I'd say your leg extension is fine (don't want to be more than 132' or 28'), but there are two things I would change:

Your hip-shoulder-elbow angle looks to be less than 90', and you'd have to move your elbow position forward to get there. Also the 107' isn't optimal; I'd suggest elevating your elbows about 1cm and your hands a bit more to achieve 90' there.

Everything else looks good to me.

-Mike

"I'd say your leg extension is fine (don't want to be more than 132' or 28')"

Did you mean 152° (rather than 132°)?

Haim

---

-------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes you need to think INSIDE the box!" -- ME
"Why squirrel hate me?"

mike... i corrected my post to avoid and future confusion, but i'm not the guy on the bike. the pic is from the bikesport web site. my question isn't necessarily whether the guy is fit correctly, my question is where are we trying to achieve the 90 degree angle using the hip bone as the axis? the two pictures use different points of measurement...

This question was raised a few weeks ago in another thread, and if I understood correctly the concensus was that the correct measurement was hip/ankle (with the crankarm extended roughly inline with the relative seattube angle), not hip/knee.

Probably the primary reason why you may have detected some differences is becasue we fit you in person, not theoretically.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

jkat... can you point me to that thread? i tried searching before i posted but couldn't find it.

tom... i understand that fit is relative, but the philosophy behind the fitting should be somewhat static, no? the 90 degree hip angle seems to be of the essence to good form as it dictates breathing and muscle recruitment. once you know from what points to measure, then the rotation of the shoulder and hip angles all move in synch 'relative' to the needs of the rider in terms of comfort, power, and aerodynamics. i didn't interpret slowman's fitting techniques as advocating the hip angle to be that subjective.

Sorry to interject, but I think you're missing his question. It's not about his personal fit, it's about the differences in the pictures on yours versus Dan's website.

I, for one, am curious to know which is the "FIST" standard -- the Slowtwitch schematic or the photo from Tom's site. Do we draw a line to the pedal axle (which Dan proscribes), or to the knee, to check our 90*?

Oh, jeez, I'm sorry. Now I see what you are saying. My previous post was done pretty much on the fly.

You're right, I see the difference- and there is a difference. Our fittings incorporate things I learned at FIST- especially things related to reach such as stem length and proximity to elbow pads.

However, I've also done the Fitkit clinic at Interbike years ago and another Fitkit certified fitting school held by New England Bicycle Academy and administered by, if my memory serves me correctly, Bruce Clevinger who was an outside rep for them at the time. Also, I was the U.S. National Technical Rep. for Time Sport USA (Time pedals) along with Doug Knox under J.P. Pascal.

So.... When we fit you you are getting fit insight from FIST, NECA, Barnetts, the USCF resident athlete's program at the Colorado OTC administered by Chris Charmichael and also a little bit of Eddy Merckx (learned some fit from him personally on several occasions, here in the U.S. and in Belgium at his factory) and Greg LeMond thrown in there.

Do we do a 100% "FIST compliant" fit? Yup, sometimes- and sometimes we are adding insight from other fitting techniques. I think that is an important perspective to provide.

In the case of the photo of the fit we did on the bike above, it was a bit of a challenge because the darn bike really doesn;t fit him correctly- he would be better off on 700c's instead of the 650c's he's on (his bike didn;t come from our store). So we did the best we could with what we had to work with- and it came out pretty darn good.

The guy pictured in the photo is an experienced triathlete and helped plan the course for the Steelhead 1/2 IRonman here in Michigan. He also had a fantastic time at IM Florida only to be sanctioned for some dubious alleged rule infraction.

Anyway, you're right- the depiction does contradict the FIST protocol for measuring certain angles. Sometimes we incorporate different fit philosophies to induce different effects- and this is one of those instances.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Got it -- sorry for adding to any confusion. I've always been measured from the hip bone, if that helps.

(And yes, Haim, I meant 152'/28', not 132')

Thanks-
-Mike

Hey, I actually managed to find it! Here you go...

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...search_string;#80613

Well, technically, your method is correct.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Here's the key bit from Dan in the other thread:

"apex is the greater trochanter. one line down to the pedal axle at bottom dead center. another line straight through the shoulder, coming out even with the collarbone. 95 degrees is close to ideal. less than 90 degrees is questionable. more than 100 degrees is questionable. more than 105 degrees is too obtuse. "


So, I guess the "100% FIST" approach is through the pedal axle. As Tom noted, variations on a theme are sometimes appropriate.

jkat... thanks for the find. so based on julian's summary, a few things become clear:

• the appropriate measurement to apply the measurement is the shoulder/hip/axle... not shoulder/hip/ankle
• crank should be at the farthest point along the line drawn to the hip bone... i had been thinking in-line with the seat tube.
• 95 degrees, not 90 is ideal

i know we are playing with such small (and sometimes, obscure) measurements, but it's nice to know the specifics of a philosophy to which i subscribe. coolio... now i can continue to try and dial myself in.

besides holding a protractor (which i don't have) up to the screen, is there an easy way to measure the angles of lines superimposed on an image? i've been marking up my own photo in powerpoint, but i'd like to be more accurate in determining angle measurements... any computer aided method in photoshop perhaps?

Regardless of what you think of the fitting measurements.. I felt absolutely fantastic when I left Toms shop and for therest of the year. I was riding 650's that was all the came with the 2000 Hilo's. So being 6'3" the bike was not right for me.

But my new Felt B2 is as a matter of fact i need to go revisit Tom, how about a freebie since I have given you a bunch of free pub???

"the first picture is from the slowtwitch bike fit section"

don't pay much attention to our photos. read the text. a 90-degree hip angle becomes more like 95-100 when you drop the apex of the angle down to the greater trochanter.

and yes, we measure to the pedal axle at bottom dead center or the bb axle, both of which fall along the same line.

if you measure through the knee when considering hip angle, no problem, you just must make the hip angle more acute. further, some people feel the better way is to measure to the knee when it's at top dead center. i have no problem with that either. it might even be better.

don't assume that a 90-degree hip angle is that overly obtuse when measuring through the knee. remember that the knee angle is taken through the maleolus, not bottom dead center. i'll guess measuring through the maleolus makes the hip angle more obtuse by 15 degrees or so (just guessing).

i doubt there's that much difference between tom and i.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

ken... first, don't misunderstand, i don't doubt tom's ability to fit. in fact, the more i have read his posts over the year's the more i think he's one of the few that "get" it. that's what made the discrepancy in angles that more interesting.

second, saaweeet ride. i almost pulled the trigger on the very same B2, but couldn't get dialed in... slack post and longish top tube did me in. went to a P3 and feel pretty darn close to dialed in.