".....any chance of getting a little more insight here?!"

i think cervelo is ahead of the game when it comes to tri bikes, and it's very hard to be trek when it comes to road bikes. if i wanted the ultimate tri bike, it's very hard to be a P3. if i wanted the best road bike, you'd have to go a long way to beat a trek 5900.

otoh, trek hasn't shown me much with its time trial bike. nice bike, but not a geometry i'd like very much. cervelo's road bikes? i haven't seen the newest bikes team csc is riding, so i don't know how they compare.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I am going to add my two cents worth here:

What you have with the OCLV TT bike is a very nice boutique bike that fits only a few people and has a UCI legal geometry. That being said, if you're a TT'r who races UCI-sanctioned events or like a rearward position (and can fit this frame), then it's a good bike for you.

Do I ride a P3? Absolutely not. I like the bike, and if I could not have had my dream bike in my correct top tube size (my Corima Fox), then I would have seriously looked at the P3. That being said, it has a great combination of aerodynamics, adjustable geometry, and large range of sizes. The OCLV TT does not have those things.

Now, as far as a road bike, I miss my old Trek OCLV. I have only found a road bike I like a bit better, and that's my GT Course (853 steel, of course).

So going back to Jobo's question from the other thread (Griffen vs Cervelo vs Trek) WRT to the P3 specifically, why would there be any question about the bike fitting? If it's so adjustable and I really like the looks/aero/sexiness of the bike why should I be concerned about it fitting me? It sounds like there is very little chance that one of their sizes wouldn't fit me. This could probably be said of several other tri bikes (Guru, Litespeed etc). If you can get any of these to fit with the right stem and seatpost why would there be a question of buying the one that fits?

I think we've had this discussion before, but I don't recall having reached concensus on it. It seems like any bike can be made to fit, but not necessarily fit well (i.e., I'm 6'0" and I could probably get fit on a 53cm bike with some freakishly long stem, but do I really want to be hanging off the front that much?). So what are the general guidelines? Are they min/max stem length, exposed seatpost, weight distribution? If so, what are the "not to exceed" numbers in the critical categories? I have to admit that while I can look at a bike's geometry and understand the numbers, I have no idea how to take my measurements and apply them to a specific bike to see if it's a good fit or not.

Thanks Dan. I was more interested in Tom and your thoughts on bike fitting. For example, as I posted, getting fit on the serrotta sizer first, etc, etc.

---

---

KEEP ON TRI-NG

This is where anatomical measurements come in. I determined top tube length by my hip transcentre to shoulder trancentre. Some guys determine it from crotch-to-notch (of neck). There are quite a few more measurements to go from, including inseam, arm length, and some custom fit charts go down to the leg length (inc. femur and shin), upper arm and lower arm lengths, etc. No two size charts will be the same, and Cyfac even helps you determine your position on your bike before you even give measurements.

I would much rather have a bike a cm or two too short in the top tube than a centimeter or two way too long. You just don't want to have a stem that goes far over the axle, especially in the aero bars. As compact geometry frames have shown, seat post exposure is only governed by the minimum insertion of the post (to a point, naturally).

I have ridden a bike too long in the top tube, and to get what felt right (and provided the correct angles), I needed a very short stem, which made the steering quite squirrelly. I have even ridden a bike too short (yes, even short guys like me can have too small of a bike) and it handled weird, and I was terminally cramped.

Proper fit can only serve to enhance your cycling experience. An ill-fitting bike adapted to accomodate you can be uncomfortable and unsafe. Many bike shops determine bike size by what you've ridden or what length your pants are. This is where it really pays to get a proper sizing from a Serotta Size Cycle or Bio Racer fitting jig, or get the software to properly fit you with anatomical measurements (which I haven't a clue where to even look for it).

A bike is a serious dump of cash if it isn't right for you. I have dumped enough cash to preach this point.

Hey Bunnyman, where have you come by some of these fit charts?....Where I live, no one wants to size you first, they're afraid you won't buy one of their bikes....

---

---

KEEP ON TRI-NG

Bunnyman- thanks for the insight and comments. I totally agree with you and others that the final purchasing decision should be made after a good fit using professional tools, but I'm mostly curious about the suggestions from several people to take the geometry measurements from all bikes being considered and put them in an Excel spreadsheet and compare them to their measurements. This sounds wonderful to me, as I'm a terminal Excel freak (even took Dan's formula for armrest drop and made a spreadsheet out of it so I could quickly calculate drops based on different seat angles) but I would have no idea how to do this. Does anyone have a spreadsheet that they care to share?

Here's my guess on how I'd go about this, based on calculating my points in space:

1) determine seat height- fairly easy to do using either my current bike or the inseam formula.
2) determine cockpit distance- this is where I get a little lost. I think I have to solve for the hypotenuse of the triangle formed by my torso and upper arm length, plus my forearm length. So If I want an 80* setup, my back would be 10* to horizontal. Is this how people do it? I can't use my current bike as a reference because it's not a very good setup and I can't really get to a good setup on it.
3) now that I have desired cockpit distance, I subtract the length of the desired aerobars + "optimal" stem length (110-120mm?) to determine the necessary top tube (or virtual top tube). Is this correct?
4) pick the bike that fits these measurements.

Comments/suggestions?