is a completely different question, and it's the one that gets glossed over.
A position is only fast if the rider can stay in it and pedal—otherwise it's just a nice-looking photo. So we work the other way around: start from what the body can sustain, use equipment that ergonomically supports the biomechanical requirements, and build the aerodynamics into that.
As AHP and Sync, you have always preached the high-hands position. Why do you think the wider industry — and a lot of athletes — trended toward the extremely long, aggressive TT position for a period of time? What was pulling them that way?
A lot of it came from watching the front end of the sport. When the pros are running long and low, that look becomes the benchmark, and everyone reads it as the fast position. There were some athletes that performed well over the past say 5 years, with relatively long setups. There were also some that imploded in dramatic fashion.
There is also the human nature of "if a small amount of something is beneficial, a larger dose will be even better still" – It's the same with length in a TT setup. And it never works this way.
The extreme "long" position was being copied rather than earned as a high-performance option, and for most athletes it will be costing them power, comfort and control and aero performance.
It's true, there are instances where an athlete could be more aero with a long position. But it shouldn't be the starting point …. And it should always be established through aero testing.
The proof is in the pudding as well. When athletes that were previously "long" and now more "short" – and riding the fastest bike splits they have ever ridden – There is something in that.
The high-hands approach is a little different to the trend of length. The high hands position is more about the ergonomics of how you make someone as compact as possible, but also how you support someone in a TT position and prevent them, in a sense, falling forwards. Angulation of the cockpit creates a more supportive contact point at the front of the bike, and this is very beneficial if you want to be able to relax into a TT position, instead of forcing the shape and hoping the body copes (it seldom does).
There was certainly a trend with the high hands position and certainly Sync pushed that trend, but that one had substance and a sound reasoning behind it.
So what's replacing the "long" position? What does a modern, sustainable, genuinely fast TT and long-course position actually look like — and why is that faster than what came before?
The high-hands approach is the core of it. Getting the hands up and supported lets many riders relax into their TT position, not force it. This means you can hold a proportionally more aggressive setup without collapsing through the chest or shutting down power.
Length is modest and for biomechanical support. You want the hands as close to your face as possible – This is why modern TT helmets have visor trims that create a pocket below the visor for the wrists or hands. You basically want to be as short as you can comfortably tolerate – Not as long as the bike allows (and ten some).
The modern position gets the aero benefit and the sustainable power in the same shape, instead of trading one against the other. It's faster because it holds up: the rider can stay in it, keep breathing and keep producing power from the first hour to the last, rather than fading out of a position that only ever worked fresh.
How do Sync cockpits fit into what you're teaching? How does the AB03 in particular translate the position philosophy you work with into something an athlete can actually hold and race?
A bike fitting service is only as good as your ability to adapt the equipment to the needs of the client. We often are faced by a situation where the ideal position can not be achieved, because the cockpit doesn't cater for what we want to achieve.
That's where the AB03 does the work. The configuration options are targeted towards comfort and performance. The angle range is the big one for us: the cradle design allows for between 15-30 degrees — which is exactly what lets us bring the hands up and get that supported, high-hands shape instead of being stuck with whatever angle the bar came with. Add the three extension widths and it means we can build the position exactly to the client's requirements.
The AB03 consistently locks an athlete in the desirable position, intuitively and comfortably. Repeatability is underrated — a position you can't reproduce isn't a position; it's a lucky day. That's the whole point: the philosophy only matters if the rider can instinctively hold it under load.
What's next for AHP? Projects, expansion, education pieces, anything you're working on that we should be pointing people toward?
Since moving into the new premises, the studio layout is expanding — and so are our services. The big one is aero work: we're building out proper aero testing and wind tunnel access so athletes who'd otherwise never get near a tunnel can have the chance to validate their setup.
Alongside that, we're expanding the performance-optimisation side beyond the fit itself: custom orthotics, and a curated set of products that make athletes faster — nutrition, helmets, drivetrain and the like — so it's a complete package rather than a position and a handshake.
And we're leaning hard into education: getting this thinking out through the blog and content so it reaches people who can't get into the studio. Same legacy Ken started — just pushed into its next chapter.
For more on Adaptive Human Performance, link here.
For more information on Streamlines, our aero testing partner, see here.
