Do you ride the same fit on all bikes?

[FastforaSlowGuy]

I've got a somewhat more aggressive fit on my race bike (CAAD9) than on my daily driver (Seven). I'm getting ready to have my race fit reexamined and thought I'd see whether others take a similar approach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ken Robb]

It might depend on the length of your races. Short sprints might allow a more aggressive position than you could maintain on a long race.

[regularguy412]

I try to make all the contact points as close to each other as possible between bikes. For one, I'm old, so my body doesn't 'like' to change after all these miles. Second, I am of the opinion that there's a lot to be said for muscle memory and efficiency. I even ride the same length 172.5 cranks on my fix/single as I do on my other two bikes.

This is but one data point.

Thanks,
Mike :beer:

[carpediemracing]

If you're racing on any sort of regular basis then you probably want your fit to match your race bike.

For me that's what I do. I should point out that I'm comfy on my fit for long rides (6-7 hours is max for me, limited by my lack of fitness). I also try to replicate my race position when I'm training.

A long, long time ago I used to finish races with really sore glutes or other isolated muscles. I realized that I was training one set of muscles but racing using a different set. I started to train in my "racing position" if you will. Now it's very rare that I finish a race with more than just normal sore muscles. There's no isolated soreness unless I cramped, even though I am not training as much this year (for example).

Pros are a different creature, of course, but they ride their bikes for many hours at a time. They can't be that uncomfortable on their bikes else they wouldn't be able to race effectively. Their bikes would be good for daily riding or for racing.

Final thought - I have a different set up for the track bike (because no coasting I have the saddle a bit lower for higher rpms, also I run shorter cranks on them) and the tandem and mountain bike (slacker seat tube angles on both). If I race on the track or ride the mtb/tandem, I get sore in new areas. Both those bikes are not like my road bike. I suppose if I had a cross bike I'd set it up more like my mtb.

[eddief]

all dialed in really close to be the same, but each one is slighty just a touch different. Minor difference in geo, parts, bar wrap, etc. But gotta say, when I get on each one, I say "this feels familiar, a little different, but good!"

Hooked on FSA compact / flatish top bars, low geared triple Shimano drive trains, Frog pedals, WTB Pure V.

[hida yanra]

I have a 97% similar fit from my road bike to my training bike.
Track bike fits similarly to road bike, but a bit more aggressive and narrower bars.

Just set up a new "long fun ride" bike- haven't dialed the fit in yet, probably will use same reach and saddle-to-BB, but a bit less drop. That said, I haven't settled on it yet, and haven't ever had a "non-race" bike before- so who even knows where it will end up.

[Lovetoclimb]

I have two road bikes with slightly different fits: 1) A very stiff custom steel "racing" bike, though I barely race anymore. This one is more stretched out in the TT and my saddle is slightly farther back over the pedals because I use it primarily for fast pavement riding. 2) A couplered custom steel bike by the same builder but with a fit I described as splitting the difference between the above race bike and the custom steel cross bike he also built me. I primarily use this bike on days when I know there will be a lot of gravel as it runs 29mm tyres and I am just a bit more upright allowing some better body english for the climbs.

and some others . . .

3) The cross bike, built for CX racing, its what many would call aggressive for a cross bike but my road bikes are aggressive and I am comfortable more stretched out and low.

4) A Surly Cross-check which used to be my cross racing bike and this winter/spring was my road bike while I waited for the travel bike to be finished. It is a bit more upright than all of them but has the longest wheelbase making it super stable descending in the drops. I took this on everything from gravel to single track while exploring new roads. It is currently a commuter with 50mm tyres and will likely become an Ultra-CX racing bike this summer and fall.

5) Hardtail 29er which is the most upright, saddle height probably 3mm lower than the road and cross bikes so I can really move around and be able to drop my weight back over the rear since its not a dropper post.

All bikes run a similar saddle except the MTB, both road bikes have same handlebars and pedals, both cross bikes have same bars and pedals, all bikes have same crank arm lengths.

[Black Dog]

I keep my 3 bikes within mm's of each other. My body is sensitive to small changes in fit.

[bigbill]

I'm hard and fast on saddle height and setback. My bikes vary some on reach and saddle to bar drop. I've had a few knee surgeries so I'm more concerned about knee health than anything else. I take a tape measure to spin classes.

[Admiral Ackbar]

in the same vein of bigbill, my setback and saddle height is always the same, some variance it reach/drop but my other 700c bike is a flatbar townie so its a moot point really

[Asudef]

I was wondering this as well as I have one bike fitted which I feel really good on so I've been transferring all those measurements to my other bikes.

So far as I understand it though, you keep the angles between your arms and legs more or less the same relative to your torso. The only thing you change is how flat you want your back to be. I could be wrong though.

[shovelhd]

I'm hard and fast on saddle height and setback. My bikes vary some on reach and saddle to bar drop. I've had a few knee surgeries so I'm more concerned about knee health than anything else. I take a tape measure to spin classes.

Same here. The saddle points are as close as possible. The saddles are also the same except the race bike has carbon rails and the commuter has titanium. I use the same bars as well. The rest is different. It's a cross bike so the reach is shorter, the stack is higher, and it's mechanical with a cross crank. I have a Powertap on it. When I do workouts on it I have found that RPE is pretty similar. It's close.

[christian]

Saddle height and setback are identical on all my bikes. Bar reach and drop vary a little, but it's close enough - within 5mm. Cross bike and MTB have different bar heights and cockpit lengths.

[ultraman6970]

When I was racing I had my 2 road ones with the same position, my dad's (my back up) almost identical but the saddle height.. In the track the same situation, both with the same position.

For TT's since I never bought a funny bike what I was doing was just lowering the stem more but w/o abusing. I was pretty flexible too so I was able to tuck myself pretty low w/o even doing mods for TTing.

[Tandem Rider]

I use the exact same contact points on road, gravel/winter, and all 3 road tandems. Same crank size too. The only one that changes is for TT and that is still the same height and crank length.

I find that if something is off I can see it in FTP intervals by the power/heart rate relationship.

[soulspinner]

i keep my 3 bikes within mm's of each other. My body is sensitive to small changes in fit.

+1

[fuzzalow]

No, I do not ride the same exact fit on all bikes because the geometries of each bike are not exactly identical. As such, the balance point for the rider on each bike is slightly different which demands a slightly different positioning inside the bike's contact point adjustment envelop. This must be done to maintain and preserve the identical torso-pelvis-legs angular relationship in riding the frame geometry unique to each bike.

The only dimension that is exactly identical across all bikes is crank arm length.

[93legendti]

I keep my 3 bikes within mm's of each other. My body is sensitive to small changes in fit.

+2. On my tandem with longer cranks, I lowered the saddle and slid it back slightly to accommodate for the longer cranks and it feels 99.99% like my other bikes.

[Tandem Rider]

+2. On my tandem with longer cranks, I lowered the saddle and slid it back slightly to accommodate for the longer cranks and it feels 99.99% like my other bikes.

That's interesting, back in the day when a TT bike meant longer cranks with a bigger ring I would actually raise the seat a mm or 2 for the longer cranks. I think the idea was to keep the same knee and hip angles for the power phase of the pedal stroke.

On the other hand, it's hard to argue with success.

[93legendti]

That's interesting, back in the day when a TT bike meant longer cranks with a bigger ring I would actually raise the seat a mm or 2 for the longer cranks. I think the idea was to keep the same knee and hip angles for the power phase of the pedal stroke.

On the other hand, it's hard to argue with success.

It seems that would make your effective seat height, when your leg is at the bottom of the stroke, longer (higher seat and longer crank). I would feel that for sure. My knees and hammies are very sensitive. Whatever works for you...

There were a couple of threads on it here and I just followed the advice.

[wallymann]

this doesnt make sense. one's position is the "torso-pelvis-legs angular relationship" plus the hands thrown in -- all the contact points. i keep this geometric description of my body identical on every bike -- i.e., identical positions. given that each bike's geometry is slightly different, maintaining an identical rider position on these varying bikes just requires proper positioning of the saddle and bars/stem.

No, I do not ride the same exact fit on all bikes because the geometries of each bike are not exactly identical. As such, the balance point for the rider on each bike is slightly different which demands a slightly different positioning inside the bike's contact point adjustment envelop. This must be done to maintain and preserve the identical torso-pelvis-legs angular relationship in riding the frame geometry unique to each bike.


i'm very persnickety when it comes to position. all my road bikes are exactly* identical for fit in all 4 key position dimensions (saddle height, saddle setback, saddle-to-bar reach, saddle-to-bar drop). exact same handlebars on all my road bikes, too.

as a result i have a huge stockpile of stems and 3ttt bars, the former in various rises and 5mm increments (which are pretty frickin rare these days).

my MTB replicates the same position as if i were riding the brake-hoods, so it's pretty-much identical too. static saddle height is +1cm due to running a rock-shox post, so when i'm on the saddle it's bang-on to my preferred saddle height.

I've got a somewhat more aggressive fit on my race bike (CAAD9) than on my daily driver (Seven). I'm getting ready to have my race fit reexamined and thought I'd see whether others take a similar approach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


dropping the saddle is correct, but you're going the wrong way fore-aft...with longer cranks you need to slide the saddle forward.

+2. On my tandem with longer cranks, I lowered the saddle and slid it back slightly to accommodate for the longer cranks and it feels 99.99% like my other bikes.

[wallymann]

double-post

[93legendti]

...
dropping the saddle is correct, but you're going the wrong way fore-aft...with longer cranks you need to slide the saddle forward.

Well, it's been awhile since I did it, but dropping the saddle effectively moves it forward anyway.

As I recall I lowered the post about 1.25mm and slid the seat back half that amount. My knees are touchy and it feels good this way, so I'm happy.

[Asudef]

Is saddle setback measured from center of saddle to BB? Whats an easy way to measure that without having to buy a big long level?

[spacemen3]

I usually switch between many bikes, and the only thing I look at now is saddle height. It used to be that I stuck to one position, and my body would retaliate every time I tried something slightly different. I enjoy some variety now.

[Ozrider]

Saddle height and setback is the same to prevent knee issues on all three bikes, as I race my training bike when I know it will be raining. My steel bike which is more of a casual,ride bike has the bars about 1.5 cm higher for a slightly more relaxed position.
All my bikes are set up so that I can really use the drops in races, so riding on the hoods is slightly more relaxed.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ralph]

Saddle height and setback is the same to prevent knee issues on all three bikes, as I race my training bike when I know it will be raining. My steel bike which is more of a casual,ride bike has the bars about 1.5 cm higher for a slightly more relaxed position.
All my bikes are set up so that I can really use the drops in races, so riding on the hoods is slightly more relaxed.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's exactly how I set up my two bikes I ride. Saddle height and set back is the same, bar height slightly higher on the one I use for longer slower (or more casual) rides, and both set up so I can use the drops a lot. Also I still use the classic style round bars, so my hoods are a little lower than my bars, and bars are 2-2 1/2 inches lower than saddle.

[wallymann]

Is saddle setback measured from center of saddle to BB? Whats an easy way to measure that without having to buy a big long level?

generally accepted method is from vertical axis of BB measured back to the tip of the saddle.

easiest way is to drop a plumb-bob off the nose of the saddle and measure the horizontal distance from that to the bb centerline. make sure your bike is on *level* ground.

i prefer to use a drywall square set on the floor lined up thru the bb, IME its a more consistent/repeatable way to get that setback measure instead of relying on a plumb swinging in the breeze.

[fuzzalow]

this doesnt make sense. one's position is the "torso-pelvis-legs angular relationship" plus the hands thrown in -- all the contact points. i keep this geometric description of my body identical on every bike -- i.e., identical positions. given that each bike's geometry is slightly different, maintaining an identical rider position on these varying bikes just requires proper positioning of the saddle and bars/stem.

Based on what you wrote, I agree with everything you said and it sounds more like a difference in subtlety and emphasis rather than a disagreement on methods and objectives. A good position is centered on the balancing of the body mass correctly on the pelvis contact point with the saddle. The placement of the hands is important as far as longitudinal spacing but has no design or purpose as a weight bearing contact point. The upper arm and forearm geometry is accounted for by the saddle to bars & bar drop component of the rider geometry.

It seems you and I are entangled in the imprecise semantic of the term "same fit" as used by the OP. Is "same fit" referring to:
Measurements taken off of the bike such as saddle setback; saddle height; distance reach between saddle nose and center of bars; bar drop. This school of thought has a rider cloning the exact measurements off of one bike and applying these same measurements to another and folding himself into the position those hard points give him. Measured at the bike, the fit is the same but from the riders perception of fit, it is rarely the same


Measurements taken to define a rider's torso-pelvis-legs angular relationship and overlaying those rider-centric measurement numbers into the allowable contact point space available as defined by a particular sizing and geometry of a bike frame. This school of thought has a rider finding a balance point for the constant of his body geometry somewhere inside his frame's range of adjustments in bringing the bikes contact points to the rider. Measured at the bike, the numbers will vary from bike to bike but the body, stroke and positioning is the same
The OP, and many posters in this thread are referring to the former. You and I are referring to the latter, at least I think so. If I am wrong about your views on this topic, then let us simply agree to disagree. But I don't mind taking a shot at a more in depth response so that other Paceliners might get something outta the ideas that we are tossing around. Best of luck to all in finding their solution.

[wallymann]

yeah, i think it's semantic.

i come at *position* from the rider perspective. i need a certain saddle height, setback, reach and drop to achieve my *position*.

and to the OP's point i use that same *position* on all my bikes.

Based on what you wrote, I agree with everything you said and it sounds more like a difference in subtlety and emphasis rather than a disagreement on methods and objectives. A good position is centered on the balancing of the body mass correctly on the pelvis contact point with the saddle. The placement of the hands is important as far as longitudinal spacing but has no design or purpose as a weight bearing contact point. The upper arm and forearm geometry is accounted for by the saddle to bars & bar drop component of the rider geometry.

It seems you and I are entangled in the imprecise semantic of the term "same fit" as used by the OP. Is "same fit" referring to:
Measurements taken off of the bike such as saddle setback; saddle height; distance reach between saddle nose and center of bars; bar drop. This school of thought has a rider cloning the exact measurements off of one bike and applying these same measurements to another and folding himself into the position those hard points give him. Measured at the bike, the fit is the same but from the riders perception of fit, it is rarely the same


Measurements taken to define a rider's torso-pelvis-legs angular relationship and overlaying those rider-centric measurement numbers into the allowable contact point space available as defined by a particular sizing and geometry of a bike frame. This school of thought has a rider finding a balance point for the constant of his body geometry somewhere inside his frame's range of adjustments in bringing the bikes contact points to the rider. Measured at the bike, the numbers will vary from bike to bike but the body, stroke and positioning is the same
The OP, and many posters in this thread are referring to the former. You and I are referring to the latter, at least I think so. If I am wrong about your views on this topic, then let us simply agree to disagree. But I don't mind taking a shot at a more in depth response so that other Paceliners might get something outta the ideas that we are tossing around. Best of luck to all in finding their solution.