A fit question regarding body types..

[benb]

I've got a question.. looking around the internet I see conflicting recommendations, and I've received conflicting advice from fitters.

Assume two riders that are the same height.. and have the same inseam & torso length. Maybe assume thin, lanky body type as well if that eliminates some variables.

Rider a: Normally proportioned legs
Rider b: Longer femurs then Rider A, shorter Tibias

School of thought 1:

Rider B requires a slacker STA to get butt in proper position for power, and a longer TT. This picks a larger frame size on stock frames, the rider won't have to reach as far down to the bars, but will have to reach further out to the bars.

School of thought 2:

Rider B requires a slacker STA to get butt in proper position for power, and the TT needs to be shortened to keep the reach correct. This ends up picking a smaller size frame compared to School of thought 1. The horizontal reach to the bars on stock frames will be less, but the saddle-bar drop is likely to be greater.

I'm curious if either of these is "codified" somewhere or if one is considered more correct. I am "Rider B" and I've had bikes based on both schools of thought depending on who fit me. I've done significantly better on bikes built/selected via School #2, in terms of speed, comfort, and power. Depending on who fit me my different bikes have yo-yoed between these two philosophies.

It's taken me a long long time to get an understanding of what has been going on as different people have given me different recommendations over the years. No one has actually explained their philosophy to me at a fitting but looking around on the net and from the books I've read I think this is what is going on.

Curious what others think.. My Serotta was built on School #1 and I am awaiting delivery of a stock frame/fork selected via School #2. If the new bike is better I think I am going to decide School #2 is definitely better for me and will end up pushing back against someone who recommends School #1 in the future. I feel like it's kind of unfortunate I bought the custom frame without really understanding all this..

[rugbysecondrow]

I would think flexibility would be an important variable, not just dimensions. Interesting question, I doubt there is a codified answer though, just experience and lessons learned.

[benb]

For whatever it's worth they've all thought I had "excellent" flexibility, pretty much every good fit I've had has tested that. It seems like it's a variable that hasn't had any effect for me on what ends up being recommended.

My current bike has a pretty "classic" look.. not as much drop (~4cm), and it looks fairly long. The bikes built on school #2 have been more racy, 10cm drop, longer stem, they look a lot more "Pro". For some reason I'm much more prone to have wrist problems with the longer/higher bar position.

[rugbysecondrow]

Again, I have no answer, but I would also think it would depend on what you told the fitter the purpose of the bike was or what the fitter discerned the purpose was from your conversations. Having gone through this process a few times, that is how the conversation begins.

Also, did the fitter use a fit-cycle to test out various position to find the one you prefer?

[salem]

Now to really confuse you: I'm a proponent of Bontrager's fit ideas. Contrary to most ideologies I've seen, he starts with the BB to handlebar relation (ie, your standing position) and works backward to the seat from there. He is much more concerned with weights and forces than the geometrics of more traditional fits, which is confusing at first, but has a good deal of logic once you start to figure it out, which because he doesn't give up his method, you have to do on your own.

Ultimately, over the years, when I've had bikes that were hard to get dialed right (they were way off when I started), I'd go back to focusing on that standing position, and low an behold, once that was set, the seat fell right into place.

Of note, when I say standing position, I should really say climbing standing position, as that is when I most frequently stand, as it probably true of most.

[ultraman6970]

For the record, many fitters have not raced and many racers have no fitter licenses. And thats a problem because which to listen is a big question.

Racers are the only ones that have the stuff sort of figured it out but for other purposes is hard to get people set up sometimes because they really don't know what they are looking for or need, so if you go too agrresive they will complain and dont like it, or if you go setting them like riding a BMX they might feel happy with their 5000 dollars bike.

Met a woman long time ago, she was using the saddle like 4 inches (inches not cms) too high, and she was using it like that because somebody set her like that in a super LBS from the area.

So again, you go figure which u have to listen, maybe non is wrong.

[Smiley]

I've got a question.. looking around the internet I see conflicting recommendations, and I've received conflicting advice from fitters.

Assume two riders that are the same height.. and have the same inseam & torso length. Maybe assume thin, lanky body type as well if that eliminates some variables.

Rider a: Normally proportioned legs
Rider b: Longer femurs then Rider A, shorter Tibias

School of thought 1:

Rider B requires a slacker STA to get butt in proper position for power, and a longer TT. This picks a larger frame size on stock frames, the rider won't have to reach as far down to the bars, but will have to reach further out to the bars.

School of thought 2:

Rider B requires a slacker STA to get butt in proper position for power, and the TT needs to be shortened to keep the reach correct. This ends up picking a smaller size frame compared to School of thought 1. The horizontal reach to the bars on stock frames will be less, but the saddle-bar drop is likely to be greater.

I'm curious if either of these is "codified" somewhere or if one is considered more correct. I am "Rider B" and I've had bikes based on both schools of thought depending on who fit me. I've done significantly better on bikes built/selected via School #2, in terms of speed, comfort, and power. Depending on who fit me my different bikes have yo-yoed between these two philosophies.

It's taken me a long long time to get an understanding of what has been going on as different people have given me different recommendations over the years. No one has actually explained their philosophy to me at a fitting but looking around on the net and from the books I've read I think this is what is going on.

Curious what others think.. My Serotta was built on School #1 and I am awaiting delivery of a stock frame/fork selected via School #2. If the new bike is better I think I am going to decide School #2 is definitely better for me and will end up pushing back against someone who recommends School #1 in the future. I feel like it's kind of unfortunate I bought the custom frame without really understanding all this..


What about Saddle shape and size of feet????? Your trying to make this way too easier than it is, a good fitter will figure this out based on all parameters and what type of riding one wants to do.

Besides most of the folks that shell out money for my fit fee come to me BECAUSE SOMETHING HURTS. And when something don't feel right we fix it. Fixing people's hurting fit postions now for a looooong time. Must be doing something right and use no such simplified formulas.

[rugbysecondrow]

What about Saddle shape and size of feet????? Your trying to make this way too easier than it is, a good fitter will figure this out based on all parameters and what type of riding one wants to do.

Besides most of the folks that shell out money for my fit fee come to me BECAUSE SOMETHING HURTS. And when something don't feel right we fix it. Fixing people's hurting fit postions now for a looooong time. Must be doing something right and use no such simplified formulas.

Smiley is very good at what he does. :beer:

[Bob Loblaw]

What about Saddle shape and size of feet????? Your trying to make this way too easier than it is, a good fitter will figure this out based on all parameters and what type of riding one wants to do.

Besides most of the folks that shell out money for my fit fee come to me BECAUSE SOMETHING HURTS. And when something don't feel right we fix it. Fixing people's hurting fit postions now for a looooong time. Must be doing something right and use no such simplified formulas.

So true. The OP's question sort of is indicative of a belief I have run into often, and that is that there's an ideal position that will wrangle every last watt from the legs and simultaneously offer all-day comfort. There are so many variables between riders, even riders of the same proportions and builds, there's no one easy answer to the fit question. And there's always a component of trial and error in fitting, especially when you're dealing with discomfort.

BL

[RPS]

Curious what others think.. My Serotta was built on School #1 and I am awaiting delivery of a stock frame/fork selected via School #2.
I'm curious how much dimensional differences there are between the two frames. Is one much longer, higher head tube, etc...? Or are you talking about a centimeter here or there? :confused:

[Charles M]

RULE 1...


"Schools of thought" are attended by BAD FITTERS

There is a huge difference between teaching a fit system (school of thought) that tries to get people all to conform to some bull***** idea of the perfect pedal stroke and tell imply that all people of X measure perform the same...

Versus getting a proper, far more in depth education that will teach a fitter that even people of the same size will have different physio character, different flexibility and simply work / perform differently.

(note to OP, neither of your options holds water. A good fitter would simply have asked you to climb on a rig and started making adjustments based on your movement and your own responses to how you were feeling instead of first telling you what "will" work for you.)



A good fitter will put rider B on a proper functioning size rig... Dial it in to both of those positions (or very frankly , possibly neither of those positions). More likely he would have started with something that you feel works well (or not...) and started asking questions and making adjustments based on what he see's. He'll get a base setting... Then he'll tweak a bit to taste while using motion capture (or damn well qualified eyes in exceptionally rare occasions) to check a crap load of different things (made a ton easier and almost universally more accurate by motion capture).



I very simply avoid fitters that tend to try and tell people that X geometry will be better for their body type based on anything at all but watching them put time on a proper sizing rig in the position they're suggesting and then taking carfull stock of A LOT of things...

[dsb]

[SIZE=6]A good fitter will put rider B on a proper functioning size rig... Dial it in to both of those positions (or very frankly , possibly neither of those positions). More likely he would have started with something that you feel works well (or not...) and started asking questions and making adjustments based on what he see's. He'll get a base setting... Then he'll tweak a bit to taste while using motion capture (or damn well qualified eyes in exceptionally rare occasions) to check a crap load of different things (made a ton easier and almost universally more accurate by motion capture).

You see... There's the rub... 'A Good Fitter' ... Without some education on your part there is no way to separate the wheat from the chaff... All of these fancy fitting 'systems' cause even more confusion as they tend to represent themselves as 'scientific'... Kind of like measuring something with a ruler then putting the numbers into a calculator and using all of the digits right of the decimal...

If you solely rely on the 'Fitter' for your position then you get what his/her idea is of what your position on the bike should be... Which may or may not have any basis in reality, or solve any of your problems...

The 'Fitter' can employ all manner of measurements to help him/her guide you into the proper position. Hopefully he/she has the experience to see the correctness of the result as well as any indications of something that needs attending to. To my mind, this is what you're paying for, the expertise to be able to evaluate and assess, as well as the knowledge of the proper fix...

The 'feel' component is equally if not more important. Of this component no 'fitter' can have any knowledge... It's up to you to convey how the adjustments affect you comfort... In lieu of knowledge of what 'feels' correct, it falls to the 'fitter' to interpret your communication into a workable solution. After all how many of us would need the services of a 'fitter' if we actually knew what the proper position felt like?

I think most would agree that the last part is the most important as well as it being the least 'scientific'... It falls to the fitter's expertise and the 'fitee's' ability to communicate their sensations in a manner that is actionable. To that end it's probably most valuable for the 'fitee' to have undertaken the process themselves if for no other reason than to have developed some vocabulary and experience in the range of sensations that felt 'wrong'...

Personally, I have found valuable information here:
http://www.cyclefitcentre.com/pdf%20final%20docs/backyard%20positioning_julu_aug_2004.pdf

YMMV...

[benb]

Sorry guys, no one has given me a lecture on "schools of thought". That was something I tried to come up with to explain what I've had trouble with.

Each one of these guys has of course put me on a fit bike. The issue is even if they are each trained by the same person, whether that is Serotta or someone else, I've walked in and complained of the same problems, and every guy has a different solution, most of which don't work.

Isn't there something in the training that is supposed to make this repeatable or in some way scientific? I'd like to think if I walked in to two Serotta fitters with the same bike and complained of the same problem they would not come up with equal and opposite "solutions"!

Of course "find the right guy" is great advice, but that's not that easy to do, and you can't tell who is good till after you've plunked down the cash and then rode the bike for an extended time taking their recommendations into account.

[HenryA]

snipped......

My current bike has a pretty "classic" look.. not as much drop (~4cm), and it looks fairly long. The bikes built on school #2 have been more racy, 10cm drop, longer stem, they look a lot more "Pro". For some reason I'm much more prone to have wrist problems with the longer/higher bar position.

What your bike looks like does not indicate that it fits you correctly or not. You may be getting "style" or "looks" confused with "fit".

As an example, let's size 13 shoes fit you properly, but you think they look kinda funny or like clown shoes next to some size 9's in the store window. But your feet won't fit in the 9s no matter how "right" they look to you.

If you feel a bit stretched out on your current custom bike, try a little shorter stem.

[jr59]

What about Saddle shape and size of feet????? Your trying to make this way too easier than it is, a good fitter will figure this out based on all parameters and what type of riding one wants to do.

Besides most of the folks that shell out money for my fit fee come to me BECAUSE SOMETHING HURTS. And when something don't feel right we fix it. Fixing people's hurting fit postions now for a looooong time. Must be doing something right and use no such simplified formulas.


I need to live closer to you. This is a perfect answer. No two people are alike, not only in size, but in everything. Therefore there is no "stock" answer, as all people don't pedal the same way, or have the same core strength, or the same size feet, width as well as length. I could give many examples of how each of us are different in small ways. Everyones kinesiology work differently and therefor no one size fits all.

[HenryA]

snipped.......

I've walked in and complained of the same problems, and every guy has a different solution, most of which don't work.

Isn't there something in the training that is supposed to make this repeatable or in some way scientific? I'd like to think if I walked in to two Serotta fitters with the same bike and complained of the same problem they would not come up with equal and opposite "solutions"!



Is the problem only your wrists? What is the specific problem that bothers you?

Fitting is interpretive so every fitter will likely have a slightly different solution to your fit - even different solutions for different bikes or usages. A Tri fit will be different from a road racing fit from a mountain fit from a touring fit.

I'd pick someone and stick with them until I got it right. Trying different fitters each time doesn't guarantee the next one is the guru.

[jr59]

Sorry guys, no one has given me a lecture on "schools of thought". That was something I tried to come up with to explain what I've had trouble with.

Each one of these guys has of course put me on a fit bike. The issue is even if they are each trained by the same person, whether that is Serotta or someone else, I've walked in and complained of the same problems, and every guy has a different solution, most of which don't work.

Isn't there something in the training that is supposed to make this repeatable or in some way scientific? I'd like to think if I walked in to two Serotta fitters with the same bike and complained of the same problem they would not come up with equal and opposite "solutions"!

Of course "find the right guy" is great advice, but that's not that easy to do, and you can't tell who is good till after you've plunked down the cash and then rode the bike for an extended time taking their recommendations into account.

Why aren't you going back to the same person? I would think that if I was not happy with the fit I got the first time, I would keep going back until I got it dialed in to where I felt comfortable on my bike.

Your post seems to state that you didn't get the proper fit the first time and now think that that fitter doesn't know what to do. I would pick one and keep on working with him/her until I worked it out.

My fit changes from early in the season to latter in the year when my fitness improves.

[Kontact]

Probably not the answer you're looking for, but "it depends".

The difference between useful top tube lengths is actually fairly small: 1 to 1.5cm per frame size. So TT length is important, but can be dealt with via stem length.

Same with setback using both the saddle's rail adjustability and various seat post offerings.


So I'd say the primary arbiter of frame size these days is head tube length. Long legged people are best served with a "smaller" model frame (shorter TT) that sports a taller head tube. This combination results in a frame that fits more like a traditional style frame that has a short TT, because the HT is that of a larger bike. (This is what defines most of the current "endurance" styles.)

If that sort of choice of frame styles isn't available, I would most likely choose to put a rider on the larger frame to get that extra HT height to produce good drop. A 58cm frame with a 100mm stem will generally feel more "normal" than a 56cm with a 115mm stem, because the longer wheel base is easier to live with. If the bike was mainly for racing, I'd go to the smaller size, but I really feel this is usually trading feel for quicker handling.

And in the case of someone with short femurs and resulting forward saddle position, their relatively short torso is being made up for by the saddle being closer to the bars. So that part can be a wash.

So if the larger frame would still use a fairly average stem, like 100mm or longer, I'd choose the larger frame in your case. The longer front center and higher head tube will remain likeable for longer than a slightly cramped frame with a longer stem - IMO.

[RPS]

Isn't there something in the training that is supposed to make this repeatable or in some way scientific?
Maybe in a general sense as a starting point for the majority of riders, but I can’t see how it can ever be turned into a “scientific” approach when dealing with “specific” problems people may have. There are just too many variables.

If the problem was caused by a poor “fit” then one could argue that having it right would have avoided the problem in the first place (maybe your wrists issue falls in that category). However, if the problem is unrelated to cycling the rider is most likely going to have to work through the issue on his own – or with help from a qualified person – but more on the basis of trial and error and not science per se. Maybe an acceptable compromise is all that can be achieved for some riders.

As an example, I wouldn’t expect any fitter to be able to help me adjust my riding position to compensate for an injured shoulder. He can’t possibly know how it feels to me; and when it comes to making choices on what feels best why would I need someone to help? In a case like mine I don’t see how there can be a scientific approach at all. :(

[benb]

I went back to the original fitter 3-4 times and it wasn't helpful. That was when I started looking for other people. First another Serotta fitter at the same shop, then another Serotta fitter at another shop, then I started looking for a non Serotta fitter. The original fitter quit his job and I have no idea where he went. The Serotta fitters all pretty much agreed with each other and never really wanted to make any changes, it's the other guys who think/thought my Serotta was way out in left field.

Historically I was always basically on a 57cm TT with a 100 stem.. the Serotta got set up with a 59cm and a 100mm stem, with a much higher HT. The other big thing was the seat height on the Serotta fit put me about 3cm higher, which caused saddle & knee issues immediately. The wrist issues took way way longer to develop. Over a year, and the initial fitter was gone by then. The inital recommended fix for the saddle issues was I was told to try different saddles, which got pretty expensive. Eventually I just said screw it and started lowering the saddle against the fitters advice, which immediately solved the saddle/knee issues, and around that same time was when I started looking for other opinions.

I understand how big this change was now, but hindsight is 20/20, it didn't even raise an eyebrow at the time.

I suppose I could try a shorter stem but if I'm running an 80 or 90mm stem on a custom bike haven't I admitted something went really wrong?

[Kontact]

Ben, how tall are you? A 59 TT implies 6'1" or so.

I don't think a 90mm stem is a bad thing. It is one end of the normal range, but it is still normal.

[Charles M]

BenB, email me your contact info at Charles@Pezcyclingnews.com...


Long story short, trying to ask you about measurements and suggesting solutions in a forum is even less likely than fixing things in person.


'knee issues" isnt enough info. The left(or r) knee is now deviating much more laterally" would be part of an answer that would also be connected to your foot and hip / back... It's such a drawn out process.

Bottom line is that there are better and worse places to learn, but even great teachers cant always make people good fitters.


everything's connected.

I'll try and hook you up with someone if you like.

[benb]

I wasn't trying to diagnose this online.. thank you both for the offers though. It would take way too long to type it all out and I'm not sure I'd even be able to accurately describe it all.

[Kontact]

I wouldn't try to "fit" you online either. I was just trying to get an idea of how off your fit could possibly be. 59 is pretty long, and piqued my curiousity.