Retul bike is a good tool, but really it's the man working it. Dave knows his stuff... looks good.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

Will you be investigating Slowman's suggestions or are you and Dave satisfied with the fit?

Are you concerned about why the fit doesn't rate as good, or even great, by Dan?

If not, how did you guys arrive at a fit that doesn't seem better than "pretty good"? Shouldn't we expect an ST approved fitter with a Retul system to do better?

I realize these might be questions for Dave, but I'm assuming you've read Dan's comments in your other thread and have come to an understanding with Dave. I find the other thread interesting in that I would wager the ST collective would have a lot more to say about your fit if Dave wasn't Slowman approved (though Dan could not sign off completely on your fit)

I might add that there may be some compelling reasons for why it might deviate from "ideal" and for which you may not change a thing, but I am surprised they haven't been discussed publicly

I'm starting to think that Retul is responsible for the sheer number of short and tall frames on the market...

Monastero wrote:

I might add that there may be some compelling reasons for why it might deviate from "ideal" and for which you may not change a thing, but I am surprised they haven't been discussed publicly

Well the thing is that this FIST sheet seems a bit contradictory, it shows graphically the pad stack and pad reach as being measured from centre of BB to top of the head tube. Which isn't actually pad stack is it? If those values are in fact his pad x/y then it is 510/660 which is pretty "normal" based on Dan's graph (upper part of "midrange"). Whether or not that is "ideal" is another question altogether. Just because a lot of people end up doing something a certain way, doesn't mean it is the best thing to do...

Followup - I do believe those to be his pad x/y. His seat tube angle of 80 degrees and effective saddle height of 80.75 result in a vertical saddle height of 79.5 ish from the BB. This takeway the armrest drop of 13 does leaves you with 665mm which is close enough. Funny how that sheet is drawn, then.

So his pad x/y as actually fairly typical and middle of the road. Does look tall to me, but those are the numbers. Of course, opinions may vary about where the best place to be is on that chart - for example I'm down at the bottom with same x as the OP but a y of 575mm. Not that I'm necessarily in the right place, either.

I will give a one time reply here and copy it to the other thread. Not interested in a long debate regarding the outcome.

First, if I was internet fitting, I would certainly agree that the cockpit was a bit short, and I would speculate that if I got my hands on this rider, I could get him stretched out a bit. I would not however think that this result was incorrect nor outside the realm of possible positions that a proper fit could produce. hence the danger if internet fitting.

However, I was doing an actual fit on modern equipment, and using years of experience to elicit excellent feedback from the rider. As per the FIST protocol, you pretty much get what you want in regards to cockpit distance. That is not to say we didn't spend a good bit of time on that cockpit distance. In fact, we started out quite long (again, rider choice) and gradually brought it closer and closer. I went back to cockpit distance while changing the drop, after changing the setback, after angling the extensions, and even after shortening the crank. Each trial yielded a tighter cockpit.

After everything else was finalized, we went back one more time to see if a slightly longer reach was more comfortable. It was not, so we were done. This is not a masterpiece, I didn't create a work of art. I did give this athlete a solid fit. We definitely tuned in to a good bit of his bike fit DNA. Will he choose a longer cockpit on the future? Maybe, but he didn't yesterday.

Finally, I always take into consideration how a fit might change in the future when recommending bikes or simply discussing the results. In this case, I am almost certain the rider will never choose to be tighter, and pretty sure we squeezed about all the drop out of him that we can achieve without a loss in pedaling ability.

As far as Slowman assessing my fit as "pretty good", I'll take it. Maybe he has more to say, maybe not. One time he did a similar pretty good fit on a certain pro triathlete.

That IS his PAD X,Y. I have slightly modified the labels on the old standard FIST sheet, while failing to modify the diagram. Good eye.

Now IMO, this is a great fit. Just sayin'

"Will you be investigating Slowman's suggestions or are you and Dave satisfied with the fit? Are you concerned about why the fit doesn't rate as good, or even great, by Dan?"

when i said the fit was "pretty good" i didn't mean only pretty good, more like, hey! that fit is pretty good!

there is no way i can know about the cockpit distance without seeing a video. i'm happy with the fit based on the image provided.

i have faith in dave's ability to fit. i'd have to go back and look but i think i said before the fit took place that choosing dave luscan as a fitter is a very sound decision.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

It may be comfortable but it sure doesn't look fast.

Agreed, he looks quite 'compact'. I was not there but I think he bars could be further forward incl his armpads and/or his saddle a little further back because Felt B / IA-serie models will be at the end of the saddle rails with that saddle to get it forward that much if it even reaches that position. With that saddle height it might be with the that saddle slammed max forward still 1 to 0,5 cm further behind BB. But that is just a quick guess, I can measure it, but I will be not far off.

Again I was not there so there might be a perfect good reason why this fit is chosen and that we don't know off. But he does look a bit 'cramped' and short.

Jeroen
Tri-Run.com

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

C = .005D2 -.19775D - 1.5 +/- 1.5

C= range of expected cockpit drop in cm
D= seat height in cm

Work the math on this and you get 13 - 16cm of expected drop at that seat height and seat tube angle. For this rider being 1. new to tri bikes and 2. his history of bulking up with weights... again, I think we nailed it.

Part of being fast is being able to turn the pedals and sustain the position.

Funny thing about being comfortable for hours on end, particularly for triathlon - at the end of the day it's faster than being uncomfortable.

Are you saying the 80 degrees of seat tube angle has become a questionable outcome of a tri bike fit?

[/img]
That's A Damn Good Fit Dave!!!

No, but 80 degrees on an ISM PR2.0 means that the rider sits well beyond that since that 80 degrees is measured at a point of the saddle where the rider doesn't actually sit. The prones where you sit are cm's further forward from that 80 degree measurement point on the saddle.

But again, I wasn't there so I don't judge the fit outcome other then that the guy seems a bit cramped/compact and that the saddle position with that specific saddle on a Felt B / IA series will likely not be possible. A quick guess, but I should measure it when I have some time left later today, would bring him at I think around -3,5 cm maybe - 3 cm but I might be off at a half cm or so. But if he found this the most comfortable and if he tried a little more open and slighty longer in the torso and he didn't liked it. Perfect, fine, let him enjoy the position.

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

You are probably right about the saddle position on the IA. I'd guess it can get pretty close. Backing off 1cm on setback shouldn't be an issue, and there are probably some workarounds.

Fair enough. It's just ticked over in to Feb, plenty of time to adapt to something more aggressive for most people before their A race comes along. If he's a 'get me to the finish, I don't care about the time' kind of guy, it may well be bang on.

Sorry Dave, i wasn't aware that you were the fitter that did the job until i read the previous posts in the thread. I just saw a moment ago your earlier explanation which i didn't read when i posted my first reaction to the post of grill. But you did what you had to do and if this is what the client finds at this moment the best fit that it is. But that's why i responded that i was not present at the fit so i couldn't or would't judge on the fit other that at first appearence he looks a bit compact. But i have those fits as well, that you sometimes think a bit more open looks better and more relaxed but when the client says its less comfortable that is more important then what ' numbers' say.
He/her feels it. As you said earlier, it is a solid fit. With the right bike he's got some room to 'grow' and might change a bit here and there in minor details.

Regards,

Jeroen
Tri-Run.com

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

Exactly. I really appreciated Daves emphasis on my comfort through out the whole process. This is all new to me and I feel like I've got a solid baseline now to go get a bike. Once it's in hand we can dial it in and maybe I'll want to get more
agressive down the road.

All about the journey!