login
Bike fit controversy
-
No new posts
 2014-06-15 8:10 PM |
New user 21 Ottawa, Ontario |  Subject: Bike fit controversyI upgraded my bike this year. I came across some extra money and finally got my dream bike - a Bianchi Sempre pro. It's a 53 cm frame (they picked that out) and had it fitted at the shop. It was a really weird fit process - they had me on some fit machine and moved parts of it around until my power output and comfort was maximized. I asked about measurements/plumb lines etc and they told me it was a 'dymamic fit process'. They moved parts around and asked which positions I liked better (akin to being at the eye doctor). They built my bike from there and away I went. On test ride - felt great. Fast forward 1 month - I now feel cramped and short on the bike. Did a sprint tri, 200k bike tour, 15 k time trial and multiple training sessions. My traps hurt and I feel rounded in my back. That being said - it's been my fastest sprint and tt to date. I went to get another fit by a woman who is highly recommended in the area. It was a three hour process with dartfish, plumblines, angles, movement, etc: from cleats to handlebars. In the end - she said the bike frame is too small for me - 55 should be better. I'm pretty upset about this news. I called the bike shop and asked if I could switch out the frame for a bigger one - and not surprisingly - they won't do it without a 'refit'. So, I'm going back to the shop in 2 weeks to redo that... in the meantime, I have a 130 stem on the bike and would love to reach a little bit farther. Questions: 1. Is this common? Bike fitters just don't see eye to eye? 2. Is there some basic standards someone can point me to? For example: should the front of your tibia be over your pedal or a few cm behind/forward? Should the angle between your body and your arms be ~90 degrees? Is it generally well accepted that your hip/knee/ankle angle at the bottom of the pedal stroke should be 140 - 150 or so? 3. If the shop feels the bike is the right fit, I'm assuming they won't switch the frame out for me. Then what? Get a third opinion or just mess around with it until I am comfortable? Any good pieces of advice? |
| 2014-06-15 10:38 PM in reply to: embot |
Veteran 572  Hudson Valley | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy I read several fit static guides, and self fitted using a video. While I haven't read anything on dynamic fit, I would choose it over static fit since it most resembles riding conditions. Maybe all you need is an adjustment of handlebar position to relieve your traps. Leave the legs alone since they experience no muscle pulls, cramps, or other pain.. See if your 1st fitter will give your a free, final adjustment for just the handle bar position. |
| 2014-06-16 5:57 AM in reply to: embot |
Pro 5892  , New Hampshire | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy If the first store is willing to swap out the bike only with a re-fit, then ok, let me re-fit you, but at their dime. You're paid for the service and any decent bike fitter will include a follow up fitting. A dynamic fit process would still include a complete documentation of your fit though… if they can't provide that, then I really wonder how serious they are. Bike fitters will not always have the same philosophy, that's why it's so important to pick a fitter you trust and feel comfortable working with. That being said, if you start from a specific brand/model, then there might be compromises causing you to fall between two sizes… that's a clear indication that the geometry may not be ideal for you… Regarding "standards", unfortunately, not really. The reason is quite simple, if each individual had the same build and muscle/body balance, then yes, you could use a standard, but unfortunately, that's not the case. Most people are quite a bit asymmetrical… body measurement different from left to right, range of motion differences, and/or muscular imbalance. This is one of the big reasons why two people of exactly the same stature may fit very differently. |
| 2014-06-16 8:19 AM in reply to: audiojan |
Champion 7136 Knoxville area | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy |
| 2014-06-16 12:04 PM in reply to: embot |
| 60 | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy Fit changes. I know some people will say that unless your body changes, it doesn't, but in my experience it does. What was comfortable for you when you got your first fit done may not be as comfortable to you now with some miles on the bike. And what is comfortable for an hour or so during the fit may not be as comfortable after three or four. I had a fit done a little over a year ago. I've raised the saddle on all my bikes at least twice since then. Also, when I did my fit, they stretched my cockpit a little bit. Felt awkward at first, now it feels right. None of that answers your questions, but no, fitters don't always see eye to eye, and even those that use the same methods will come up with different numbers, so my friends who have done multiple fits with different people tell me. I believe it's more art than science, and the "correct" fit may not be the most comfortable and fastest for any given individual. And, as you discovered, what's comfortable can change. I view a bike fit as a starting point, not the final answer. Unfortunately it gets expensive when you're changing out carbon stems and seatposts, or frames. |
| 2014-06-17 8:16 PM in reply to: embot |
| New user 21 Ottawa, Ontario | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy Thanks all. Just to briefly clarify - both the first and second fitters both did a dynamic fit- one with guru the other with dartfish. The first fitter never took measurements/angles/plumblines etc. They just asked if I preferred this position vs that position (and moved components back and forth by a cm each time). The store said I could get on anything from a 51-53 frame. My previous bike was a 56 frame (and too big for sure). Second fitter says I should be around 54-55 cm. Sheesh! No one can even agree on a frame size - let alone the geometry of the bike... I fully appreciate that I'm asking my bike to do a lot for me: TT, triathlon, granfondo, bike tour, sunday morning rides... but 80% of what I do consists of 1 hour training sessions, sprint tri's and 15 k time trials - hence why I got the more aggressive road bike. The biggest issue is my reach. What are peoples angles from torso to arm? Is 90 degrees pretty normal? I'm sitting around 83 right now (hence why my traps are strained). Unless I'm getting over 100k on a ride - it doesn't seem to bother me. |
| 2014-06-17 8:52 PM in reply to: 0 |
Veteran 212 Commerce, Georgia | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy I certainly learned a lot about bike fitting here.. My first "1994 Kestrel 200SCI" I did my own fit based on things I read. Put a seatpost that was curved forward to put me more over the pedals, added some Profile Design Aero bars that were adjustable. The Frame was a 54,,"thats what the bike shop told me was my size. How did he know that? Well I think it was a bit on the higher end size but it worked. I now have a Trek Speed Concept 7.0 and had a fit at the shop where I bought it. It was only done with the angles and stuff,,however the seat height he set for me to get the "proper" leg angle was lower than I was use so I set it somewhere inbetween my Kestrel and the Trek. The Trek is a Medium. Not sure what cm's that is representing, but fits a bit smaller than the 54cm which is better for me... I have not had any issues. The 90 degree angle you speak of with the arms/torso, I think is the starting point,, obviously slight variations there wouldnt effect fit too much.. Anyway, I think any custom fit is the basic fit and then someone like me likes to change things to make it my fit... Long story short. The Trek is a dream machine and has taken me for many 100mile rides, 2 half ironmans and everything inbetween...I think the boday has to adjust somewhat to a new bike or slightly different geometry,, the more we ride the more the body becomes connected to the bike. Oh,, the ole Kestrel took me through a year and a half of full Ironman training as well as the Ironman with no issues. So thinking that I did that fit myself combined with almost 20 years of riding it,, I never had any issues. Edited by kandk 2014-06-17 8:58 PM |
| 2014-06-18 11:10 PM in reply to: embot |
Pro 5892 , New Hampshire | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy Originally posted by embot Thanks all. Just to briefly clarify - both the first and second fitters both did a dynamic fit- one with guru the other with dartfish. The first fitter never took measurements/angles/plumblines etc. They just asked if I preferred this position vs that position (and moved components back and forth by a cm each time). The store said I could get on anything from a 51-53 frame. My previous bike was a 56 frame (and too big for sure). Second fitter says I should be around 54-55 cm. Sheesh! No one can even agree on a frame size - let alone the geometry of the bike... I fully appreciate that I'm asking my bike to do a lot for me: TT, triathlon, granfondo, bike tour, sunday morning rides... but 80% of what I do consists of 1 hour training sessions, sprint tri's and 15 k time trials - hence why I got the more aggressive road bike. The biggest issue is my reach. What are peoples angles from torso to arm? Is 90 degrees pretty normal? I'm sitting around 83 right now (hence why my traps are strained). Unless I'm getting over 100k on a ride - it doesn't seem to bother me. Dartfish will capture the angles… and I believe, so will the software that Guru developed. Asking the rider what they think, is a clear sign of an inexperienced fitter… you end up with that eventually, but that's not the starting point... |
| 2014-06-19 12:23 PM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 19812 MA | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy Not all 51-53 frames are the same as are the 54-55 or the larger size. Just look at the stack and reach charts to see how they vary. Have you done some reading over on Slowtwitch about stack and reach? You can learn a lot about what you are asking about with angles and such by reading the 10+ articles they have on tri bike fits. There are the tools they use that can be simple like plumb line or complex like Guru or Retuel fit, but they are all trying to measure angles and see relationships of your body relative to other parts or parts of the bike. Your original fit seems odd, as much as they move things around, they should be aiming for some type of range of knee extension and the relationship of your forarms to upper arm, ect. I've been fit by 4 different fitters all extolling how good they are. Most had been trained of various methods and they thought their training was the best and they were well trained. One fit TT bikes and had never had anyone in such a forward position relative to the bottom bracket which is pretty typical for triathletes. He also couldn't set up my bike to copy my old bikes position. Another fitter liked to use the Retuel angles they suggest for triathletes, but had me positioned to far back. Rotating me around my bottom bracket got me into a more aero position, and was more comfortable as well. Some fitters judge folks as to what position they can hold and what degree of aggressiveness is appropriate for you. Bike fitting is like religion everyone thinks their way is the best. As a consumer wanting to have a solid fit and buy the right size bike it can be challenging to figure out who to trust. Athletes like to feel confident in their decision so they like to say their guy is the best fitter. To the OP clearly you doubted the first fit if you went to someone else to do a follow up on your new bike. Do you have to pay for a follow up fit or will they do that free? I think it should be free as most fits need tweaking a bit after riding for a few hundred miles. Edited by KathyG 2014-06-19 12:23 PM |
| 2014-06-23 8:19 PM in reply to: KathyG |
| New user 21 Ottawa, Ontario | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy A friend just told me about slowtwitch... I'll be doing a lot of reading over the next week I think. Thanks for the reference!! They do followup fits for free. Best case scenario: the store agrees the reach is too short - trades out the frame then I go back to my local lady (whom I trust - I guess I choose her bike fit religion.... ha ha ha) and get the little things sorted out. Worst case scenario: the store disagrees and adjusts fit on current frame - I try that out for a bit and if it works - great. If it doesn't... then I go back again... until it works.... You have all been very helpful. I'll post an update in a week for those that are interested. |
| 2014-06-23 8:22 PM in reply to: 0 |
| New user 21 Ottawa, Ontario | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy >>>> Dartfish will capture the angles… and I believe, so will the software that Guru developed. Asking the rider what they think, is a clear sign of an inexperienced fitter… you end up with that eventually, but that's not the starting point... >>>>>>> My concern exactly... No angles on my guru information - just measurements for the bike configuration. Edited by embot 2014-06-23 8:23 PM |
| 2014-07-04 5:33 PM in reply to: 0 |
| New user 21 Ottawa, Ontario | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy Update: Went back to the store and the bike store fitter agreed that the seat adjustments done by local fitter were needed. I showed him the problem with the short reach and being too upright. He went to get help and brought back the salesman that sold me the bike. They both told me that going up a size would not solve my problem. My shorter femurs means I might be too far behind my pedals on the size up (basic trigonometry on the geometry provided on the website says it should be fine as long as I put on a zero angle seat post). I asked if they could find a way to stretch me out on the smaller frame so they dropped my handle bars by 2 spacers and put on a 130 mm stem. It's maxed out. Lets play true or false for road bikes: Local fitter says 130 mm stem = bike frame too small and twitchy steering Bike store fitter says 130 mm stem = aggressive bike with narrow wheel base and longer stem stabilizes steering Local fitter says torso/arm angle at 90 degrees for comfort (which I do for my fun rides) Bike store fitter says you need to bend your elbows, get more aero and keep core engaged and the 90 degrees comes naturally (which I do when I race) Local fitter says neck/trap pain from being to cramped on the bike Bike store fitter says neck/trap pain from weak core and too far a reach Wow. Any comments on those points? I've spent a few hours on the bike - too soon to really know how it feels - it's aggressive alright and fine for anything under 1 hour but once I do a long ride or two - I think it'll be painful. My general impression is that the local fitter is getting me comfortable on a bike and performance will come whereas the bike store is going for the small frame with jacked seat post/slammed handlebar theme and getting me into a really aggressive position - maybe too soon for my body to handle. Honestly - I'm going to get a third impartial opinion and more time on the bike and hopefully the store will stick by their 1 year fit guarantee if things really aren't working out. Any and all opinions welcome. Thx Edited by embot 2014-07-04 5:39 PM |
| 2014-07-07 5:16 AM in reply to: embot |
Pro 5892 , New Hampshire | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy - Local fitter says 130 mm stem = bike frame too small and twitchy steering - Bike store fitter says 130 mm stem = aggressive bike with narrow wheel base and longer stem stabilizes steering 130mm stem is not that uncommon… it's not an indication of either of those statements though… Some bike designer even intentionally design frames slightly "short" to be ridden with a longer stem (for example, Ernesto Colnago designs his frames for a 120mm stem). - Local fitter says torso/arm angle at 90 degrees for comfort (which I do for my fun rides) - Bike store fitter says you need to bend your elbows, get more aero and keep core engaged and the 90 degrees comes naturally (which I do when I race) You should have a slight bend in your elbows… straight arms will cause pain. - Local fitter says neck/trap pain from being to cramped on the bike - Bike store fitter says neck/trap pain from weak core and too far a reach The problem with those statements is that both are correct…. trap pain is usually an indication that your too compressed, neck pain is commonly too weak of a core for the fit. All in all, I think you have two bad fitters… neither one seem to take YOU in consideration, but rather fits your to a "philosophy of the perfect fit". |
| 2014-07-07 9:37 AM in reply to: embot |
Extreme Veteran 717 Chicago, USA | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy From what I have read so far, it appears that your frame is too small. But your 2nd fitter might have been off too. If it helps, remember that bike fitting is not evidence based, it is an art, not by any stretch a science. Any chance that you can post (or link to) a good photo of you on your bike as it currently is, taken directly from the side, and you in somewhat snug clothing? |
| 2014-07-07 3:42 PM in reply to: DarkSpeedWorks |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy Maybe this will muddy the waters even more. Go to competitivecyclist.com and they have a fitting calculator. I was shocked how close the output was to my fitting. So close in fact, if I ever lost my setup, I could go back to it and find my measurements. It will suggest a bike reach that will work for you. I'm curious if it agrees to one fitter or the other. |
| 2014-07-09 6:00 PM in reply to: Kido |
| New user 21 Ottawa, Ontario | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy I'll put up 2 series of pictures. The first is after my initial fit at the store. The second is after my second fit with the local fitter. I do not have a picture (yet) of after my followup fit at the store. Here is my data put back from competitive cyclist. The Eddy Fit (cm) : Seat Tube Range c–c: 55 - 55.4 cm The Competitive Fit (cm): Seat Tube Range c–c: 53.8 - 54.2 cm The French Fit (cm): Seat Tube Range c–c: 56.7 - 57.2 cm (Screen shot 2014-07-09 at 6.43.17 PM.png) (Screen shot 2014-07-09 at 6.51.08 PM.png) Attachments ---------------- Screen shot 2014-07-09 at 6.43.17 PM.png (387KB - 6 downloads) Screen shot 2014-07-09 at 6.51.08 PM.png (380KB - 5 downloads) |
| 2014-07-09 6:47 PM in reply to: embot |
Extreme Veteran 717 Chicago, USA | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy Well, a few things: First, those pics are tiny. Any chance you got some higher resolution shots? And any chance you got some pics with you holding the drops? When I download each of the pics and look at them closely, the pictures are highly pixelated, but I can still see a few things. For a road bike fit, the bike does look really short for you (which tends to point to the frame being too small for you). Also, your position looks odd. Your back is unnaturally straight for a person on a bike. Did your fitter(s) mention this to you? If you had a few shots with a bit more natural curve in your spine and some shots of you holding the drops, that would help a lot. But it would really help to see some slightly bigger pics too. Greg @ dsw |
| 2014-07-10 8:25 AM in reply to: DarkSpeedWorks |
Pro 5892 , New Hampshire | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy I agree… there's definitely something seriously wrong with both fits…. I don't think that bike fits you at all. Sorry to say…. It looks like the reach is too short in both, and the drop is not enough. Basically, the entire geometry is wrong for you. The leg extension looks much better in the first set of photos than in the second. You really look odd (as in your fit looks odd, not you as the person…) in the second set of photos. |
| 2014-07-10 7:15 PM in reply to: DarkSpeedWorks |
| New user 21 Ottawa, Ontario | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy Hey. Yup. I feel the same way. I'm away at a conference this week but when I get back I'll get some more 'natural' looking shots riding the bike outdoors with the 130mm stem and spacers out. - hoods and drops. Thanks for your comments - it makes me feel less like a crazy woman. -emily |
| 2014-07-10 7:58 PM in reply to: embot |
Extreme Veteran 717 Chicago, USA | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy I didn't realize you were using a 130mm stem on a bike that small. A stem that long for a guy that is 6'3'' and riding a 60cm road frame, not crazy at all. But for you? On that bike? Your frame is too small. And you're not crazy by any stretch. But these folks calling themselves "fitters"? And then telling you that you're fine on your frame size? Maybe not crazy, but very very very problematic. Best of luck, look forward to hearing updates ... Greg |
| 2014-07-14 8:16 AM in reply to: audiojan |
| Veteran 379 | Subject: RE: Bike fit controversy Originally posted by audiojan I agree… there's definitely something seriously wrong with both fits…. I don't think that bike fits you at all. Sorry to say…. completely agree with this agree- the bike does not fit. also, the second fitting could be off because the bike is too small. having been sold a bike that was too small myself, of course sales man will stand by his declaration that he sold you the right size. I had a salesman refuse to let me ride the size I knew was my size because he had made an assessment of my size standing next to me. i.e he was shorten than me, and well, I had to ride the same size a him as larger would not be good for his runt complex, so while I asked for a larger size, he actually refused. sometimes it's the runt complex, sometimes it's what that they have in stock, sometimes it's other random factors, but sales people should not be the ones giving the fitter input on whether he sold you the right size. |
|
|
|
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK