Builder's Spotlight The Paceline Forum Builder's Spotlight


Go Back   The Paceline Forum > Bike Fit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old 06-28-2013, 03:51 PM
esldude esldude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by S2H View Post
And you wanted me to drive out to Tom Kellogg. All I needed to do was divide by pi.
Hey, math is hard. If I was in a position to have some of Tom Kellog's work, I would take the easy path. Let Tom do the math.


Or maybe look at it another way. I suggested pi as 3.14159, but maybe Tom's work is like using 3.141592653589793 for pi.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-29-2013, 05:43 AM
cash05458 cash05458 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 926
at 180 it is spot on for me at 57...interesting stuff...
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-09-2013, 10:40 AM
jordo_99 jordo_99 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 53
For me:

71in / pi = 57cm

That's the exact TT that I have on my "classic" steel frame (57cm w/ 90mm quill stem) but I tend to ride smaller TT on my other bikes...usually around 54-55cm. I think it's just a comfort thing and the fact that my core strength has been neglected as of late.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-10-2013, 04:37 AM
RichTheRoadie's Avatar
RichTheRoadie RichTheRoadie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sydney, 'straylia
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
So height divided by pi, does it work for you or not?
Nope.

But interestingly...

Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
Then there is the height minus inseam times .6 for top tube.
Yup, bang on.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-10-2013, 10:14 AM
jordo_99 jordo_99 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
Then there is the height minus inseam times .6 for top tube. Same result actually.
Hadn't seen this one until RichTheRoadie responded to it.

This one got me at 56.388cm which is probably better than my other one.

I thought more about my preference for smaller TT than a proper fit would indicate. I think it has to do with the fact I type at a computer for work and then have hobbies that require a PC as well. I get in around 50-80 hours with my hands on a mouse/keyboard depending on the week.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-10-2013, 12:17 PM
Oregonic Oregonic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Bend, OR
Posts: 490
Very interesting. I come up with 58.64. My bikes are pretty much 57.5's. However, I run a lot of saddle setback, so in reality my horizontal measurement is closer to a 58.5 or 59.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-13-2013, 08:07 AM
danielpack22@ma's Avatar
danielpack22@ma danielpack22@ma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 395
My height divided by pi gives 56.6.
Which is a whopping 1mm off from my preferred 56.5 top tube length.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-13-2013, 12:59 PM
soulspinner soulspinner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: rochester, ny
Posts: 7,726
Not close, but Im all legs with a short distance from torso to sternal notch, short arms. Woulda worked for my late bro though, the best cyclist I ever rode with.................
__________________
chasing waddy
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-13-2013, 08:55 PM
Spoonito Spoonito is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 120
At just a touch under 5'6" neither work for me for ETT.

(Height - inseam) x .6 = 54.86cm

Height / pi = 53.36cm which is closer to what I'm currently riding
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-17-2013, 03:20 PM
jeffreng58's Avatar
jeffreng58 jeffreng58 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: bklyn
Posts: 131
175/3.14=55
pretty goddam close.
ALL HAIL THE MIGHT PI
__________________


I APPRECIATE all of you. Keep on keeping on.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-24-2013, 07:45 AM
christian's Avatar
christian christian is offline
Epic=No Smiles
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Northern Westchester County
Posts: 8,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
Then there is the height minus inseam times .6 for top tube. Same result actually.
Haha, I get 56.4 for this. My Colnago has a 56.3 top tube and my Specialized has a 56.5. (With different STAs, but still.)

I guess I have to sell them both and get a custom!
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-28-2013, 06:08 AM
YoKev YoKev is offline
bykhed
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, NY
Posts: 326
Wow, 3.14 formula is dead on for me
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-19-2014, 12:17 PM
Road Fan Road Fan is offline
Grey Roadie
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
Just wondering. Seems my favorite top tube measures happen to be right at my height divided by pi. Yep, height divided by 3.14159.

Just wondering how many other folks this happens to work for.

Now as an aside discussion it was not far from the square root of 10, but in the end seemed to be much more aligned with pi.

So height divided by pi, does it work for you or not?

Then there is the height minus inseam times .6 for top tube. Same result actually.

So what say you?
Not bad! For me it 534 mm, and some of my best fits have been 53 or 54 cm.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-09-2014, 09:02 PM
weisan's Avatar
weisan weisan is offline
ZhugeLiang
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in Austin, Texas
Posts: 10,115
On the money.
Very interestin'
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-12-2014, 06:27 AM
Md3000 Md3000 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: NoVa
Posts: 329
188 / 3.14159 = 59.84 and I ride 59cm
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.