I have to politely disagree with Tom

Triathlon Forum
1

I think revolutionary is overstating it for several reasons:

  1. Stack and Reach have been used for years. The oldest version (if slightly different) is probably the one used by Serotta in its fit courses, another is the Hor. dim and vert. dim that we post on our website.

  2. The FIST is not a miracle solution. Somebody who has never done a fit and comes here, still wouldn’t be able to do fittings to the level that I would be comfortable with if I were to send somebody to a fitter. The major reason I say that is that to me the most important issue is not the optimal fit, it is fairly simple to set up Tim DeBoom. It is much more difficult to set up somebody with a weight problem, an IT band problem and lower back pains.

For that reason, I get fit by somebody with a PT background (Fiona from Athletes First, who actually is also here), but I also realize that that may not be attainable for everybody. But I think it means a lot more that somebody has a PT degree (and in Canada that means a lot more than in some other places, it actually is a college degree) plus a Serotta advanced course plus FIST, than that somebody has just gone to FIST, or fit a few elite athletes.

This is obviously outside the scope of the course, but it would be interesting to try and include more of these factors into the proces. Dan has knowledge on these topics too, but the problem is that his approach to these issues is much more intuitive, meaning that he can likely figure out a solution for somebody with these problems, but it would be very difficult to TEACH these things to somebody else. So I am not sure how that can be solved.

  1. I don’t think there is consensus with Tom’s statement that the FIST method right now is much faster, in fact I would say that the other three dealers agree it is much slower than what they do right now, mainly because there is an extra step involved of transfering measurements from a fit bike to the actual bike the customer has/is buying.

This is partly due to the fact that the method is still in progress, there are definitely ways that this can become effective, but we’re not there yet. Tom mentioned that they were doing Stack and Reach on me, but the end result was incorrect. This doesn’t mean that the method is wrong, but right now it is still too cumbersome. This is however entirely to be expected, we’ve used Stack and Reach for two years (we call it Vert. and Hor. dim) and I’ve only talked to Dan about it for one week. I think with another two weeks of work, and possibly a change from Stack and Reach to a system of effective toptube and adjusted headtube as developed by Dan Rishworth of Endurosport. Personally I don’t yet know which system will work best, and neither does slowman.

2

I disagree with Gerard disagreeing (is that possible?) for these reasons:

  1. Call me stupid, but I have not been exposed to “stack” and “reach” in the context that they are used here at FIST. I haven’t been to the Serotta school. I am considering going now though as there have been a lot of positive commentary about the Serotta school here at FIST for road bike fit (Serotta school is primarily for road fit/position).

  2. Nothing is a miracle solution, but this is better than what I’ve been taught before that I had to modify extensively for application to triathletes. I do call that a revolution.

  3. Gerard doesn’t know the process we use at Bikesport, so how can he be sure FIST techniques aren’t faster? Ultimately how fast the fit process (FIST or our own at Bikesport) works is of somewhat less concern to the customer than to the retailer (me) since less time = more fits = more $$$ provided they are all done correctly and I am happy with the results.

One thing we are a long way from reaching, and probably never will reach is a unversal way to fit tri bikes. Everyone here does it a little bit different, but I think there are more similarities than differences and the results wind up being nearly the same or exactly (+/- millimeters here and there) the same. FIST has offered a “universal” methodology. Is it perfect? Nope. Is it revolutionary? Well, put it this way- It didn’t exist on the open market in its current manifestation three days ago at the dealer level. Now it does. I call revolution a fair description. Gerard doesn’t. He’s a cynic and an engineer. I fit and sell bikes. It’s in my best interest to put the word out (and the polish on).

3

Gerard, I think you have brought up some very valid points, particularly when it comes to fitting someone with certain musculoskeletal problems or flexibility issues. This is an area that I personally would like to become more involved in and do more research. I’m a chiropractor and my wife has kinesiologist degree from University of Guelph. For us reading and comprehending bike fitting info hasn’t seemed that hard since we both have a solid understanding of anatomy and biomechanics. Not saying I necessarily know a lot about fitting compared to people who work in the industry, but I have certainly wondered about this.

4

I think the key issue about fitting seems to hinge around standardization. And, as we all know that is much more difficult to accomplish than it appears on the surface. Case and point is what Gerard seems to allude to. And, what Tom and friends are attempting to do.

Some years ago (O.K. - make that almost 2 decades ago), I was fitted by an individual that was with the US Olympic Cycling organization. He did an excellent fit. I took what he did and applied to the then relatively new sport of Triathlons. In the process, I realized that frames were evolving to accommodate a new sport - Triathlons. Those bikes were different. However, many of us were relegated to retrofitting TT bikes or Road bikes to accommodate the sport of triathlons. So, during those changes I came up with a way to keep the fit and yet effectively and efficiently make radical changes in bikes.

My concept was basicly this - fit is defined by angles. If you could take that person off the bike (by that, I mean visually remove the bike from the fitting calculation), what you find is the best fit for that biker for that environment he is riding in is dependent upon joint angles - the key reference point in a free floating body (i.e., no bike).*

The key profile angles are the arm to torso (shoulder angle)… torso to legs (hip angle)… Femur (Thigh) to Ankle (knee angle)…and (to a lesser degree) ankle to toe (ankle angle) & forearm to wrist (elbow angle). Find those perfect angles and you have a perfect fit. Then, place the bike sizing within those angles. If you keep those angles, you will keep the fit.

What those angles are are dependent upon is what kind of body type/size you have… what kind of flexibility… what kind of performance you are looking for…etc. Perfecting the angles will perfect the comfort and performance. What this means is you can reduce dependency upon inconsistent measuring distances from the seat to the crank, top tube length, stem length, crank length, seat post angle …ect. Instead, you find those distances/lengths/geometry that fit the angle (not the other way around).

I have changed bike many times in the past decades… I have maintained my fit by simply duplicating my joint angles. It is a very standardized process (regardless of changes in equipment and bike parts). The only thing that changes fitting angles are changes in my environment - body changes (i.e., aging) and performance expectations (i.e., Road, TT or mountain riding).

So, if it’s standardization, may I suggest using angles (something I have done for years). (IMHO) Body angles and how they relate to what my riding style/purpose has provided the best results. It is a fitting process that’s transferable and repeatable because it doesn’t depend upon the bike in first place.

FWIW Joe Moya

*Note: there are other angles, but they in reference to frontal views vs. side views I described above. They are more involved and require active movement to determine proper angles (and, I use that term angles for frontal view very loosely - it’s more akin to geometric shapes than angles). Hmmm… now that I think about it, this whole angle concept sounds copyrightable/patentable…just kidding, I don’t think there is much that is new in this area…but, I can see where todays tech. could actually create a bike position first and then the bike.

5

Fit can’t be standized. It is very personal. Likes dislikes, race distance, goals, age, flexibility, style

6

One thing I can say is that now that MTBing seems to be slowing down (read trade mags) Fitting is a good way to keep profits up
.

7

“My concept was basicly this - fit is defined by angles. If you could take that person off the bike…”

what you describe is precisely what we teach at FIST. ours is a three-step process:

  1. qualify your customer, and determine your starting position for the fit: road, optimal tri geometry, or something inbetween.

  2. find those “points in space” where the subject rests his weight, independent of the bike.

  3. translate those points in space to fixed spots on the bike.

what tom is describing by “stack” and “reach” is a process to get from #2 to #3. it’s frankly quite easy to fit somebody to a tri position. the hard part is easily figuring out how to translate that to how an actual tri bike ought to be built if you don’t have a bike in front of you.

8

Well, if that’s the case, that’s sounds like a very good fitting method… And, if you want someone to vouch with your fitting technique, I’m someone who has been doing (more or less) what you seem to describe as FIST for the past 20 yrs.

However, I still think the most diffucult part of fitting (and, establishing standards) is the dynamic portion of the fitting process. Therein lies the the greatest time consumption and (by default) the cost.

FWIW

Joe Moya

BTW, I find that what I refer to as the “method of angles - in 3 dimensions” also is very easily adaptable for injuries and (what is more common) body changes resulting from aging. That is probably the same for FIST. Good luck marketing your process/standard.

9

I was fit by a Serotta Fit instructor who has a considerable amount of experience with Tri bikes. He fit me on my road bike and on the size cycle for my future tri bike, (should that day ever come) Anyways wh is a really nice guy and is open to talking. If you would like I could put you in touch with him. (he is in NY)

10
  1. Gerard doesn’t know the process we use at Bikesport, so how can he be sure FIST techniques aren’t faster?

I wrote that I don’t think there was consensus about your statement that FIST right now is faster. I wrote that the OTHER three dealers seemed to think their current method is faster. So I am not making any statements about BikeSport’s methods, or about how fast they are. I did make the statement about the other three since that was what they brought up. The major reason for the difference in speed for them is the issue of fitting on a fit bike vs. fitting on the bike the customer will be buying.

That said, I really don’t want to make statements about what others think or do, I only responded because you seemed to indicate a consensus which regarding this topic did not exist (and I wrote that particular comment with Dan R and Hank looking over my shoulder, otherwise I would have elected not to speak regarding their thoughts at all)

Other than that, I think noses are pointing in the same direction, and that’s a good start. The rest is semantics.

11

Anyway Gerard- I enjoyed meeting you face to face and also our discussions and the run we went on. Your thoughts were insightful.