Dilemma in choosing a bike fitter

[exapkib]

Thought I'd throw this out into the Paceline Ocean and see what wisdom washes back to me:

I'd like to go in for my first professional bike fit after 12 years of riding without having been 'fit' to a bike. (I know that asking the internet for advice on choosing a fitter is almost as dubious a proposition as asking the internet for fit advice, but I'll take what I can get.) I've ridden several different bikes over the years, and experimented with different configurations, but never felt like any particular setup was wonderful or terrible.

(Brief Backstory: I started to have some serious knee pain this year after years of riding and playing basketball pain free. Worked with a physical therapist and made some adjustments to my fit on the bike, and things got better, but I'd like to take the leap and spend some time with a professional fitter.)

After asking around my small cycling community here in Utah County, I'm choosing between the following options:

--There is a shop in town that uses the Guru system and seems to have generally positive reviews, but I do not know anyone personally who has worked with them.

--A friend (local Cat 1 racer) recommended an individual that he races with who is also a coach and does bike fitting. Said individual lives and works in a town about 75 minutes away from me.

Given that one recommendation is a very small sample size (though significantly bigger than zero), I'm leaning toward choosing the second option, even though a nagging voice in my head says that the convenience of going with the in-town solution would trump the recommendation . . .

Thanks for any input you choose to offer.

[arthurlo]

Try not to think of the fit as a one and done experience.

There should be a follow up discussion with the fitter after you have had a chance to ride the bike with the new fit for a while (i.e. if your knee pain persists). The feedback may help fine tune the fit some more, which could require another visit.

This dialog with the fitter may work over the phone, but having someone closer could facilitate any follow up adjustments.

[bewheels]

As you stated getting advice from the internet on bike fit can be tricky...

You might want to find/talk to people that have been to the places you listed. When doing so make sure that what their goals are for riding are similar to yours. If you talk to a bunch of cat 1 guys but you have no interest in racing, their input might be interesting but just know they may have had different goals then you might.

Also, knee or other body pain does not necessarily mean you have bike fit issue.
...over use issue
...general alignment issue
...muscle imbalances
...etc
...etc

[exapkib]

I guess that's really the question I'm asking--to what degree does the proximity of the generally well-reviewed but (technically) unknown fitter sway the balance against the personally recommended fitter?

As I said in the first post--I recognize that these are difficult questions to answer through a post in an internet forum. Just looking for another group of responses as I think out loud . . .

Thanks again.

[exapkib]

Also, knee or other body pain does not necessarily mean you have bike fit issue.
...over use issue
...general alignment issue
...muscle imbalances
...etc
...etc

It's true. The physical therapist diagnosed the pain as being a result of extreme tightness in the hamstring. With his help and exercises the pain did subside, and I rode many pain-free hours post-injury.

The therapist I went to is an endurance cyclist, and opined that the problems may be related to some fit issues, though he did not have any recommendations for local fitters. I guess those visits planted the seed of doubt in my mind regarding my fit, and I think it's an itch I need to scratch eventually.

[carpediemracing]

I've only had one fitting after that period when the Fit Kit first came out, 30-odd years ago, and it was in Dec 2015. Fit was with someone I know (but not in terms of his fitting skills) who has a Guru system set up.

With Guru it's a user feedback loop thing - basically you dictate what happens, saddle or bar position. Since you can pedal and there's a powermeter built in to the gizmo, you can see how your power numbers sort of do based on a position (very vaguely, since it's hard to make consistent efforts).

My pretty consistent saddle height for 30 years meant that I asked the saddle height to be adjusted to the point where it matched my actual bike to the millimeter.

The Guru is limited in extreme positions because of the V shape of its movement rods/paths. For short height set ups there's limited fore-aft adjustment because the bars get closer to you as you drop them. Likewise for very tall set ups there will be a higher minimum length. If the bars/saddle moved up and down vertically then you could theoretically have a tiny seat tube (40 cm?) with the longest possible top tube. With Guru that's not possible. I maxed out the Guru gizmo long before I hit my normal set up in terms of length. For me I was short 2 cm in length when the Guru gave an error message and I was actually thinking of seeing how things fit with a longer set up).

Notice how there's a "head tube" angle. This would limit how far forward a low stem could move and how far back a tall stem position could move.
http://www.gurucycling.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/xbig1-1.jpg.pagespeed.ic.m5hAqVUit5.webp

The thing about the Guru is that it's repeatable anywhere and anywhere because the gizmo is the same. You can go to any Guru fitter with your measurements and they can replicate your position exactly.

Also a Guru fitter will have access to the Guru (and locally inputted data by the fitter) database of frames that fit similarly to how you fit. The fitter can give you a list of frames (and appropriate sizes) that would fit you. Of course if you're on the fringes of the bell curve then your list of frames will be zero, like for me. "So, for your preferences, with a 40 cm seat tube and a 56.5 cm top tube, there are no factory frames in the Guru database that fit those parameters."

Finally, if your Guru fitter has your measurements, you should be able to contact them with a Craigslist frameset (for example) with some wacky dimensions, and the fitter will be able to tell you, "Oh, you'd need a such and such stem and your saddle would be in such and such place."

[Ti Designs]

With Guru it's a user feedback loop thing - basically you dictate what happens, saddle or bar position. Since you can pedal and there's a powermeter built in to the gizmo, you can see how your power numbers sort of do based on a position (very vaguely, since it's hard to make consistent efforts).

So it gravitates towards a position that familiar to the rider, not one that's correct...


In a perfect world there would be a system to create good fitters, and there would be fitting tools available. That's not what we have. Instead we have companies with fitting systems teaching "fitters" how to use their products. This cookbook fitting method doesn't allow for any problem solving, so the best you can hope for is to be put within the "normal ranges". This fitting method sells because they can show off their high tech fitting tools, which customers are very impressed with. People like numbers, they like their fit data e-mailed to them in a formatted document with charts and icons for each dimension. It doesn't make them any better on the bike, but let's leave that out of fitting...

Here's how it should work: First, the fitter should understand fitting from their own perspective - if they can't fit themselves on a bike and solve their own problems, maybe they shouldn't be screwing with other people - just a thought... They should understand their own limits and injuries, and they should learn to work within them. With that done, they have a data set of 1. The next step is to expand that data set. Here's the thing, nobody wants to go to the fitter who's doing his second fitting, so it's time to find a real world education. There are these things called teams, most of them have both experienced riders and new riders - that's pretty much a pre packaged fitting education. With guidance from the experienced riders the fitting apprentice learns how to solve problems as their data set grows larger. A season or two later and most problems seem like a variation of what they've already seen. That's called experience. It's never going to be enough, you can do this for a decade and still get cases that don't follow the normal rules. For this you gather resources. Get to know a knee surgeon or two, find a PT to consult with...


Who am I kidding? That's never going to happen. Many of the fitters I know are embarrassed about how they ride to the point where they will never ride with a client - too bad, that's where you see their real riding habits... My question for any fitter is very simple, have you produced any good riders? Most answer that's not their job, they just fit. I have to question that - why do people go to a fitter? I'm thinking the end goal is to be a better rider. If that is the case, isn't it reasonable to ask if your fitter can do that? More to the point, shouldn't it be tested?

[bewheels]

I guess I am going to be 'that guy' who starts to steer the original topic off topic.

And - I have a lot of respect for Ti and all that he brings to the forum. So none of the following is an attack on Mr. Ti. Just respectful conversation. I am keeping all of Ti's post so that any of my comments stay within context of Ti's response.


So it gravitates towards a position that familiar to the rider, not one that's correct...


In a perfect world there would be a system to create good fitters, and there would be fitting tools available. That's not what we have. Instead we have companies with fitting systems teaching "fitters" how to use their products. This cookbook fitting method doesn't allow for any problem solving, so the best you can hope for is to be put within the "normal ranges". This fitting method sells because they can show off their high tech fitting tools, which customers are very impressed with. People like numbers, they like their fit data e-mailed to them in a formatted document with charts and icons for each dimension. It doesn't make them any better on the bike, but let's leave that out of fitting...

Couldn't agree more. Moving on...

Here's how it should work: First, the fitter should understand fitting from their own perspective - if they can't fit themselves on a bike and solve their own problems, maybe they shouldn't be screwing with other people - just a thought... They should understand their own limits and injuries, and they should learn to work within them. With that done, they have a data set of 1. The next step is to expand that data set. Here's the thing, nobody wants to go to the fitter who's doing his second fitting, so it's time to find a real world education. There are these things called teams, most of them have both experienced riders and new riders - that's pretty much a pre packaged fitting education. With guidance from the experienced riders the fitting apprentice learns how to solve problems as their data set grows larger. A season or two later and most problems seem like a variation of what they've already seen. That's called experience. It's never going to be enough, you can do this for a decade and still get cases that don't follow the normal rules. For this you gather resources. Get to know a knee surgeon or two, find a PT to consult with...

Just commenting on the bolded part. I think there is more to it... Some of the best people at their job don't/can't necessarily apply their skill to them self.
To use an absurd example: a world class heart surgeon does not have to operate on himself to be a world class heart surgeon.
A less absurd example: Some of the best teachers were/are not the best at actually doing whatever their subject matter is. Teaching by its self is a skill. There are brilliant mathematicians that are terrible teachers. And there are brilliant math teacher that are not brilliant mathematicians.
Another example: some of the best coaches/trainers (batting, pitching, kicking, boxing, etc, etc) were mediocre athletes in their given sport.
My point being, it is common that some of the best people whom are really good at diagnosing and correcting/helping others, can not apply their skills to themselves.



Who am I kidding? That's never going to happen. Many of the fitters I know are embarrassed about how they ride to the point where they will never ride with a client - too bad, that's where you see their real riding habits... My question for any fitter is very simple, have you produced any good riders? Most answer that's not their job, they just fit. I have to question that - why do people go to a fitter? I'm thinking the end goal is to be a better rider. If that is the case, isn't it reasonable to ask if your fitter can do that? More to the point, shouldn't it be tested?

As I mentioned in my previous post, and I am sure you would agree, people seeking fit help need to be clear on what they want to do on a bike because "good riders" can mean different things depending on the context.

[HenryA]

I'd consider looking farther afield. Where are you located? Where can you travel with reasonable ease?

If you can find a very experienced fitter anywhere within reasonable reach I think that would be the best choice. That someone was a Cat. 1 racer does not mean he knows about fitting someone else to a bike. (Or he could be great at it). And do more checking on the local guy. Does he get rave reviews from people you trust? But I'd share TiDesign's concern about the self feedback loop of the guru system. Validation of your current preferences may not be the right answer.

I'd be inclined to spend the necessary time and money to get it right.

[macaroon]

I'd try a few things yourself first. If you've got tight hamstrings then try lowering your saddle a few mm.

Have a read of this aswell https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/faq/

There's some real good stuff on there. Once you've read it all, and maybe applied it, you might not need to go for a fit. Or if you still do, you'll probably only want to go and see one of these guys. https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/team/

[exapkib]

Thanks for all of the thoughtful replies!

TiDesigns and CDR hit on the key issues at play for me (thanks to both for their generous replies)--

Fundamentally, I am looking for a prescriptive fit experience, in the sense that I hope someone will look at my body, look at the way I move on my bike and say, "Based on what I'm seeing here, I suggest trying the following adjustments . . . "

I can see that an ideal Guru fit could accomplish this goal, as the fitting is done independent of my existing bike.

I can see that an ideal traditional fit could accomplish this goal, as the fitter would actually observe me moving on my bike, and make adjustments there.

I can see that a Guru fit could fall short of this goal, if I am primary source of input into the process--obviously the fitter will be watching as I move on the fit bike, but I am wary of a process that might simply lead me back to where I am used to riding, rather than to a more efficient position.

I can see that a traditional fit could fall short of this goal, as the fitter may be coming at me with a predetermined set of ideal numerical ranges for certain angles and distances on the bike.

I'm meeting with the tech at the local shop (Guru system) this week, and will probably make a decision after talking to him.

(HenryA asked about my location: I'm in Utah, along the Wasatch Front.)

(Macaroon--thanks for including the links! It's always interesting to read another perspective on the process, see what is familiar and what is new.)

[uber]

I love this discussion. For a given rider there might be a range of positions to optimize performance and comfort. An ideal bike fitter would be able to identify this range and apply it to clients taking restrictions and strengths into account. Fit might be the limiting factor, but the particular bike a rider is on might offer limitations as well. (The ideal fitter might be the frame maker too). A fitter should not only get the rider comfortable but optimized for performance too.
So now the question is how much time and resources does one have to put into finding the right person? Andy Pruitt has successfully fit many pro riders. Steve Hogg is in Australia, but one of his students, Colby Pearce is in Colorado as well. Any one of these might have "the" answer for you, or none of them.
I have had several pro fits. The Cat 2 who owns my local shop got me to a position where I am best so far. This is one correct fit for me. It would be pretty interesting to see if Pruitt set me up differently and if said difference helped my performance.
So I don't have an answer for you!! Hah. Someone does not have to be world famous or a genius to ootimize your fit. They just have to be right.

[Bob Ross]

Here's the thing, nobody wants to go to the fitter who's doing his second fitting


Right. Which is why the first thing I would look for is someone with a long history of success -- however that's defined -- in the business. If you suck at bike fitting you're not going to get a lot of referrals or repeat clients no matter which swanky system you use. Conversely, if you've been able to make a living at this for a long time because people are happy with the results you provide and so refer you to their associates, or come back again as their bodies (or bike collections) change, you probably are on to something even if there isn't a computer or laser beam or giant V-shaped milled-aluminum gizmo to be found anywhere in your "fit studio"

[Ken Robb]

Could you asl the local shop for names/contact info for some of their past clients? I think most riders who are happy with their fit and/or equipment LIKE to talk about it. :beer:

[bitpuddle]

Thanks for all of the thoughtful replies!

I can see that an ideal Guru fit could accomplish this goal, as the fitting is done independent of my existing bike.


Things that should happen in any fit:

- fitter assesses your current physical state: flexibility, strength, symmetry.
- fitter talks about your goals for the fit (pain, power increase, new bike setup, etc...)
- fitter has you ride on your bike in a trainer for 10-15 minutes to warm up and watch you in your current position

If any fitter doesn't do these things, I'd be very suspicious.

The guru fit has the additional advantage that it is dynamic. You can pedal for five minutes after changing something (stack, crank length) and let the difference settle in. You can quickly switch back and forth between your current fit and a proposed change to A/B it. That can be huge. You can also swap in 10 different saddles quickly to see how they affect your position. Again, can be huge.

I like the way guru works. If the fitter combines it with something like retul, can be very powerful.

[carpediemracing]

Thanks for all of the thoughtful replies!

TiDesigns and CDR hit on the key issues at play for me (thanks to both for their generous replies)--

Fundamentally, I am looking for a prescriptive fit experience, in the sense that I hope someone will look at my body, look at the way I move on my bike and say, "Based on what I'm seeing here, I suggest trying the following adjustments . . . "

I can see that an ideal Guru fit could accomplish this goal, as the fitting is done independent of my existing bike.

I can see that an ideal traditional fit could accomplish this goal, as the fitter would actually observe me moving on my bike, and make adjustments there.

I can see that a Guru fit could fall short of this goal, if I am primary source of input into the process--obviously the fitter will be watching as I move on the fit bike, but I am wary of a process that might simply lead me back to where I am used to riding, rather than to a more efficient position.

I can see that a traditional fit could fall short of this goal, as the fitter may be coming at me with a predetermined set of ideal numerical ranges for certain angles and distances on the bike.

I'm meeting with the tech at the local shop (Guru system) this week, and will probably make a decision after talking to him.

(HenryA asked about my location: I'm in Utah, along the Wasatch Front.)

(Macaroon--thanks for including the links! It's always interesting to read another perspective on the process, see what is familiar and what is new.)

FYI during the Guru fit the fitter asked me to bear with him while he went through some position experiments, basically aligning with popularly accepted theories/thoughts/etc.

For example there's the thought that one ought to be able to not hold the bars while in the drop position. To get to that point I ended up with a radically different position, something easily attainable using the Guru gizmo's motors. It took maybe 3-5 minutes before I was in a BMX style position, saddle down something like 20 cm, back some similar amount, bars up and close some incredible amount. I was pedaling with my knees but I could lift my hands off the drops and not have to accelerate to keep my face off the stem.

The fitter could move my bars or whatever around to try and try different things to try and get me in such an equilibrium state with a less radical bike set up. After a bit of time he told me that this would make an interesting query for the Guru fit advisors (apparently they have someone - Hobb? - that will answer questions sent to them by fitters).

He also tried some other stuff. Shorter cranks, different saddle, contemplate different bars, insoles, etc etc.

Although I paid him (full price, as it turns out), I was doing the fit more as a favor to him, and we both knew it. I was willing to sit through anything he wanted to go through on the Guru. Therefore he tried everything, over the course of two sessions and maybe 7 hours. I think if it wasn't after midnight during the first session we'd have done it in one session, but it was getting really late so we cut the first session off at about half past midnight.

The thing about the fitter is that this particular one is not a bike shop. He fits, he does sell insoles and some Zipp products (bars, stems) and Fizik (saddles). I bought insoles from him, negotiating a bit on price (I wanted to pay him more, he wanted to charge me less). On the other hand the saddle he really thought would work for me was an ISM saddle (I since bought two), a brand he doesn't sell. He has a much lower level of "conflict of interest" than if he was also a bike shop. If someone wants a bike he sends them to a shop that sells that particular brand (he's vetted a few shops in the area). I'm sure there's some reciprocal business arrangement but the reality is that his core business is going to be doing fits, follow up fits, Craigslist/eBay "remote fits" ("Hey, can you tell me if this 54 cm Scott would fit me?"), etc.

[Ti Designs]

I think there is more to it... Some of the best people at their job don't/can't necessarily apply their skill to them self.
To use an absurd example: a world class heart surgeon does not have to operate on himself to be a world class heart surgeon.
A less absurd example: Some of the best teachers were/are not the best at actually doing whatever their subject matter is. Teaching by its self is a skill. There are brilliant mathematicians that are terrible teachers. And there are brilliant math teacher that are not brilliant mathematicians.
Another example: some of the best coaches/trainers (batting, pitching, kicking, boxing, etc, etc) were mediocre athletes in their given sport.
My point being, it is common that some of the best people whom are really good at diagnosing and correcting/helping others, can not apply their skills to themselves.

A point not to be taken lightly - the ability to do and the ability to teach are very different skills. It's a point I've made over and over, people flock to the big names in cycling for coaching thinking "If they can do it, they can show me how". The problem is they can't teach natural ability, nor did they have to put much effort into the basic skills, so they don't know how to teach them.

On the other hand there's the great coach who was a mediocre athlete. In almost every case I've seen, it's been someone who lacks the natural talent but learned to make the most of it by understanding the sport in more depth. Coaches have limited resources to learn from, they have their own experiences and they have the experience of having coached others (one of the reasons I suggest coaches and fitters take on an apprentice position first). In working with others, there's a limited amount of feedback. I would love to know how each part of each workout went for my riders, but I don't. I can look at data files, but they don't reflect the learning curve. By far my best data has come from testing things myself. Just last week I found myself struggling to get a few of my riders to understand the transition from higher intensity above threshold to lower intensity. To better understand it I had to do the workout myself and sync the data to video to really understand how I do it. I'm not saying I'm some great cyclist (I'm not), I'm saying the understanding of the skills involved starts with my own experience. Take that away and it's hard to imagine being a good fitter or coach.

Why wouldn't a fitter or coach start with themselves? The only reason I can see is an injury which would prevent them from doing the sport. Oddly, that's exactly what got me into coaching and fitting, the need to overcome injury. Without that huge chunk of personal experience, most fitters fall back on what they teach at fitting schools. I've been to many fitting schools, it's not even close to the experience needed to do the job. In fitting schools they say "this is where they want to be", and they give you a measurement range. The final test at Retul university is all about acceptable ranges (information nobody needs to memorize because the numbers turn green on the screen when they're within the "acceptable range"). I've never known humans to be that uniform...

Things that should happen in any fit:

- fitter assesses your current physical state: flexibility, strength, symmetry.
- fitter talks about your goals for the fit (pain, power increase, new bike setup, etc...)
- fitter has you ride on your bike in a trainer for 10-15 minutes to warm up and watch you in your current position

Ever watch House MD? It was a medical version of Sherlock Holmes on TV. He would never ask a patient about their medical history because they lie. I try not to me as much of an ass as House, but I know their answers are going to be within the context of their own understanding. I would rather make my own observations. I ask questions to put my own observations into some framework. After watching someone pedal for a while I'll often ask about an injury history. People tend to remember the big injuries but forget the many smaller ones. Sadly, you are a collection of all of your injuries, and any injury has the ability to screw things up down the line. I seem to be dealing with lots of knee and ankle problems after having a hip replacement - take away the freedom of movement the failing hip had and it puts all kinds of new stresses on the joints below it...

Goals are a funny thing too. I don't know where people get their ideas of what cycling is... Yesterday I had a guy in his 70's tell me he didn't want to race. Did he really have to tell me that? My job as both a fitter and a coach is to increase their cycling ability. They don't really know what that means, they don't know where it's going to take them. I need to know how high cycling is on their priority list, very often I don't get that answer...

As for watching a rider, I would much rather do that out on the road. There's a very limited amount of information I get from watching someone on a trainer. In some ways the isolation from other inputs is wonderful, the measurements I can get are lab accurate. I'll admit that I have to do fittings on the trainer, but the real testing happens on the road.


Andy Pruitt has successfully fit many pro riders.

I'm not picking on Andy here, I know and respect the man. It's the statement I have to question...

I've looked at many fitting/coaching web sites, they all like to make this claim. I look at my own 15 years in coaching - I've produced 7 cat 1's in that period, 2 of them raced pro. Clearly I'm doing something wrong. Then I look at the two riders who raced pro, their rise in the ranks of cycling wasn't a smooth ride. You don't here things like "he hit a patch of ice, crashed and was off the bike for 6 weeks" from other places that "produce pros". Hmmm...

I have two things to say about that claim:

1) BS. Producing a pro rider is a combination of luck in finding someone with the potential and lot and lots of time and effort. Places that claim to fit pro riders are buying and selling names, it has nothing to do with their ability as a fitter. One of my two pro riders was on a team that was fit my Retul. He brought his back-up bike so they didn't mess with his real position, as most of the team did. I've seen the picture of him with his team at Retul on their website, and they do claim they fit him. So, three years on my part, countless hours on the bike, taking him from cat 4 to cat 1. Retul spends 90 minutes sticking markers on him and watching him pedal, and they have something to do with why he's a pro???

2) Who cares? The pros are .01% of the cycling population. That means there's a 99.99% chance that you're not one of them. The marketing isn't aimed at you. Watching what a pro can do and trying to copy is isn't far from watching a bird fly and trying to take off.

[exapkib]

Thanks again for all of the really useful discussion on this thread. I value your experiences and opinions, and they informed and influenced my thinking quite a bit.

After going back on forth several more times and visiting several of the shops in the area that offer fitting services, I have decided to go with the individual who was recommended by my friend. I talked with him for quite a while, and his combination of experience in bike fitting, coaching, and personal training seems like a very good combination to help me reach my goals in going in for the fit in the first place. I've got an appointment with him latter this month, and I'll be sure to write again with information about the outcome as the process continues.

I was drawn to the Guru experience, but that particular shop (and fitter) are more geared toward triathletes, and it seemed clear that the relationship with a coach was worth more to me than the relationship with another shop (it's not the one that I typically frequent, and I'm happy with 'my' shop).

Anyway, thanks again!