bike shit fit

[SteveP]

Thank you, that recalls some of the best advice I got soon after. An old Aussie pro, who had watched me race, said "you've got to be comfortable in the hooks, man!" That it was the best, most efficient and safest, place to be. So I tried a stem with more reach and a little more rise. Angels sang.

.

wasnt angels singing ... it was me yelling " pedal harder you bitch..."
sounds angelic when well practiced.

important to be able to ride in the drops comfortably. otherwise yr screwed.

[SteveP]

Just to drag up an oldie....

Thought I'd try to fit my lady tonight using the Comp_ Cyclist fit calculator. Measured twice just to make sure, but they're telling me she needs a 46 st (c-c), 56.5 tt bike. The weird thing is her proportions are exactly the opposite--she's got more leg than torso. Completely baffled.

this is whack.
something wrong in the formula, measurements or intersection thereof.

steveps formula
standard size woman requires 50cm st and 51cm tt.

[Lionel]

Gregg L looks great in these pics, but go see the IF thread, he may not be able to be in that position today ;-)

[SteveP]

Gregg L looks great in these pics, but go see the IF thread, he may not be able to be in that position today ;-)

to interject a limited amount of common sense here...
there is slim likelihood that many forum members will be able to attain and be comfortable in the high race position of the best 24 yr old cycling athletes in the world.
" wanna look like bartoli,, lemond..".. probably not going to be... live with it.. get yrself comfortable using all positions... thats the goal.

is kind of the equivalent to
"wanna be a gymnast like mary lou retton ( when she was 17 )..."

[Lionel]

to interject a limited amount of common sense here...
there is slim likelihood that many forum members will be able to attain and be comfortable in the high race position of the best 24 yr old cycling athletes in the world.
" wanna look like bartoli,, lemond..".. probably not going to be... live with it.. get yrself comfortable using all positions... thats the goal.

is kind of the equivalent to
"wanna be a gymnast like mary lou retton ( when she was 17 )..."

Flexibility and age is one thing, big gut sticking out is another, if it is in the way it is in the way. I see plenty of 60+ years old guys here that still have their bikes in the same position than when they were young and racing. But they ride a lot and have no extra weight on.

[davids]

These two people are not saying the same thing. Only one of them is making sense:

to interject a limited amount of common sense here...
there is slim likelihood that many forum members will be able to attain and be comfortable in the high race position of the best 24 yr old cycling athletes in the world.
" wanna look like bartoli,, lemond..".. probably not going to be... live with it.. get yrself comfortable using all positions... thats the goal.

is kind of the equivalent to
"wanna be a gymnast like mary lou retton ( when she was 17 )..."

Come on. For 99% of non-racing cyclists that is not a comfortable way to sit on a bike, at all. Trying to apply that position to most people is just racer chic.
As for handling "properly", when is that ever an issue unless a person is racing?

[Loknor]

I watched the 1985 International Bicycle Classic last night for "homework"
Everyone looked amazing
of course Lemond was over the top classy
and watching young Hampster sit on his bike as he climbed- buttah!

growing up i had a couple of full length mirrors around my trainer with the old Winning "pin-ups" taped around

And all in all it's about as ergonomical as using a brick as a saddle....

The general cadence has grown a lot these days and has influence on riding style, especially when climbing.

[Brandon White]

Come on. For 99% of non-racing cyclists that is not a comfortable way to sit on a bike, at all. Trying to apply that position to most people is just racer chic.
As for handling "properly", when is that ever an issue unless a person is racing?

Maybe it should be added, that a racer-style position (flat back, correct reach, correct setback) is optimal for people who are somewhat fit.

However - in regards to handling properly - its always an necessity. Who wants to descent a mountain or take that 90 degree turn sitting upright and unbalanced? Not me. Wonky setups can be dangerous regardless if they are more comfortable for people who are unfit to ride in a race-like position.

[Loknor]

I'm baffled why Lemond's fit is all of a sudden the holy grail we all should try to achieve. I'm also very sceptical about the "move the saddle backwards" mantra.

Afaik my body is quite different than Lemond and so are my cycling needs. On the moving the saddle backwards... moving a saddle back 1-2 cm doesn't dramatically change a bike's handling. The same goes for the crazy notion that a bike needs a heap of drop to be stable. Considering Fignon and Hinault had much less drop than for example Bartoli and still could descend as dervishes I'm assigning this one to folklore. you can find a perfectly stable safe descent worthy fit without insane amounts of drop. Just look at the true mile-eating randonneurs.

laurent-fignon-3.jpg

Much hyperbole in this thread.

[ergott]

Who wants to descent a mountain or take that 90 degree turn sitting upright

agreed

First thing I do when the road gets technical is get low in the drops. The idea is to keep the center of gravity low and centered.

[Bobqzz]

agreed

First thing I do when the road gets technical is get low in the drops. The idea is to keep the center of gravity low and centered.

Why would you want the center of gravity low?

Why do mountain bikes, which require maximum control, have straight bars?

[Loknor]

agreed

First thing I do when the road gets technical is get low in the drops. The idea is to keep the center of gravity low and centered.

And yet at the cobbles a guy like Tchmil picked a more upright position.

museeuw_johan1995_600.jpg

I'm convinced there are more ways to skin a cat.

[Bobqzz]

Maybe it should be added, that a racer-style position (flat back, correct reach, correct setback) is optimal for people who are somewhat fit.

However - in regards to handling properly - its always an necessity. Who wants to descent a mountain or take that 90 degree turn sitting upright and unbalanced? Not me. Wonky setups can be dangerous regardless if they are more comfortable for people who are unfit to ride in a race-like position.

Optimal for what? Certainly not comfort. Perhaps for speed, but if you are not comfortable it is hard to go fast. Don't most people ride bicycles because it is fun and for exercise? If I "optimize" my position, perhaps the improved aerodynamics will allow me to go a mph or so faster- so what? If I'm uncomfortable, it seems less likely I'll ride as much.

In what way does upright=unbalanced? How is an upright set-up "wonky"? How are the dangerous? Where are we riding- Tour stages, or am I just out for a ride? Am I racing down the mountain? Perhaps people could just slow down for the corner if their allegedly less than optimum position negatively affects the handling.

This obsession (not yours specifically, just in general) with racers and racing bikes as being the standard to which to aspire seems awfully silly to me. It not only creates a barrier to the casual cyclist, but also results in rafts of racer chic bikes that will only take a 23mm tire and on which you can't even get the handlebars even with the saddle.

Those who prefer to adopt the racer persona are free to do so, and I hope they have much fun and enjoyment, but to say those bikes and positions are superior is quite elitist.

[ergott]

Why would you want the center of gravity low?

Physics.

[christian]

Those who prefer to adopt the racer persona are free to do so, and I hope they have much fun and enjoyment, but to say those bikes and positions are superior is quite elitist.

This is a webforum which discusses sportive cycling, for example 100km rides at 30kph. For such riding, those bikes and positions are superior. No one is advocating those types of positions on longtails and bakfiets. Straw man.

[Brandon White]

Optimal for what? Certainly not comfort. Perhaps for speed, but if you are not comfortable it is hard to go fast. Don't most people ride bicycles because it is fun and for exercise? If I "optimize" my position, perhaps the improved aerodynamics will allow me to go a mph or so faster- so what? If I'm uncomfortable, it seems less likely I'll ride as much.

In what way does upright=unbalanced? How is an upright set-up "wonky"? How are the dangerous? Where are we riding- Tour stages, or am I just out for a ride? Am I racing down the mountain? Perhaps people could just slow down for the corner if their allegedly less than optimum position negatively affects the handling.

This obsession (not yours specifically, just in general) with racers and racing bikes as being the standard to which to aspire seems awfully silly to me. It not only creates a barrier to the casual cyclist, but also results in rafts of racer chic bikes that will only take a 23mm tire and on which you can't even get the handlebars even with the saddle.

Those who prefer to adopt the racer persona are free to do so, and I hope they have much fun and enjoyment, but to say those bikes and positions are superior is quite elitist.

Everyone has their own standards - don't get down on the group here (most long time members) because we share an opinion on what is the best way to ride and enjoy a bike. Setup your bike how you like, get comfortable, and ride. I'm not saying everyone needs to have a race-like setup, but don't say a flat back, balanced position, and low center of gravity is for racing only. For many, its the most comfortable efficient way to ride a bike. Just like I think a Gaulzetti Corsa with 22mm tubulars is the best way for me to enjoy riding from point A to point B, you might have a different opinion.

Racers ride in their position because its the fastest, most efficient way for them to do their job.

Regarding mountain bikes with flat bars, flat bars are good for negotiating hairpin turns while applying the disk brakes on 6 inch singletrack, not for carving a switchback at 30 - 60 mph on 22mm tubulars.

[Paul]

Optimal for what? Certainly not comfort. Perhaps for speed, but if you are not comfortable it is hard to go fast. Don't most people ride bicycles because it is fun and for exercise? If I "optimize" my position, perhaps the improved aerodynamics will allow me to go a mph or so faster- so what? If I'm uncomfortable, it seems less likely I'll ride as much.

In what way does upright=unbalanced? How is an upright set-up "wonky"? How are the dangerous? Where are we riding- Tour stages, or am I just out for a ride? Am I racing down the mountain? Perhaps people could just slow down for the corner if their allegedly less than optimum position negatively affects the handling.

This obsession (not yours specifically, just in general) with racers and racing bikes as being the standard to which to aspire seems awfully silly to me. It not only creates a barrier to the casual cyclist, but also results in rafts of racer chic bikes that will only take a 23mm tire and on which you can't even get the handlebars even with the saddle.

Those who prefer to adopt the racer persona are free to do so, and I hope they have much fun and enjoyment, but to say those bikes and positions are superior is quite elitist.

................so it's not possible for amateur riders to be both comfartable and maintain a low euro pro type position?

Racing bikes are designed for a particular type of riding and a particular type of person/body shape
ie. someone with a good level of fitness who doesn't carry excess weight

That's the way it's always been - you adapt to the demands of the sport and the bike - not the other way round

[Loknor]

This is quite odd... somehow I get the impression that going against the mantra is frowned upon.

This while there is plenty of evidence that it's not as clear cut as is made out. Again: Fignon was wrong and Bartoli was right? HOGWASH.

Also, the praise heaped on Lemond in the IF thread doesn't jibe with the criticism here that you need to strive to saddle far back, backside horizontal to know what you are doing.

[Paul]

This is quite odd... somehow I get the impression that going against the mantra is frowned upon.

This while there is plenty of evidence that it's not as clear cut as is made out. Again: Fignon was wrong and Bartoli was right? HOGWASH.

Also, the praise heaped on Lemond in the IF thread doesn't jibe with the criticism here that you need to strive to saddle far back, backside horizontal to know what you are doing.

Fignon/Bartoli - at first glance their might appear to be big differences -

but, look more closely (and this has been mentioned loads of times on here) Fignon's bars are deeper drop and the lever hoods are lower down on the bars

so, really, the differences are only slight

[Z3c]

the fact of the matter is, moving further behind the bb will shift weight off the front end. if you found relief, then you have made the correct adjustment. try this experiment. get a chair with a hard, smooth seat so that you can easliy slide around on it. sit squarely in the middle of the seat and have your heels directly beneath the forward edge of the seat and plant them on the floor in a stance that replicates the distance between your pedals. now lean forward so that your back angle replicates your riding position when in the drops. stretch out your arms so that they are in the same position when you are in the hooks. while keeping your feet planted in the same spot on the floor, shift your ass to the front edge of the seat while keeping the same back angle and hand reach. your hands should move the same distance forward that your ass moved. after you do this, slide all the way back into the chair while keeping your feet in the same spot on the floor but move your upper body back with your ass. go back and forth a few times in this position and you will feel how this weight shift changes the muscle recruitment in your upper body. as you move forward you will feel more strain in your shoulders, neck and lower back. as you move back you will feel more weight planted on the "saddle". again, again, again i want to stress that sitting back is not ideal for all cyclists, but don't discount the advantage if you have some of the issues that i outlined previously.

Sorry, but this might be the most absurd thing I have ever read here. There are so many variables; exactly how does one know when sitting in a chair that they have assumed the same back angle they have on the bike and then how does one shift while maintaining the same angle? You are not sitting on a saddle and that has numerious ramifications because your legs are supported just for starters. I have this hilarious image in my head of guys sitting in their kitchens while wives hold protractors to their hips.. Again, sorry, but really?

What really bothers me about almost every fit related thread is that so many of you speak in absolutes; fit simply is not absolute. LeMond had a lot of setback; he had abnormally long femurs so it was appropriate for him. Ryder won the Giro on a zero setback post(heresy according to this place); just think how fast he would be if he would listen to the experts here. You would think some "properly" fit road cyclist would just kill Kona if he showed up with the right setback; everyone else is centimeters in front of their bb and all they can manage is 112 solo miles at 24+mph in windy/hilly conditions. Setback is history driven folks; it was chiseled into the first CONI manual and won't die. You pedal via a rotating crank; move the rider a bit and the power transfer points shift with the rider, they don't go away.
For 99% of folks, riding comfortably is all this is about. I have amended the fits of so many people who were enduring/hating their bikes instead of enjoying them because "experienced" friends made some suggestions. What works for one person has very little to no relevance to the next person. I don't care if two folks are virtual physical clones, they won't have the same injury history, the same flexibility, the same perceptions of comfort etc..
If having moved to more setback yielded improved riding for you, that is the lesson; it works for you. The real lesson from Merckx is that even for one person fit is dynamic depending on the route, how you feel, whatever else caused Eddy to feel the need to fiddle. Look at the pic of Eddy; look at his arms; they are often a telling factor- how many of you have that much elbow bend when you ride on the hoods?

Advice to someone who asks? Go for a ride by yourself, get warmed up, stop and make a change and resume riding and set what it tells you. Repeat. A great thing to do in the winter/trainer time. And/or find a fitter who will listen to you, not tell you what is "right". When the rider is tired is when the ugly truth comes out and when the right position is most needed..

Sorry, but I am astounded by the ease with which fit advice is dispensed/swallowed as being an absolute; it is truly counter-productive for so many riders.