The pictures here are of a 1968 Pugliaghi. Everything clamp on even the bottom bracket gear cable guides. Pictures from TheRacingBicycle.com

In the late 1950s through the early 1970s there was a slump in bicycle sales in Europe. In the 1960s the economy was booming and although in many places the bicycle had always been the mode of transport for the working classes; many were now buying cars for the first time. At the same time the fitness craze of the 1970s had not yet begun.

Racing bicycles and framebuilders were also hit by this slump and the price of a frame rose very little in that decade even though inflation did. Framebuilders had to look for ways to cut costs and one of them was to leave off all braze-ons.

Building a frame without braze-ons does save a considerable amount of time and therefore labor costs. The only braze-ons seen in this era was a chainstay stop and sometimes a little stop under the down tube to prevent the gear lever clamp from sliding down the tube. 

Having done that framebuilders could not tell their customers they were doing this to cut costs, hence the story that braze-ons weaken the frame. I think Cinelli started it; framebuilding was never their main source of income (Handlebars and stems were.) so the price of a Cinelli frame was always high. Everyone’s thinking was if Cinelli can get away with it so can we, and most framebuilders followed suit.

Do braze-ons weaken the frame? Maybe very marginally but it is part of the framebuilding process. I have seen down tubes break right at the clamp on gear lever. Imagine a shock wave from hitting a bump in the road, or the twisting forces on a down tube.

Normally these stresses would be dispersed around the frame, but instead are stopped rather abruptly by a solid clamp around the tube. Clamps require more maintenance they collect moisture under them and if over tightened can dig into the tube and start a stress riser.

Prior to the “No Braze-ons” craze, all the various derailleur manufacturers provided clamp-on fittings because there was no standardization in gear lever design, for example, and clamp-on gear lever had already been standard practice for the most part.

By the 1970s, when braze-ons made a return, Campagnolo so dominated the market that most frames (Especially Italian.) came with a Campagnolo brazed on lever boss. Other manufacturers (Shimano for example.) were forced to design their gear levers to fit the Campagnolo lever boss. 

I do feel if anyone is restoring a bike with a “No braze-ons frame” from this era should keep the cable clamps because they are authentic for that period.

Footnote: Re-posted from March 2006 with aditional content added.

Membership of the forum is not limited to just people who own frames that I built, but anyone who is interested may join. The people who come here to this blog for example, are most welcome, especially those who comment on a regular basis.

At the moment anyone interested needs to register and be approved. Not that I am rejecting anyone’s request, most sign up under a pseudonym so I have no way of knowing who they are. But I feel the small inconvenience of having to register will not deter anyone who is really interested, and it does give me some control over the tone and the content of the forum.

The people who comment here on this blog are for the most part a pretty civil bunch. We have very few flame wars, and I am confident the same atmosphere will transfer to my forum. I will not insist, but I will encourage everyone to sign up under their own name.

There is wat too much “Keyboard Courage” on the Internet. When a person posts under his/her own name, they tend to think through what they say if their friends or family might read it.

Remember what your Momma always said, “If you can’t say something nice, say nothing.” I would add to that, “Don’t say anything under a pseudonym that you would not say to that person’s face.”

The new forum is at http://davemoultonowners.freeforums.net/ There is also a perminant link in the Navigation Bar at the top of this page.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

On another subject, in May I wrote 10 articles for Answers.com, who hired me at the end of April as a “Cycling Expert.” There is a link to the articles in the right hand column of this page. I am writing for an audience who are mostly newbie cyclist, so I doubt whether regular readers here will learn anything new.

The tone of the articles is also different. Here I always feel I am talking personally to a definite audience, whereas the articles on answers.com they require articles that are more authoritative and less personal.

I will always be looking for suggestions for subject matter. If you have question, bicycle related and you would like to know the answer, or something you already know but think it would make an interesting piece, please let me know.

Rationing did not end at the end of WWII, in fact in 1948, (Three years after the war ended.) The Motor Spirit Regulation Act was passed by the British Government, and red dye was added to some petrol. The red petrol was for agriculture and commercial use only. A private motorist caught with red petrol in his tank, could lose his driver’s license for a year, and a petrol station selling red gas to private motorists could be shut down.

The scarcity of petrol throughout the war and the five years that followed, meant there was very little motorized traffic on the roads, and even when petrol rationing ended in 1950, the average working man did not rush out to buy a car, many had never owned, or even driven a car. Traffic was light even into the mid to late 1950s.

In the late 1940s, my pre-teen years, I would ride my bike after school, in the dark using battery lights, with no fear for my safety from my parents. This era is now referred to as the “Golden Age of Cycling.” On the Continent of Europe, cycle racing was the number one sport.

Looking back, it was a great time to ride a bike. Many of the cars on the road were pre-war from the 1920s and 1930s. New cars produced were like the Morris Minor (Above.) and the Ford Anglia, (Below.) had a tiny engines around one liter. (1,000cc.) About the size of many motorcycles today.

You could forget about zero to sixty in a few seconds; for most vehicles, even the new ones, *60mph was the top speed, and that was probably downhill with the wind behind you. Throughout the 1950s, on city streets, there were still as many bicycles as cars, there were even a few horse drawn carts still in use.

A car driver did not sit fuming at a traffic light because there was a cyclist on a horse and cart ahead of him. The driver was lucky if he could get above 20mph between lights, and a fit cyclist on a lightweight bike could get away from a light faster than he could.

The first Motorway (Freeway.) the M1, did not open until 1959. It was approximately 70 miles long from London to Birmingham. I remember within the first few weeks it was littered with broken down cars, as people took their old clunkers out and took them up to speeds they were never built to maintain. The Golden Age of Cycling ended from that point on, as throughout the 1960s and 1970s, more motorways were built and other main roads were widened and straightened.

During the 1950s, most of the people driving cars had grown up riding bicycles, their parents probably still rode a bicycle as their personal transport. They didn’t get upset with cyclists on the road, and they were content to cruise along at 30mph, occasionally reaching 50 or 60 on a straight road that ran downhill. At least they were in they were protected from the rain and cold.

Gradually all that changed, and now you have a generation who never rode a bike as a kid. Owning and driving a car becomes ever increasingly expensive, and with the spending of all that money comes an attitude of entitlement. 

However, Britain is still the same size as it was in the 1950s, but with a far greater population. Improved highways mean that you can drive from one city to another in a very short time. But what do you do when you get to the big city, where there is nowhere to park, and streets where built for horse drawn vehicles?

The cars of the 1950s and before may have been underpowered by today’s standards, but they still got people from A to B. They were cheap to buy, used less petrol, and they were simple to work on. A person could do their own maintenance. Most of all because of their lack of power and speed they were less of a danger to pedestrians and cyclists.

*Footnote: I am sure someone far more knowledgeable about the Morris Minor will tell me it had a top speed was in excess of 60mph. But just as many of today’s cars have a maximum speed well over 100mph. few are ever driven to that limit. 

I was recently able to buy a 49cm. 1st. Generation Fuso frame for my wife. Built in 1985 the frame has had very little use and is in near mint condition. 49cm. was the smallest standard size I made, although I did occasionally build a 48cm. special order, but these are extremely rare. The paint on this one is yellow and charcoal grey metallic. 

(Above.) This being an early model it has the metal enameled head badge which is a nice touch. I know the brakes are not period correct, but this bike is for riding and modern brakes actually stop, as opposed to the 1980s Campagnolo brakes that were more like speed modulators.

I found some Suntour Bar-End gear levers. Suntour was always looked on as a downgrade from Shimano. It was cheaper, but I never viewed it as inferior. Beautifully designed and well made these bar-end shifters are a good example.

If you are not familiar with these, when you pull back on the lever to shift down, it has a ratchet action that has very little resistance, just the resistance of the derailleur return spring. When you push forward to change up it is normal friction shift. But the friction now has the help of the return spring. This is a simple but ingenious idea that actually improved friction shifting. As far as I can remember the idea never made it to friction down tube shifters. 

Last Tuesday I awoke, stumbled into my office, pushed the start button on my PC, and…. Nothing happened, no friendly blue light, not a sound. I had to sit around until 9 am. That’s when my local computer fix-it guy opens up for business. He told me he was swamped with work, and couldn’t even look at my machine until the end of the week.

That’s okay, I thought. There is plenty of other things need doing around the house, and the weather is nice, I might even ride my bike. You see I didn’t want to rush out and buy a new computer, if it was going to be a simple fix like a new switch, or something.

No such luck. Friday afternoon the fix-it guy called to say my Mother Board had died. I’m not even sure what a Mother Board is, but I had to take the expert’s word that nothing will compute without it, and it would cost more than a whole new machine to replace this Mother.

So now it was computer shopping time, this was going to be fun. The first thing I noticed was where there was once rows and rows of PCs, now there is just one little shelf in a corner. It’s all lap tops, and tablets now, but I just bought a beautiful large screen monitor a couple of months ago, (Great for watching bike races.) so I just needed the “Tower” part.

Then came the realization that all the new computers come with Windows 8. I had heard a lot about Windows 8, most of it not good.

“Can’t I just use, Windows 7? It does everything I need to do.”

I was told no. “Okay, can you show me what it does?” Where upon the salesman started to make all these different things happen with lightning speed.

“Wait… I’m never going to remember all this by the time I get home. Does it come with instructions?”

“No, there are no instructions, but I can sell you a tutorial disc for twenty dollars.”

Here’s a tip. Don’t buy the tutorial, it gives you stupid little tasks to perform, and if you don’t perform then you can’t continue to the next stage. The tutorial is almost as hard to operate as Window 8 itself.

Where there used to be buttons that I would click on to do something, now I have to then play “Hunt the button.” These magically appear when I hover the curser in the corners of the screen.

When I turn on the PC, I see a page with the time in large letters; I have a number of clocks in my home I don't need the time. I discovered, quite by accident, that I click anywhere on this page for it to disappear and reveal the "Log-in" box. The opening Clock screen is completely superfluous.

One of the first things I did was try to download the software that I use to build and maintain my web sites. I placed the disc in the tray and nothing happened. So I got on the phone to Microsoft tech support to ask how to download this program I needed.

After a long session with an automated voice system, I finally got a real person who passed me on to another person who then passed me on to yet another person. Then I was told that a tech person would call me back, probably on Monday. (This was Saturday.) Then came the kicker… This would cost me $250 to speak to their tech person. I refused their offer of service at this outrageous price.

Instead I Googled. “How do you open a disc in Windows 8?” I got my answer. When you put the disc in and close the tray, a tiny, almost transparent, box appears in the top right corner of the screen. It only stays in view for a few seconds, then disappears. If you are not looking for it you don’t even see it.

You click on this box and another box appears and asks what you want to do, one of the options being “Run.” I ran the software and the program was up and running in about five minutes. A lot less time than I had spent on the phone with Microsoft.

The problem as I see it, the people who design these programs have become way too clever for their own good. And just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. The people who designed Windows 8 lost sight of the fact that for most people the computer is a tool to get work done, it is not a fucking video game.

There was nothing wrong with the old system when you put a disc in the tray, a window opened in the middle of your screen that said “Run” or “Play.” What ever happened to the old adage of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Microsoft’s motto seems to be, “If it ain’t broke, work on it until it is.”

Please excuse the rant, but I needed to get this out of my system before I can settle down to serious writing. This couldn’t have come at a worse time. I have just been hired by Answers.com as an “Expert” writer on Cycling. (See the badge in the right hand column.) They want a minimum of 10 articles a month, and I have just lost a week because of this problem, and it could take me another week just to find my way around Windows 8.

A friend came across an old copy of the British “Cycling” weekly magazine from 1976 offered for sale on eBay. It contained an article I had written about frame design. He bought it and sent me a PDF copy.

It seemed strange to read the words I had written almost 37 years ago, and I could not help but wonder what some of the older established framebuilders of that time thought of me. Many had been in business a lot longer than me.

But to me the proof of the bike was in the riding. So often when riding a new bike a rider needs a week or two to get used to it, but so many times I had riders take delivery of a bike on Saturday, and do a personal best ride or even win a race the following day on the new bike. I felt confident that I was doing something right.

I had been questioning conventional frame design since the 1950s, and had been experimenting with my own frames since the early 1960s. I was a rider of somewhat short stature, 5’ 6” (168cm.) and I always felt that because all racing bicycles have the same size wheels, my bikes were a cut down version of a larger frame. Cut down rather than scaled down.

It also did not go unnoticed that the top riders in the world were between 5’ 8” and just under 6 feet. In other words the ones who would fit on the mid-size frame around 56cm to 58cm. When I think about it, it is not much different than today. There are always exceptions of course, and the average range today is probably something like 5’ 10” to 6’ 1”.

It has always been the case throughout history that the people who build bikes do not race them, and top riders who race do not build them. One exception I can think of is Eddy Merckx, who went on to open a successful frame building business after he retired. But even Eddy Merckx fits neatly into that mid size range riding a medium size frame, so can he appreciate the needs of someone much shorter, or indeed taller.

Framebuilders in the past have always done what suited them, lugs somewhat dictated the angles, rather than the angles being altered to suit the rider. And carbon fiber frames built today from what I have noticed seem to follow the tried and tested geometry of the old lugged steel frames that preceded them.

I can fully appreciate that it is a costly proposition to make a mold for a frame just to experiment; one would need to make a welded steel or some other metal prototype fist. And where can such a prototype be tested under race conditions when the UCI now bans the pros from riding prototypes,

One area that could be looked at is fork rake (Offset) which seems to have increased in recent years to around 45mm. A shorter rake, as much as a centimeter, bringing it down to 35mm would increase the amount of trail and would make the bike more stable, and hold a tighter line when cornering.

I notice what seems to be an awful lot of crashes in races, and wonder why this is. Are bikes today more skittish, or it could be we are now seeing more videos of the complete race, and we just didn’t see some of these crashes before?

See the PDF file here The first 2 1/2 pages are written by me, the rest are from other contributors.

In a perfect world there is a trial and an outcome where the punishment fits the crime. In the real world, there is a police department and prosecutors who decide if charges will be brought, and often none are forthcoming. No one goes to court, and no one gets punished.

If a case does go to trail it is up to judges, (Or magistrates for minor offences in the UK.) to decide what punishment is meted out. This is where the system falls apart, and there will be extremes where in one case there is little or no punishment, and in another the penalties are too harsh.

Take two recent cases in the UK. A little over two weeks ago, British cyclist Christopher Wade went to trial before a Magistrate’s Court in the town of Skipton, in Yorkshire. He was charged with assault on the driver of a white van, who Chris had alleged had driven too close.

Chris had banged on the side of the van with his fist, and the driver stopped. An argument ensued, and Chris handed the driver a bare knuckle sandwich.

In court Chris tried to claim self defense, saying the van driver bit him on the hand. However, reading between the lines, it seems to me the more likely scenario is that Chris’s fist was traveling towards the teeth, rather than the driver biting Chris’s hand as he rested it on the edge of the van door.

Had it been me I would have plead guilty, been very humble, but pointed out the extenuating circumstances such as the van being close enough to bang ones hand on the side.

The Magistrate handed Chris a penalty of 840 (British Pounds.) that is $1,300 US Dollars. Ouch. This was in the form of a fine, compensation to the victim, and court costs. My thought as I read this was, “Motorists on both sides of the pond get fined less than this for actually killing a cyclist.”

The injustice of this was rubbed in this week when another British cyclist was involved with yet another white van, when the driver got out, chased the cyclist, knocked him down, and assaulted him. The whole incident was recorded on the cyclist’s helmet video cam.

In spite of this overwhelming piece of evidence of an unprovoked assault, West Midlands Police in the town of Moseley, near Birmingham, England, have refused to press charges.

Taken together, these two cases show extreme injustice, with a strong bias against cyclists in the UK. Some consistency in police procedure, and the courts would be nice.

When nature calls, man must answer. When you gotta go, you gotta go. “How do cyclists pee while racing?” is a question that gets asked a lot during online searches; it seems people are curious, and in many ways fascinated.

It is not uncommon for a professional bike race to last six hours or more, few other sporting events last that long without a break, and so other sports don’t have to deal with this issue.

First of all it is quite easy to ride a 100 mile race without the need to urinate, so the question of how do female racing cyclists do it does not arise as often because most women’s races are under 100 miles. A 100 mile professional race is a little over four hours, and remember cyclists are losing a lot of fluid through sweat.

Sometimes a cyclist will urinate while riding, see the picture above where another rider gives a friendly push so the peeing cyclist can coast. Notice the rider pushing is not even on the same team. Cycling is a different sport in so many ways.

Cycle racing is as competitive as any other sport, just not all the time. Races are long, and there is an atmosphere of comradely, respect, and friendly cooperation.

Many sports are played one team against another. Cycling is also a team sport, but there are many teams in the same event. A cycle road race is not, attack, attack, all the way there are quiet moments when the pace is moderate. This would be a time to pee.

Alliances are made between rival riders on different teams. These are unspoken alliances that simply occur because it is to everyone’s mutual benefit to work together. Forming a pace-line with each rider doing a short “Pull” at the front while the rest ride in each other’s slipstream making less effort.

A pace-line like this will form in a breakaway group, a chasing group, or often when one rider stops for a pee, others will stop because they can then form a pace-line and catch back up to the race. (See top picture.) It would be considered bad form to attack when guys have stopped to urinate.

One also has to realize that professional cycling is traditionally a Continental European sport, with the big races held in countries like France, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, and Italy.

Britain and the US have only come onboard in more recent times. In places like France, Belgium, etc. the culture is different. People are less inclined to be offended or freak out if someone (Especially a man.) is seen urinating in public.

It is not unusual, on a long drive, for European motorists to simply stand by the road side (His back to the road of course.) while taking a leak. Therefore no one thinks it peculiar if cyclists do the same.

In France for many years now there have been public urinals for men (Above.) that used to have a minimum waist-high cover around it, in case of accidental exposure.

Modern street urinals have dispensed with even that. (Picture above right, and below.)

In Britain and the US it seems we are still stuck in the Victorian era, and normal bodily functions are taboo. 

We can’t even call a lavatory or a urinal by its proper name, and instead call it a “Toilet” in the UK.

Even this term is too strong for the US where it is called a “Rest Room” or “Bathroom.”

The act of urinating is referred to as “Going to the Bathroom.” I once heard a lady say that her dog picked up a toad and the toad “Went to the bathroom" in the dog's mouth. Think about it: how ludicrous is that statement? I have never seen a toad in a bathroom, much less a bathroom inside a dog's mouth.

So if you are a recreational rider in the UK or the USA and you need to take a leak, I suggest you find a bush or a tree to go behind. You may look like a professional cyclist but this is not France or Belgium. At worst you could get a ticket for public urination.

At the very least you will offend someone, and give all cyclists a bad name. Look on this small inconvenience as part of the price we pay for freedom. I am being facetious of course.

Above: Just imagine if these kind of urinals were used at all outdoor events, festivals, and rock concerts etc. How much cheaper, less space required, and leave the enclosed "Porta-Johns" for the ladies. 

I remember some years ago in the UK, I believe it was during the 1970s, the British Government decided to do a study to find out why pedestrians did not bump into each other, or cause a huge gridlock in the middle of the street when crossing the road at a light.

In big cities like London during rush hour, large numbers of people would wait to cross on opposing sides of the street. When the light turned green, they would all cross at the same time, in what must have appeared to traffic engineers, complete chaos.

Someone in their wisdom decided to do a study, because that’s what engineers do when they don’t have answers. After spending several tens of thousands British Pounds, of the tax payer’s money, they came up with this astounding discovery: “People just go around each other.”

Walking, the original means to get from A to B; just putting one foot in front of the other. Look down on any busy street in any large city and it appears to be chaos, with people going every which way. However, beneath the chaos there is order; each individual has a destination and is just taking the route necessary to get there.

Watch the video (Above.) of Market Street in San Francisco in 1905. Into the mix of people walking, has been added horse drawn vehicles, automobiles, and bicycles. The same chaos prevails, but people simply go around each other.

The reason it works is because there are less people and everyone is going very slow. I wonder how long it took in 1905 to get from one end of Market Street to the other, and I wonder how that time compares to today?

It is the huge variation in speed between people walking, bicycles and autos that cause most of the problems in our large cities. If pedestrians kept to the sidewalks, and crossed the streets at a light; if cars slowed down to closer the speed of a bicycle, I believe everyone would get to their destination just as fast.

Try making that argument to the guy who has spent thousands on the latest auto that does zero to 60 in seconds; it will never happen, but allow me my flight of the imagination.

The strange thing I find is that there is more sanity in the chaotic street scene above than I see in a typical rush hour street scene of today

It was pointed out to me recently that of all the articles I had written about bicycle design, I had not written one about weight distribution.

It is a subject that while somewhat important, it is not as important as a good riding position, and once a frame or bike is built and the rider has set it up to his or her absolute best position, are they then going to alter that position to achieve a certain weight distribution? That would be counter productive.

The rider is the engine that propels the bike forward, and a proper riding position is of the utmost importance for the body to work at maximum efficiency. I am talking of the racing cyclist who is looking to get optimum performance from body and machine.

If you are riding for leisure or exercise, you may sacrifice some efficiency for comfort, especially if you are older or not in top physical condition. You will adjust your riding position accordingly and weight distribution is probably not important enough to be even thinking about.

Under normal riding conditions there is always be more weight on the rear wheel that the front, simply because of the mass of the rider’s weight is behind the center point between the two wheels. I always pump my tires up to 120 psi in the rear, and 100 psi in the front for this reason.

A figure that is often quoted as being ideal weight distribution for a racing bicycle is 55% of the weight on the rear wheel, 45% on the front. It is one of those figures that sound about right, but has anyone ever taken the time to prove that this figure is best. I certainly didn’t in all the years I built bikes.

How would you come up with such a measurement? Maybe set a bike and rider on two sets of scales. And then the weight ratio from front to rear wheel would vary from one rider to the next because of their differing physical build.

Any vehicle or moving object will hold a straight line better if the weight is towards the front. An arrow flies straight because its weight is at the front tip, if it were at the rear it would not fly straight. In the 1960s I once owned a rear engine VW Mini-Bus. It was awful to drive in a strong wind; I would be blown all over the road.

When I first started racing in the early 1950s seat angles were around 71 degrees. We sat further back and also rode with our saddles lower than today. Gearing was a lot lower, and the theory (Back then.) was in order to pedal fast a rider had to sit back.

I always questioned this because whenever I had to make a maximum effort as in sprinting for the finish line or just to bridge a gap to a break-away, I would end up sitting on the front tip of my saddle. I would see photos of other riders sprinting and they would also be in this same forward position.

“Riding the rivet” is an expression still used today when a rider is making maximum effort. It pre-dates the 1950s when saddles were real leather and actually had rivets. Riding on the front tip where the saddle is narrower had the effect of the saddle being even lower than it already was and to my way of thinking was definitely not efficient.

It was one of the reasons I started building my own frames in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It seemed to me that when I needed to go fast, my body took up a natural position that was a lot further forward that a 71 degree seat angle would allow.

Pushing the seat angle forward actually pushed the whole frame forward making a longer wheelbase. To avoid this I made the top tube shorter and used a longer handlebar stem. This put my weight out over the front wheel and I found I had a much better handling bike. It went round corners faster and descending hills at speed felt safer.

It is often said that bike riders who are good sprinters are often good at descending hills. It is sometimes speculated that their nerves of steel that allow them to mix it up shoulder to shoulder in the chaos that is a bunch sprint, makes them fearless when descending mountains at 50 mph or more.

Maybe so, but many sprinters are big guys with a lot of weight in their upper body, chest, shoulders and arms. When in a low tuck aero position this extra weight is towards the front making bike and rider much more stable.

I have written here about “Shimmy” or speed wobble. It is a subject that gets discussed over and over on forums all over the world. It has occurred to me that these bikes with the shimmy problem are often the same well known brand of bikes that the pros use in the Grand Tours and other races throughout the season.

None of the pros experience speed wobbles, there would sure to be a video of it if they did, especially if they crashed. It has occurred to me that the fault is not with the bike, it is with the rider, and the way they have their bike set up. Or rather the way they position themselves when descending.

The pros have their bikes set with the bars set low in relation the saddle. Their weight is therefore more over the front wheel, especially when in a low tuck aero position.

If a person buys this same bike and sets it up in a more upright position because his physical limitations do not allow him to ride like a pro. They should then accept the limitations in the design of the bike which after all is designed as a racing bicycle, and if it develops a speed wobble at 45 mph. the rider should consider either a change of position or keep the speed below 45.

You will notice the pros descend by moving forward on the saddle, or sometimes squatting down on the top tube in front of the saddle, then rest their chest on the handlebars. This not only reduces their frontal area, but it places much of their weight over the front wheel. Therein lays a clue.

While descending you may not feel safe or comfortable going to the extreme of some of the riders in the picture above. But don’t go to the other extreme of the “Old Skool” position shown at the top. Study the picture, most of the rider’s weight is behind the bottom bracket, this is just asking for shimmy to develop.

Descending with your butt hanging off the back of the saddle is good for Mountain Bikes or Cyclo-Cross, because if you hit a bump or your front wheel drops on a hole, you could be thrown over the handlebars. However, on a smooth road at high speed this is unlikely to happen.  

Move forward, lower your back and try to position most of your weight ahead of the Bottom bracket. If you achieve at least a 50/50 weight distribution you will be less likely to encounter the dreaded speed wobble.