Builder's Spotlight The Paceline Forum Builder's Spotlight


Go Back   The Paceline Forum > Bike Fit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 02-28-2013, 01:13 AM
illuminaught's Avatar
illuminaught illuminaught is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,013
^ Did you do your height in cm/pi?
Spot on for me...
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-28-2013, 08:16 AM
phcollard's Avatar
phcollard phcollard is offline
Made in Belgium
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 3,721
Amazing. Spot on for me as well. Did we just discover the best kept secret in bike fit?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-07-2013, 06:15 AM
51mondays 51mondays is offline
the caboose
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Castlemaine. Australia
Posts: 83
Wowsers

Quote:
Originally Posted by idragen View Post
pretty cool but off by 30 cms haha
Hey how'd you get that?! I get 58 but I prefer a 57. We need to apply a flexibility factor.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-08-2013, 09:46 AM
gregblow gregblow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 607
It's 2cm longer than I ride. Uh oh. Anyone have a 56 I can try?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-08-2013, 11:18 AM
fuzzalow fuzzalow is offline
It An't Me Babe
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: a helluva town
Posts: 3,904
I resisted coming in here to do this because the first thought that crossed my mind was "this is Bull S---".

So with the irresistible pull of this thread's forbidden fruit, I caved and did the arithmetic. 177.8cm height = 565mm TT. Close ain't good enough 'cept horseshoes.

Yeah. This is bulls---.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-08-2013, 12:26 PM
jr59's Avatar
jr59 jr59 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Jacksonville fla
Posts: 4,278
Hey wait a min. Nobody said there would be math!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-08-2013, 12:33 PM
esldude esldude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzalow View Post
I resisted coming in here to do this because the first thought that crossed my mind was "this is Bull S---".

So with the irresistible pull of this thread's forbidden fruit, I caved and did the arithmetic. 177.8cm height = 565mm TT. Close ain't good enough 'cept horseshoes.

Yeah. This is bulls---.

fuzzalow,
why the cranky vibe?

Clearly the thread title would indicate no scientific basis was being claimed. It happened to work for me, and I wondered if it worked for others. Responses so far indicate it probably works for most people. Might work as well as .66 x inseam for seat tube. With sloping top tube frames might be as good a substitute. It also would be more convenient as you don't need to know your inseam.

No formula will work for everyone. As any such fitting formula is simply noticing that certain ratios happen to be a guide for average proportioned people. Considering that I don't see how this one is any more BS than others.

Would have been nice if you would have listed whether or not it was too long or short and by how much.

As for close enough being close enough, unless you are on a custom frame that is what most people are riding.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-08-2013, 01:40 PM
fuzzalow fuzzalow is offline
It An't Me Babe
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: a helluva town
Posts: 3,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
fuzzalow,
why the cranky vibe?
Hey, I was just kidding around, really. My bad for not putting the appropriate emoticon into the post.

I thought jr59 caught the gist of it when he mocked the onerousness of the task and being recoiled because of having to do arithmetic.

A thousand pardons - that post sounded grumpier than it is maybe because it's winter. There will be no riding because of snow again this weekend in NYC. Grrrr.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-14-2013, 01:21 PM
esldude esldude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 533
Since this thread involved pi, thought I would add:

HAPPY PI DAY!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-19-2013, 10:34 AM
Nooch Nooch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,525
hrm, came into 53.362 cm, I'm currently on a caad9 with a 53.5cm top tube...

go figure!

(but I want to go a little shorter to go with a slightly longer stem.. but interesting nonehteless)
__________________
bonCourage!cycling
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-19-2013, 07:36 PM
christian's Avatar
christian christian is offline
Epic=No Smiles
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Northern Westchester County
Posts: 8,918
Taller you are the less it works, but it's not far off. Similar to Lemond formula for TT (PBH * .65)
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-19-2013, 10:26 PM
alexstar alexstar is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Alameda, CA
Posts: 1,033
56.6... dead on for me as I ride a 56.5-57.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-20-2013, 08:49 AM
ultraman6970 ultraman6970 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,427
Where in the world you guys found this? Kind'a work for me too.

It wont work for short or long legged people at all.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-20-2013, 09:23 AM
tv_vt tv_vt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: East Coast of Vermont
Posts: 2,861
It's not bad for an estimate. Mine came out a little longer than I run now, but would've been closer 10-15 years ago.

Need a second factor in equation that takes into account age or something related to flexibility. Like this:

Height in cm (inches x 2.54) divided by Pi, then subtract 1 cm for every decade your age is above 30-39 (eg. 40-49, subtract 1cm; 50-59, subtract 2 cm,...)

Just tossing things around.

Wonder, too, if you should subtract a cm or 2 if you are female, since torso/leg ratios seem to be different for many women.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-20-2013, 01:06 PM
cash05458 cash05458 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 926
did mine...spot on at 57 and 180 cms...! someone needs to get the nobel for this via bike geeks...
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 AM.


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