Builder's Spotlight The Paceline Forum Builder's Spotlight


Go Back   The Paceline Forum > Bike Fit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 11-26-2016, 02:49 PM
fourflys's Avatar
fourflys fourflys is offline
Headed to PACNW
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 4,662
Upper end of both for my 175cm height...

**correction, upper end for saddle at 73-74cm, more toward the middle for each at 54-55cm...
__________________
Black Mtn, Cannondale, and Ibis Fan

Last edited by fourflys; 11-26-2016 at 03:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-27-2016, 06:56 AM
Ali1989 Ali1989 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 8
My saddle height is around 5cm higher than average and my reach is maybe around 3cm (changed it recently, can't remember exact measurement) shorter than average.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-28-2016, 10:31 AM
benb benb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,959
I guess that really makes me a freak.

185cm tall, 79cm saddle height, reach is about 51cm.

The chart would be better if you could see which saddle height point matched which reach point, if they were numbered you'd be able to see what was going on with the outliers.. are they guys who just run their seats really high/low, or are they people like me who have really long/short legs.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-28-2016, 07:59 PM
ultraman6970 ultraman6970 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,769
Ultra would love to see benb bike.

The curves are useful to determine if you are way too off, some people fit is like a bear riding a 80cc motorcycle and for them is ok, eventhought IMO they can be just fit wrong big time and they just dont care.

U can be off for a couple of cms but when you are off for a lot more, curiosity starts... why your reach is so short? 7cm stem?? I mean you can have short arms but dont think your upperbody is that short. Just curiosity
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-29-2016, 09:08 AM
cash05458 cash05458 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 930
good chart! 179/54/74 here.

Last edited by cash05458; 11-29-2016 at 09:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-29-2016, 10:28 AM
benb benb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultraman6970 View Post
Ultra would love to see benb bike.

The curves are useful to determine if you are way too off, some people fit is like a bear riding a 80cc motorcycle and for them is ok, eventhought IMO they can be just fit wrong big time and they just dont care.

U can be off for a couple of cms but when you are off for a lot more, curiosity starts... why your reach is so short? 7cm stem?? I mean you can have short arms but dont think your upperbody is that short. Just curiosity
I don't have short arms, I have long arms. But my legs are long for my torso.. so my shoulders are further back then they would be otherwise which negates the long arms. I am well into "custom bike would work best."

I do have a 70mm stem on one of my bikes in fact. That bike is arguably too big though. Always funny though as that bike has no handling issues with the short stem.

I could have misquoted, maybe I have my reach at 52cm, but it's still really short. It's an odd measurement anyway as different saddles have different length noses and different placings of your sit bones relative to the nose of the saddle.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-30-2016, 08:30 PM
echelon_john echelon_john is offline
extremely tall
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: southern vermont
Posts: 3,276
Shorter on both, which I chalk up to age, lack of fitness & lack of flexibility! : )

I also run 180 cranks which might account for 5mm of the (comparatively) low saddle height...

198.12
84.5-85
60
__________________
Exit, pursued by a bear.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-30-2016, 11:19 PM
ultraman6970 ultraman6970 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,769
198??? good you are shrinking due to age
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-01-2016, 09:08 AM
chiasticon chiasticon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: northeast ohio
Posts: 2,538
175, with 73.5 height and 54 reach. so just above avg height, about a cm below on reach.

cool stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-05-2016, 10:04 AM
benb benb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,959
I was thinking about this some more.. I think the data in those charts may be a bit skewed because they are using Pros.

So first off obviously most pros are in their 20s or early 30s with a very few older than that.

They are all super flexible too.

But my guess is due to the demands of pro cycling and the fact they all ride on stock frames their is probably some filtering going on. I actually suspect that riders who are "outside the bell curve" are probably selected out of cycling pretty early in their attempt at riding due to injury if they don't fit well on stock bikes.

It's probably about as relevant as a chart that used the height/weight/reach of NBA players.

In my 20s I rode a bit more reach, but not much. Maybe 2cm, and that was with ~10cm of drop in most cases so the more acute torso angle was probably giving me the extra reach. And I was already having issues back then. I would still have been outside the dotted lines on the chart on any one of the fits I had back then. My saddle has really not moved much over the years, bars were often put where they were because a) stock bike, can't raise them anymore, can't get the reach shorter b) You're flexible so deal with it.

In my case it's not flexibility, I can still wrap both hands around my feet and touch my nose to my knees when doing a hamstring stretch. Incidentally I'm often so bent over biking that my flexibility suffers in the long term when cycling a lot. I'll be 40 in 2017, what is different now from 15 years ago is that my upper back suffers more past 50 miles if the reach is too long and/or my torso angle is closed down too much. It was a already an issue in my late 20s/early 30s though, it is just worse now cause I don't recover from it overnight. The last few years prior to this year I was riding with more reach and my shoulders and upper back really suffered from pulling on the bars while being really stretched out, I have a lot of work to do in the weight room this winter.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-05-2016, 12:44 PM
MattTuck's Avatar
MattTuck MattTuck is online now
Classics Fan
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hanover, NH
Posts: 10,375
Interesting....

What are we using as reach? tip of saddle to bars? I wonder how easy it would be to also enter set back and drop. I'm not a big fan of saddle - bar measurements because the tip does not necessarily reflect the true position of the rider.
__________________
Cold, gold and bloody.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-05-2016, 12:52 PM
fa63's Avatar
fa63 fa63 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,579
At the moment, reach is defined as tip of saddle to center of handlebar. I don't love that measurement either, as it doesn't factor in the variability associated with saddle length and reach of the handlebars, but that is how everyone measures and reports it.

I do have some data showing saddle setback and drop as well, but I haven't played around much with those.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-06-2016, 05:29 AM
macaroon macaroon is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 637
I have long limbs so I end up at the upper limits for both reach and saddle height. Kinda wish I was closer to the line!

190cm
Saddle Height: 83.5cm
Reach: 63.5cm (although I have changed my saddle and seatpost fairly recently and haven't measured it since, so it could be more, or less)
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-06-2016, 12:16 PM
fuzzalow fuzzalow is offline
It An't Me Babe
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: a helluva town
Posts: 3,904
I am plain 'ol mister normal, as far as the usual body-legs-torso-arms dimensions.

I am plain 'ol mister normal, as concerns flexibility because I neither work at it nor think it has anything to do with riding a sporting drop bar bicycle.

I do know how to fit & position on the bike in a form that is correct for riding & pedaling a racing bicycle.

The numbers on this chart are far less important than form, alignment and balance achieved and facilitated in riding the bike.

178cm height
Saddle: 74.3cm
Reach: 61.5cm

Same ballpark numbers as Peter Sagan rides but possessing neither the skill nor the wattage.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-06-2016, 02:35 PM
Coalfield Coalfield is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 59
I'm in the range.
Age 65.

186/79/58

edit: checking a few other bikes, my reach is less than 58 on most. So my reach is under the range of avg, makes sense given my age.

Last edited by Coalfield; 12-06-2016 at 02:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.