View Full Version : "trends" in fitting
bicycletricycle
09-21-2011, 11:13 AM
it would seem to me that a well fitted bicycle is something timeless. that is to say, if all other things stay the same, a riders optimum fit should be the same now as it was in the 60's 70's 80's and 90's.
however
looking at frames that are made in these different times it seems clear that there are trends in fitting. For instance, seat tube angles on new road race bikes look like the numbers from 80's tri bikes. handlebar drop has also changed a lot. This mostly seems to be reflected in top tube lengths. Older frames look to me like they have shorter top tubes (not always but as a broad statement i think that this is accurate) in most sizes because people rode larger sizes in general.
heck, if one goes to a dozen fitters right now they will get a dozen different fits. Even something as "simple" a seat height can have a pretty big variance.
what is going on here?
If i had to guess it would be that racing bicycles have become more aggressive (shorter stays, steep angles) and that people want to look like racers so as an overall trend things wonder. Also peoples ideas of what is comfortable may be highly influenceable so there is no actual independent ideal that all of these bicycles are being objectively measured against over time to keep things stable.
now we can see more traditional "fist of seat post" fits becoming more popular again. relaxed seat tube angles are available from some one other than rivendell.
It seems to me that bicycle fit is much more elastic than we might think. I wonder if precision fit is some sort of oxymoron.
rugbysecondrow
09-21-2011, 11:25 AM
Given a set a requirements, one archtect will come with solution A while another will provide solution B...both workable and requirement meeting projects. One might be a better suited solution for the client and also a better partner with the client...I think the same is true for a fitter.
Regarding fit over time, it would seem fitness has improved since the 60's and as such so would our fit.
it would seem to me that a well fitted bicycle is something timeless. that is to say, if all other things stay the same, a riders optimum fit should be the same now as it was in the 60's 70's 80's and 90's.
however
looking at frames that are made in these different times it seems clear that there are trends in fitting. For instance, seat tube angles on new road race bikes look like the numbers from 80's tri bikes. handlebar drop has also changed a lot. This mostly seems to be reflected in top tube lengths. Older frames look to me like they have shorter top tubes (not always but as a broad statement i think that this is accurate) in most sizes because people rode larger sizes in general.
heck, if one goes to a dozen fitters right now they will get a dozen different fits. Even something as "simple" a seat height can have a pretty big variance.
what is going on here?
If i had to guess it would be that racing bicycles have become more aggressive (shorter stays, steep angles) and that people want to look like racers so as an overall trend things wonder. Also peoples ideas of what is comfortable may be highly influenceable so there is no actual independent ideal that all of these bicycles are being objectively measured against over time to keep things stable.
now we can see more traditional "fist of seat post" fits becoming more popular again. relaxed seat tube angles are available from some one other than rivendell.
It seems to me that bicycle fit is much more elastic than we might think. I wonder if precision fit is some sort of oxymoron.
bicycletricycle
09-21-2011, 11:34 AM
i wonder if there is anyway to know if people are "fitter" now than in the 60's.
DRZRM
09-21-2011, 11:37 AM
Some fashion and some function.
I lived in NYC in the 80s and 90s and it seemed like everyone wanted to ride their frames several sizes too small. My first "real" bike was a Pinerello and it was a 56 :eek: I'm 6'3" with short legs and long arms and best fit on a 59-60 TT.
Also, the introduction of STI levers moved most people from their drops to their hoods, and that must have impacted the way most folks are fitted.
Joachim
09-21-2011, 11:44 AM
I agree that STA's have gotten steeper. Is that to fit more people on limited sizes of mass production bikes?
Also, the fitting process has become increasingly difficult due to having only S, M, L and XL frame sizes, but unlimited body proportions, IMO.
I think, and it's just my opinion, as I have ZERO amount of facts to back it up;
That the sloping top tube and the elimination of so many sizes!
It made it easier on the LBS to stock only S,M, L,XL!
That and style!
AngryScientist
09-21-2011, 11:46 AM
i have to believe that at the high end of racing frames, wind tunnel and CFD testing have lent some influence on fit throughout the years, as we learn just how important aerodynamics are, and optimize rider fit for minimum resistance. other manufacturers just follow suit, without the data to back it up. every major manufacturer wants to have a bike that looks like what the pros ride.
consider also other technology changes, like saddle design, making getting low easier on the body.
all that said, a good fitter should be able to get you in the best position possible based on the your body and riding style.
i also think peoples fit certainly changes over time, i know i can get lower deeper into the season as i get more fit and flexible, come April, after logging fewer miles, i'm much more stiff and in the drops less.
Gummee
09-21-2011, 11:50 AM
There was someone here (or somewhere else) that posted a pic of Contador and some racer from the 70s side by side with lines showing where they were in relation to each other.
What I got out of it was they were within mm of each other despite 30+ years of 'advancements' in fitting.
IOW its the way the bikes look not where they put you that's changed over the years.
M
christian
09-21-2011, 11:53 AM
i wonder if there is anyway to know if people are "fitter" now than in the 60's.There is. They're not. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html
christian
09-21-2011, 11:54 AM
There was someone here (or somewhere else) that posted a pic of Contador and some racer from the 70s side by side with lines showing where they were in relation to each other.It was the tropical wheel:
http://ruedatropical.com/2010/06/bike-fit-from-coppi-to-contador/
Joachim
09-21-2011, 11:55 AM
i also think peoples fit certainly changes over time, i know i can get lower deeper into the season as i get more fit and flexible, come April, after logging fewer miles, i'm much more stiff and in the drops less.
Thats what I have found. This is the reason I have my new custom designed around 8mm change in handlebar drop throughout the season, so I have only a 5mm spacer below my stem when the drop is at the most.
Ti Designs
09-21-2011, 12:01 PM
A true lack of understanding of fitting and biomechanics has something to do with it. Back in the 70's with the oil crisis and the bike boom, fitting was about looking at pro riders (some guy named Eddy) and trying to make people fit that way on their bikes. There were lots of people who thought we could do better. In my area there was the New England Cycling Academy or NECA which produced the Fit Kit. The Fit Kit was a means of measuring and a series of charts, so instead of trying to make everyone fit on their bikes like one pro, they tried to make people fit on their bikes like a pro of similar size and build - a step in the right direction but still not very good. In the past 15 years the state of the art in fitting has gotten far better. There is an understanding that humans aren't just this skeleton with given lengths from one perfect pivot to the next, there are limiting factors like flexibility and the annoying fact that pivots are rarely perfect. The understanding of range of motion in anything the human body does has been the real advancement. If the pedal stroke is outside of the riders range of motion, even slightly, it's damaging - 30 years ago nobody knew or said anything about that. So there's the slightest tug on the foot at 4:00, who cares? That's a slight tug, 75 times a minute for as long as you ride the bike (and that's not taking into account the pull reflex).
Recently fitting has taken a step in the wrong direction, it's called marketing. There's no better example than the women's specific design. It's a huge collection of generalizations which are often wrong. The companies which push them do so across the board - 100% of women should be on women's bikes. Not that many people working at bike shops know enough about fit to question this, so lots of people are on bikes that really don't fit.
rugbysecondrow
09-21-2011, 12:42 PM
There is. They're not. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html
I should clarify, the pool of people drawn from for cycling purchases are more fit, not the population as a whole. I would bet that fit people from 2010 are more fit that fit people in 1960...stronger, faster, more flexible as a whole. The gap between the fit and the unfit is large, but I think the fit group who would be drawn to cycling is much larger than it was in the 1960s.
I could also be completely wrong.
bicycletricycle
09-21-2011, 12:47 PM
how do you figure?
competitive athletes have gotten faster but average people have gotten fatter. i wonder were that leaves the average athletic person.
rugbysecondrow
09-21-2011, 12:57 PM
how do you figure?
competitive athletes have gotten faster but average people have gotten fatter. i wonder were that leaves the average athletic person.
First, I am not sure your premise is even correct, so this whole conversation might be moot. Second, I would bet that the cohert of average fit people now is larger and more fit that in the previous 4 decades.
More joggers, more gym attendence, more work fitness centers, more bike commuters, more cyclists, more triathletes...it seems across the board there is an increase in participation in these activities, both organized and not.
christian
09-21-2011, 01:04 PM
It's an interesting premise, but I think one that is very hard to prove or disprove. I would posit that the post-1950 increase in BMI has two major drivers - decrease in physical labor and increase in calorie-dense processed foods.
The former might tell you that people are "less fit" and the latter might not tell you anything at all about "fit people."
The obvious statistical records to review would be army physical scores, over time. Can current recruits run a mile faster and do more pushups than recruits in 1950? I'll google.
bicycletricycle
09-21-2011, 01:06 PM
i was thinking marathon times might be a good stand in as well.
christian
09-21-2011, 01:07 PM
The abstract of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16796397 says:
This article defines physical fitness and then reviews the literature on temporal trends in the physical fitness of new US Army recruits. Nineteen papers were found that met the review criteria and had published recruit fitness data from 1975 to 2003. The limited data on recruit muscle strength suggested an increase from 1978 to 1998 (20-year period). Data on push-ups and sit-ups suggested no change in muscular endurance between 1984 and 2003 (19-year period). Limited data suggested that maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) [mL/kg/min] of male recruits did not change from 1975 to 1998 (23-year period), while there was some indication of a small increase in female recruit VO2max in the same period. On the other hand, slower times on 1-mile (1.6km) and 2-mile (3.2km) runs indicate declines in aerobic performance from 1987 to 2003 (16-year period). The apparent discrepancy between the VO2max and endurance running data may indicate that recruits are not as proficient at applying their aerobic capability to performance tasks, such as timed runs, possibly because of factors such as increased bodyweight, reduced experience with running, lower motivation and/or environmental factors. Recruit height, weight and body mass index have progressively increased between 1978 and 2003 (25-year period). Both the body fat and fat-free mass of male recruits increased from 1978 to 1998 (20-year period); however, body composition data on female recruits did not show a consistent trend. In this same time period, the literature contained little data on youth physical activity but there was some suggestion that caloric consumption increased. This article indicates that temporal trends in recruit fitness differ depending on the fitness component measured. The very limited comparable data on civilian populations showed trends similar to the recruit data.
There also seems to be a lobbying organization who is concerned about the issue(!):
http://www.missionreadiness.org/research/
CNY rider
09-21-2011, 01:09 PM
i was thinking marathon times might be a good stand in as well.
Very few people run marathons.
None of them are fat.
Most Americans are fat, and don't run marathons.
christian
09-21-2011, 01:11 PM
i was thinking marathon times might be a good stand in as well.I'm not sure that's true. It used to be people generally didn't run marathons unless they could count on a respectable time. These days, the promotion of charity runs and "it's an accomplishment just to finish," lots of people run marathons to finish, rather than beat a time goal, which has significantly increased average (mean) finish times.
bicycletricycle
09-21-2011, 01:12 PM
sure, but a fair amount of "fit" people run marathons and that is who we are concerned with. anyways, the military data is better.
christian
09-21-2011, 01:15 PM
Median Times for U.S. Marathon Finishers (Males)
1980 3:32:17
1995 3:54:00
2002 4:20:01
2005 4:20:29
2007 4:20:04
2008 4:20:04
2009 4:13:54
Year Estimated U.S. Marathon Finisher Total
1976 25,000
1980 143,000
1990 224,000
1995 293,000
2000 353,000
2004 386,000
2005 395,000
2006 410,000
2007 412,000
2008 425,000
2009 467,000 (record total)
Mark McM
09-21-2011, 01:19 PM
I would bet that fit people from 2010 are more fit that fit people in 1960...stronger, faster, more flexible as a whole.
For the very top echelons of the sport that may be true, but that probably only represents a few percent of the participants at best (more likely less). Taken as a whole, it seems likely that average fitness of participants has gone down.
This has even been seen events that are considered the pinnacles of their sports, such as the marathon in running. The average completion times of running marathons has been going up (slower paces) over the past few decades, not down (faster). The reason is not that the top runner are getting slower - it is because far more less-than-elite runners are taking part.
I don't see why it should be any different in cycling. Afterall, you don't have to be in good shape to buy a top-notch bike and get a professional fitting, you just need to be willing to pony up the money. As more and more people get involved in a sport (like cycling), it will draw more un-fit participants, and the average fitness is likely to go down.
looking at frames that are made in these different times it seems clear that there are trends in fitting. For instance, seat tube angles on new road race bikes look like the numbers from 80's tri bikes. handlebar drop has also changed a lot. This mostly seems to be reflected in top tube lengths. Older frames look to me like they have shorter top tubes (not always but as a broad statement i think that this is accurate) in most sizes because people rode larger sizes in general.
Handle bar drop has not changed much, deeper bars back then.
christian
09-21-2011, 01:23 PM
BTW, a 3:30 marathon is pretty respectable, 8:01 min/mile pace for 26.2. That the median finisher in 1980 ran a 3:30 tells us that pretty much every marathoner then was a "serious runner."
snip
i also think peoples fit certainly changes over time, i know i can get lower deeper into the season as i get more fit and flexible, come April, after logging fewer miles, i'm much more stiff and in the drops less.
Not unusual to lower saddle 5mm during winter and raising it back up slowly in Spring. Stem and hbar stay in the same position.
rugbysecondrow
09-21-2011, 01:29 PM
The abstract of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16796397 says:
This article defines physical fitness and then reviews the literature on temporal trends in the physical fitness of new US Army recruits. Nineteen papers were found that met the review criteria and had published recruit fitness data from 1975 to 2003. The limited data on recruit muscle strength suggested an increase from 1978 to 1998 (20-year period). Data on push-ups and sit-ups suggested no change in muscular endurance between 1984 and 2003 (19-year period). Limited data suggested that maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) [mL/kg/min] of male recruits did not change from 1975 to 1998 (23-year period), while there was some indication of a small increase in female recruit VO2max in the same period. On the other hand, slower times on 1-mile (1.6km) and 2-mile (3.2km) runs indicate declines in aerobic performance from 1987 to 2003 (16-year period). The apparent discrepancy between the VO2max and endurance running data may indicate that recruits are not as proficient at applying their aerobic capability to performance tasks, such as timed runs, possibly because of factors such as increased bodyweight, reduced experience with running, lower motivation and/or environmental factors. Recruit height, weight and body mass index have progressively increased between 1978 and 2003 (25-year period). Both the body fat and fat-free mass of male recruits increased from 1978 to 1998 (20-year period); however, body composition data on female recruits did not show a consistent trend. In this same time period, the literature contained little data on youth physical activity but there was some suggestion that caloric consumption increased. This article indicates that temporal trends in recruit fitness differ depending on the fitness component measured. The very limited comparable data on civilian populations showed trends similar to the recruit data.
There also seems to be a lobbying organization who is concerned about the issue(!):
http://www.missionreadiness.org/research/
Running in the military is a different story. The branches have inconsistent fitness tests that might not even include running, so no proficiency is necesary. Also, when I was in basic training, they would have you run out 20 minutes then you had to make it back within that same time period...it doesn't take a genius to hold back on the first half and run normally on the second to be sure you make it.
I think the decrease of PE in highschool and the emphasis on basic exercises have impacted that specific age group.
Anyway, anectdotally, more adults seem much more physically active now then when I was a kid. They are runners, cyclists, rowings and gym rats. the ones who workout seem to do well, but the ones that don't really seem to drop off the table (or get stuck at it.)
avalonracing
09-21-2011, 01:39 PM
I agree that STA's have gotten steeper.
Think so?
My 2000 Klein has a 74ºSTA on a 57cm bike. I would love it if production bikes came with 74ºSTA now but it is mostly 73º.
Acotts
09-21-2011, 01:41 PM
There is. They're not. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html
That only applies to normal people. We're cyclist, dammit! :beer:
Acotts
09-21-2011, 01:42 PM
Median Times for U.S. Marathon Finishers (Males)
1980 3:32:17
1995 3:54:00
2002 4:20:01
2005 4:20:29
2007 4:20:04
2008 4:20:04
2009 4:13:54
Year Estimated U.S. Marathon Finisher Total
1976 25,000
1980 143,000
1990 224,000
1995 293,000
2000 353,000
2004 386,000
2005 395,000
2006 410,000
2007 412,000
2008 425,000
2009 467,000 (record total)
cool stat, for real. Not sure what to take from it. Still interesting.
Reminds me of the SAT stats.
Joachim
09-21-2011, 01:46 PM
Think so?
My 2000 Klein has a 74ºSTA on a 57cm bike. I would love it if production bikes came with 74ºSTA now but it is mostly 73º.
Interesting. I again prefer 73 degrees in a 55cm, but then again I think/thought that STA is dependent on femur length.
johnnymossville
09-21-2011, 02:07 PM
Interesting topic. I tend to think in the pro ranks there are several different "Fits" going on. The grand tour contenders seem to have a fit more in line with classic fitting from the 60's-80's, while some of the others are going with much more aggressive drop in the name of aero, fashion, or both.
Now if I look at those on my local group ride I see some of the same things going on. There are those looking for comfort and those looking to make a fashion statement. Fashion statements "Huge Drop" are fine on a two group ride or one hour crit race on Saturday. Comfort might not look as "pretty" to average racerboy, but after 6-8 hours in the saddle you'll be thankful for it.
That's my observation anyway.
christian
09-21-2011, 02:16 PM
The only real thing that's happened with fit in the last 20 years is:
- Loss of stack height from threadless headsets
- Compact bars, and higher hood positions to accommodate for that change
Other than that, bikes pretty much look the same (fit points, that is).
Think so?
My 2000 Klein has a 74ºSTA on a 57cm bike. I would love it if production bikes came with 74ºSTA now but it is mostly 73º.
I always liked Kleins but it was not until geo changes in '02 then again in '03 that Klein's worked for me. One change was a slacker sta.
dana_e
09-21-2011, 03:24 PM
I have used that bike caad software, forgot what it is called, and mocked up my old school bike with quill stem and round shallow drop bars, and modern bike with up stem and new shape bars. Software was free for a bit: bikecadd or something)
They fit ended up the same, but the quill bike looks much taller since the exposed stem part and then the -17 and then the drop to the brake levers
A lot of the new bikes have huge headtubes, admittedly they use internal headset so you loose one centimeter, then some sort of upwards stem +/- 8 in either postion is up compared to level (-17)
the bar makes a big difference, like 2 centimeters when comparing a Deda Zero Bar to a Deda Shallow Round assuming normal shifter placement.
It seems that the saddle to bar drop has gotten large, super small bikes and a tad shorter stem since the reach is increased with the large bar drop
Too much thinking about this trying to get my various bikes in the right fit position
The cadd software comparison was interesting, I printed them out and then help them up to the light to see the 2 bikes pedals, bars, and seat line up.
I think the Specialized fit guy, does Pruitt do it?, recommended the Schlecks raise their bars, they did not, from what I understand.
Fixed
09-21-2011, 04:17 PM
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=32145&postcount=27
cheers
Very few people run marathons.
None of them are fat.
Most Americans are fat, and don't run marathons.
Lots of fat people complete marathons and triathlons as well. They are just slow as stink which is why average marathon times have increased. Back in the day, there were fast people running 3 hour marathons and not a lot of 5 hour types, which is the majority these days.
it would seem to me that a well fitted bicycle is something timeless. that is to say, if all other things stay the same, a riders optimum fit should be the same now as it was in the 60's 70's 80's and 90's.
however
looking at frames that are made in these different times it seems clear that there are trends in fitting. For instance, seat tube angles on new road race bikes look like the numbers from 80's tri bikes. handlebar drop has also changed a lot. This mostly seems to be reflected in top tube lengths. Older frames look to me like they have shorter top tubes (not always but as a broad statement i think that this is accurate) in most sizes because people rode larger sizes in general.
heck, if one goes to a dozen fitters right now they will get a dozen different fits. Even something as "simple" a seat height can have a pretty big variance.
what is going on here?
If i had to guess it would be that racing bicycles have become more aggressive (shorter stays, steep angles) and that people want to look like racers so as an overall trend things wonder. Also peoples ideas of what is comfortable may be highly influenceable so there is no actual independent ideal that all of these bicycles are being objectively measured against over time to keep things stable.
now we can see more traditional "fist of seat post" fits becoming more popular again. relaxed seat tube angles are available from some one other than rivendell.
It seems to me that bicycle fit is much more elastic than we might think. I wonder if precision fit is some sort of oxymoron.
What is a relaxed seat tube angle and what is steep in your opinion?
One of the primary reasons for bikes looking different is the ergonomic advances/changes made in hood/shifter shape which allow for a flat ramp from bar to hood, which changes where the bars are set up versus a traditional set-up from the 70's.
bicycletricycle
09-21-2011, 04:58 PM
in my size
62cm
i would say that
73 would be normal
74 steep
and
72 relaxed
Pete Serotta
09-21-2011, 05:10 PM
I think, and it's just my opinion, as I have ZERO amount of facts to back it up;
That the sloping top tube and the elimination of so many sizes!
It made it easier on the LBS to stock only S,M, L,XL!
That and style!
Style and "buyer lusts" -- Are first prioity for mosts. Personal wants and riding/physical needs determine function after that.
* Effective Tt length, drop between seat and bars, and ride characteristic determine what custom works bests for the customer. Angles and chain stay length, as well as fork rake determine tour vs race ride.
Style changes over time, just as it does in other things.
Most can ride a bike if the reach to bars and seat height to pedals can be dialed in. That does not necessarily mean the best or most efficient ride. Over 20 years Serotta has perfected sizing and fit.....Design evolves.
Over this time the items in "*" have stayed within 1 cm from builders and fitters from Serotta.
The formula works! Yes I am old and also biased. :cool: :beer: Pete
My sizing and angles over a decade are more style and desire.
phcollard
09-21-2011, 05:29 PM
in my size
62cm
i would say that
73 would be normal
74 steep
and
72 relaxed
That's one thing I don't understand - and sorry for the thread drift - how can a ST angle be considered "relax" or "steep" if at the end your saddle always ends up at the same position over the bottom bracket? Besides shortening or lengthening the reach I mean...
As some other might have said already I tend not to believe in the extreme fit sessions we see today with computers, lasers and so on because 3 renowned fitters can come up with 3 different fits. As long as you have it dialed within say 0.5 or 1cm it should all be OK don't you think? For my level I mean, if I was a pro that could be a different story.
in my size
62cm
i would say that
73 would be normal
74 steep
and
72 relaxed
Other than small frames, do you really see a lot of bikes with seat tube angles steeper than 73? I have not seen many in my size (57), but don't know what they are doing with larger bikes.
bicycletricycle
09-21-2011, 06:46 PM
orbea orca 73.5 in the biggest size
colnago c59 has a 74 in the biggest size
the darkstar carbon frames have a 74.5 in the biggest size
maybe there are more, i got tired of looking around.
Kontact
09-21-2011, 07:02 PM
it would seem to me that a well fitted bicycle is something timeless. that is to say, if all other things stay the same, a riders optimum fit should be the same now as it was in the 60's 70's 80's and 90's.
however
looking at frames that are made in these different times it seems clear that there are trends in fitting. For instance, seat tube angles on new road race bikes look like the numbers from 80's tri bikes. handlebar drop has also changed a lot. This mostly seems to be reflected in top tube lengths. Older frames look to me like they have shorter top tubes (not always but as a broad statement i think that this is accurate) in most sizes because people rode larger sizes in general.
heck, if one goes to a dozen fitters right now they will get a dozen different fits. Even something as "simple" a seat height can have a pretty big variance.
what is going on here?
If i had to guess it would be that racing bicycles have become more aggressive (shorter stays, steep angles) and that people want to look like racers so as an overall trend things wonder. Also peoples ideas of what is comfortable may be highly influenceable so there is no actual independent ideal that all of these bicycles are being objectively measured against over time to keep things stable.
now we can see more traditional "fist of seat post" fits becoming more popular again. relaxed seat tube angles are available from some one other than rivendell.
It seems to me that bicycle fit is much more elastic than we might think. I wonder if precision fit is some sort of oxymoron.
I have to disagree. The only important fit related frame number that has changed is head tube length. Sloped top tubes don't really have much to do with fit, except that they allow short legged riders to get a fist or more of seat post rather than sitting on the top tube or using an enormous stem.
If anything, current road bikes are less "aggressive" than many of the bikes of the '80s and '90s that sported sub 40cm chainstays. Seat tube angles tend to range from 74 for small to 72 on large frames, and that doesn't appear to be new.
One of the two biggest impacts on fit has been brifters and this whole "cockpit" idea that has transformed the formerly extra hand position on the hoods to the defacto riding position for most non-racers (and many racers, too). That has caused stems to get a little shorter.
The other is that it became okay to move your stem up to saddle height. This used to be verboten for "racing" bikes, which probably contributed to the MTB boom and consequent hybrids. Some frame builder made it okay, and now it is chic to make racers use slammed stems to get their "racing" bikes to fit, because they have headtubes for active retirees. But that isn't universal, even in a brand - Trek offers their priciest Madones in different HT lengths.
Modern geometry is very moderate handling wise, uses sloped TTs and tall HTs to facilitate more body shapes and that's about it. I would love to see an example of kind of geometry you are talking about.
As far as fitters go, they are just as consistant as any completely self educated and unregulated trade - which is to say, not at all. That will likely work itself out over time.
rugbysecondrow
09-21-2011, 07:03 PM
Lots of fat people complete marathons and triathlons as well. They are just slow as stink which is why average marathon times have increased. Back in the day, there were fast people running 3 hour marathons and not a lot of 5 hour types, which is the majority these days.
fat has little to due with speed it, running proficiency does.
Kontact
09-21-2011, 07:08 PM
orbea orca 73.5 in the biggest size
colnago c59 has a 74 in the biggest size
the darkstar carbon frames have a 74.5 in the biggest size
maybe there are more, i got tired of looking around.
I just looked at the C59 geometry. Take another look at the chart - it isn't in order. That 74 is for a 53, while the 58s is a 72.75. I didn't check the rest.
http://www.colnago.com/c59-italia/
bicycletricycle
09-21-2011, 07:15 PM
yep.
wc1934
09-21-2011, 08:24 PM
Lots of fat people complete marathons and triathlons as well. They are just slow as stink which is why average marathon times have increased. Back in the day, there were fast people running 3 hour marathons and not a lot of 5 hour types, which is the majority these days.
agree - qualifying times are much more relaxed than in the past - for example, boston marathon qualifying time for the 18-35 age group used to be 2:50.
It increased over the years and in 2012 it was 3:10 - because of the increase in participants, they are now lowering 2013 qualifying times to 3:05.
fat has little to due with speed it, running proficiency does.
It has a lot to do with it actually. Hard to be efficient over 26.2 if you are overweight.
jlwdm
09-22-2011, 12:33 AM
I
...
The other is that it became okay to move your stem up to saddle height. This used to be verboten for "racing" bikes...
Modern geometry is very moderate handling wise, uses sloped TTs and tall HTs to facilitate more body shapes and that's about it. I would love to see an example of kind of geometry you are talking about.
...
Since when did it become any more acceptable now than years ago to move your stem up to saddle height?
Tall HTs just a replacement for some of the old options with quill stems extended up.
Jeff
jlwdm
09-22-2011, 12:36 AM
...
the darkstar carbon frames have a 74.5 in the biggest size...
.
you lose all credibility when you reference the darkstar carbon frames again.
Jeff
rugbysecondrow
09-22-2011, 06:10 AM
It has a lot to do with it actually. Hard to be efficient over 26.2 if you are overweight.
Not really. Take a skinny person with no proficiency and an over weight person with proficiency and the overweight person will likely be faster. If that same person with proficiency loses weight, they will likely get faster, not a given though. It is about foot rate and if there is sufficient strength to move the legs, the extra weight is not a big deal. This is all relative though, I am not talking about obese people, but also not world class runners. Just club runners.
Either way, i dont think a runner with no proficiency will have respectable times regardless of weight.
bicycletricycle
09-22-2011, 06:35 AM
when i first started working in shops in the mid 90's there were almost no visible options for getting the bars high. Road bikes looked like racers, you could get a 520 or a BLT but than you would be touring. You could put a technomic on your bike if it was threaded. Now there are a lot of options for more upright seating.
that marathon post made me think. perhaps the renewed popularity in more upright fitted bicycles is primarily a response to a changing demographic in the cycling world. As more people start to ride the average cyclist becomes less fit and thus needs a less aggressive bike. Just like how the marathon times went up, i wonder if that has effected running shoe design in the same way.
rugbysecondrow
09-22-2011, 06:44 AM
when i first started working in shops in the mid 90's there were almost no visible options for getting the bars high. Road bikes looked like racers, you could get a 520 or a BLT but than you would be touring. You could put a technomic on your bike if it was threaded. Now there are a lot of options for more upright seating.
that marathon post made me think. perhaps the renewed popularity in more upright fitted bicycles is primarily a response to a changing demographic in the cycling world. As more people start to ride the average cyclist becomes less fit and thus needs a less aggressive bike. Just like how the marathon times went up, i wonder if that has effected running shoe design in the same way.
Not sure, running shoes have gone both ways, minimalist and overbuilt beastly shoes. There are just so many more people doing more fitness related activities that I think generalities are just not possible.
When did a road bike become a race bike? They two aren't synonamous to me, but that is how they are sold it seems. As much as I think Peter White is a crumudgeon, he makes sense when he writes about bikes not being built for the people who ride them, or people purchasing bike ill-suited to their purpose. Do most people need a racing bike? Nope, but that is what the shops sell them. Higher commissions than a hybrid, increased sales? Not sure, but it seems that people (at least some customers) are adjusting their view to get road bikes that actually suit their riding. Fatter tires, less agressive positioning, gearing that works for them. If somebody isn't racing, then why get them a race bike? This is the customers fault as well as they go in looking for the COOL bike, and hybrids or relaxed riders might not be COOL.
I guess, just like running shoes, there are Tri bikes, race bikes, road bikes, cruisers, hybrids...the swath is wider for all types of riders, but whether folks chose and are fit appropriately is a different story.
Getting back to the bike fitting aspect, I would argue that a good fitter should not have a certain "style" of fitting. There are no trends in good biomechanics. Every client is different and has a different perception of what a good ride should be. Fitters need to listen to what the client says and work within that clients' range of motion/fitness level and guide them to the position that most suits their riding style. There must be give and take and good communication between both and a willingness to change and modify as time goes on and fitness levels/event focus change.
dan682
09-22-2011, 08:41 AM
That's one thing I don't understand - and sorry for the thread drift - how can a ST angle be considered "relax" or "steep" if at the end your saddle always ends up at the same position over the bottom bracket? Besides shortening or lengthening the reach I mean...
I'm curious about this too. Is the decrease in STA just to avoid having to use an excessive setback post to get the desired fit?
Kontact
09-22-2011, 08:42 AM
Since when did it become any more acceptable now than years ago to move your stem up to saddle height?
Tall HTs just a replacement for some of the old options with quill stems extended up.
Jeff
Recently. Technomic quilll stems are and were considered a desperate act of anti-aesthetic terrorism.
"Road bikes" have always been "race bikes" to a certain degree. The drop bar geared bike comes from racing, is often named for racers and races. A touring bike is similar in some ways, but almost any bicyclist can tell the two apart at a glance. They may not be for racing any more than a Miyata is, but "road race bikes" are the sporty, non-utility bicycles preferred for quick unloaded riding.
To Bicycletricycle's point, I think that it isn't just fitness levels that have changed, but age. The increasing cost of bicycles indicates that the target market has shifted some - toward older people with more disposable incomes and less limber backs. I would guess that the median age for a $6000 bike purchase is 45 or older.
bicycletricycle
09-22-2011, 09:01 AM
I'm curious about this too. Is the decrease in STA just to avoid having to use an excessive setback post to get the desired fit?
as long as the seat is in the right place it does not really matter what the seat tube angle is. Saddle choice also has a big impact here, most old or old style saddles dont go back very far and super set back seat posts can be a little silly looking.
oldpotatoe
09-22-2011, 09:18 AM
Getting back to the bike fitting aspect, I would argue that a good fitter should not have a certain "style" of fitting. There are no trends in good biomechanics. Every client is different and has a different perception of what a good ride should be. Fitters need to listen to what the client says and work within that clients' range of motion/fitness level and guide them to the position that most suits their riding style. There must be give and take and good communication between both and a willingness to change and modify as time goes on and fitness levels/event focus change.
Great post. We hear of 'fitters' here in the republic that want little to NO input from the rider, just look at video captures, micro measure, points in space type crappola, Then come up with a 'perscription' that can only be conveyed to one builder that will result in a bike frame. I had one woman who had to have hubby confront the fit person to get her 'numbers'.
Fitting 'should' be very touchy-feely(not literally, ya know), a conversation with the fit person as to what they like or don't like about a present ride, what kind of riding they do, their expectations.
Mark McM
09-22-2011, 10:11 AM
0Take a skinny person with no proficiency and an over weight person with proficiency and the overweight person will likely be faster. If that same person with proficiency loses weight, they will likely get faster, not a given though. It is about foot rate and if there is sufficient strength to move the legs, the extra weight is not a big deal.
Here's a study that measured affect of excess body weight on running performace. (http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/1978/10030/Effect_of_experimental_alterations_in_excess.10.as px). An excerpt of the abstract (bolding is mine):
"An increase of 5% AW was found, on the average, to decrease [latin capital V with dot above]o2 max (ml/min*kg TW) 2.4 ml, the TM run time 35 sec and the 12-min run distance 89 m. These decreases were a direct consequence of the increased energy cost of running at submaximal speeds. It was concluded that changes in excess body weight can influence [latin capital V with dot above]o2 max expressed relative to body weight and distance run performance independent of any change in cardiovascular capacity."
i.e. extra fat has direct (and negative) impact on running performance. And why wouldn't it? A runner (unlike a cyclist) has to expend muscular energy supporting the weight of the body as they rise and fall with each stride.
rugbysecondrow
09-22-2011, 11:21 AM
0
Here's a study that measured affect of excess body weight on running performace. (http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/1978/10030/Effect_of_experimental_alterations_in_excess.10.as px). An excerpt of the abstract (bolding is mine):
"An increase of 5% AW was found, on the average, to decrease [latin capital V with dot above]o2 max (ml/min*kg TW) 2.4 ml, the TM run time 35 sec and the 12-min run distance 89 m. These decreases were a direct consequence of the increased energy cost of running at submaximal speeds. It was concluded that changes in excess body weight can influence [latin capital V with dot above]o2 max expressed relative to body weight and distance run performance independent of any change in cardiovascular capacity."
i.e. extra fat has direct (and negative) impact on running performance. And why wouldn't it? A runner (unlike a cyclist) has to expend muscular energy supporting the weight of the body as they rise and fall with each stride.
The issue is not that there is not an impact, but that a runners proficiency is more important than weight.
Kontact
09-22-2011, 07:06 PM
The issue is not that there is not an impact, but that a runners proficiency is more important than weight.
They're both important. Arguing which one is silly. Distance running, in particular, is a weight penalizing sport.
I would argue that it is almost impossible to be at an actual high degree of fitness and retain much if any body fat.
Fixed
09-22-2011, 08:01 PM
am reminded of world i.m.champ. mark allen being beat in the superstars (80's t.v. show ) in the 50 yard dash by a fat cigarette smoking soviet discus thrower .. i think mark was shocked too
cheers
Ti Designs
09-23-2011, 11:23 AM
The only real thing that's happened with fit in the last 20 years is:
- Loss of stack height from threadless headsets
- Compact bars, and higher hood positions to accommodate for that change
Other than that, bikes pretty much look the same (fit points, that is).
I've wasted my life...
Kontact
09-23-2011, 09:39 PM
I've wasted my life...
Not "fitting", the way bikes fit compared to twenty years ago. Fitting itself has changed as people get better at it, but the bikes you're fitting to haven't changed in any signficant way, so I agree with the with Christian, as long was we are talking about road bikes, not tri.
I don't see how his post had anything to do with you.
witcombusa
09-24-2011, 06:44 AM
Some fashion and some function.
I lived in NYC in the 80s and 90s and it seemed like everyone wanted to ride their frames several sizes too small. My first "real" bike was a Pinerello and it was a 56 :eek: I'm 6'3" with short legs and long arms and best fit on a 59-60 TT.
Also, the introduction of STI levers moved most people from their drops to their hoods, and that must have impacted the way most folks are fitted.
This is absolutely true! Late 70's to early 80's they were pushing the smallest frames that you could get on without going past the min. insertion line on the seat post. I came back fron CO after an August watching the Coors Classic on a frameset from The Spoke. It was a 56cm (I'm 6').
This was my college bike which I road for years (and still have).
These days I'm happiest on bikes 59-60cm C to C. Over the years I've found a way to fit on everything from 56-62cm, not really any big deal. But much like skirt height and tie width, "fashion" does shift over the decades...
Ti Designs
09-24-2011, 07:38 PM
Not "fitting", the way bikes fit compared to twenty years ago. Fitting itself has changed as people get better at it, but the bikes you're fitting to haven't changed in any signficant way, so I agree with the with Christian, as long was we are talking about road bikes, not tri.
I don't see how fitting and how bikes fit are two different subjects. I've been at the bike shop for over 20 years, I do a lot of fittings on older bikes which their owners simply don't fit on. 20 years ago bikes have level top tubes, as an example Trek now has H1, H2 and H3 geometry frames. Handlebars offer different amounts of reach and drop, there are more saddle designs out. Bike fitting couldn't have made the strides it has without the bikes changing as well - it's the same subject from a different perspective. If I had to do my job, only having the bikes of 20 years ago, I would either charge a lot more or quit.
christian
09-24-2011, 09:55 PM
Ti Designs -
My point wasn't about custom fits or a plethora of available options.
I was making the point that if you look at an average stock racing bicycle in, say, 57cm from 1990 and a stock 57cm bike today, the setback is the same, the reach is the same, cranksets are the same length, but the stack is lower (due to threadless hs). To accommodate for that, stems have gone from -17d to -8d, bars have gone compact, levers have come up, and percent of time spent on the hoods has gone up (also a function of better hood shapes and integrated shifting).
But the net of it is, for racing bikes, if you rode a 57cm in 1990, you ride a 57cm in 2011 (ok, assuming same fitness and flexibility), and your fit points remain the same - the bike just looks different.
And yes, the 2012 front-center, chainstays, and wheelbase will be a little shorter, but that's a bike handling issue, not a fit issue.
Kontact
09-25-2011, 02:10 AM
I don't see how fitting and how bikes fit are two different subjects. I've been at the bike shop for over 20 years, I do a lot of fittings on older bikes which their owners simply don't fit on. 20 years ago bikes have level top tubes, as an example Trek now has H1, H2 and H3 geometry frames. Handlebars offer different amounts of reach and drop, there are more saddle designs out. Bike fitting couldn't have made the strides it has without the bikes changing as well - it's the same subject from a different perspective. If I had to do my job, only having the bikes of 20 years ago, I would either charge a lot more or quit.
Are you saying that you couldn't get the same fit on a 1990 Merckx as a new Madone by simply using a tall stem?
The primary difference seems to be that people with less average proportions can use stock frames without resorting to Technomic stems or risers. But Technomics, or going up a frame size and using '70s style standover clearance were always options - just ones that weren't considered aesthetically pleasing.
I think it isn't much of an aesthetic improvement because all these "racing" bikes with massive head tubes look ridiculous to me - especially when someone limber is riding them with the stem slammed. But I guess it does provide "maximum performance" to those who ride their racing bikes with the stem at saddle height.
Editorial:
Stock bike geometries are now designed to please the most number of people, while having prices that actually exceed the cost of quality customs. In other words, racing bicycles have turned into something else so consumers can spend more on a stock bicycle compromise than they would have on a custom geometry that would be ideal for their non-racing needs. That blows me away.
US made carbon custom frame: $2700
US made titanium custom frame: $2500
US made S3 steel custom frame: $1100
Chinese made Cervelo R3 frameset: $2900
Insane.
Ti Designs
09-25-2011, 02:20 PM
Are you saying that you couldn't get the same fit on a 1990 Merckx as a new Madone by simply using a tall stem?
Sorry, I'm making the bold assumption that the rider has both skill and power, in which case you can get the same fit with a tall stem, but that quill sticking up as a 7/8" tube - the thinnest on the bicycle, so using the bars as a point of leverage is all but out.
bironi
09-25-2011, 07:48 PM
I see all sorts of whacky position issues when riding behind other riders. Is riding with your clients useful in assessing fit problems? Can an optimal fit be achieved in a studio?
tannhauser
09-25-2011, 08:16 PM
I see all sorts of whacky position issues when riding behind other riders. Is riding with your clients useful in assessing fit problems? Can an optimal fit be achieved in a studio?
Hello,
I'm kind of new here, used to be on the board years ago.
Anyway, I've been fit by a ProTour guy and he put me in the optimal position for comfort + efficiency in a static environment. Instantly I got more watts, was more at ease and comfortable.
After riding this way for awhile I found this position, while perhaps ideal for cruising all day at a moderate pace out of the wind, set me up as a wind sail in cross and head winds and didn't put me low enough in the drops for bombing a descent.
So I slammed the stem and got more weight on the front wheel.
Kontact
09-25-2011, 09:43 PM
Sorry, I'm making the bold assumption that the rider has both skill and power, in which case you can get the same fit with a tall stem, but that quill sticking up as a 7/8" tube - the thinnest on the bicycle, so using the bars as a point of leverage is all but out.
I've never heard anyone say that an aluminum quill stem is flexible. It might be narrow in diameter, but incredibly thick walled.
How did racers use to use 120mm stems of such flimsy construction?
Mikej
09-26-2011, 09:16 AM
Boy, this thread really doesn't say much for the amount of posts.
Fixed
09-26-2011, 10:34 AM
french fit
cheers
Fivethumbs
09-26-2011, 10:35 AM
What are ya talkin' about? We just learned that quill stems may or may not be flexible!
Ti Designs
09-26-2011, 11:16 AM
I see all sorts of whacky position issues when riding behind other riders. Is riding with your clients useful in assessing fit problems? Can an optimal fit be achieved in a studio?
That depends on who you ask. Most fit studios will say they can put you in the perfect position, 'cause that's how they make money. I've done lots of fits in the fit studio of my shop, but the option of going for a ride and tweeking the fit is always on the table. With the riders I coach I start out working on fit and technique on the trainer, but I can't think of a single rider who's position I didn't change based on what I saw on the road at some point. What I don't get is this idea of a single perfect position. My position changes during the season, fall and spring I'm turning a smaller gear at a higher cadence, by bars are both closer and higher. In season I'm pushing bigger gears, the emphasis turns to larger muscle groups and my bars are lower.
Ti Designs
09-26-2011, 11:23 AM
I've never heard anyone say that an aluminum quill stem is flexible. It might be narrow in diameter, but incredibly thick walled.
How did racers use to use 120mm stems of such flimsy construction?
The quill is the part that goes into the steerer tube. It's the only part that's restricted to the 7/8" diameter. The more extension out of the frame the more flex you got from the stem. There were stems that didn't stick to the traditional 73 degree elbow, so they had less extension out of the frame and took a more direct path to the bars. Those stems, like Tioga or Salsa were often used by track riders who know something about using the bars as leverage in generating torque.
Germany_chris
09-26-2011, 11:25 AM
The issue is not that there is not an impact, but that a runners proficiency is more important than weight.
Ya know I can't resist...
I finished the Army 10 miler in 81 minutes..nothing special pack fill etc. but I weighed 250 pounds at that time..
Fast forward 6 years and 70 pounds...the very first day I ran again I ran 4 miles in around 11 minutes a mile at 320 pounds..
When I first went into the Army I had a chaplain marathoner teach me how to run properly it took almost a year to run with good form on my first real run after the hiatus it took about 300' for my muscles to remember that form..
Never assume can't or slow because of body weight...
tannhauser
09-26-2011, 11:34 AM
That depends on who you ask. Most fit studios will say they can put you in the perfect position, 'cause that's how they make money. I've done lots of fits in the fit studio of my shop, but the option of going for a ride and tweeking the fit is always on the table. With the riders I coach I start out working on fit and technique on the trainer, but I can't think of a single rider who's position I didn't change based on what I saw on the road at some point. What I don't get is this idea of a single perfect position. My position changes during the season, fall and spring I'm turning a smaller gear at a higher cadence, by bars are both closer and higher. In season I'm pushing bigger gears, the emphasis turns to larger muscle groups and my bars are lower.
Also when you ride a bike do you sit in the same spot and pedal all day or do you get on the rivet hunched, sit up tall and back, move around on the bike because the balance point always shifts.
This school of sit in one spot and pedal like a robot is for the birds.
Charles M
09-26-2011, 11:48 AM
heck, if one goes to a dozen fitters right now they will get a dozen different fits. Even something as "simple" a seat height can have a pretty big variance.
what is going on here?
.
No idea,
I've been to Max Testa at the Mapei Institute, Got sized up personally by Ernesto Colnago, had Paraic at Faster (Formerly Serotta's fit honcho) fit me...
They were all virtually the same fit.
Things dont seem to get crazy until I have a physical issue and then there are only a couple of folks I trust period to deal with the issue and they both work with cycling focused physical therapists to address both the fit and the issue resolution.
The thing the good guys have in common is that they dont walk in with a preconcieved notion about how all people should pedal a bike best (like wobblenot[sp])... They look at the person, look at the person on a bike, and adjust so that the pedal stroke and upper body are doing what they should be doing.
Bike Geo's have moves some, but for very good fitters, I dont think much has changed.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.