No disrespect taken Dave, just pointing out that we have been for a very long time on the short crank band wagon. Perhaps it is more in the art of the fit, and not associated with some math formula, so seemed like it was not important. For sure there could be a formula calculated for it, but then it would be long and have to figure in all sorts of different measurements, leg lengths, femur vs lower leg, etc. We like to pile that one into the dynamic portion, the part of how does it feel? Do you have an equation you use, or part of your art of the fit?

Hopefully aero considerations will make it into the process at a quicker speed than crank length did

I don't know. In terms of TdF heroes, Ullrich followed teammate Bjarne Riis' position (below). And Riis followed Big Mig's. I still think Big Mig initiated the populariziation of parallel/downward tilt in the World Tour from the original Lemond-style skier-like position.

Though you might be right that it took Lance to popularize it amongst triathletes. Along with the high cadence fashion.

Riis:

Yeah, but no one noticed or cared until Jan did it.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

Honestly, I don't think this was what broke the "straight extensions" through to the market. My take on it - and I was both doing bike fits and working for an aerobar manufacturer in this era - is that this was right around the time that bike manufacturers/riders/teams started actually getting in the wind tunnel, and there was a lot of "bike without rider" testing going on. Straight extensions tend to test really, really well on naked bikes.
At wholesale, the demand for the bars that looked good in the naked bike testing was already happening in '03.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

The challenge with integrating crank length changes into a dynamic fitting process is that cranks don't adjust as the rider pedals. I think Shimano made a bike that did that, but I've never seen one. So we are left basically just doing it as fast as we can, in isolation, as many times as needed to sharpen the riders awareness. So that is what I do, but I think I've zero'd in on the most useful time in the process to make this change, and I would consider that some of my personal art.

I am also working on a confirming formula, but it involves two angles and it's not high priority. As with all things FIST, rider feedback first, fitter eye second, confirmers to confirm (or deny).

Probably a little harsh when you consider that the outcome of a proper FISTing is an aerobar rider set up in the lowest position that can be ridden comfortably and without losing power. It's been about aero since day one. Not the super nuanced forum discussions of all things minutely more or less aero, rather, the foundational position from which aero is possible and sustainable.

As far back as the first round of FIST classes in Dan's living room, shortening crank length has been part of the discussion. As you like to remind everyone, though, Dave; orthodoxy is a (the) key part of the protocol. It simply wasn't possible to spec shorter than 170mm cranks for the vast majority of the time that FIST has been around, and orthodox expressions of short crank usage just weren't out there. This (obviously) isn't the case anymore, and the FIST prescriptions in this regard have travelled well forward on the crest of that wave.

In RE: how to handle the process of fitting crank length, might I suggest that the FIST general protocol is still a really good template. Start with a known bad (saddle setback, Padx/y, crank length) and move towards the "good" range incrementally. Formulas just provide a starting point, and with the small range of crank lengths (still) available, they aren't particularly useful in this case.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

Dude, Dan's living room? What year was that? F.I.S.T. IS the template! I don't remember talking about crank length in 2007, but I did skip the 3rd day to ride my bike up "the hill" for the 4th time.

Ok, "aero considerations" is probably not the right term. I meant adoption of aero measurement technology to refine the optimization process.

"Lowest position that can be ridden comfortably without losing power" is probably leaving a good chunk of watts on the table without that optimization.

2002, IIRC. Most of the compound infrastructure hadn't been built... I slept in Monty's 5th wheel for a week. X/Y bikes didn't exist yet, either!

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

Luke McKenzie and his second place finish at Kona in 2013?

I can get on board with that.

Yep! Luke and his green suit, the making of which is a great story unto itself I should tell on this forum someday. Sleeves have been a necessary piece of kit ever since. Sorry about that everyone.
That was such a great example of the power of aero. Luke came out of the water with Faris Al-Sultan, they left T1 together, rode the exact same watts per kilo throughout, but Luke rode 7 minutes faster. He was just more aero. I got lucky with weather that day, so predicted his bike split to within 46 seconds. Haven’t been that close since at that distance.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

Yeah, we’re now leaving, or really have already left, that kind of thinking behind. I’ve argued Bike Fit is as much, if not more, art then science, but we’re entering a new age in the science of training, biomechanics, and equipment. In the next few weeks, I’ll be able to measure each change I make to an athlete biomechanically, aerodynamically, and metabolically in real-time as that athlete rides on course. The gain or loss known while the athletes themselves experience each adjustment.

Combining these new pieces of tech, I believe we’ll start to have multiple positions for athletes, choosing which might be optimal depending on what each individual course may present (we do this already for a select few cyclists). Further down the road, I can envision an athlete approaching a climb in aero, then pushing a button engaging small servo motors in their adjustable stems and seatposts moving their bike into a climbing-optimized position. We’re not as far off from this as some might think.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

Where do I sign up?

>> then pushing a button engaging small servo motors in their adjustable stems and seatposts moving their bike into a climbing-optimized position.<<

sounds like the old Seat Shifter we used to use back in the late 80's.

---

Mike Plumb, TriPower MultiSports
Professional Running, Cycling and Multisport Coaching, F.I.S.T. Certified
http://www.tripower.org

6 years ago we were recording the biomechanical information while riding.


The picture in picture is actually a playback of the recorded data. There were still dots on the rider as 30minutes previous, the thing like knee angles, pelvic tilts etc, had been verified using a Retul system.

Capture of "metabolic" data was in the form of a Moxy SM02. Replace that with any device today that could transmit via Ant+ or BT. Imagine a Lactate meter. We were following a company that was doing lactate measurement via NIRS, or so they claimed.

Pair this will an aerometer and you have all of what was described above. In theory.

We can debate/discuss what the best way for all this to happen. I know of an Open Source initiative that has many of the components in contention for release. It's just a question of the best way to achieve their objectives.

The market seems to struggle with even the first step of such an evolution.

That Notch stuff was pretty horrible at first though I thought it had potential. I still have a set lying around somewhere. The good news is IMU tech had finally matured enough to be useful. The drift and magnetic interference issues have been largely solved, so now it's a matter developing a solution which provides a good ROI. The hardware will not be the expense that keeps it from happening, it'll be the software. I think we're looking at a subscription cloud service to keep up front costs down. Xsens looks to be the best overall offering right now. They don't have a bike fit specific solution just yet, but it's coming. The beauty of an IMU-based system is it's not limited to any specific sport. Additional revenues can made, for instance, with run analysis.

I'd like to help get aero sensors in the hands of fitters and coaches in the coming weeks. Again, it's about finding a solution that makes sense for everyone involved. Obviously during the winter months testing outdoors is simply not a consistent option for many, so perhaps we develop a revenue sharing solution that works?

I believe the market is ready for a change. I look at something like Retul, a system that effectively hasn't changed since before the iPhone. That's ridiculous. It's time for better options.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

The Notch stuff was two big parts. The heavy math that actually worked incredibly well, and the "infrastructure" portion that did downloads, configuration......The funny part is in theory this is the easy part. It was awful. But they had an SDK and one guy I know rewrote everything for hoots. They became a great proof of concept tool. BTW, they have become very niche. They do Yoga for example, and then do it well. Yoga is easy. Swimming is actually pretty easy. We had fun with that. The guy that rewrote some of their code is an adult onset swimmer and he wanted to record himself swimming with IMUS. Cycling is hard. Imagine this : a golf swing. Not that hard. Now make the golfer rotate around two axis while swinging. Now make him accelerate along one axis while rotating. That's cycling.




Each sport has it's own quirks. Cycling has some very special quirks. One thing the Notches did in the POC is highlight the challenges of on road riding. Doing fit with IMU on a stationary bike is easy. On a flat road at constant speed is one notch higher, varying speed a notch higher, on rolling hills, have fun. So no, a run analysis system and bike analysis system are two different beasts. IMO. But there are people better at math than me.

So if you are back to 'let's do this on a stationary bike' then IMUs are probably not your best choice nor revolutionary. Much better emerging technology out there. AI and emerging 3D scanning technology can do incredible things




2023 could be interesting. Stay tuned :-)

long time passing...

Still here, going strong!

---

Jonathan Blyer,
ACME Bicycle Co., Brooklyn, NY