monty wrote:
This is one reason I have such a tough bike about bike fit. Some say something is bad, other say good. I just keep asking how does one verify something is better or worse with numbers? //
Ok Dave, take a deep breath. IT looks like you really want help here and you are getting it. If you look very closely at most all the responses, they are all in agreement. There is not one side and then the opposite side, but I know you like to see things that way sometimes. No-one here is attacking you. What everyone is telling you is probably right, it is just degrees of tiny separation in their advice. And people in the know that are 5'10" like me are not riding 175's anymore, I ride 155's, probably should be on 150's.
So get the shorter cranks back on, raise your saddle(as it appears you did in fact lower it last time) mover it back, up the stem a bit and begin from that point. You cannot use the old(very old) heel on the pedal for seat height, especially when you are a size 14 shoe. That is what Schwinn shops used to do for your fit, right after you hopped over the top tube to see if you cleared it. Things have changed.
Good news is that it appears you have a lot wrong going on, so you may be looking at some low hanging fruit in bike speed. And just another note too, a 59 could very well be bigger than a 61, bikes are measured much differently now too. It all depends on what measurement you are going for, that is why stack and reach was invented( by you know who). Then you can go to Dans data base and actually see what bikes would fit you best, good to know even if you are not in the market...Monty, I have no issues with any of the inputs. I knew posting what I should expect, and actually and pleased they have all been constructive. Trust me, I am reading them all and asking, what is my next step. I have to admit that even though I have spent a LOT of money on 200 cranks, if going back to shorter stuff and trying again might help me, I am all willing to give it a try again. When I did it last time did I adjust stuff correctly? No idea to be honest, been too long.
One of the biggest things hitting me now is just the size of my bike, starting with the reach. The existing 61 2009 P2 I am riding has a reach of 446. But the Yaqui that I bought fitted by Ves, size 59, has a reach of 480. Huge difference. This is one reason I put on the 140 stem on the P2 was to try and set it up the same as the Yaqui I was fitted for.
Am going to put my stack and reach into Dans thread and see if any bikes are make now with a long reach. My guess is no.
When I look at the Bike I believe Matt Reed is riding, the Fuji, the largest frame reach is only 449, so not sure how Matt fits on it other than if you give me a free bike, I would ride anything.
So, is anyone aware of any Triathlons bikes being make with a long reach, like my Yaqui 480 has? And that was only a 59 size. If I remember threads from the past, I think I remember that frame builders have gone to short reaches and tall stacks?
Dave Campbell |
Facebook |
@DaveECampbell |
h2ofun@h2ofun.net Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box |
Bionic Runner |
PowerCranks |
Velotron |
Spruzzamist Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep
