i need your help. pardon the long intro...
FIST is getting into road bike fitting? why? aren't there enough good road fit protcols out there? the answer is, yes, probably there are enough good road fit protocols out there. the reason we're getting into road fitting is as follows:
for at least the first two years of its existence, the FIST system was, "here's your fit coordinates, now go home." it became obvious something was missing, namely, now that i know my fit coordinates, what bike in what size with what aerobars will fit these coordinates?
so, part-2 came along, matching fit coordinates to bikes for sale on showroom floors. of course, as you know, this required the development of a set of metrics that would match all bikes to all other bikes, apples-to-apples. stack and reach. lo, i was surprised when engineers and product managers said, "you know, this stack and reach thing works pretty well for road bikes too."
i'm a little slow on the uptake - it took a couple of years - but it finally dawned on me that there's a pawcity of fit systems in road race that have an analogous part-2 to their protocols. in other words, the output of a lot of road bike systems is, "here are your fit coordinates, now go home."
or, "here are our fit coordinates, here's the custom geometry that we'll build for you." or, "here are your fit coordinates, here's the bikes that our brand sells that will work for you."
and all that is fine. except, no retailer, other than he who runs a concept store, has one brand only he's selling. there is no time to put a customer through three separate, parochial, fit processes to find out what, among all the bikes a retailer sells, will fit his customer.
what was needed is - like the FIST system - one ecumenical fit system for determining fit coordinates, AND to match that up to ALL the bikes on a retailers floor that may fit a customer, ALONG WITH the custom geometry, if a custom bike is in that customer's future.
furthermore, i thought it an elegant cost and space solution to offer a protocol that would require one fit bike (not two) and one fit studio (not two).
with all that as a backdrop:
what i'm looking for now is a protocol for road that will not be jarring to you. one that will use generally accepted, conservative, tested, sound, fit principles. there are only the following elements that i feel strongly about. everything else is up for grabs:
1. this protocol should by dynamic, not static
2. it should employ the use of a fit bike that adjusts in an x/y axis: exit cycling, serotta, guru dfu, rob king, et al.
3. it should be organic, and test systems, just like our FIST tri bike protocol. this means the output is: here your core four fit coordinates, and assuming "this" handlebar configuration (width, reach, drop); "this" stem length and pitch; x millimeters of spacers/headset top cap under the stem; the stack and reach of the road bike you're looking for is Y and Z.
4. a proper road bike fit output ought to satisfy all riding positions: seated/tops; seated/hoods; seated/hooks: standing/hoods; standing/hooks.
i've got part-2 of the protocol dialed (taking fit coordinates and matching them to road bikes for sale). we have a new, interactive, stack and reach database just about to go to beta, and both fitters/retailers as well as manufacturers will have preferences, control panels, etc.
what i want to know is this: what is important to you in terms of part-1 of the protocol? generating fit coordinates, i'm talking about. who's a proponent of KOPS? who thinks KOPS has no place in a protocol? what are your tried and true methods of generating fit coordinates that you feel are critical to keep?
we'll probably move our saddle height protocol right over from tri to road, but with a slightly different (knee) angular range, and with road bike setback. however, if you don't use KOPS to determine that setback, what's your preferred method?
likewise, cockpit distance and bar drop. what would you like to see in a protocol, taking into consideration the "mandate" that we tackle each axis, each parameter, individually, that is to say, we'll look at cockpit distance distinct from handlebar drop, distinct from saddle setback?
if you would, just post your thoughts here, and i thank you in advance.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
FIST is getting into road bike fitting? why? aren't there enough good road fit protcols out there? the answer is, yes, probably there are enough good road fit protocols out there. the reason we're getting into road fitting is as follows:
for at least the first two years of its existence, the FIST system was, "here's your fit coordinates, now go home." it became obvious something was missing, namely, now that i know my fit coordinates, what bike in what size with what aerobars will fit these coordinates?
so, part-2 came along, matching fit coordinates to bikes for sale on showroom floors. of course, as you know, this required the development of a set of metrics that would match all bikes to all other bikes, apples-to-apples. stack and reach. lo, i was surprised when engineers and product managers said, "you know, this stack and reach thing works pretty well for road bikes too."
i'm a little slow on the uptake - it took a couple of years - but it finally dawned on me that there's a pawcity of fit systems in road race that have an analogous part-2 to their protocols. in other words, the output of a lot of road bike systems is, "here are your fit coordinates, now go home."
or, "here are our fit coordinates, here's the custom geometry that we'll build for you." or, "here are your fit coordinates, here's the bikes that our brand sells that will work for you."
and all that is fine. except, no retailer, other than he who runs a concept store, has one brand only he's selling. there is no time to put a customer through three separate, parochial, fit processes to find out what, among all the bikes a retailer sells, will fit his customer.
what was needed is - like the FIST system - one ecumenical fit system for determining fit coordinates, AND to match that up to ALL the bikes on a retailers floor that may fit a customer, ALONG WITH the custom geometry, if a custom bike is in that customer's future.
furthermore, i thought it an elegant cost and space solution to offer a protocol that would require one fit bike (not two) and one fit studio (not two).
with all that as a backdrop:
what i'm looking for now is a protocol for road that will not be jarring to you. one that will use generally accepted, conservative, tested, sound, fit principles. there are only the following elements that i feel strongly about. everything else is up for grabs:
1. this protocol should by dynamic, not static
2. it should employ the use of a fit bike that adjusts in an x/y axis: exit cycling, serotta, guru dfu, rob king, et al.
3. it should be organic, and test systems, just like our FIST tri bike protocol. this means the output is: here your core four fit coordinates, and assuming "this" handlebar configuration (width, reach, drop); "this" stem length and pitch; x millimeters of spacers/headset top cap under the stem; the stack and reach of the road bike you're looking for is Y and Z.
4. a proper road bike fit output ought to satisfy all riding positions: seated/tops; seated/hoods; seated/hooks: standing/hoods; standing/hooks.
i've got part-2 of the protocol dialed (taking fit coordinates and matching them to road bikes for sale). we have a new, interactive, stack and reach database just about to go to beta, and both fitters/retailers as well as manufacturers will have preferences, control panels, etc.
what i want to know is this: what is important to you in terms of part-1 of the protocol? generating fit coordinates, i'm talking about. who's a proponent of KOPS? who thinks KOPS has no place in a protocol? what are your tried and true methods of generating fit coordinates that you feel are critical to keep?
we'll probably move our saddle height protocol right over from tri to road, but with a slightly different (knee) angular range, and with road bike setback. however, if you don't use KOPS to determine that setback, what's your preferred method?
likewise, cockpit distance and bar drop. what would you like to see in a protocol, taking into consideration the "mandate" that we tackle each axis, each parameter, individually, that is to say, we'll look at cockpit distance distinct from handlebar drop, distinct from saddle setback?
if you would, just post your thoughts here, and i thank you in advance.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman