really not a head scratcher when you read the selection criteria and then figure who wrote it.

As far as the original post on the thread though I'll just say the following: is seems this didn't have anything to do with the bike fit itself as much as the team's seaming unwillingness to make it work (she seems to have said that herself). I was coaching an athlete who had to ride on that exact bike and it's one of easiest bikes out there on which to set up small woman--the headtube is tiny. You just have to ditch the fork/stem set-up, which is exactly what we did. Problem solved.

The bike itself was actually quite fast when the rear brakes weren't stuck to the wheel.

I think it is worth bearing in mind this isn't your typical pro road cyclist, she was deeply into the fanatical UK TT scene before turning pro which makes her a total aero nerd by default..!

standover height

---

No coasting in running and no crying in baseball

There is no reason why that needs to be the case.

Unfortunately there is no happy ending.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/british-cycling-unprofessional-and-disrespectful-says-simmonds-after-olympics-snub/

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

Yup, there's always an epi-epilogue. Sad news, indeed.

---

AndyF
bike geek

Jeez. Boy, Armstrong and Pooley better actually throw down in the Olympics to justify this sort of back-room decision-making.

Don't quote me on this, but I think it's mainly because the TT rider is also supposed to do the road race. But I'm not sure...

---

AndyF
bike geek

Bingo, same thing happened to MTM in Norway.

Yeah, understood. But my comment stands. Armstrong and Pooley better sell the farm for Armitstead and Guarnier in the RR, if the rationale is to focus on the road race.

especially when they can just get a different bike, give it identical team paint and decals and call it a prototype.

sponsor should be concerned about results and name recognition regardless of which bike allows the athletes to perform.

I wish the female pros had that much clout, or that much money that they could "just" paint a different bike. Most of these women are working for room and board, with lots of road miles and lots of travel and not much extra time to organise their lives. They're lucky enough if their bikes get to the national championships in one piece, triordie1994.

Women's pro cycling is far far far from what most people think it is. The athletes themselves are awesome, but the reality of racing pro is still not what it should be.

---

AndyF
bike geek

Some people seem to think shitting on the sponsors will help.

Here, woman .... you just sit your ass down here on this poorly-fitting bike, shut-up, and pedal.

---

AndyF
bike geek

Here's hoping there's some peace that's made in all this. However, 'tis the season:
http://www.durangoherald.com/...th-Carmen-Small-snub

---

AndyF
bike geek

The overarching principle in sport should always be winning (fairly). When other things take priority, it's usually bad in the long run.

Reverting to her own P5 (=beautiful carbon)

For those that did read the article, it was elbow width rather than height that was given as the main factor in not achieving a satisfactory position.
Individual riders and different manufacturers have different preferences for reach and stack - I used to have custom geo steel frames long and low, my choice of carbon frames is restricted. Haven't seen a Willier for a while, pretty certain it wasn't restricted to custom bars.

"Beautiful carbon" is my term for choosing the look of the bike frame over choosing it for positioning. My apologies -- it is a bit of an "in" joke among the group of fitters I work with.

Too many times we see customers choosing bikes for their beautiful carbon. Often, this carbon happens to be the integrated stem that makes fitting so difficult. Or whatever's hopelessly connected to it that's preventing a good fit.

There's nothing about beautiful carbon that is inherently bad, of course.

---

AndyF
bike geek