look at it this way: are you interested in a retul fit? perchance? who among you is? what do you think that means? what is retul? what is its foundational principle?

i'm glad you asked! its first and most noteworthy tool is a motion capture system. it tells you what the angles are that the body makes. it does more than that, but, this is its primary purpose in bike fit. so, let's say your included knee angle at BDC is, oh, 140 degrees. that tells you... what? you do what? as a fitter? you... move the saddle down? up? how do you know?

there's a prescribed angular range, inside of which you're safe. who makes that range? what does that range signify?

i'll give you a hint. it's starts with an o!

what we hear, what we say, is that all bodies are different. but, what is truest is: all bodies are the same. all of sport, medicine, pharmacology, all of human physical endeavor is based on the notion that all bodies are the same.

now, inside of the sameness are micro-differences. that's why we know thru clinical trials that your cancer is likeliest to respond well to 1 of these 3 chemotherapy drugs. but we don't know which.

that's why retul's angular target is not a number. it's a range. we now need a secondary "driver" and it's... what? depends on the fitter. but i would say that for most fitters it's rider feedback. RPE. proprioception. whatever you choose to call it. for good fitters, in my experience, it's a combo of standards that drive us toward orthodoxy mated with consideration given to micro-differences that take us from orthodoxy.

this is how your doctor, your coach, your nutritionist, and your bike fitter does business. or ought to. it's very boring! but, look, i saw mark allen give a ppt some years back, about his bike position, and how it morphed every year from 1987 to 1995, and how he finally got it dailed in 1995. every year it simply became more... orthodox.

the best fitters know when to honor orthodoxy, and when (and how much, and in which direction) to diverge from orthodoxy.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I agree. I think a comparative survey of "philosophies of fit" would be an interesting discussion to observe. Where do Eric, Slowman, Trent, Dave L, et al agree and where do they differ? Maybe that's the next level of refinement in the "how to choose a fitter" or the "fitter profile" series? Rather than how do I find the good fitters, how do I determine that THIS GOOD FITTER, is good for me?

Eric has made a few declarations recently about "XXX and I have different fit philosophy". That's cool, I'm glad for fitters to think deeply enough about the topic to have a "philosophy". Anyone who does, is probably a better fitter than anyone who doesn't. And, I'd be very interested to see that expounded upon either in forum debate or an (or sequence of) article(s)...or both.

This is something with which I can agree.

i've taken you up on your notion that this may be best as a separate thread. i'll make sure the bike fitters i know are aware of it. and, look, after x number of years at something, a restful thing happens: you cease feeling the need to defend your position.

the only position i will defend is an attachment to orthodoxy because every single one of us relies on this every day, many times a day, in our lives. however, what it also true is that orthodoxy changes. look how nordic skiers ski, backstrokers stroke, shot putters put, high jumpers jump, and you'll see how each has changed over the years.

it's also how medicine changes. when a new approach to (say) salt intake, or blood pressure guidelines, or PSA tests, is demonstrated to be more efficacious, a doctor doesn't change because he veers from orthodoxy. orthodoxy changed, and he changed with it.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I can also wholly appreciate why you are so attached to orthodoxy...For you, it is truly a philosophy which makes it well-founded in thought/experience etc. You aren't just adopting an orthodox approach because you have nothing else to offer your consumer.

And, I'm not advocating against orthodoxy. I would advocate against insisting on orthodoxy for the sake of orthodoxy if it isn't working for a particular client. But, I recognize a fitter is also dealing with various levels of sophisticaiton in terms of what may feel right/different etc. for a client. I am saying that when I'm paying a fitter, I expect to get at least consideration/conversation about the idea that orthodoxy may not work for me if it isn't working for me. And, I have (and from someone who may join this thread). Which is why hes on your top fitter list.

i have no quarrel, whatsoever, with what you're saying. just, have you ever known of a successful football coach, a directeur sportif, a chess master, who didn't recognize orthodoxy? didn't know all the standard tactics? was naive to ruy lopez or the sicilian defense, or how to protect a yellow jersey? my problem with bike fitters is that many or most wouldn't recognize a pathway to orthodoxy if it was taped to their front doors. i don't mind diverging from orthodoxy when there's a defensible reason. happens in my fits all the time. but i think it's pretty much malpractice to not know what orthodoxy is in bike fit, and for it to exert some gravitational pull on you.

look, a generation ago, bike fit systems were designed to veer from orthodoxy. why? because they were designed by custom bike makers. the emphasis was to find all the ways you were incapable of riding in an orthodox position. all the inertia in this industry was toward this. it's been hard to get the bike fit industry back. all these "fix my bike fit" threads, what do you think is going on? we're all fitting these folks, over the internet, to the orthodox positions they weren't in when the came to this forum.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I agree they should all recognize it, but they also should not just blindly apply it (I know you aren't saying they should). As a first year law associate, you are often given "form" documents to use as models for discovery, briefs, settlement agreements, etc. But, god forbid a client or opposing counsel ask you to veer from those forms or add or change language...you don't know why they are written they way they are or whether it is okay to stray from that orthodoxy. With experience, you learn the why and when it is appropriate to use different language/strategies etc. I'm just saying, I think we should expect or at least hope for similar expertise and guidance in a fit.

no disagreement. but, since you brought up law school, are you glad they taught you precedent? do you always stipulate to precedent? how do you feel about lawyers whose trajectory always pulls them from precedent?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

The predominant issue in my mind is a governing body of some sort.

For example I am an electrician, I can go wire a house within the context of legal liability etc. I can also do a bike fit....but I really shouldn’t.

Further to that Jim, Ian, Dave L, “Big” (remember him?) yourself, Eric etc can likely do great fits...extremely unlikely that they can go wire someone’s house.

The fit industry is fractured, you have physio’s, coaches etc doing really poor fits on in effect a 2-4 hour course.

You guys really need a unified/formalized/standardized one model system.

2c,
Maurice

Yes, I think it is important to know where the law started to recognize that orthodoxy so to speak...I'll unfairly nitpick your use of the word "stipulate" here, but I would say you have to acknowledge precedent--lawyers are even ethically bound to do so in front of a court. But, law is ever-evolving...in my particular practice, I have to be able to give companies real-time advice both on where the law currently is as well as where its going (based on trends of plaintiffs' attorneys, governmental agencies etc.). As to your last questions, if I understand it correctly, you are asking how I feel about lawyers who are pushing the limits of the current state of the law...??? If so, I have no issue with them...they give me job security :)

At Premier we as a direct to consumer company - do a hybrid on orthodoxy.

Fist - We stick to the (F.I.S.T) ranges. They are know and we know them.

Our model requires us to put athletes in the known ranges. We may lean one way or another based on a number of factors (short course or long) stated injuries, current position etc. but - when the athlete gets the bike it is ridable.

But we all know that is not good enough or workable - thats why we pay for a local "dial-in-fit".
And, it should be a dial in fit if we did our initial job well. I am certain that a hands on professional fitter will find changes that need to be made. That's a good thing.

---

Dan Kennison

facebook: @triPremierBike
http://www.PremierBike.com
http://www.PositionOneSports.com

in this case, i think precedent is a pretty apt analogy. you'd be a bad lawyer if you didn't know it, honor it, respect its power. but the reason i ask if you stipulate to it, the answer i was looking for is: no!

and that's how i teach bike fit. you never stipulate to orthodoxy. but you veer from it at some peril, so, what we teach is, "what's your reason for veering from orthodoxy?" if it's a good reason, fine! if you have no reason, that's a problem.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

...and here I thought this was going to be a discussion of the work of G.K. Chesterton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy_(book)

Darn. Still looking to apply having to read that during undergrad studies at a Jesuit run university ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Part of why you see so much discussion of orthodoxy is that it's a really good filter to apply to a visually poor bike fit (like the ones that get posted here). We very rarely see a good justification for why that rider is unorthodox, so why did the fitter go down that path? Likewise when bike measurements are posted - we have a pretty good gauge of where good positions fall on an XY plot.

I teach bike fit based on using orthodoxy as a pre and post filter.
And I expect new bike fitters to do 'fit by numbers' (just get angles in the ranges) until they feel comfortable with the full scope of information.
What I'm trying to get them to grasp is the methodology that finds the best combination of comfort, stability and aerodynamics
That methodology often leads to being a little outside the basic ranges, but those ranges are intended to be safe. Don't want new fitters thinking that a 40deg minimum hip angle is OK if they don't have the skillset to determine whether or not it works for that rider.

You saw the same thing in the answers from Jon Blyer (in the profile articles) - look for the breakdown in the riders form to define what their limits are.

The problem for the fit industry is that just getting to the standard of your junior lawyers -follow the orthodox process consistently - is rare. So it falls to Dan to push for orthodoxy as the next step of development for a lot of fitters. Moving towards more practitioners with the skillset to optimise a position remains a bit of a long term goal.

as you see, i did apply it! i've also applied the father brown mysteries, the napolean of notting hill, and the man who was thursday ;-)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman