purpose of a fitting: adapt or solve?

[Climb01742]

the thread about bill peterson set off a flurry of offline e-mails. some of the e-mails raised an interesting question:

what is the purpose of a fitting? is it adapt a bike to a rider's current position and posture on the bike(whatever that posture might be), or is it to help that rider correct or solve any problems in their position/posture?

the answer, i think, has two parts. what is best/right from a purely riding/performance perspective. and what is best/smartest for the bike shop from a business perspective.

how many riders, who are about to buy an expensive bike, want to hear...your position is all wrong? it's humbling to be told you're doing it wrong. and it takes effort to do it right.

some riders are receptive to criticism. some aren't. if a few thousand dollars hangs in the balance, is honesty always the right policy? i'm NOT impuning any LBS's motives at all. the truth is, i think, they have an interesting balancing act to perform. size up the rider. what do they want? a better bike or to ride better?

[Ray]

the thread about bill peterson set off a flurry of offline e-mails. some of the e-mails raised an interesting question:

what is the purpose of a fitting? is it adapt a bike to a rider's current position and posture on the bike(whatever that posture might be), or is it to help that rider correct or solve any problems in their position/posture?

the answer, i think, has two parts. what is best/right from a purely riding/performance perspective. and what is best/smartest for the bike shop from a business perspective.

how many riders, who are about to buy an expensive bike, want to hear...your position is all wrong? it's humbling to be told you're doing it wrong. and it takes effort to do it right.

some riders are receptive to criticism. some aren't. if a few thousand dollars hangs in the balance, is honesty always the right policy? i'm NOT impuning any LBS's motives at all. the truth is, i think, they have an interesting balancing act to perform. size up the rider. what do they want? a better bike or to ride better?
There can be a bit of a diplomatic process involved in determining where on the adapt/solve spectrum (uhh, no pun intended, with what's coming) a fitting should take you. Before being fitted for my Spectrum, I'd been riding for several years and had arrived at a very comfortable position on the bike. After TK looked at me on the bike for a bit, he intimated that he could build me a bike for that position, but that he'd like me to try a different position to see if I was as comfortable. He basically said that he could guarantee that the different position would make me more efficient on the bike, but he didn't know if I'd be as comfortable, particularly given some back problems I've had. So he sent me away to gradually adjust my position and to transition to a position that was significantly higher and farther forward, with associated changes in bar position. After a little more than a month, I decided I was very comfortable in the new position and I decided to try for a frame geometry that worked with the new position, rather than the position I'd grown used to. I understood the risk and tradeoffs of that decision. I'm very happy with the process and the result.

So, Tom essentially gave me the option of whether the new bike would be designed around the position I'd gotten used to or designed around a position that he thought might be better for me. He never insulted my previous position - he understood how it evolved and why I was comfortable in it. But he explained the limitations of that old position and offered an alternative for my consideration. We discussed the tradeoffs between the two approaches and I made an informed decision based on that.

So I guess the short answer is that a fit can accomplish either objective, and that the fitter's obligation is to share his or her expertise and opinions, but leave it in the hands of the rider to determine which direction to go for the final design.

-Ray

[resolved]

idealy the fitting should provide the position that is optimal for the rider at the time of fitting.
this may not be the optimal due to the rider becoming adapted to a less than ideal position, or the rider being uncomfortable in an ideal position, the latter due to not having the physique or adapted familiarity to accomadate the most benificial position.
this way the platform from which to adjust towards ideal will then be established.
it should be noted that by optimal here i mean most advantageous to cycling performance and output. comfort will be best here if the above criterea can be met also.
but optimal for someone will does not wish to advance towards this ideal, and is comfortable with a compromised position can be provided with a resultant kind of compromised setup.
builders and shops do this all the time, so be aware and ask if the setup will allow this platform for advancement if you wish...


the thread about bill peterson set off a flurry of offline e-mails. some of the e-mails raised an interesting question:

what is the purpose of a fitting? is it adapt a bike to a rider's current position and posture on the bike(whatever that posture might be), or is it to help that rider correct or solve any problems in their position/posture?

the answer, i think, has two parts. what is best/right from a purely riding/performance perspective. and what is best/smartest for the bike shop from a business perspective.

how many riders, who are about to buy an expensive bike, want to hear...your position is all wrong? it's humbling to be told you're doing it wrong. and it takes effort to do it right.

some riders are receptive to criticism. some aren't. if a few thousand dollars hangs in the balance, is honesty always the right policy? i'm NOT impuning any LBS's motives at all. the truth is, i think, they have an interesting balancing act to perform. size up the rider. what do they want? a better bike or to ride better?

[e-RICHIE]

snipped:
"...size up the rider. what do they want? a better bike or to ride better?"


to ride better.
and, ps, there's nothing elegant about
a fine bicycle set up to look inelegant.

[Birddog]

there's nothing elegant about a fine bicycle set up to look inelegant.

Your'e starting to sound a little pithy.

Birddog

[Smiley]

Climb you'd have an argument from me here since fit is DYNAMIC and with older clients it will change over time so ideal today may not be ideal 3-4 years from now . I sized a woman for a new road Serotta , she got pregnant between the fitting and the bike delivery ( As a good fitter maybe I should have asked this question ) , we'll long story short when she delivered we needed to adapt her bike to the new body that she had become . I know this is an extreme example but one that happens and I am sure I can name others that have also taken place , Sandy being an easy other example , he re-shaped his riding and body that he needed to go from a stock 57 to a sloped 59.5 cm frame . His old bike would never have worked for him today as well as his Ottrott does now . Yes we did leave room to make this frame adapt to future changes with his riding or body or fitness level .

[e-RICHIE]

Birddog-issimo writes:
"Your'e starting to sound a little pithy."


sorry.
next time i'll try to be more concise.
e-RICHIE

ps

:) :) :)
:cool: :cool: :cool:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

arrange disorder

[Climb01742]

no argument with me, sir smiley. i absolutely see how a rider can evolve/change over time. i'll be at open house, and i'd like to talk with you about this stuff in person. see you in a month (or as BBD said, two months. :p )

[Birddog]

next time i'll try to be more concise.
No reason to get aphoristic.

Birddog

[e-RICHIE]

tergiversation has never been my forte;
i'll just leave it at that.

[Ti Designs]

some riders are receptive to criticism. some aren't. if a few thousand dollars hangs in the balance, is honesty always the right policy? i'm NOT impuning any LBS's motives at all. the truth is, i think, they have an interesting balancing act to perform. size up the rider. what do they want? a better bike or to ride better?


One of the hardest things for me to work around is the common concept that riding a bike is as simple as, well, riding a bike. Most people have respect based on things they can't do. You respect your doctor (I hope) because they know things you don't. What does the guy in the bike shop know that you don't? The real answer is probably a whole lot, but most people just never get that point.

The bike manufacturers know where the money is and they go after it. Take the comfort bike movement - people have the idea that sitting bolt upright is going to be more comfortable, and the bike makers are more than happy to crank out the comfort bikes like there's no tomorow. They're smart about it too, they hide the pitfalls of the design from the test ride. With the suspension seatpost and front end a ride around the block is comfortable. It's not until these people try to do a charity ride that they realize that it's not a position that they can produce any real power. But they come into the bike shop looking for these bikes.

The women's specific geometry thing is in my opinion worse. They address one issue - no, it's not even the issue, it's the common complaint. "My bars are too far away from my saddle", it must be a bike designed for a man. So, they pull in the front end of the bike as much as they can, then they crank the seat angle to make up the rest. The result is a bike that has a shorter top tube. That's not the solution in most cases, but it answers the common complaint. Women come in looking for womens specific design bikes, and that's what they are sold.

From a retail perspective the goal is to fight the battles that you can win, go with what the customer wasnt if you can't. My guess is that less than 15% of the customers have the level of respect for what the guy in the bike shop knows. Just the way it is...

[Tom]

I took the bike I was fitted for in 2001 up and got fitted for a new bike. The upshot is that the new bike is about 3cm longer - one in the top tube and two in the stem. ST shrank a cm. Front end is higher, but by how much I'm not sure - maybe a cm? ST is steeper.

All these changes came about because the guy that fitted me showed me how to flatten out my back and try to roll my hips forward. I said that the reason I was buying a new bike was to have a machine to run long miles with many hills. I told them roughly how much I've been riding and what I think my larger rides would be. In my case he figured the thing to do was tell the 40+ goof how to actually ride the bike, I'd probably enjoy it a lot more.

One thing I've noticed is that there's the easy way to do something but you plateau doing it that way. There's the technique that takes a little effort to learn but in the long run you're going to do much better with whatever it is you try.

For the guy working in the shop, the art is knowing when somebody cares to listen and knowing when to smile through gritted teeth. One downside is that some really screwy machine leaves with your sticker on it and the design has no purpose being that way. Some bikes look all wrong but when you talk to their rider you understand that there's a very good reason they are the way they are, however that's not a common situation.

[Birddog]

tergiversation has never been my forte;

Gandino lives!

Birddog

[SMUGator]

tergiversation has never been my forte;
i'll just leave it at that.

He knew, as every one employed as he was did, that he was never safe; that flight was impossible; that he was tied fast under the shadow of the axe; and that in spite of his utmost tergiversation and treachery in furtherance of the reigning terror, a word might bring it down upon him.
A Tale Of Two Cities by ****ens, Charles

Peel's late extraordinary tergiversation on the fatal Catholic Relief Bill, sat dumb amongst the ladies in the grand drawing-room, looking out upon velvet lawns, trim gravel walks, and glistening hot-houses.
Vanity Fair by Thackeray, William Makepeace