fit software on the web?

[Climb01742]

does anyone know of a site or program on the web where you could do this:

let's say you were trying to figure out which size in a stock frame was right for you (like for me, its often is it a 54, 55 or 56?). you could plug in the geo of the stock frame and then plot your 3 contact points and see what size stem you'd need and whether the STA allowed you enough setback, for example. see what i mean?

is there a program like this or do you just need to try to figure it out in your head? :confused:

[yeehawfactor]

does anyone know of a site or program on the web where you could do this:

let's say you were trying to figure out which size in a stock frame was right for you (like for me, its often is it a 54, 55 or 56?). you could plug in the geo of the stock frame and then plot your 3 contact points and see what size stem you'd need and whether the STA allowed you enough setback, for example. see what i mean?

is there a program like this or do you just need to try to figure it out in your head? :confused:
you can do that for a rough estimate. the problem is that the measurements that these sites often want are usually best attained through x-rays and mri. how long is your torso? where exactly does your arm begin? i couldn't tell you using only a tape measure.

[Ti Designs]

This scares me. I've seen all kinds of "plug yer measurments in" fit calculators, I've read many of the books that tell you their method of fitting. They all fall way short of what's needed to get a general fit. There are just way too many parameters within the human body, muscle strengths, flexability, dimentions and injuries or weaknesses and riding style all should be addressed - I've never seen it in one program or system. Take for example the Seven fitting system. Most Seven dealers simply take the measurments on their order form, fax it in and Seven builds the perfect bike for them - how??? My numbers according to Seven's measurment system are almost exactly the same as one of the riders I coach, yet his bike is different in every dimention than mine. My point here is that there are people who fit bikes who do their job 1000 times better than any program could. This isn't a game of "I have a secret, it'll cost you $50 to find out what it is", there is a huge knowledge base on fitting, people who are good at doing it have made a real investment in learning how to do their job - don't sell that short.

That said, it is possible to transfer position from one bike to the next just based on four measurements. The measurments come down to a relative x,y position for the saddle and handlebars, using the center of the bottom bracket as the index point. First you look for consistancy in the parts details. Saddle - if you're gonna copy the position, copy the saddle - the saddle is what locates your hips, so that's the starting point. Next, take note of bar width, reach and drop. Then make note of the crank length(s), in a perfect world they would be the same. OK, time to start taking measurments. I put an index mark on the saddle where I'm centered (the wear marks on the side tell we where I slide back). I drop a plumb line down and measure the horizontal distance to the center of the bottom bracket - that's my setback. I then measure my saddle height from center of bottom bracket to the top of the saddle where my index mark is (this is a number you should always remember like your phone number). You then put a straight edge acreoss the saddle and measure the reach to the bars from index mark to center of the bars, and drop from top of the saddle down to the center of the bars.

Given three points in space you can figure out if a bike geometry is going to work for you. Start with the saddle to pedal relationship - that's both the power plant for the bike as well as the basis for a comfortable ride. once you have the seat in the right place you can start taking a look at handlebar position. When the measurments on the two bikes are the same it means they your position is the same, it' still doens't mean it's right. I run a 1cm shorter stem in the winter simply because four layers of clothing restricts my reach, so I'm not as flexable in the winter. I also run 1cm less drop on my fixed gear because it's all about leg speed. In a tiny gear I don't need to be perched over my pedals for energy transfer, it's all about pedal stroke at that point...


So, as you can see, there's far more to take into consideration when fitting a bike than "measure this, measure that, plug in the numbers and...". And the fit make more of a difference than anything else, including the bike. I've seen guys on poorly fitting expensive bikes, I just shake my head thinking that they would be better off on a less expensive bike that fit them. And then there's the TT/Tri crowd. They spend all kinds of money on aero parts and bikes and then screw themselves in getting something that doesn't fit. Anything where your elbow isn't an active pivot needs to be adjusted to the rider spot on. Watch a rider who just slaps aero bars on their road bike. Their road bike position is based in part on their forarm length, which is now probably firmly attached to the pads of the aero bars, overextending them forward. Watch them pedal from the side, watch their lower back compensate as they run out of range of motion in their hips. It almost hurts to watch...

This is where most people will stop reading, 'cause here comes the shameless plug for your LBS. Fittings ain't cheap, but they are so worth the price if done well. Many people who walk into the bike shop think that the bike should cost, the advice should be free, and the fitting falls under the heading of advice. When was the last time you got product from a lawyer? Is their advice free? This cuts the other way too, those calculators that spew fitting info are for the most part free - and you get what you pay for.

[Climb01742]

sorry. i clearly didn't explain myself very well. i know what my ideal fit numbers already are. for example, a 72.5 STA works ideally for me. and a 55.5 ST and 54.4 TT, with (sorry sir jerk :p ) a 110 stem. here's my challenge: say a stock frame i'm thinking about has a 73 or 73.5 STA. i'm not experienced enough or clever enough to, in my head, figure out how much, for example, seatpost setback i'd need to position my saddle in its ideal position on the 73 or 73.5 STA. or given a different STA and TT, how long of a stem would i need to get my ideal reach from back of the saddle to middle of the bars (for me, that's 80.5 cm). i'm trying to educate myself how different stock geo's (say going from a pegoretti to a colnago) would play out as i try to achieve my ideal three points of contact. i was just wondering if there is a program you could plug different geos into. for example, when i got a custom parlee, they were able to give me a CAD drawing of how my three contact points laid out over the frame they were building for me. i'm wondering if such a program might be accessible to non-builders. sorry for being unclear the first time. is this any more clear? :beer:

[Ti Designs]

OK, let's try this:

Setback = COS(seat tube angel)*saddle height + seatpost offset + saddle rail position.

OK, now think of the top tube (or the effective top tube for those who live in a world with slope) as two segments, the part in front of the bottom bracket and the part behind the bottom bracket. A difference in setback only effects the top tube distance behind the bottom bracket. So, if you fiddle with the seatpost offset and/or the saddle rail position to match the offset, and the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket forward is the same, and the bar height is the same, the fit is the same. Sorry, no pictures of how you'll fit...

[jerk]

ti design- read what climb is asking.

climb go play around here on their bikeCAD, you'll be able to do what you want.

www.bikeforest.com

jerk

[Climb01742]

thanks, jerk!!! you got it! you totally have me thinking 'nago...and i'm trying to picture/understand how a 'nago geo differs from a peg from my customs. my body has gotten so dialed into my fit numbers, even a few mm, i feel. your thoughts on fit are intriguing. so i'd like to play with different numbers and see how they play out. just trying to get smarter...which ain't easy. :p

[toaster]

I hope I can be helpful here with a link:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2004/letters12-20

Go to the bottom of the page to "Switching bikes" letter and read that. Best bet would be to address your questions to Steve Hogg through the website.

[Dave]

I make this type of comparison all the time. Comparing two or more frames with different STAs is really pretty simple. One STA must be chosen as the nominal value. In your case, lets say it's the 72.5 degree that goes with your 54.4cm TT length. To correct for the difference in the STA of another frame, the following equation is used: saddle height x (cosA-cosB), where A is the nominal STA and B is any other STA. Regardless of whether the value is positive or negative, make it positive and add the amount to the TT length of the frame with the larger (steeper) STA.

To make the most accurate comparison, your saddle height must be known. For example, let's just say it's 75cm.

To compare another frame, like a 56cm Colnago which has a 73.5 degree STA and 55cm TT, just plug in the numbers and you get 75 x (cos72.5-cos73.5) = 1.25cm. Add 1.25cm to the 55cm TT length of the Colnago and you get an "effective" TT length of 56.25cm.

From this comparison you know that the 56cm Colnago has a TT length that is nearly 2cm longer than your current frame, with the rider in the same position. The 1.25cm value also tells you that you'll need a seatpost that provides this much additional setback, to obtain the same position. Technically, a more exact calculation of the saddle setback difference would use the distance from the center of the BB to the saddle rails in the equation above, but the result isn't substantially different. Plug in 71cm for example and you still get 1.18cm.

I know someone is going to object and say that a steeper STA makes the TT shorter, but you are wrong. Why? When comparing two frames with the rider in the SAME position relative to the BB, the frame with a steeper STA requires the saddle to be moved further back. This saddle movement effectively lengthens the TT (extends the total reach).

All that said, most folks can get enough accuracy just using a value of 1.2cm per degree. A very small rider could use 1.0cm and the largest 1.5cm.

Someone will also ask about the difference in the HTA. I usually ignore this difference, because it's rare for stock frames of a given size to have HTAs that vary more than 1 degree. The effect on reach can be calculated with a similar formula, just using the distance from the HT/TT intersection to the top of the stem in place of the saddle height. If this distance is 10cm for example, then a 1 degree change in the HTA changes the reach by less than 2mm. A more relaxed HTA decreases the reach.

The other important thing to compare is the total head tube length, with the headset. From this comparison, you can determine how much spacer would be required under the stem, compared to a current frame. If the HT being compared requires more than 2cm of spacer, I'd consider a stem with more rise or a longer head tube. The thing to remember is that integrated headsets only add 5-15mm to the head tube length depending on whether the top section is the standard or extended version. Conventional headsets add 25-30mmm to the head tube length.

[weisan]

Sorry Climb-pal, this is not entirely related but I thought people who read your post might be interested in learning more about "Frame Geometry and Bike Stability" posted by Lennard Zinn in his book.

http://www.velonews.com/media/Block40.pdf

And while you are at it, listen to some music (http://alicehui.com/serotta/music/CoffeeBreak.mp3)... :D

[Climb01742]

dave, many thanks for the answer. your calculations confirmed my suspicion: that the steeper STA would, in effect, make the TT longer, which might -- keeping my reach of 80.5 constant -- create a stem that might be too short to give proper handling. the challenge is, going to a smaller frame size (thus shortening the TT) also steepens the STA...man, there are alot of variables to keep in mind! oh, my aching brain! ;) ;)

[Dave]

I currently ride with saddle pretty far back (which I think works better for climbing) and I have a short torso (5-'6.5" or 169cm tall with an 83cm cycling inseam). To keep my stem length in the 100-110mm range on both of my bikes, I use Salso Poco short reach handlebars. The reach is over 1cm less than most other road bars. The bend proved to be great for riding in the drops (with my fingers in reach of the brakes) on long mountain descents. I like the top section of the bars to be relatively horizontal, not dropping the brake hood down. To achieve a level top to these bars, they had to be rotated about up about 15 degrees. Coincidentally, this created a very comfortable angle in the anatomic bump area.

One reason I got rid of my Colnago is that it had an effectively (too) long top tube, after the saddle was moved back. My LOOK KG381i has a more relaxed 72.5 degree STA that allowed me to move the saddle back 2cm without reducing my stem length. My other ride, a KG461 has a 74.5 degree STA and even with it's 1.5cm shorter TT length, it's 9mm longer than the 381. I had to drop down to a 100mm on this frame. I never notice the difference in stem length as far as steering is concerned. Both bikes also handle quite well on high speed descents.

http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/421571459/0.jpg

[Climb01742]

dave, it sounds as though our riding style and bodies are sorta alike. i like quite a bit of saddle setback, too (especially for climbing) and i have a short torso relative to my legs. relaxed STA seem to work well for me too. we even both like easton mag stems!

[Ray]

I currently ride with saddle pretty far back (which I think works better for climbing) and I have a short torso (5-'6.5" or 169cm tall with an 83cm cycling inseam). To keep my stem length in the 100-110mm range on both of my bikes, I use Salso Poco short reach handlebars. The reach is over 1cm less than most other road bars. The bend proved to be great for riding in the drops (with my fingers in reach of the brakes) on long mountain descents. I like the top section of the bars to be relatively horizontal, not dropping the brake hood down. To achieve a level top to these bars, they had to be rotated about up about 15 degrees. Coincidentally, this created a very comfortable angle in the anatomic bump area.

One reason I got rid of my Colnago is that it had an effectively (too) long top tube, after the saddle was moved back. My LOOK KG381i has a more relaxed 72.5 degree STA that allowed me to move the saddle back 2cm without reducing my stem length. My other ride, a KG461 has a 74.5 degree STA and even with it's 1.5cm shorter TT length, it's 9mm longer than the 381. I had to drop down to a 100mm on this frame. I never notice the difference in stem length as far as steering is concerned. Both bikes also handle quite well on high speed descents.

If you're effectively moving your center of gravity backwards on the bike, I don't think it matters whether you move the hand position back via a shorter stem or a shorter reach handlebar - the net effect is the same when you're in the drops or on the hood. I guess for whatever part of the ride you do on the bar tops, it does matter, but you're not hanging out there when things get serious anyway.

-Ray

[Climb01742]

i know this is a very general question but here goes anyway...so where should a rider's center of gravity be? it seems like frames with slacker STA (like classic merckx century or stage geometry) move the center of gravity back...while colnagos, with steeper STA, seem to move the center further forward, yes? am i understanding things correctly? thanks for any insights. :rolleyes:

[Len J]

i know this is a very general question but here goes anyway...so where should a rider's center of gravity be? it seems like frames with slacker STA (like classic merckx century or stage geometry) move the center of gravity back...while colnagos, with steeper STA, seem to move the center further forward, yes? am i understanding things correctly? thanks for any insights. :rolleyes:

A change in Seat tube angle has no effect on weight distribution if the riders position relative to KOP is the same.

If I have a 72 degree seat tube angle bike and a 73 degree seat tube angle bike. I cna use a post on the 72 with 1.2 cm of less setback and end up in the exact same position relative to the BB or KOP.

Since most of us start with a position relative to KOP (even, 1 cm bacK etc.) or with a seat set back relative to the BB, the only thing a slacker or steeper seat tube angle does (relative to positioning) is determine how much setback seatpost we need to attain "Our" position.

Make sense?

len

[Climb01742]

len, i agree and understand. but my question was actually a little different. forget for a moment that we're talking about any one particular rider. if we look at two different frames, both let's say at 55. but one builder uses a 72.5 STA and say a 73 degree HTA. and another builder uses a 73.5 STA and a 74 HTA. wouldn't the two frames have different desired centers of gravity? one slightly further back and one further forward? again, i'm not very well versed in this and i could be wrong, but...a presnt day colnago vs. a classic merckx MXL seems to represent two different centers of gravity, no?

[Ray]

len, i agree and understand. but my question was actually a little different. forget for a moment that we're talking about any one particular rider. if we look at two different frames, both let's say at 55. but one builder uses a 72.5 STA and say a 73 degree HTA. and another builder uses a 73.5 STA and a 74 HTA. wouldn't the two frames have different desired centers of gravity? one slightly further back and one further forward? again, i'm not very well versed in this and i could be wrong, but...a presnt day colnago vs. a classic merckx MXL seems to represent two different centers of gravity, no?

It would seem like you'd just need to know the total wheelbase and the chainstay length to determine weight distribution, regardless of hta or sta. Lets say two bikes both have 100cm wheelbases, but one has 40.5cm chainstays and the other has 41.5cm chainstays, your center of gravity will be further back on the one with shorter stays, assuming you maintain your KOPS position and handlebar position relative to the saddle. The HTA and rake and whatnot will affect handling also, but won't tell you anything about weight distribution beyond what you can find out from comparing wheelbase and chainstay length.

I think :rolleyes:

-Ray

[Dave]

Len's comment about the STA not changing the weight balance would only be true if the rider maintained the same KOP, the bikes had the same chanistay length and the TT length was altered to produce the same front-center. A bike with a shallow 72.5 degree STA would need a TT length nearly 2cm longer than a bike with a 74 degree STA (the exact value depending on frame size).

A colnago will have a longer front-center and more weight on the rear than a bike with an identical TT length, but numerically smaller STA, if the rider maintains the same KOP.

There are proponents of more weight on the front, like a 47/53 front to rear ratio, as opposed to a 45/55, claiming it improves cornering, but my bikes are closer to a 43/57 front/rear ratio and suffer no ill effects on high speed descents.

Personally, I don't worry so much about weight distribution. I've never had what I'd call an ill-handling bike. I did find that I didn't care for the large amount of steering trail and longer wheelbase of the Colnago for mountain descents. Although my Colnago was quite stable in a straight line, it had too much tencency to stay in a straight line, even when I wanted it to turn. I like the LOOK geometry better, with a little less trail and shorter wheelbase for quicker steering.

[Climb01742]

somehow i feel like a little kid who's been splashing around in the shallow end of the pool...who then suddenly swam into the deep end...help, mom, i'm in over my head!!! :D

[92degrees]

somehow i feel like a little kid who's been splashing around in the shallow end of the pool...who then suddenly swam into the deep end...help, mom, i'm in over my head!!! :D


Exactly. I dutifully plug in my geometry and what comes out is not a bicycle.

[Ray]

somehow i feel like a little kid who's been splashing around in the shallow end of the pool...who then suddenly swam into the deep end...help, mom, i'm in over my head!!! :D
I think most of us here, with a few exceptions, know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to actually IMPROVE our position. I've been a do-it-yourself'er with my own bicycle fit for about 8-9 years now. And I knew exactly what I knew and what geometry worked for me. And had a handful of bikes that I flat LOVE the fit and ride of. But did I then leave well enough alone? Of course not.

A few months ago I got a wild hair to call Tom Kellogg and get fit for a custom Spectrum, just to see how much better it could be. (I thought about Serotta, but it seemed there would be some variability in the quality of the fitters and I've never seen anything even remotely negative written about Tom's fitting skills. And he's nearby too). Well, after looking at me on the bike for a little while, Tom recommended that I try adjusting my position, in increments, to a position that puts the seat well over an inch higher, significantly farther forward, and moves the bars forward a commensurate amount. He suggested I would be a far more efficient cyclist in this position and the question would be whether I'd be comfortable.

I've been riding in this new position for the better part of a couple of months now and it's been a revelation, to put it mildly. Tom suggests it will take many months to fully adapt to this position, but even in my mal-adapted state, I feel both much stronger and much more comfortable on the bike, despite being right at the nadir of my typical slide in winter conditioning. All of the stuff I had learned on my own was really, really interesting. Mental exercise of the highest order. Very stimulating and entertaining. But ultimately did me not much good at all. A couple of hours with Tom has made me really wonder why on earth I waited so long to seek expert advice.

I'm psyched to get the frame Tom's building for me. I hope I still like my other ones after riding his for a while. So, enjoy hurting your head on this stuff, but don't take the results too seriously :rolleyes:

-Ray

[slowgoing]

Climb - your 72.5 STA is pretty slack for a 54-55, most are somewhere in the 73-74 range. You must have long legs. You can get that slack angle standard on some Looks. Have you tried them? No new math necessary!

[Climb01742]

slow--both kelly bedford and dario gave me a 72.5 STA, and it feels good. i'm only 5'11", but a lot is leg and not much torso. i had a look a few years ago. wasn't wild about it. and i've heard (right or wrong) that looks carbon technology isn't as advanced as some others, like colnago's and parlee's.

[weisan]

Climb-pal, it's funny that you said you are not wild about your Look frame. I think you have mentioned before it was a LOOK KG281. The reason I find it interesting is because I just bought a used one and was in the process of building it up last night. I am planning to bring it out and ride this coming weekend. So, tell me, what exactly do you not like about the bike? How does it compare with some of the other bikes you have in your stable? Sorry for the digression and I respect your opinions, that's why I ask. And don't worry about tainting my views because I understand perfectly it's entirely a personal thing.

weisan

[Climb01742]

very good memory, weisan. it was a KG281. while it was quite a light bike, it did feel a bit wooden to me. a little too lifeless. but that was in the early days of carbon. carbon has certainly come a long way. depending on what you're going to use the look for, it could be neat. for example, for years i used mine as my rain/bad weather bike. carbon ain't gonna rust. i hope you enjoy it a lot.

[Dave]

LOOK has certainly made some changes for 2005, with the new 990 gram 585 model, and the new 555. Unfortunately, the geometry also changed to their new steeper STA range. Only some of the older models still have LOOK's traditional geometry.

LOOK has wisely chosen to include replaceable bearing seats for the integrated headset. Virtually eliminates the chance of frame damage. I would never buy a frame with an integrated headset without replaceable bearing seats.

LOOK's new HSC5 all-carbon fork (even the fork tips) is one of the lightest on the market. I weighed my HSC4 and it's just as advertised, no exaggeration.

I owned two Colnago C-40s prior to buying two LOOK frames. I enjoyed the Colnago's and always marveled at the paint job. Just wasn't impressed with the high speed cornering and the geometry didn't suit my new climbing position. I'm quite pleased with my LOOK frames. The quality of the finish was improved a few years ago, according to LOOK (ultrathin decals that can barely be felt under the clearcoat).

http://www.lookcycle.com/

[Dave]

Since you've had a fitting from a master and noted an improvement, I'm curious if Tom took a KOP measurement? There are opinions that saddle fore/aft position relative to the BB or pedal spindle is totally irelevant and only saddle height matters. I've found that positioning my knee as much as 2-3cm further back allows me to apply more torque, which is beneficial at the lower 80-85 rpm cadence I use for climbing mountains. I still have no trouble spinning 130-140 rpm on a downhill or 100+ on the flats.

Also curious to know how the apropriate saddle height was determined and how you'd repeat it if you changed saddle models. I always find that changing saddles results is a several-ride height and fore/aft readjustment period. I pedal with only a slight rise to my heel, so I tend to have a bit lower saddle height than some folks, but I still try to maintain about a 10-15 degree bend in my leg at the bottom of the stroke. If I lock my leg out at the bottom of the stroke, my heel will drop 1-2cm below horizontal.

I've read where Zinn recommends the heel to be level with the leg locked out, but this would force a rider into a significantly heels-up position to maintain any bend in the leg at the bottom of the stroke.

I've noticed a lot of riders with a too-high saddle have a slow, choppy cadence (pedaling squares). I get compliments on the speed and smoothness of my pedaling (often 1-2 cogs lower than other riders). I credit the smoothness to not setting the saddle too high. I feel as though is can pedal as smoothly regradless of saddle fore-aft position, as long as I lower the saddle if I move it back or raise it if I move the saddle foreward. I use a ratio of roughly 1/3, (height to fore-aft).

[Ray]

Since you've had a fitting from a master and noted an improvement, I'm curious if Tom took a KOP measurement? There are opinions that saddle fore/aft position relative to the BB or pedal spindle is totally irelevant and only saddle height matters. I've found that positioning my knee as much as 2-3cm further back allows me to apply more torque, which is beneficial at the lower 80-85 rpm cadence I use for climbing mountains. I still have no trouble spinning 130-140 rpm on a downhill or 100+ on the flats.

Also curious to know how the apropriate saddle height was determined and how you'd repeat it if you changed saddle models. I always find that changing saddles results is a several-ride height and fore/aft readjustment period. I pedal with only a slight rise to my heel, so I tend to have a bit lower saddle height than some folks, but I still try to maintain about a 10-15 degree bend in my leg at the bottom of the stroke. If I lock my leg out at the bottom of the stroke, my heel will drop 1-2cm below horizontal.

I've read where Zinn recommends the heel to be level with the leg locked out, but this would force a rider into a significantly heels-up position to maintain any bend in the leg at the bottom of the stroke.

I've noticed a lot of riders with a too-high saddle have a slow, choppy cadence (pedaling squares). I get compliments on the speed and smoothness of my pedaling (often 1-2 cogs lower than other riders). I credit the smoothness to not setting the saddle too high. I feel as though is can pedal as smoothly regradless of saddle fore-aft position, as long as I lower the saddle if I move it back or raise it if I move the saddle foreward. I use a ratio of roughly 1/3, (height to fore-aft).

Tom definitely eyeballed KOPS, and I started out well behind KOPS and ended up well behind, but somewhat less so. As your saddle moves up, your knee moves back at 3 o'clock, and moving me forward compensated for that, but still left me behind the spindle. After a second visit, he raised the saddle again, by a good bit, and I felt it was too high after a few rides. So he said we'd established the outer limit and to step back a little bit at a time until it felt right. I got it pretty well dialed within the next couple of rides. Now it feels pretty heavenly.

He did all of this stuff just by looking at me from various vantage points. The KOPS he did with a little old rusty chain. I'm not sure what the science or rationale behind his changes were, but I figure he's looked at more than a few riders and knows what he's looking at. I don't think there was any formula for the saddle height other than moving it around and looking at me on the bike and determining when it was about right.

I've always been known for a smooth spin too, but no power to speak of (I've done upwards of 170 rpm on my fixie). No problem - I'm a tourist and happy with that. But when he said he could make me more efficient, I figured it was worth a try. Being more comfortable was an added bonus. Tom wouldn't sell me a frame until I'd been riding in that position on an old bike for about a month and he was satisfied that I wasn't having any comfort issues with it.

I definitely feel like I'm producing more power in this position - I'm riding a gear or two higher in most situations. At first my spin wasn't as smooth with the longer leg extension, but it's come around pretty well and I can spin almost as smoothly now as I was before. My stamina is pretty poor, which is probably partly lack of being used to turning long miles in this position and partly because it's friggin' DECEMBER! I'm really looking forward to riding this position once I'm fully adapted to it. And in shape again. And on the Spectrum frame. Sometime this summer I guess it will all come together to the extent that it's going to.

Regarding switching between saddles, he did the fitting on an Aliante, which I have on my road bikes, and I've moved them each to this position. I have B-17s on a couple of bikes as well. With those I just aimed for the same spot and then adjusted them over a few rides until they felt right in roughly the same position. I don't know if I absolutely nailed it, but it feels very similar so I know I'm very close. Those bikes have different pedals as well, so there's another variable to adjust for.

Even if I never get any better than I am now, I'm glad to have had Tom's input. He did more for me in a couple of hours than I'd been able to sus out for myself over a period of several years. Someday, an E-Richie will complete the stable and I'll figure it doesn't get any better than bikes and fits by these two masters.

It's all kind of funny - I was VERY happy with my existing bikes and the position I'd gravitated to on them. I'm pretty psyched to think it can be a good deal better than that.

-Ray