Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Question about Scott Plasma (front page article)
Quote | Reply
 
I was just reading the article about the Scott Plasma...

So with my pad stack (about 64cm) and pad reach (about 45) numbers, am I reading that chart correctly in that I could just barely fit the reach of a size small??? Seems odd for someone 5'10. I know I have slightly shorter arms than some my height, but how would anyone much shorter than me fit on a Plasma if, according to the chart, the shortest reach on the smallest size is about 44.5cm?

Thx!
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [SBRcanuck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SBRcanuck wrote:

I was just reading the article about the Scott Plasma...

So with my pad stack (about 64cm) and pad reach (about 45) numbers, am I reading that chart correctly in that I could just barely fit the reach of a size small??? Seems odd for someone 5'10. I know I have slightly shorter arms than some my height, but how would anyone much shorter than me fit on a Plasma if, according to the chart, the shortest reach on the smallest size is about 44.5cm?

Thx!
Where are you measuring pad reach? The measurements on Dan's chart are to the center of the armpad, which is around 9 cm fore-aft. If you're looking for the range on the charge for the edge of the pad, subtract around 50 mm from the listed reaches.

The center of the armpad is how most manufacturers want their stack/reach measurements and that's what Dan gave them, but in my shop we prefer the edge of the armpad closest to the rider (like a Retul report measures). In my experience most riders guide their elbow position based on the back of the pad, not the center of the pad.

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [SBRcanuck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SBRcanuck wrote:

I was just reading the article about the Scott Plasma...

So with my pad stack (about 64cm) and pad reach (about 45) numbers, am I reading that chart correctly in that I could just barely fit the reach of a size small??? Seems odd for someone 5'10. I know I have slightly shorter arms than some my height, but how would anyone much shorter than me fit on a Plasma if, according to the chart, the shortest reach on the smallest size is about 44.5cm?

go to this article. what you'll see is that bikes are pretty similar one to the next nowadays in terms of frame geometry, but they're all over the place in how they fit because of the front ends on these bikes.

if you had a giant trinity advanced pro you'd be on the forum complaining about your inability to get the Pad Y of 640mm you need, right? because giant screwed the pooch on pad height adjustability, while scott did not pay close enough attention to pad fore/aft adjustability. that chart i up explains the whole dilemma!

now, let me tell you how to get yourself out of your dilemma. first, this was sika henry's dilemma. she didn't have near enough pad x. but her problem wasn't the bike, it was her position. she wasn't forward enough. now she is. and when she went forward, she found all the pad x she needed. i therefore would like to investigate whether we really need to find you a pad y of 450mm or so on a size M (which is probably what you need) before we go to the trouble of doing that.

having said that, the plasma premium has profile design made aerobars. but the pads themselves aren't that big. plus, there is no way to move the pads fore/aft other than place them in a fore or aft holeset and there are only 3 holesets. you can move the extension fore/afte easily, but not the pads. you can go back 15mm or so and that's it. in fact, that prescriber in the article up today shows a range of 30mm fore/aft per size but it really isn't a range. it's 3 positions: neutral, 15mm fore, 15mm aft.

now, go to this article. see that big plush pad, that new f40 armrest? that has 5 holesets. i checked because i have that pad in my workshop, and the holes line up with the plasma premium bracket. i had these at the ready in case sika needed to come back some, and i was just going to sub these big pads in and move them as far back as i safely could.

so, if you really do need to move back to 450mm or so of pad y (measuring to the center of the pad) this new pad on a plasma will get you there on a size M. furthermore, the pad is sufficiently long, fore/aft, that you could get pretty close to where you need to be even if you're on a size L.

but make sure you're properly positioned before you go to extra lengths to make the bike match your current position.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [trentnix] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trentnix wrote:
SBRcanuck wrote:

I was just reading the article about the Scott Plasma...

So with my pad stack (about 64cm) and pad reach (about 45) numbers, am I reading that chart correctly in that I could just barely fit the reach of a size small??? Seems odd for someone 5'10. I know I have slightly shorter arms than some my height, but how would anyone much shorter than me fit on a Plasma if, according to the chart, the shortest reach on the smallest size is about 44.5cm?

Thx!
Where are you measuring pad reach? The measurements on Dan's chart are to the center of the armpad, which is around 9 cm fore-aft. If you're looking for the range on the charge for the edge of the pad, subtract around 50 mm from the listed reaches.

The center of the armpad is how most manufacturers want their stack/reach measurements and that's what Dan gave them, but in my shop we prefer the edge of the armpad closest to the rider (like a Retul report measures). In my experience most riders guide their elbow position based on the back of the pad, not the center of the pad.

I'm measuring both from the BB position. I just double checked my reach, it is 45.5cm.

I'm currently on a med trek SC9, 100/45 stem with a few spacers. I don't use that much saddle to pad drop, but didn't think I was -that- unusual in proportions!
Pic of my current setup attached.

Dan - good point about fit. I'm on the east coast of Canada and my choices for fitters is extremely limited. I had one done by someone who uses the Specialized BG fit recommendations, and he actually had me in a position lower, further back, which actually required an even shorter reach from BB to pads. Didn't feel right to me.. :(
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [SBRcanuck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your Speed Concept looks pretty orthodox.

On pad reach, I know you are measuring from the bottom bracket, but from the bottom bracket to where? To the center of the armpad? To the edge of the armpad closest to the rider?

The Plasma is pretty narrow, so it's tough to understand why the SC set up in an orthodox fashion is narrower than the Plasma.

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [trentnix] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trentnix wrote:
Your Speed Concept looks pretty orthodox.

On pad reach, I know you are measuring from the bottom bracket, but from the bottom bracket to where? To the center of the armpad? To the edge of the armpad closest to the rider?

The Plasma is pretty narrow, so it's tough to understand why the SC set up in an orthodox fashion is narrower than the Plasma.

Sorry - from center of BB to center of arm pad.
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [SBRcanuck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SBRcanuck wrote:
trentnix wrote:
Your Speed Concept looks pretty orthodox.

On pad reach, I know you are measuring from the bottom bracket, but from the bottom bracket to where? To the center of the armpad? To the edge of the armpad closest to the rider?

The Plasma is pretty narrow, so it's tough to understand why the SC set up in an orthodox fashion is narrower than the Plasma.


Sorry - from center of BB to center of arm pad.
Gotcha. I see it now - you are on the "Near" setup it appears, since the minimum "Far" setup is 452.

That said, 5 mm isn't much in the world of bike fit when it comes to armpad reach. Your position might not be stretched enough. Your saddle might can come forward 5 mm to hit the 560 minimum of the Medium Plasma 5. You might be able to slide your elbows forward slightly. Even assuming you are in a perfect position now, I don't think you'll notice 5 mm of reach difference.

I think you can work just fine on a Plasma in a Medium, so if you're looking at getting one then go for it.

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [trentnix] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Just out of interest, why would you recommend a medium instead of a small?

If I'm at 45 reach and 64 stack, doesn't that put me right smack dab in the middle of the 'tri stem' chart for the small, according to the chart Dan has in the front page article? Is it because the medium would be a 'cleaner' setup with less bar/pad spacers than a small would require?
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [SBRcanuck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SBRcanuck wrote:
Just out of interest, why would you recommend a medium instead of a small?

If I'm at 45 reach and 64 stack, doesn't that put me right smack dab in the middle of the 'tri stem' chart for the small, according to the chart Dan has in the front page article? Is it because the medium would be a 'cleaner' setup with less bar/pad spacers than a small would require?
Yeah that was my thinking - cleaner setup.

Without seeing your fit (you on the bike) I'm making some assumptions that might not be true. But when you're 5'10 with a short reach, I presume you probably need a taller bike with a higher than average saddle. So ignore my recommendation of "go for it" because there's more data to gather.

This is a tall bike in a Small, so a Small might be the ticket after all.

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
having said that, the plasma premium has profile design made aerobars. but the pads themselves aren't that big. plus, there is no way to move the pads fore/aft other than place them in a fore or aft holeset and there are only 3 holesets. you can move the extension fore/afte easily, but not the pads. you can go back 15mm or so and that's it. in fact, that prescriber in the article up today shows a range of 30mm fore/aft per size but it really isn't a range. it's 3 positions: neutral, 15mm fore, 15mm aft.

You can also swap the J4 brackets left/right if you need more Pad X range, or are you already taking that into account? I was surprised by how much more reach adjustment you can get.
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [trentnix] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trentnix wrote:
SBRcanuck wrote:
Just out of interest, why would you recommend a medium instead of a small?

If I'm at 45 reach and 64 stack, doesn't that put me right smack dab in the middle of the 'tri stem' chart for the small, according to the chart Dan has in the front page article? Is it because the medium would be a 'cleaner' setup with less bar/pad spacers than a small would require?
Yeah that was my thinking - cleaner setup.

Without seeing your fit (you on the bike) I'm making some assumptions that might not be true. But when you're 5'10 with a short reach, I presume you probably need a taller bike with a higher than average saddle. So ignore my recommendation of "go for it" because there's more data to gather.

This is a tall bike in a Small, so a Small might be the ticket after all.

it just goes to show you how height alone just won't suffice. the lady who was the subject of my article of today, sika henry, is the same height as sbrcanuck: 5'10". she was vascillating between M and L (or i was on her behalf), and canuck is vascillating between M and S.

i don't think there's a bad choice here for him. he could make either an M or an S fit, and they'd both ride fine.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [Northy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Northy wrote:
Slowman wrote:
having said that, the plasma premium has profile design made aerobars. but the pads themselves aren't that big. plus, there is no way to move the pads fore/aft other than place them in a fore or aft holeset and there are only 3 holesets. you can move the extension fore/afte easily, but not the pads. you can go back 15mm or so and that's it. in fact, that prescriber in the article up today shows a range of 30mm fore/aft per size but it really isn't a range. it's 3 positions: neutral, 15mm fore, 15mm aft.


You can also swap the J4 brackets left/right if you need more Pad X range, or are you already taking that into account? I was surprised by how much more reach adjustment you can get.

yes you can. technically. scott doesn't really like that option, because it negates the use of that trailing edge little indentation in the bracket for Di2 wires. this is where i have a gentle disagreement with the folks at scott. consider the lady who i wrote the front page article about. she went mechanical 1x. besides, god in his infinite wisdom knew of man's frailty, and he took mercy on us and created the drill, and black plastic tape.

just realize that this technique you mention wouldn't have helped either the front page lady nor sbrcanuck: swapping the brackets adds, not subtracts, padx.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
just realize that this technique you mention wouldn't have helped either the front page lady nor sbrcanuck: swapping the brackets adds, not subtracts, padx.

Right, good point.

And with only one 10 mm spacer I can't make use of the trailing edge indent for my wires, but I can certainly imagine people would want it if they're using more.
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Follow up question, this time about the QR PR6 mentioned in the superbike fit article:
http://www.slowtwitch.com/...Front_End__6507.html

Am I correct in stating that the 54 PR6, which would have a good stack height for me, is going to be too long by about 3cm in reach? Anything I am missing? Or is this a situation where the aftermarket PD armrests would allow for more rearward positioning, or, replace the entire basebar/extensions to something more adjustable?

Thanks!
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [SBRcanuck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SBRcanuck wrote:
Follow up question, this time about the QR PR6 mentioned in the superbike fit article:
http://www.slowtwitch.com/...Front_End__6507.html

Am I correct in stating that the 54 PR6, which would have a good stack height for me, is going to be too long by about 3cm in reach? Anything I am missing? Or is this a situation where the aftermarket PD armrests would allow for more rearward positioning, or, replace the entire basebar/extensions to something more adjustable?
remember this about the QR PR series bikes: they use a different measuring convention when naming their bikes. they think the size of the frame should correspond to a measurable something on the bike. they've decided it's stack. so, a 54cm PR6 has a frame stack of 54cm (540mm).

what other bikes have a stack of 540mm? and a reach of 425mm, by the way. well, trek speed concept, in size L, cervelo in size 56cm, felt in size 56cm, and so on. these are generally considered bikes in size L, more or less. i would ride that size bike, and i'm 6'2".

that bike will in my opinion be too big for you.

QR has a pad x/y sizing system. i'll see if i can get QR's brad devaney to come on here. i'll defer to him because the PR6 has a new stem as of may or so and i don't know if they bike you're considering has the new stem or the stem that it started the year with. that will change the "prescription."

you were actually looking at the plasma premium in a size S, and the 50cm PR6 is the closest to that. so, you'll either be a 50cm or a 52cm in the PR6.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
SBRcanuck wrote:
Follow up question, this time about the QR PR6 mentioned in the superbike fit article:
http://www.slowtwitch.com/...Front_End__6507.html

Am I correct in stating that the 54 PR6, which would have a good stack height for me, is going to be too long by about 3cm in reach? Anything I am missing? Or is this a situation where the aftermarket PD armrests would allow for more rearward positioning, or, replace the entire basebar/extensions to something more adjustable?

remember this about the QR PR series bikes: they use a different measuring convention when naming ...
you were actually looking at the plasma premium in a size S, and the 50cm PR6 is the closest to that. so, you'll either be a 50cm or a 52cm in the PR6.


Well, also keep in mind that my trek fits me OK, which I think might actually be closer to a 52 PR6. But I guess I was hoping to get on to a higher bike to clean up the front end... I need longer arms... :)

Also, does the PR6 have a lower bottom bracket than the other bikes you mentioned (large trek, 56 cervelo)? I ask because the standover height of the PR in a 56 is 79cm according to their site, where the cervelo and trek are closer to 81 I believe...
Last edited by: SBRcanuck: Aug 29, 17 12:24
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The most popular choice for SBRcanuck would be the 50. However, the more contemporary coaches who 'upsize' would have you go with the 52, shift a bit further forward (taking advantage of opening the hip angle a few more degrees), and realizing a new reach number. I've found success with this in most every athlete who's been open to it. The stack is easily achieved on either size.

Cheers, guy!
Brad D
Last edited by: B DeVaney: Aug 29, 17 13:09
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [SBRcanuck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The F40 armrests would get you a bit further back, which would get you on to a 52.
This is your fit for the Gen1 stem (I entered dummy values for saddle position - they don't affect the Pad XY search). PXY based on pad rear.


This is the shortest stem option with the pads pushed all the way back (pad row 1 = max setback)
Because the stem is quite tall you don't have that much pad spacer stack.

If we look at the Gen2 stem with Aeria Ultimate


The shorter stem option with the increased setback of the Aeria Ultimate gets you on to a 52. Pads 30mm ahead of max setback position.
Obviously this means you could get on to a 54, but that would mean having the pad rear behind the frame x point, which the system tries to avoid. A 52 gives you a nice handling balance

Any bar that would give more setback means a separate pad clamp mounted on the extensions. Which carries the risk of the pads rotating down while riding. Better to get the right size frame with a sensible bar set up.
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [B DeVaney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
B DeVaney wrote:
The most popular choice for SBRcanuck would be the 50. However, the more contemporary coaches who 'upsize' would have you go with the 52, shift a bit further forward (taking advantage of opening the hip angle a few more degrees), and realizing a new reach number. I've found success with this in most every athlete who's been open to it. The stack is easily achieve on either size.

i agree. but therein lies the conundrum. do you fit him to a bike using the position he's in? or do you fit him to a bike using the position you suspect he's capable of achieving?

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
B DeVaney wrote:
The most popular choice for SBRcanuck would be the 50. However, the more contemporary coaches who 'upsize' would have you go with the 52, shift a bit further forward (taking advantage of opening the hip angle a few more degrees), and realizing a new reach number. I've found success with this in most every athlete who's been open to it. The stack is easily achieve on either size.


i agree. but therein lies the conundrum. do you fit him to a bike using the position he's in? or do you fit him to a bike using the position you suspect he's capable of achieving?

Dan, when will you be travelling to eastern Canada? :)
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's the high offset SC1 post set forward, with a Sitero quite forward on the rails. Starting to push the boundaries of being able to take the position any further forward.
I think the question that needs to be asked is why someone this height has such a short saddle-pads reach - roughly equivalent to 340mm with a traditional saddle.
While I've given the PXY matches above I wouldn't like to advocate a bike purchase based on what I can see of the current position.
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [cyclenutnz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
cyclenutnz wrote:
That's the high offset SC1 post set forward, with a Sitero quite forward on the rails. Starting to push the boundaries of being able to take the position any further forward.
I think the question that needs to be asked is why someone this height has such a short saddle-pads reach - roughly equivalent to 340mm with a traditional saddle.
While I've given the PXY matches above I wouldn't like to advocate a bike purchase based on what I can see of the current position.

Thats fair. Again, I don't really have access to many fitters here. I will work on getting a quick video shot on my bike and throw myself at the mercy of slowtwitchers....
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [SBRcanuck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SBRcanuck wrote:
cyclenutnz wrote:
That's the high offset SC1 post set forward, with a Sitero quite forward on the rails. Starting to push the boundaries of being able to take the position any further forward.
I think the question that needs to be asked is why someone this height has such a short saddle-pads reach - roughly equivalent to 340mm with a traditional saddle.
While I've given the PXY matches above I wouldn't like to advocate a bike purchase based on what I can see of the current position.


Thats fair. Again, I don't really have access to many fitters here. I will work on getting a quick video shot on my bike and throw myself at the mercy of slowtwitchers....

yeah, i think this is where we are. you have to pull your drawers down and show us. can't go to the next step until we see whatcha got.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [trentnix] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That actually is a medium far stem as i see it, the near stem goes 'straight' up.

Jeroen

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands
Quote Reply
Re: Question about Scott Plasma (front page article) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
SBRcanuck wrote:
cyclenutnz wrote:
That's the high offset SC1 post set forward, with a Sitero quite forward on the rails. Starting to push the boundaries of being able to take the position any further forward.
I think the question that needs to be asked is why someone this height has such a short saddle-pads reach - roughly equivalent to 340mm with a traditional saddle.
While I've given the PXY matches above I wouldn't like to advocate a bike purchase based on what I can see of the current position.


Thats fair. Again, I don't really have access to many fitters here. I will work on getting a quick video shot on my bike and throw myself at the mercy of slowtwitchers....


yeah, i think this is where we are. you have to pull your drawers down and show us. can't go to the next step until we see whatcha got.

Thx, starting a new thread with video.
Quote Reply