Ai_1 wrote:
trentnix wrote:
Alleged wrote:
I guess the "perfect fit" for me wasn't out of the box, but rather through a bike fit.
The size of the bike is Large. It has 30mm of spacers under the extensions (a 10mm and 20mm as part of the 3T riser kit). The E-117 comes with a range of different head spacers to use in the build and I picked the smaller one with a preference to use the 3T risers. There is a quote in here about that too (http://www.slowtwitch.com/...Spot_Bikes_5291.html). I see your point. Though I am very comfortable on the bike and quite happy. Cheers.im glad you enjoy the bike, I just wish your shop had sold you the correct size.
I would think under certain circumstances it would be a good thing to have spacers. Specifically, if you're not sure how low you'll be able to get at the front once you've had time to adapt but you need to start with a relatively modest drop. In this case you can't completely optimise the bike size for what you want to ride now or it will limit your options later. I'm planning to switch the bike I just got for a smaller size for this very reason. It's about perfect for the way I intend to ride it now. But I'm hopeful I can drop the armrests at least 30mm and maybe more over the next year or so and the current size doesn't allow that. You can get a couple of cm with step pitch (the bike pictured definitely could), so keep opportunities like that in mind. Sure, there are reasons to have spacers and reasons a rider might get lower in the future (weight loss, shorter racing, etc.) but the rise on that bike appears excessive, especially when making a claim of it being a great fit. There are some other things in the bike pictured that set off alarms as well (really short stem, shallow seat tube angle, etc.).
A number of local competitors - particularly one who does it egregiously - excessively use spacers but make claims about the excellence of their fit. In my opinion, customers spend a lot of money to get things done right, and shops (via incompetence or unscrupulousness) do those people a great disservice in how they fit their bikes. The bike pictured is no cheap "make it work" bike, but I believe the fit was sub par. A lot of money was spent, and it's possible a suboptimal bike and/or bike fit were chosen.
Spacers aren't engineered for speed. Headtubes are. Here's a great blog post about "spacer abuse" and a few reasons why you want to avoid it:
http://ttbikefit.com/blog/?p=766 I'm probably unnecessarily sensitive to such things, but as a retailer I take situations that I think do the customer a disservice personally. Many bicycle retailers lament the changing times and stiff headwinds they face, but the actual work product we see from some of our competitors (not all) is often really poor. Some shops try to be too many things, some shops don't have a high level of aptitude, and some shops simply aren't willing to educate themselves appropriately to better ways of fitting bikes, providing service, and meeting their customers needs.
We've struggled to articulate the difference between a "good bike fit" and a "bike that fits" in a way that sticks. A good bike fit is only about optimizing where, in space, the rider's five contact points should be. A bike that fits is about filling up that space underneath the rider with bicycle, not stem pitches, headset spacers, and armpad spacers. For example, my shop has a rule that we will allow 4 cm or less of spacers (with a negative stem pitch) for new bike purchases, except in edge cases (e.g. rider is exceptionally tall, rider expects to lose a few dozen lbs, etc.).
It's quite possible to get an excellent bike fit on any number of bikes and bike sizes. It's quite possible to get a bike that fits and have a poor bike fit. But why settle when you can not only have a good bike fit, but a bike that fits as well.
Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)