Looks high.

Um, can we address your choice of indoor head protection first?

I was going to say that.

Fair point. I couldn't figure out how to blur my face. Helmet because I was trying to at least somewhat follow the spirit of the bike fit video best practices (though I realize it's not really as important for a road bike fit).

Thanks I'll keep dropping and try again. I am realizing that I started way too high.

are you riding in running shoes? Is that normal for you? If not, film yourself with your bike shoes. The stack height difference between running shoes and cycling shoes will likely be different.

These are mountain bike shoes clipped in to spds. The cleats are all the way back to try to address a prior for high spot (which may have been due to saddle height).

Something looks off, you have long arms and short torso. I think reach on bike is too short. You might be able to raise seat and lower bars with longer reach. I might be totallyi off though

It looks about right to me, but I only know what the mechanics in my local bike shop plus some of my triathlon friends say.

- Your knee should be just slightly bent at the bottom of the pedal stroke.

- The heel of your shoe should be able to just reach the pedal with your leg straight.

- If you are rocking from side-to-side, your saddle is too high.

This was my thought as well, also people who have the saddle too high tend to move to the front of the saddle, where as seem to be sitting right at the back of yours.

What's the crank length sir?

Same, reach looks super short. Bike or stem too small. Could lengthen stem and remove those spacers maybe. Seat height doesn't look to high. Follow the steps listed above to get to a good starting point.

Thanks all, this is very helpful. Here are responses to some of the input so far. I'll trying lowering the seat a bit this afternoon to see if it feels any better (also maybe removing a spacer or two?). I'll also order another stem to try as soon as I decide on length.



You may be on the something. I've never considered myself short-legged, but I am definitely long-armed. I vaguely remember measuring my armspan as 4 inches longer than my height at one point.



I had saddle sore issues in my recent past that seemed to be made more severe by moving forward on the saddle so I am consciously try to stay back on the saddle.



Cranks are 172.5



The bike is 56 cm (I'm 5'10" with long arms as noted above). I don't have any other length stems around so I'll need to order. The current stem is 100 mm. Should I try 120?

Edited to correct current stem length to 100mm

Rereading the comments above I may have jumped the gun on a longer stem. Will try two scenarios:

1. Lower seat a bit more
2. Raise seat and remove spacers (how many? I'll experiment I guess) to increase reach.

Ok, I pulled all the spacers out and tried with same seat height, slightly up,and slightly down. Is this looking better? It feels less crunched.

http://imgur.com/a/yeDt3jQ

Relionpt...to me, the original video looks like the seat is too low.

---

Team Zoot-Texas, and Pickle Juice

stem too short.

I'm not sure the wobble is seat too high as much as it looks like you need to lock your core in. You look floppy

If the objective is to be aero, get your back as close to level as possible by taking out the spacers and raising the seat. A longer stem might also help.

Every time someone post a link to imgur I spend a half hour looking at dumb photos, memes and gifs

He looks like he's going to rob a 7-11 or bracing for a sandstorm...

Aside, I think it is looking better with seat up and no spacers. If adjustments feel weird you can always mildly introduce them.

In bike fitting there are a range of values for many of the measured numerics that most fitters try to get you into, and then adapt based on the riders goals and such from there. I am sure somewhere here there are threads detailing those specifics that may be worth reading up on.

Seems to be a rough consensus to flatten back, engage core, raise seat and possible try a longer stem. Any though on how much to add? Start with 10 mm more? Buy 10 and 20 and see what works?

Before you buy a new stem, how far behind the bottom bracket is the nose of your saddle. If you're not running much saddle setback, you may want to try moving the saddle back. That would may eliminate the need to raise the seat and get a longer stem. If you're 5'10" on a 56cm frame, a 100mm stem seems like a good starting point.

---

Mike Sparks


I have competed well, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Please excuse me for the following rant regarding the way bikes are shown in advertisements.

The following is my bike as shown on the Specialized website. Note the exposed length of the seatpost and the fact that the seatpost is turned to place the clamp aft of the centerline.



The following is my bike as I actually ride it. Note how much shorter the length of the exposed seatpost is. Also note that the seatpost is turned so that the clamp is forward of the centerline. I'm 5' 7". The size chart on the Specialized website shows I am at the short end of Medium (55 cm) and the tall end of Small (52 cm). Based on previous experience, I knew that I need to go with the smaller frame size in order to have a reasonable drop from the seat to the handlebars.



Tim Don is 5' 8". He used to ride the same frame in the same size as me. Note that he has the optional seatpost with an even larger offset for the seat clamp. He has more seatpost exposed than I do, but not as much as the Specialized website photo.



I'm picking on Specialized here, but other brands do the same thing in showing the bikes configured with the seat unrealistically high and far aft. This is probably just the decision of the photographer or advertising manager. They probably think it looks better. Specialized at least deserves credit for showing the bike with the standard wheels. Some manufacturer's websites show bikes outfitted with deep-section wheels that are an extra-cost option.

Okay, it felt good to get that off my chest. I know I must live a pretty good life to have this is the sort of thing to rant about.

Don’t rant at Specialized in this case. Nothing unrealistic with that picture of how the have the bike set up.
Yours is actually more out-of-range with such a tiny drop of saddle to armpads. It looks like only 4 to6 cm’s of drop.
Which is just not that much. Not saying you should ride with more but most of us do.
If positioned right on the bike and without any specific physical limitations I hardly ever arrive at the end of a fit session with less then 9 to 14 cm.
And this very comfortable for all of the riders.

Your comparison with Tim’s bike is also totally of. You compare exposed seatpost, but you should look at the difference between your and his cockpit. And that is not so much different from that original picture, just that the aerobars used by Spec and Tim are from a different kind, a high bar vs a low bar. His armpads are way lower then yours. So his position is a complete different one compared to yours.

You just seem to be sitting very high up for what ever reason.

Jeroen

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

Yeah, I've continued to tweak my position since the photo was taken. I've rotated the aerobars to be level and moved the aerobars and the cups forward. I already had the stem in its lowest position and just one set of small (approximately 5 mm) spacers below the cups. The next step might be a longer stem, perhaps with a downward slope. If I move the front end any lower, I will need to find a new helmet with a higher rim at the front so that I can still see the road ahead.

I am fortunate to have a good local bike shop. When I bought the bike, I asked the staff I whether I should go with size S or XS. They said the reach distance for the XS would be too short. The size chart actually showed I could go with either an S or an M. I chose the S.

When the bike arrived, the shop staff spent well over an hour with me doing the fitting, which delayed their regularly scheduled group ride. The staff had the seatpost installed with the clamp aft of the centerline. They moved saddle up and down and forward and aft while taking photos to measure my knee angle, and they lowered the stem until they thought I would have trouble seeing the road ahead.

After all that, I went home and did an Internet search for photos of pros riding the same frame. I then turned the seatpost around, moved the saddle forward, and took all the spacers out from under the stem.

Ben Hoffman


Craig Alexander


Fernanda Keller


Lucy Charles


Tim Don


Returning to the subject of my rant above, the bike as shown on the Specialized website is configured with the seat much higher and much further aft than anyone actually rides it. This is probably for aesthetic reasons. The other bike companies do the same in their advertising photos.

Returning to the subject of this thread, it seems better to go with a smaller frame so that you have more adjustability.

Being able to see the road ahead is a serious concern.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I0Zs1G1ri4

The pictures of the bikes on Specialized website is actually more realistic than you think.

I am 5' 7" and ride the Shiv as well and use the seat post with the seatpost clamp in the aft position. The nose of my saddle is 55 mm behind the bottom bracket so if I had the seatpost positioned the other way around, the saddle will be too far forward even with it slid all the way back on the rails.
Because the Shiv was designed to be taller in stack and shorter in reach compared to a pure time trial bike, it is also too tall for me and thus i run the stem slammed with a -20 degree stem. Even with that, I still find the handlebars a bit too tall. I run a 9 cm drop from the saddle to arm pads.
I know most people won't be able to replicate this position where their back is nearly or completely flat without any compromise but most bike brands do take this into consideration when they are designing the bike.
Specialized probably shows the bike like this in their pictures because it is significantly harder to find triathlon bikes with large drops and saddle setbacks and want to advertise their bike to show that they are able to reach such positions.

I would be careful to "lock in" your position on a stationary trainer. Your excessive hip rocking may be as much of a symptom of fit issues as the issue that the trainer does not rock like a real bike on a road. If you are not an experienced rider, this can exaggerate your hip rocking when you ride on a fixed stationary trainer.

You could try putting some foamy stuff under the trainer - floor contact points to allow some side to side rocking of the back end of your bike and then see how everything feels.

---

Two wheels good. Four wheels bad.

The 5 cm setback rule between the saddle nose and bottom bracket centerline is a Union Cycliste International (UCI) rule. My perhaps garbled understanding is that those rules apply for events conducted by the International Triathlon Union (ITU), which includes the Olympics, but there is no such setback requirement for Ironman and Challenge triathlons, nor for most triathlons run by local organizations. The UCI would ban the older model Shiv regardless just because of the depth of the downtube cross section and the configuration of the handlebars.

Regardless of all of the above, I've decided to bow to peer pressure and experiment with raising the saddle. I may have to get a step stool so that I can get on the bike.

Yes I am aware of the 5 cm rule being a part of the UCI. I had the saddle further forward than that before and had alot of trouble with my fit. After a visit to the bike fitter, it was agreed that I perform alot better with my saddle move back to 5 cm. At that time I had a 170 mm crank. After I switched to a 165 mm crank, I moved the saddle even further back by 5 mm.
I had better luck with my saddle far back on the bike than further forward. I do the same on my road bike where my saddle is setback to 70 mm behind the bottom bracket. I find that it is alot easier for me to spin at my 90-100 rpm on the road with the saddle back. Plus I pull up hard in my pedal stroke.
Note this doesn't work for most people but it is a consideration to take in when fitting your bike.

‘ After all that, I went home and did an Internet search for photos of pros riding the same frame. I then turned the seatpost around, moved the saddle forward, and took all the spacers out from under the stem. ’


So, because of some the pro’s riding the seatpost that way you decided to do the same?
There is a reason why they are pro and we are not. Although i ride a pro like position quite easy, but that came with training and i’m super comfy with it.
Not because some pro rides like that.

But your pics don’t say anything at all. For example, Lucy’s seatpost may be set up the sa,e it also creates a cockpit too short.
But the sponsor pays, so you have To ride what they offer. Her fit on the new Shiv is soooo much better.


Jeroen

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

I also ride with my saddle (a Sitero) set back 55mm, because that happens to be the most comfortable and efficient position for me. Where the Sitero's width is perfect to support me is 9cm farther forward than the standard shaped saddle I used to use. So my Sitero at 55mm back supports me at exactly the same point as my old saddle did at 35mm in front of the BB.

As noted above, the Shiv has a taller stack and shorter reach than most tri bikes, let alone TT bikes. That tends to be a better fit for those with longer legs and shorter torsos. I'm the complete opposite, a Shiv won't even fit me because there's no way to get the front end low enough and long enough (at least not without really screwing up the handling). Someone the same height as me, but with a slightly longer than average inseam and equivalent shorter torso, would probably find the Shiv as shown on the website to be pretty close to set up right...

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

So if you don't ever train with your saddle and aerobars in a more aerodynamic position, you will never become comfy in that position.

Yeah, I know bike fit is a highly individual thing, and I know I shouldn't necessarily try to match the position the pros use, but this conversation sent me back to the Internet, and the images I found reinforce my observation that the pros ride with the saddle forward and the aerobars low. They have the saddle higher than I do, but not as extreme as the images on the Specialized website. My next round of bike fit experiments will involve a higher saddle and perhaps a longer stem with a negative rise angle. My ability to see the road ahead might be the limiting factor.

Sarah True


Sam Betten


Braden Currie


Alicia Kaye

Before you rant on any further, I suggest you put up a picture of you on the bike. Your position looks quite off.

You are looking at these pro bikes with a seat forward but with far greater drop from the seat to bars. To get there on a Shiv, that is what you need to do.

It seems you bought a Shiv and are trying to make it fit you, rather than getting a fit and finding a bike that works for your fit coordinates. The Shiv, especially of that generation, seems to have a very unique fit profile.

I think you need to look at the body position/position rotation about the bottom bracket articles from Dan's Orthodoxy articles.

I suspect you have a very high body position compared to those pros.

So, before more ranting about how Specialized believes their seat posts go on the bike, post a picture of you in action on the bike.

So, is the OP's saddle too high or not?

Hahaha
Can’t tell to the stem is longer

No, you don’t get me. What i say is that your rant was wrong. You were stating that Spec and other companies are putting pics of their bikes on their websites that are out of the ordinary case. And that was just incorrect. It is more your pic that is having the set up that is at least a bit off. This might be just your fit, but it also might just not be the right bike for you.
But yours doesn’t look like an really aerodynamic position, maybe for you really comfortable, can’t tell. But with that tiny drop i would be almost sitting up straight.

The pro pics you post have without exception all of them much more drop from saddle to armpads that is much larger then yours. Similar to the original Spec pic.

And in a lot of the pics the position of these pro’s is not super optimzed due the specific frame stack an reach, tall and rather short and default with a pretty high stacked aerobar. So that’s why they use slammed stem, low stack bars and relative small size frames.

Back to your position, you seperate the set up of the seatpost from the cockpit set up. But they are attached tomeach other with them.
You rotate the whole body, so when you push that saddle forward most of the time you also drop the bars. But you don’t have that looking at that pic. You just seem to have a very short cockpit with a very low drop to the armpads. There might be a good reason for it, can’t tell without having a pic with you on the bike.

So your rant to the brands is just very well based on the right facts.

Jeroen

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

It is with great trepidation that I am following through with the suggestion that I post some photos of my bike fit. My ten-year-old daughter graciously agree to serve as the photographer. I expect to be flamed regarding everything from my Gatorskins to my haircut that is a month overdue, but I hope there will be some useful comments.


My own takeaways from looking at the photos are the following.


1. Based on my knee angle at the bottom of the pedal stroke, my saddle shouldn't be any higher. Shorter crank arms would allow a modest increase in saddle height, but might cause other problems.


2. The fore/aft position of the saddle is fine. Having the saddle forward results in greater clearance between my torso and my knee at the top of the pedal stroke.


3. With the pedal at the top of the stroke, my knee is close to my elbow. A longer stem would provide better clearance.


4. My upper arms are too vertical. Again, a longer stem would be an improvement.


5. A longer stem would marginally help to get my back closer to level, but a negative stem angle would provide greater help.


Okay, I'm braced for the onslaught. Fire away!

Pedal at top of stroke


Pedal forward.


Pedal at bottom of stroke.


Pedal aft.

What is the crank arm length?

How about a video?

The crank length is 170 mm.

You might want to try a 150mm or 155mm crankset.

How about a video?

There should be no onslaught here on ST, just helpful info.
At first glance, but I wonder if these pics are taken as captures from a video or are taken with you holding the leg and foot static in ‘place..

- As jimatbeyond suggest, shorten that crank not by mm’s but by cm’s. It will give you so much more room between upper leg and body.
That also raises the saddle and flattens your back a bit more
- I think a longer stem as well with simultaneously rotate your aerobar a bit. Although, now that i think of it you have probably the replacement aerobar that lost the tilt option so you need to rotate the base bar.

But in the end you can debate if this was the right bike for you. Not just the size.

End the hair cut is just fine:-)

Jeroen

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

Regarding the photos, I was pedaling at a slow but steady cadence and yelling "Click!" to my daughter as she operated the camera. My wife took my daughter to check on Yiayia and Papou this afternoon, so I don't have a videographer. I was not rocking from side-to-side if that is the major question that would be answered by seeing video.


Regarding changing the crank length, the current cranks are 170 mm. Most similarly sized bikes also have 170 mm cranks. A few have 165 mm cranks. I am leery of going as small as 155 or 150 mm as I don't know what other problems that might create. Regardless, changing the cranks to gain 0.5 cm in seat height doesn't seem like a good payoff compared to changing the stem.


Regarding the stem, the current stem is 90 mm and has a 0 degree angle. I am contemplating going to a 110 or 120 mm stem with a 17 degree angle. That would move my elbows 2 or 3 cm forward and about 2 cm down.


Regarding how I ended up buying the Specialized Shiv Elite, I agonized for months when I decided to replace my Kestrel Talon X. I built a spreadsheet with price and fit information for Kestrel (5000 SL), Felt (IA), Canyon (Speedmax CF 7.0), Quintana Roo (PR4), Trek (Speed Concept), Cervelo (P2 & P-Series), Giant (Trinity Advanced), A2 (Speed Phreak), Argon 18 (E-117 Tri), BMC (Time Machine 02 Two), Scott (Plasma 10), Orbea (Ordu), Ventum (Z), Specialized (Shiv Elite), and Ridley (Dean). The principal dimensions rarely varied more than a centimeter from one to the next. Of course, the principal dimensions do not necessarily indicate the degree of adjustabililty. The lesser known brands were generally cheaper, but seemed riskier. I also spent time reading reviews and watching YouTube videos to see which brands had the most complaints. Hambini is hilarious. In the end, I went to my trusted LBS. Specialized is one of the brands they carry, and that is the brand that all of the staff ride. They quoted a good price for the Shiv Elite, so that sealed the deal.

A video can show a lot more than hip movement, so it can be very helpful for a remote fitting session.

Shorter cranks open up a lot of possibilities and no downside.

If you were to switch to 150mm cranks, raising your saddle to compensate would effectively lower your bars that 2cm. But something else would happen: at the top of the pedal stroke, your hip angle would also be more open. Simply putting on a lower stem while keeping your crank length the same would close your hip angle. With a shorter crank, you could even lower your stem a bit and still have a more open hip angle than you started with.

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

Thank you for the advice.


I have spent some time snooping around the web for bike fit information. I found the following two videos remarkable.


Triathlon Bike Fit Principles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7yIb99DSHk


Fraser's Bike Fit With Matt Bottrill | Expert Bike Fit Tips
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iXAG9FYZq8


The thing I find remarkable is that the two fits look noticeably different, particularly with regard to the arm positions. Damien Collins's upper arms are noticeably more vertical than Fraser Cartmell's. Fraser's back is more horizontal and he has more bend at the knee at the bottom of the pedal stroke. Fraser's bike fit featured an examination of the spacing between the cups. Moving the cups apart allowed his shoulders to relax, which perhaps allowed his position to be lower.


On the Slowtwitch website, there is an article that shows a similar case of two bike fitters producing noticeably different positions.


Reasonable bike fit expectations
https://www.slowtwitch.com/...pectations_3595.html


I suppose each of the bike fitters has good reasons for the way they fit the cyclist. Perhaps the only way to be certain that a bike fit is optimal is to put the cyclist in a wind tunnel with a power meter.

For now, I have ordered a stem with a 120 mm length and 15 degree angle to replace the 90 mm / 0 degree stem presently on the bike.

Your current stem can’t be 0 degrees.....;-)
If you now go to a -17 degree stem with the same crank you will end up worse.
You will have some extra reach but the closed hip angle will be even more cramped.

In your case switching to a 150 or 155 mm crank is not just a raise from the saddle of 1,5 or 2 cm’s, it also gives you double that amount of room/space between your leg and upper body. In your case there is no harm only profits!

And I think you made some mistakes in your excelsheet ;-). We are talking about cm’s of difference between some of the models you mention compared to the Shiv either in reach or in stack. And then we don’t have looked at the bars difference on the bikes....

You could have chosen a much longer reach frame with the same stack as your Shiv.

But i would change that crank asap.

Jeroen

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

Here are the reach and stack dimensions I collected for several of the bike manufacturer websites. Taking the dimensions individually, I considered the Specialized Shiv Elite to be in-family with the others, but I see the concern that the stack is at the high end of the spectrum and the reach is at the low end.



I found a website that offered a calculation of Pad Center X and Pad Y as is prominently featured in the Bike Fit section of the Slowtwitch website. According to the calculation, my ideal numbers are Pad Center X = 499 mm and Pad Y = 606 mm. I am dubious about the accuracy of these numbers but I'll go with them. Before I calculated them, I exchanged messages with a representative of a bike manufacturer. He offered some details, such as dimensions for height and inseam should be with shoes. Also, there is a subtlety that not everyone places their elbow on the pad. I generally position the knob at the end of my elbow just off the aft end of the pad. Ventum's website actually has charts based on the measurement to the pad aft edge, not the pad center.

If I assume Pad Center X = 499 and Pad Y = 606 is correct, my ideal measurements are indeed in the blue "Midrange Pro and Top AG" band of the chart on the Slowtwitch website < https://www.slowtwitch.com/...for_Aliens_5843.html >.



Regardless of all of the above, I did some not-very-accurate measurements of the present setup on my Shiv Elite and found I presently have Pad Center X = 438 and Pad Y = 629. My measurements could easily be off by a centimetre. The head tube angle is 71.5 deg. Switching from the current 90 mm / 0 deg stem to a 120 mm / -15 deg stem should change the dimensions to Pad Center X = 473 and Pad Y = 607, which again could easily be off by a centimetre.

If my hip angle feels too constricted after changing the stem, I'll reduce the crank length from 170 to 165 or 160 and raise the saddle. The saddle is already close to its forward limit.

Your hip angle is going to feel quite constricted.

150mm cranks would solve the problem.

150 cranks would allow you to raise the seat 20mm and lower the height of your pedal stroke by 40mm. This will dramatically open up your hip angle. This is the power of the short crank. Rotor has a really good set. I am 5’6” and use 155 cranks. I would also consider with this change moving the pads a little foward and extending the bars.

More likely your current stem is -6 degrees, give or take a degree. The stem on the Shiv on the Spesh website has a slight downward angle. So assuming that you got your pad X/Y measurements correct, going from a 90mm -6 stem to a 120mm -17 will give you roughly 470/615 using the same bars. If you really do need something closer to 499/606, you can see that this is going to require jumping through some hoops to achieve that on a Shiv.

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

I find it kind of amazing and amusing how much run Fredo_Adagio has gotten on someone else’s bike fit critique post. Especially since Fredo_Adagio’s foray into this was an off-topic rant about bike marketing or something like that.

---

Mike Sparks


I have competed well, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

He also jumped in on this thread:

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/.../?page=unread#unread

Wow! Tough crowd.

Regarding jumping in on other people's threads, what can I say? I'm all over this forum spreading hate and discontent.

Regarding the standard stem on the older-style Shiv for size S, it's a 90 mm / 0 deg stem. That's what is listed on the website, and those are the numbers printed on the actual stem.

Regarding trying to get to a Pad Center X of 499 mm, that number can't be right. The longest reach bike in the list I provided (Quintana Roo PRFIVE Size 52, 410 mm) is 25 mm longer than my Shiv. Adding 25 mm to the estimated Pad Center X with my new stem would only get me to 498 mm. For a Pad Y dimension of 606 mm, the center of the blue "MIdrange Pro and Top AG" band on the Pad Center X versus Pad Y chart is about 485 mm.

Regarding hip angle, I hadn't perceived that it's a problem with my current setup. I'll try shorter crank arms if I perceive it's a problem after I change the stem. Following my initial rant on this thread, there were comments about moving the seat aft, which would have taken the hip angle in the opposite direction.

I might as well ask this question since it seems to be the elephant in the room.


For those who are experienced with bike fit, which frames do you consider best for a person with average proportions?

Jumping in on a thread isn't a big deal, but you would get more help if you started your own thread with a video for critique.

You could actually achieve the 606/499 on 48 PRFive. QR's sizing chart measures to the back of the pad, not the center. There are a handful of configurations listed with both the 90mm and 110mm stem that will get you there. No jumping through hoops required to get you to that position.



I don't recall anyone telling you to move your seat back. There were people (like myself) stating that they use a saddle position similar to what is on the Shiv website photo, and that the photo was not an unreasonable position. Part of the reason this position works well for me is that I use shorter cranks than you do, and I'm taller. My hip angle at TDC is more open than yours. And at least in the pictures you posted, you're sitting farther back on your saddle than I do...

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

First, read some of the post again. You see several more experienced people saying you need to switch to 150 or 155 cranks. You cime back suggesting you are most likely to try 165 or 160 mm. Just not enough to have the right effect. A little better, but not enough.

Second, there isn’t something like an ideal frame for someone with average proportions. Even 2 guys with the dame proportions can cime out of a fit with different fit’s. There are just too much individual variables. I could make a list, but that wouldn’t suggest that they are also the right fit for you.

And as Warbird also is saying you sit a bit further back on your saddle then most do on that time of saddle. I just don’t think you were really ‘ fitted’ by your shop rather they ‘fitted’ you to sell you that particular bike.
There is a difference by being fit and being fit.

For example, we do fit’s, a lot of them are tri’s, 80%, we sell bikes but we don’t stock any of them. We advice objectively without the need to sell inventory.
We just have some showmodels on the studio floor to look, feel and see.
So we can say to a customer if a Canyon fits, a QR, a Cervelo or whatever.
Some buy from us, some not.
Personal choice of the customer.

Jeroen

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

My LBS is a dealer for Giant, Felt, and Specialized.

I did not buy my Specialized Shiv Elite off the shop floor. The shop special ordered it at my request. The shop staff did go over the sizing options with me before ordering the bike.

I did not seriously consider buying a Giant. I do not know anybody who rides a Giant. The company is unknown to me.

I did consider buying a Felt IA, but it was more expensive, and I only know two people who ride Felts.

Factors in favor of the Shiv were that it was cheaper than the Felt IA, I know lots of people who ride Specialized bikes, including the LBS staff, and Specialized generally has favorable reviews online. Hambini even has PowerPoint slides showing that Specialized's tolerances aren't quite as bad as a lot of other major manufacturers.

In short, my LBS didn't pressure me to buy the Shiv. That was my choice.

Okay, you are wearing me down.

Does anyone know a reason this wouldn't be a suitable replacement for the crank arms and spider on my bike? The current crank arms and spider are Praxis Zayante AL.

Origin8 Alloy Crank Set, 155mm, 110x5-Bolt, Black
https://www.modernbike.com/...5mm-110x5-bolt-black

I consider this a science experiment, so I'm not inclined to go with anything high end.

Is there a better option for under $100?

https://speedandcomfort.com/...s/alloy-short-cranks

I am about the same height as you and I would get 145mm.

I have lightly used set of those cranks that I'll sell you for $25 along with a promise not to hijack other people's threads. You'll need to come up with your own bottom bracket (square taper). I tried them about seven years ago purely as an experiment, and my conclusion was ... meh. They were fine, but not magical. I didn't really like the higher cadence that I tended to ride at with them. I wasn't having fit issues before I tried them, so I went back to my 172.5s. YRMV.

---

Mike Sparks


I have competed well, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Rats! I hadn't noticed the square cut socket.

I hesitate to make any promise that I might not be able to keep regarding hijacking threads.

Sure, but they should have done a-fit-first so you would have noticed that it was not a good fit in the fitst place.
And that has nothing to do with the bike being on stock or not but all about getting you on the right bike, with the right fit and with the correct components to avoid what you have now ;-)

Jeroen

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

But then I'd be missing all this fun with you guys!

Hahaha, that is indeed a good one ;-)

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

Dude, you have a couple of the very best bike fitters in the world giving you free advice and you are arguing their recommendations?
You don't know anything about Giant?
I don't think you are interpreting all of these X/Y coordinates properly. You are mixing pad X/Y and frame stack/reach and not all manufactures list the same measurement points for their X/Y data.

1. I'm not ignoring the advice that has been given here. I'm actually following the advice. I have a 155 mm crankset on order, and I will give it a try. I do have concern that the shorter cranks might improve my bike fit but will bring other problems.
2. I did not mean to imply that I am unfamiliar with the Giant brand. What I stated is that I don't know anyone who rides a Giant. I've been seeing Giant's advertising for decades. I remember when they tried to cover the entire size range with just three frames and a collection of extra long seatposts and stems. I wasn't impressed, but this seems sort of like where I'm going with my Shiv.
3. I provided the Reach and Stack numbers for various bikes because that is the data readily available on most manufacturer's websites. It makes sense that the manufacturers would provide Reach and Stack data since those dimensions are specific to each frame size and are independent of any bike fit adjustments. Yeah, I fully understand Reach and Stack are not the same as Pad Center X and Pad Y. I also fully understand that some manufacturers provide bike fit charts that use Pad Back Edge X rather than Pad Center X.
4. There are some things that have been discussed here that I was tempted to argue but just let pass. For instance, there have been comments that I sit too far aft on the saddle. I actually sit so far forward on the saddle that the frank and beans are forward of the saddle nose. The saddle is an ISM PN 1.1. I don't think I could sit any further forward on the saddle without falling off.
5. Through all of this, I am keeping in mind the examples I've seen of experienced bike fitters who have produced bike fit solutions that look very different. There is an example of this in one of the bike fit articles on the Slowtwitch website. If you really wanted to get this right, you would have the cyclist ride the bike in a wind tunnel while collecting wattage data. I understand some of the pros actually do this.

" I do have concern that the shorter cranks might improve my bike fit but will bring other problems."


What problems are you referring to?


"For instance, there have been comments that I sit too far aft on the saddle. I actually sit so far forward on the saddle that the frank and beans are forward of the saddle nose. The saddle is an ISM PN 1.1. I don't think I could sit any further forward on the saddle without falling off."


The pictures that you posted before showed you riding back on the saddle.

A video would show how you actually ride.

Regarding shorter cranks, the following was posted by Mike Sparks above.

"... I tried them about seven years ago purely as an experiment, and my conclusion was ... meh. They were fine, but not magical. I didn't really like the higher cadence that I tended to ride at with them. I wasn't having fit issues before I tried them, so I went back to my 172.5s. YRMV."

Regarding video, I am contemplating a comparison with my present setup, then the longer stem, then the longer stem and shorter cranks.

Multiple videos would be the best.

I wasn't having any fit issues that I was attempting to solve by switching to 155s. My bike fit like a glove, and I could comfortably ride in the position below (which is with the 172.5s) for 56 miles, and 112 with the front end only slightly higher. I was simply just curious, mostly to see if I would generate more power by slightly opening up my hip angle at the top of the pedal stroke. I frankly don't recall if I generated more power, but even if it did, it wasn't significant enough to make me want to stick with the 155s. I switched back to the 172.5s and haven't looked back since. The 155s simply collect dust in my garage now.

But as I said, your results may vary. Try them, you might like them.

---

Mike Sparks


I have competed well, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

4. There are some things that have been discussed here that I was tempted to argue but just let pass. For instance, there have been comments that I sit too far aft on the saddle. I actually sit so far forward on the saddle that the frank and beans are forward of the saddle nose. The saddle is an ISM PN 1.1. I don't think I could sit any further forward on the saddle without falling off.

This is is how forward you can sit on the ISM PN1.1 without falling off the front. Not saying you should go forward if you don’t have issues, but sitting that far back makes that specific model actually quite a wide saddle which for most could lead to shaving issues.


I do wonder what problems you think might come up using 155 mm cranks based on just 1 guy saying ‘meh’. Not to offend you by any means but you and him are built totally different. He can use 172,5 mm and still feel not cramped, but you are already crunched and cramped in your fit. He is having a slim, well trained body and you are a bit heavier. Especially around the waist where the upper leg meets the upper body. You just want some more room in that area.

There is no power loss with the 155’s and experience learns that the higher cadence at first comes back to normal due to choosing different gears, etc.

Jeroen

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

^^

That's an interesting bike fit example. I would have said she is way too high at the front.

I can see why

Looks like a good hip angle even with the 172.5

By any chance are the 155s narrow Q factor like the older Dura ace or Pista track cranks?

I am wondering if I might be better off with shorter cranks but don’t want to lose the narrow Q factor I currently have

🤣

My mistake. SHE is way too high at the front. I just realized it is Mirinda Carfrae. She is 5' 3", which must make her bike fit a tough job. I've corrected my original post.

Returning to the issue of reducing the crank arm length, the rider has to make a change to maintain the same speed.

Power is force x velocity or torque x rotation rate. If the power is held constant, and the crank arms are made shorter, either the crank arm rotation rate has to increase or the applied pedal force has to increase. If the gear is not changed, the rider has to mash on the pedals harder. If a switch is made to a lower gear to avoid the rider having to change the force applied to the pedals, then the cadence has to increase. The rider probably finds a compromise with small adjustments to both cadence and pedal force.

Oh well, the reduction from 170 mm to 155 mm is only about 9%. Perhaps the changes are in the grass.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/...erwithin-reason.html

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

^^

Thank you for the link to the article. It includes the following statement.

"Now then, when making such a large change in crank length, it's important to make sure to maintain the relationships between the saddle, the bars, and the foot during the "power", or downstroke part of the pedal cycle. As such, when I adjusted the crank length from 175mm down to 150mm, I did 2 things with the saddle. First, I raised the seatpost such that the distance between the portion of the saddle I rest my sitbones on and the pedal at max extension was the same distance, but I ALSO moved the saddle rearward on the rails so that in the end it was a full 25mm further rearward relative to the center of the BB than when the cranks were set at 175mm. This was done to keep the relationship between my lower leg and the pedal equivalent at the "3 O'clock" portion of the pedal stroke. Because of the movement in the saddle (both up and rearward), that also meant I need to move the bars the same directions to keep the bar to saddle relationship as close as possible."

If you move the seat up and back when reducing the crank length, this defeats the objective of opening the hip angle. If you don't move the seat back, then you have changed the angle of the lower leg relative to the pedal.

Regardless, I will try it, but I certainly won't throw away my current crankset.

In Tom's case, he wasn't trying to correct a fit issue, he was demonstrating that moving to a significantly shorter crank does not have any significant impact on power. However, even moving the saddle back the same distance as you shorten the crank still opens up the hip angle. You're not taking into account the fact that you're spinning your feet in a smaller circle. If you maintain the same leg extension at the bottom of the pedal stroke, at the top of the stroke your foot will be twice the difference in crank length lower. If you go from 170s to 150s, your foot will be 40mm lower at the top, which should be a pretty noticeable difference in hip angle. But unlike Tom, since you're trying to solve a fit problem, you may not want to keep your lower leg in the same position at 3:00. Maybe your optimal position has you just slightly back, in the same position, or even moving forward instead...

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

Indeed, she is and that reflects my earlier post that you see when you are a pro and have to deal with material from certain sponsors the optimal is sometimes not the real optimal because of limitations of that material.

It seems you want to try different things to get a better fit on your bike but reading your next few posts you also seem to look for a reason to already question it by reading / interpreting pieces of text and put them in a context that supports your negative view of them. I wouldn’t try the 155’s since you already made up your mind they will not work or create other problems.

You just don't want to get the big picture.

I’m out

Happy riding

Jeroen

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

Stop feeding the troll. He already knows more than some of the best fitters in the world.


Let’s just focus on the OP and hope he he gets a new stem.

^^


Regarding Mirinda Carfrae, she won Kona three times. She is married to the man who was second at Kona last year. He rides a Trek. Together, they have the Tim & Rinny YouTube show. They are the highest profile triathletes based in the United States. If Mirinda Carfrae wanted to ride a bike other than Felt, I don't think she would have any trouble finding a new sponsor.

Regarding switching from 170 mm to 155 mm crank arms, I remain perplexed regarding what changes to make to the saddle position. Obviously, the saddle should go up 15 mm. Due to the 77 degree angle of the seatpost, raising the saddle 15 mm will move it back 3 mm, which is in the grass. I am inclined to just leave it in that position.

Miranda rides Felt because they were willing to pay the most.

If Mirinda thought she would be faster and get better results on another bike brand, she would switch bike brands.

She is already the fastest.

Really know this sport well, eh?

I'm just an over-the-hill, back-of-the-pack age grouper who has evidently asked too many questions about bike fit and is now getting a hostile response.

This has reinforced my impression of bike fit. Some of it is science, some of it is art, and some of it is voodoo.

I promise you one does not just jump bikes as a pro simply. There are a very few spots available and one you get one it takes a stroke of luck to get another

To be clear about your fit questions: there is a distinct and important distance between hostility and incredulity

Incredulous is a good word for this.


In response to comments regarding my position on the saddle, I was provided a photo of Mirinda Carfrae. When I pointed out that her position did appear to be a good example of an aero bike fit, the response was that she was forced into an ill-fitting bike because she can't get another sponsor despite winning Kona three times.

I am going forward with the crank arm length experiment, and it has turned out to be a more expensive project than I had hoped. My doubts linger regarding how I will adapt to the shorter crank arms. The last few comments have not increased my confidence.

Surely you expectations can only steer toward disappointment at this point. Luckily no one is forcing you into this. I'd move up to 190 cranks if I were you. Powercranks would probably help, too.

She's already on one of the lowest bikes available, and IIRC she had custom stems in order to get a lower cockpit...

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

Good! You can do the 190 mm crank experiment and let us know how it turns out.

I have some actually. I use them rarely in the past BMX days.

I am 75 inches with long legs so I can turn them standing. But I ride 150 on my TT bike

In my experience, making small tweaks to my fit and position on the bike and then taking video of each position on the trainer has been really helpful. I prop a camera (my phone) up using various boxes, tables, stands, chairs, or whatever is around and go to town. It's a one person job. In the past 7 or so days you've had quite a bit of feedback on your fit from people here, and quite a few people asking for video so that they could help you more.

You went ahead and spent money already on one thing without (seemingly) trying anything else. If i were you, i'd take a video my my saddle all the way forward, then all the way back. I'd raise it 5mm, then drop it 5mm. I'd reposition my elbow pads at the furthest forward setting and furthest back setting. I'd pretend my extensions were out a few additional CM, and then pretend that they were a few cm shorter. Then I'd work together what seems to be the most comfortable, most powerful, and best looking position. Then I'd post that video for some feedback. Then I'd spend money. But I'm really really cheap, and I enjoy the process of trying to figure things out.

All of this would be better on a dynamic fit bike, and they could have also adjusted crank length on the fit bike too. A good dynamic fit probably would have cost less than your cranks. The full value of that fit is dependent on the fitter, so depending on where you live, just making changes to your current bike and posting video might be your best option, or it might not be.

And if you really want to take it to the next level, use golden cheetah's aerolab to compare a few of the different positions you come up with to see which has the lowest drag.

edit: Make sure to mark or measure all of your current fit dimensions before you start making changes in case you want to get back to where you were originally.

OP back again. I've made some adjustments since the last video:
-Saddle is up significantly
-Cleats more forward (they were all the way back before)
-30 mm longer stem. This is a 120 mm stem (I realized that the original was actually 90mm once I took it off).

This feels quite a bit better. Looking at the video I still need to improve core engagement and flatten the back more but I feel much less cramped.

I also experimented with all the spacers out, but that gave me a little saddle discomfort. I also have a 110 mm but didn't get a good video yet.

Here is the new video:

http://imgur.com/a/BzBmnEs

Is this looking better? Feedback appreciated.

Here is the original for reference:
http://imgur.com/a/TVoAyjd

I think that it looks good. My only quibble is that if it were me, I'd lower the seat some, not because of your knee angle at the bottom of the pedal stroke, but because I like more heel drop at the bottom of the pedal stroke. But that's just me.

---

Mike Sparks


I have competed well, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

BUMP!

I apologize to the OP for hijacking his thread. I will resist the urge to make any further comments.

No worries Fredo. I am a just a simple guy trying to get a decent fit on a road bike, but am still interested in the intricacies of Tri fit.

I'm reposting my last update on the new page since it got cut off at the bottom of page 4. Happy to hear any more input. Sparks thank you for feedback, I will try a smidge lower.





OP back again. I've made some adjustments since the last video:
-Saddle is up significantly
-Cleats more forward (they were all the way back before)
-30 mm longer stem. This is a 120 mm stem (I realized that the original was actually 90mm once I took it off).

This feels quite a bit better. Looking at the video I still need to improve core engagement and flatten the back more but I feel much less cramped.

I also experimented with all the spacers out, but that gave me a little saddle discomfort. I also have a 110 mm but didn't get a good video yet.

Here is the new video:

http://imgur.com/a/BzBmnEs

Is this looking better? Feedback appreciated.

Here is the original for reference:
http://imgur.com/a/TVoAyjd