Builder's Spotlight The Paceline Forum Builder's Spotlight


Go Back   The Paceline Forum > Bike Fit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-20-2016, 11:40 PM
ultraman6970 ultraman6970 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,421
Ok, how far OFF are you in this table??

Table is coming from here... scroll down for a second one... I'm close to the average in both lines. What about you?

http://ft-atalay.blogspot.com/2012_03_01_archive.html



Last edited by ultraman6970; 11-22-2016 at 07:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-22-2016, 06:02 PM
alexstar alexstar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Alameda, CA
Posts: 1,030
Pretty darn close to average... 178cm, 57cm reach, 76cm saddle height. Interesting stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-22-2016, 06:17 PM
Tickdoc's Avatar
Tickdoc Tickdoc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: TUL
Posts: 3,021
Squarely in the middle: 180, 55, 75
__________________
♦️♠️
♣️♥️
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-22-2016, 09:26 PM
fa63's Avatar
fa63 fa63 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,446
Ok, how far OFF are you in this table??

Hey, I made that chart I actually have gotten more data points so I should post an update.

Anyways, I am 183 cm with a saddle height of 77.5 cm and reach of 57.5 cm. So right on average for saddle height but below average for reach.

Keep in mind those data points are for pros, who typically ride with a longer reach than hobby riders.

Last edited by fa63; 11-22-2016 at 09:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-22-2016, 10:42 PM
ultraman6970 ultraman6970 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,421
Hey... IMO you did an awesome work. Racing position with pros is always a little bit an exaggeration, but if you look at it there's always an upper and a lower limit of what it should be... that is exactly what I do see in your chart.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-23-2016, 07:44 AM
Tickdoc's Avatar
Tickdoc Tickdoc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: TUL
Posts: 3,021
Nice work indeed. I'm curious what variations in torso to leg length make in altering the graph?

(Only saying this because I am a shorter legged and longer torsoed guy, and it results in me usually wanting more reach to get comfortable, or another way of saying I prefer a smaller frame with a stretched stem and setback saddle to accommodate)
__________________
♦️♠️
♣️♥️
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-23-2016, 08:42 AM
ultraman6970 ultraman6970 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,421
For example if you look at 181 you have a guy that is like a frog, but at the same time you have to check that some guys like to run lower and other ones like to have their nuts impacted running the saddle super high, the reason for the upper and lower line.

Op, are those 2 lines the graph of the standard deviation?

IMO those off the chart guys like the one at 181 should be taken off because makes the data to vary way too much because aren't too representative of the universe. When you get data always you get those peaks and lows that are way off and must be taken off.

Well you can see that some guys are doing like you do Tickdoc, but pretty much are not as far from the average.

Put your height in the 2 equations and see if the numbers match, doubt will be that far off
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-23-2016, 09:46 AM
Tickdoc's Avatar
Tickdoc Tickdoc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: TUL
Posts: 3,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultraman6970 View Post

Put your height in the 2 equations and see if the numbers match, doubt will be that far off
But I made a promise to myself I wouldn't do math anymore once I got out of school :~)
__________________
♦️♠️
♣️♥️
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-23-2016, 10:59 AM
ultraman6970 ultraman6970 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,421
Sure, that hard eh? I can tell you can read it :P
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-23-2016, 01:32 PM
MikeM MikeM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3
Nowhere near the average here, but I am an outlier - 185cm tall, but with 95cm inseam, so saddle height at 84.8cm...
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-23-2016, 06:00 PM
ultraman6970 ultraman6970 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,421
Thats really off the table...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-24-2016, 12:18 AM
pdmtong's Avatar
pdmtong pdmtong is offline
v a n i l l a
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: S F B a y A r e a
Posts: 7,403
175, 57, 75
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-24-2016, 01:17 PM
donevwil's Avatar
donevwil donevwil is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Petaluma, CA
Posts: 2,334
That's interesting, I've always considered myself an outlier because nearly zero stock frames fit.

196/65/84 and right on (or very near) the line

Last edited by donevwil; 11-24-2016 at 01:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-25-2016, 07:04 AM
AJosiahK's Avatar
AJosiahK AJosiahK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Belmont, MA
Posts: 2,351
Ive always felt like stock 56 was a bit too small and 58 was a bit too big. I fit within the average. With a lean towards the 56 for a tighter, lighter bike.

78cm saddle height at 182 height.

cool stuff!
__________________
Ride always, Ride Often
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-25-2016, 11:06 AM
Mackers Mackers is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 91
169, 73, 55
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 02:33 PM.


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