Good to see you here Ryan!

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

when i declare this the "year of the contact point" i'm not saying i just discovered the importance of contact points. rather, that i'm hoping that this is the year the industry finally comes to understand the importance of contact points.

it's also clear you misunderstand what i write on the article. read a little closer. there is a difference between "fit coordinates" and "contact points," at least in the way i use this nomenclature. i don't think you need to try a lot of aerobars out before you establish fit coordinates. nor a lot of saddles. but these represent contact points, where weight is resting, and, if these points are not comfortable, the rider isn't going to have an enjoyable experience.

no software will tell you whether your comfort preference is a visiontech, a 3T, a j-bend, s-bend, wrist relief; an ISM adamo, a fizik arione tri ii, a selle italia SLR T1, and so forth. my point in the article was, and is, that retailers need to display these components in a manner that easily allows for them to be tried prior to purchase (otherwise, what separates the brick and mortar retailer from mail order?). the inability to lay one's weight on an aerobar, in the store, on a display, is due to a lack of ingenuity on the part of both the manufacturer who makes the product and the retailer who sells it.

as to the primacy of your 3-year-old system, i suggest that you read up a little on the history and development of the system here. that established, i'm all for good fit systems. the more the merrier, as long as they work. i'm assuming and hoping yours does. good luck in your efforts. that said, the position simulator you use looks curiously like its based on the exit fit bike, just without the specific techniques of manufacture mandaric chooses to use for his. assuming your model was available at least 12 years old, it then predates the first prototype ves and i developed.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

While I agree with your approach of determining position and using calculation to determine how different frames will fit (I have to agree given I've been doing the same for the last 3 years), I think you missed the point of Dans article. He knows how to back calculate position to fit. But you cannot determine saddle comfort (contact point 1) or elbow pad comfort (contact point 2) without the customer actually sitting on the product. Definitely not hard to calculate the points in space but that just means you can set the client up with the same coordinates so they can make a fair evaluation of comfort.

Also, you probably should be paying for such blatant advertising.

Wow, between the specific post about the fit and the blog in general, there just too many misleading statements there to let go.

1. Cleat placement is not part of a FIST fitting per se. While Dan acknowleges the importance of cleat position, it is not currently part of the protocol, so whatever position your cleats were moved from, was not a FIST certified cleat position. You may have had your cleats positioned by a FIST fitter though, I'll give you that.

2. Fitting to power #'s can be misleading and confusing, and those aren't the worst things.

3. Fitting to spinscan #'s can be worse than fitting to power, combine the two and who knows what you will end up with.

4. There is a much better use for your time than Tabata intervals, a statement that was prefaced by "intervals in January?", as if that is just an outlandish idea by itself.

5. If you need to go back and forth between two vastly different saddles to avoid saddle sores at an hour a day on your bike, maybe you should take another look at your equipment decisions, and perhaps your fit.

6. Tempo, threshold and SST don't get "easier" as you progress, they remain at the same level of exertion. Your power just goes up. Sounds like you need more understanding of basic power meter training as well as some more frequent testing. When a level becomes easy, it aint the level no more.

7. 15 minute intervals until you hit a target wattage and then up the target wattage but keep the 15 minute duration. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

8. Pulling half the race and then detonating and finishing last?!? You really need a coach and probably yet another bike fit.

Don't usually make posts like this, but I felt the tone of the OP was decidedly "asshole-like", while at the same time revealing certain deficiencies in reading comprehension and you seemed all for it so there you go. Tell me how wrong I am.

I hope that Dan is right and that this is the year when bike companies (I can't use the word manufactures) start using contact points. I also firmly agree with Dan's post that you can't simply do fit by formulas. Further, I feel, that there remains a premium on good bike fitters and well run brick and mortar IBD's. Fitters who have the resources of a shop can change out saddles, bars, aerobars, etc. during the fit process...you just can't get that via mail order and formulas. What differentiates a good fitter / IBD combo is knowledge and experience coupled with great tools. I started fitting with the old LOOK system. I modified this based on real world cyclists and the info coming out of The Slowman. Later (2000) I added power to the equation and most of the formulas went out the window! After about 1500 fits with "before fitting power" and "after fitting power" I found that very few measurements and subsequent formulas yielded the final "optimized" fit. I have come to agree both philosophically and quantitatively with John Cobb who, loosely quoted, said to me, "Put the rider where they are comfortable and can put out the most power." My Serrotta size cycle did this fine. However, it was slow and cumbersome. It also demanded the use of an X, Y tool (and since I didn't like theirs, I made my own). The fixture I made is nothing special...It's just simple and fast. The fixture simply allows me to get to the final x,y faster than the Serrotta (and in retail time is often money). The Exit Cycle already existed and was and is fantastic. It can get the x,y's very quickly. However, I wanted a fixture I could travel with. So, like the x,y tool, I made my own. My initial design was all aluminum and modular (not exactly rock solid!). The point is, the tool I needed wasn't a fixture. What I needed was a way to get from optimized fit on the fixture to real bike (whether or not I had the bike in stock). I did not want to do the work twice or fumble with an x,y tool. I, like other nerds, turned to the spreadsheet. This evolved to the software Ryan refers to in his post. I could extol the features of the software but it should suffice to say that John Cobb likes it, Paul Swift thought it cool, and I am always gee whizzed when I see a customer saddle a bike that has been ordered, built to the fit numbers, and fits dead nuts on with no tweaking. I have approached Dan, asked for, and look forward to the opportunity to demo the software and to pay for advertising. It is not my goal or intent to claim the holy grail of fit systems or claim that my little brain had this ah-ha! moment. I stand on the shoulders of those before me. Fact is, there is no holy grail. Just good fitters with great experience and great tools. I believe I have added a valuable tool to the fitters work bench. I look forward to answering any questions about the tooling or software. I am also available to throw in my two cents about what makes a good fit and how to get there. Thanks for letting me continue to love what I do for a living! Bob Duncan

Dan, you are correct in this being the cause for the misunderstanding. For us, the contact points ARE the fit coordinates. Our system does not simply stop at Stack and Reach but rather we base our fit around the 3 contact points. Simply using Stack and Reach is limited in the fact that you are unable to take into account the stem, spacers, headset, and aerobars.

You are correct in saying that the "feel" of a Visiontech, 3T, J-Bend, etc. aerobars are different and a customer may want to try a different aerobar for comfort reasons. However, as I'm sure you know, each of those aerobars have a different setback and height component. Given this variable measurements of the aerobar to one another, this changes the fit. A size 56 Cervelo with 2 spacers and a 84 degree 100mm stem with Vision Tech aerobars is going to fit different than a 56 Cervelo with 2 spacers and a 84 degree 100mm stem with T-2 Aerobars. Outside of trial and error, how does a fitter account for this difference? We offer a solution to that problem. In the case that the customer is comfortable with the T2 aerobars but can't afford the Cervelo and instead decides upon a Felt B16. How do you make the size 56 Felt B16 with the customer's preferred T2 aerobars match the same fit that they had on the Cervelo? Again, we offer a solution to this which doesn't require you to redo the fit.

This is not a sales pitch, we are simply seeing a trend in the industry moving towards functionality that we already have in place and their is no reason to re-invent the wheel.

"Our system does not simply stop at Stack and Reach but rather we base our fit around the 3 contact points."

whoa. you guys use stack and reach? since i'm only now contemplating the sorts of techniques you've been pioneering for the last three years, i must have appropriated these terms from you ;-)

"Simply using Stack and Reach is limited in the fact that you are unable to take into account the stem, spacers, headset, and aerobars."

go back and do some homework. "fit coordinates" simply display in the sagittal plane where you rest your weight on the bike. but this doesn't tell you what sort of frame geometry matches these fit coordinates. stack and reach is simply a set of frame metrics, roughly analogous to "head tube" and "top tube" but much more precise. the ONLY reason stack and reach matter to us, in our fit system, is it allows us to know, after we've determined your fit coordinates, which bikes on the market will work for you.

stack and reach have the secondary appeal of describing to the world the absolute height and length of a bike. accordingly, virtually the entire bike manufacturing world has absorbed stack and reach into their tri bike geometry charts (if they make a tri bike) and a lot of larger brands (e.g., trek and cervelo) display these metrics for all their road bikes, tri or other.

"You are correct in saying that the "feel" of a Visiontech, 3T, J-Bend, etc. aerobars are different and a customer may want to try a different aerobar for comfort reasons. However, as I'm sure you know, each of those aerobars have a different setback and height component."

the deuce you say? who woulda thunk it.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Comfort? Who needs comfort? Think of the wind tunnel man....

I think that it would be obvious that Dan is correct in his views, I also think that any of us who have seen the decades of iterations of numbers - to witch is currently being imported into a software...well, .883 didnt work for many in 1985 and some software that takes an average of something will not work today in the grand scheme of things. I have no doubt that the creator of the software is a very gifted fitter...but unless he can do something like the Wheelsmith spoke length calculator that takes just about every rim, hub and lace pattern to throw out a probable number - any fit software will have to have dimentions for every bike, bar, stem, seat and on and on. Think of shoes...just cause you know you wear a 10.5 does not mean that any 10.5 will fit you...back to bikes...just cause you know a probable number does not mean that the LBS who owns the software even sells the proper brand bike to fit you more closely to the number that it spits out. And could get even more complicated that most noive folks who get fit twist, contort and lie about what is and is not comfortable and can not replicate their perfect fit on the road for any period of time.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

I believe some simple geometry and math would do the job. I'm certainly no fit expert, but based on elbow pad location in relation to the base bar, I have a pretty darn good idea how the bars will fit on a bike. No need for any fancy program, a pencil and paper are generally enough. IMO, Dan wrote the book on Tri bike fit. Either you're completely misunderstanding everything Dan has written, or you really don't have a very good understanding of bike fit...

Cheers,

Mike

Wow! Dan, you have clearly not lost your touch for sarcasm. I'm not certain why this is a contentious issue. The long and short of it is simple. Dan, you have pioneered some very cool stuff. There is no dispute over who developed and spread to industry the stack and reach concepts nor the importance of fitting around contact points. Further, as I stated earlier, I have been using the concepts for about 10 years...largely in part to what you printed. That said, I would best describe what we've done as an advancement of the tool. We don't need to change spacers, stems, etc. on the fixture and would not need to on any other fixture. We just use trig. We also make it easy and intuitive. Look at the software as moving from a yardstick to a digital laser measuring device. The concepts of length don't change any more than the concepts of stack, reach, and contact points (you can take rightly take credit for all of them). The only change is the ease and accurracy of measures. I'm certain that once the software was demonstrated, you'd appreciate it for what it is...A BETTER TOOL. And a tool you can use on your EXIT Cycle. Thanks for your consideration, Bob

I'm pretty sure I'm a decent bike fitter. I'll not post credentials here, you can ask if truly care. You are correct in the statement that some basic math will do the trick...problem is, as you get into it and want to compare bike to bike and see what happens with a different rake, fork length, headset cup difference, etc. the math becomes cumbersome. The software doesn't tell anyone how to fit. It simply does all the calculations from fixture to real world bike, real world bike to fixture, existing bike to existing bike, etc. Instead of the pencil and paper, well , its a calculator. If you would like, I'd be happy to walk you through it. It is a cool tool. email is bobttcoach@gmail.com

The software does NOT do a bike fit or spit out numbers. It is a tool, much like Retul, that measures and calculates. It can do nothing of value without a good bike fitter. However, like Retul, in the hands of a good bike fitter and can quickly, easily, and accurately perform a number of functions that used to require an x,y tool or an ass load of trial and error. You may really want to see its capabilities. I'm confident that once you do, you, like a lot of really experienced and credentialed fitters, will see and understand its value.

"Ok, so instead of slighting us answer the question: "Outside of trial and error, how does a fitter account for this difference? In the case that the customer is comfortable with the T2 aerobars but can't afford the Cervelo and instead decides upon a Felt B16. How do you make the size 56 Felt B16 with the customer's preferred T2 aerobars match the same fit that they had on the Cervelo?"

i don't mean to slight you. but, if you read your initial post, and reflect on it, did you expect a big sloppy kiss from me? ;-)

there are three ways to take a set of contact points and "reduce" or "eliminate" the X/Y quantities from the armrest to the head tube top (where stack and reach take over). one way is to make stack and reach not to the head tube top, but to the handlebar clamp. this is what serotta did, even before F.I.S.T. came along. we don't like this, because this doesn't help with the problem of which production bike matches your fit coordinates.

that established, we recognize that, yes, with a little trig you can "solve" the X/Y problem between the handlebar clamp and the head tube top. and, we've been solving this tri problem for some years now for those fitters who have serotta or tiemeyer fit bikes:

http://www.slowtwitch.com/...r/fit_calculator.php

note the prompt to switch to Serotta X/Y.

second, there's the establishment of a trig solver to reduce to account for the X/Y values between the aerobar armrest and the handlebar clamp. fine. if you want to do this, i have no quarrel with it. but then, there is no real need for a program, just a trig solver applet. nevertheless, if anyone wants to paint it with lipstick and sell it as an application, i'm okay with it.

we have chosen not to go that way, because we think the best way forward is to take as much noise out of the equation as we can. most of the time, through palpating these contact points, a rider will have a good idea what aerobars and saddle he wants to ride (this is the point of my original article to which you referred in your initial post). so, by placing the stem, spacers, aerobar, etc., on a fit bike, one can erase this from the equation. if it's later determined that a higher or lower profile aerobar might be contemplated for a better fit, fine, they all have aerobar armrests that sit somewhere between 2cm and 7cm over the handlebar clamp's elevation.

that's why we use the protocol that we use. nevertheless, if you choose to use a different one, that's fine. i think we're all after the same end product: a good fit. i don't think you invented sliced bread, but, if your program is useful to fitters, they'll no doubt buy it.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

See, but then where does the suggestion of "Hey Mr. Customer, you need Brand X stem" come from? Who cares if you have a number if that number does not include what will fit in a given instance. I have seen a few times on the forum "Hey, who makes a stem that is X long with Y rise"...and it will be a goof ball one off odd case of a stem that no one makes...it is instances like that I wonder if the stem is not the problem but infact the issue is with the frame. I think that if it was possible to import frame numbers into a software it could at least give you a list of things to look into as for proper fit/brand...but then next thing you know it is "Super Duper Fit Software, brought to you buy Trekalized Bicycles" and guess what fits everyone....

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

You hit the nail on the head! What we do is use geo's from stock bicycles and make certain that the frame dimensions will yield a good fit before the customer buys the bike. I do not want to see a funky stem, bar, aerobar combo on any bike. Further, it would suck to sell a bike that is all funkified. The tool makes it easy to verify that these variables are accounted for. Beyond the calculator Dan provides, we also add the functionality to start with a bike in mind, tweak the fit and know that it will fit well. We also can compare bike to bike to mirror position. The app also saves the data on all the bikes "tested" for fit so Mr. or Mrs. consumer can have some choice without wagering. We have, as Dan suggested prettied up the process. We've also made it easier and faster for a shop to get the right fit under a customer before they commit to purchase. I do agree totally that we are all after the same end...good fitting, comfortable, and fast bicycles. Again, we have not invented the wheel nor found an answer to life's big questions. What we have done is make a better tool. I would love to walk anyone through a demo. I am certain that the tool will stand on its own merit. That said, if you haven't seen it and played with it, how do you know it isn't useful or, bike gods be damned, better?

I have found this an interesting “discussion”. As an individual with both engineering and medical degrees and over 15 years of fit experience, I feel the information provided by bobttcoach has been informative and useful.
I am sorry to see that Slowman has resorted to sarcasm and chastising a software program that it sounds like he has been invited multiple times to check out, and yet has not. I find it hard to look at someone as an “industry leader” when they are unwilling to look at other options that can enable us to focus on the people who matter most – OUR CUSTOMERS. To see what this was all about, I actually took the time to create a demo account on the Veritas Fits site, and am more than slightly impressed. I found the software quickly handled calculations I had been doing with my fits. So, Slowman (and others who take his word at gospel without checking it out yourself), take the time and check it out. If you are unimpressed – it’s no skin off my back. But if you are like me and see a tool that can enable better customer service and quicker fits, and for me time is money, then the 5 minutes to run through the demo will be worth your time.

Don't get mad at slowman. The OP was more than biased against him and his fit system. He's defending himself here. As to everyone taking Dan's word as law, remember that he's been doing this for twenty years and designed a standard that we all appreciate. Clearly, everyone who hangs out on SlowTwitch will probably buy the Fit.Institute.Slow.Twitch [FIST] system. Just saying.

You misunderstood the contents of the original post. The software is not a tool for fitting someone. It is a tool for translating fit coordinates to a bicycle given a certain set of contact points. I.e., fit coordinates exist in space. The software *apparently* allows you to see how those coordinates map to frame A, B, or C with a stem of X length and Y pitch and Z aerobars. It is NOT a fitting tool. And since I consider aerobars a contact point - you can't just change folks' bars without affecting their comfort - all the software really helps you do is establish what stem you ought to use for different bikes, which is very basic trig. If you are going to change bars, it ought to be done ON A BIKE, since you need to rest your weight on them. Otherwise it's no more useful than a program that figures out how to change saddle X for saddle Y. What if you hate saddle Y? Then it doesn't really matter how much seatpost is showing with it inserted.

The initial post made it seem as if the software helps you fit. It doesn't. What it *might* help you do is translate your fit to a given number of bicycles. But I would shy away from changing bars - a contact point - via this software. If you want to know what stem you need on a P3C instead of a Transition, for example, this software *seems* to tell you that. But that's not really all that hard to do if you know the stack and reach and do some basic trig. In fact, if you can't do that trig, you probably ought not be a bike fitter.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

"The initial post made it seem as if the software helps you fit. It doesn't."- rappster

"the software enables the best fit to be calculated down to the millimeter" and "Put quite simply, we are already there and we are willing to work with FIST and/or other bike fitters to help you get there faster."- Veritasfits

These statements would appear to be in conflict. I only point this out because you and slowman are nationally known and respected bike fitters (among other things) and bobttcoach is the fit guru in the southwest ohio area (and beyond). Who is right and is anyone wrong? Can either party "prove" his position thus ending the discussion? Its not that I don't believe in bike fitting, but it is hard as a consumer to know who to believe and where to spend my hard earned money. How much of a difference is there between the FIST approach and veritasfits? At some point is the difference small enough so as not to matter any more? A 5mm spacer or 10mm spacer? A 110mm stem vs. 100mm? Are these the types of differences or would one of these approaches put someone on a Scott Plasma and the other presume the Scott is a terrible bike choice and the P2C is the way to go?

These types of discussions about fit and fit systems are really confusing and it is frustrating as a consumer to read the tension-filled back and forth commentary between the "experts." I am not trying to insult either fit system or its creator, I'm simply explaining the difficulties that the end consumer has with bike fitting in general. It appears to be an inexact science with very passionate backers all around. I just wish that there were a way to settle these things in a more conclusive way.

Rappstar,
Glad to see you're reading the posts. As you are aware I did not write the initial post and have been doing my best to clarify any misunderstood points. So, in that spirit of getting things right I propose the following. Rather than base an opinion on "seems" why not check out all the functionality of the software and fixture. From your post it is clear you haven't had the opportunity to go through the software adequately ("all the software really helps you do is establish what stem you ought to use for different bikes, which is very basic trig.") Once you see the system you'll undertsand what an understatement that is. I am available to walk you through more than the basic demo so you can see what "is" and get an understanding of the tools so you don't have to post in what "seems" to be ignorance. I can be reached at bobttcoach@gmail.com . I look forward to showing you how you can save time and money while increasing your accuracy.
Sincerely

Sure a bad fit, or should I say a bad fitter, can lead to bike with a "funky stem" but its my experience that its likely either someone retro-fitting an existing bike (it happens often), or someone so in love with bike brand X that the only way to make bike X work is with the funky stem. A fitter can't force a bike underneath the rider.

-tim

Cincytri,
Thanks for the input. Great Points. The difference between the fits...who does them. Veritas Fit System is not a school of thought, process, or dogma. All we do is provide the fitter with tools to help them do their job faster. If your fitter is a hard core wobble notter or a Fister or whatever, our tools don't change how they arrive at the final position.
I believe there are a lot of great fitters who all have their own unique styles. I liken it to preachers given the task of preaching a sermon on the same subject. If they're all good, they will all get the truths across eloquently. However, you can be certain that each will deliver the message with their individual flair.
I think the most important take away is that we bike dorks want our rider athletes to represent our works' well through their performances. We all want you fast and comfy. Second in importance is we shouldn't shy away from learning each others tips and techniques. It can only make us and our industry better.
I am always happy to explain the how and why of what I do. I am confident that other fitters would do the same. Most of us can provide scientific data to back up what we say.
Thanks again for the post
Bob

Tim,
Great points! I have had my fair share of ugly retrofits. I've also lost a fair deal of sales when I tell Mr. Consumer, "That bike really won't fit you well." I wish I could make a tool to fix both scenarios! I don't think we'd have much discussion on it's merits.
Thanks for the Post
BOb