Question re: road fit for pro riders vs. non-pros:
Pro riders’ setups (based on pics from cyclingnews and other sites) look like they size down one frame and lengthen the seatpost and stem for a more ‘aggressive’ (slam?) position whereas most setups I see at LBS or on recreational riders like me have a larger size frame with shorter stem. Does this make a difference? Is it just preference?
Thanks!
Chris
No. It is the difference between a person’s bike fitting or not fitting.
The overwhelming preponderance of people I see on road bikes are on frames sizes that are either:
A. Too Large.
B. Incorrect relationship between top tube length and seat tube length.
C. Incorrect frame geometry (usually seat tube angle).
D. All of the above or some combination.
It is so common for people to come up to me on a ride and say, “Your bike is so small!?!” It is also pretty common for a guy to come in with similar body dimensions to me and say, “Oh yeah, I ride a 56cm frame.” I show him my 51cm frame and his is thinking, “This looks like a little kid’s bike…”
Obviously you can go too small also, quite easily actually. But the overwhelming majority of poor fits tend to start with a frame size that is too large and/or inappropriate frame geometry.
51? How tall are you?
That is the kind of question that gets people into trouble.
Let’s say I am 6’ tall (I am not). I may ride a 58cm., or I may ride a 54cm.
Overall height is a part of the fit picture, but it isn’t all of it. No single dimension is all of it.
That is why people are so frequently on a less than optimal fit.
yeah, I know, I just freak out over the bike fit thing, always thinking that I am on a bike that is too big. Even though I am extremely comfortable, I just always second guess myself b/c I dont want to have any excuses.
Tom,
I am 5’ 10’ with a 32 inch inseam and ride a 55 P3 and a 55 Talon SL. I had some toe lap with the 52 Talon so I went with the 55. Without seeing me does this sound in the park?
When I look at photos of the TDF riders it sure seems that many of them appear to be on a smaller than expected frame. Don’t know if this is so or just camera angles. I believe Luke Bell and Michelie Jones are riding a size smaller Giant TCR frame than normal.
Damn evil that fitting thing is. My problem in getting my first bike was just getting a top tube long enough for me (6’5" with only a 34" inseam). So I have a pretty long seat tube, but I think the top tube is about as good as possible without going custom.
I know the standard tri fitting angles and what-not are well documented here, but what about road fitting?
What differences are there for a guy like me trying to see how to be fit on his road bike w/ Jammers for aerobars (that is used only for tri’s and their training)?
Eph
I don’t know if this is part of the reason, but it seeems that many teams all have same/similar frames sizes, save for a few of the really bigger riders( Hincapie et al) then they just fit the frame to the rider via seat post adjustment and stem/handle-bar variation and combination. This may be easier for the bike sponsors to handle.
“What differences are there for a guy like me trying to see how to be fit on his road bike w/ Jammers for aerobars”
This might be worth a try?
My first question would be why would you size up a frame size to do away with toeclip overlap? What if the designer of the frame geometry intended there to be a tight wheelbase and short front/center that did include toeclip overlap?
Some bikes will have toeclip overlap, it is normal for them when correctly fitted.
I read that Lance A. rides a 57cm Trek, and he cantbe over 5’10"
You guys are scaring me.
Yeah, but Trek is funny about sizes. They measure BB to the top of the seat collar. So a 57cm frame has a ~55cm c-c seat tube. Their measurement is usually closer to the top tube length, which IMHO is a better way to describe the size of a frame. That’s always the first thing I look for.
Chris
Eph,
I’m about the same size as your dimensions - 6’5" w/ 34/35" inseam. I basically use a Cannondale road bike (I think a 62 or 63 frame) with Jammers. I roughly tried to duplicate the slammed position that you see in the pictures on-line. So far…so good.
Relax2dmax
Tom,
I think many of us size road bike larger than you because of a difference in preferred riding styles. Referencing your review of the Colnago Dream, you say that you went from a 53 to a 52 in part to get a lower bar position. You also say that you don’t spend much time in the drops unless you are in a situation struggling to not get dropped. I had a fitting from Andy Pruitt at Boulder Center for Sports Medicine which resulted in my handlebars being raised 1.5cm. The end result is that I can now ride quite comfortable for an 1-1.5 hours in the drops, perfect for long breakaway situations. This raised position still has me quite low (quads tapping chest occaisonally) yet it feels very natural.
On a related vein, I don’t understand why you increased your stem from a 120 to a 130 when you went from a 53 to a 52. The 52 has a steeper seat tube angle (74.5 vs 74) such that the reach (length of TT in front of vertical line above BB) is actually longer on the 52. (53 = 53.5TT, setback 14; 52 = 53.1TT, 13.3 setback). Reach on the 53 is 39.5 (53.5-14) vs 39.8 (53.1-13.3) on the 52. Okay, it’s only 3mm, but I don’t understand how that warrants increasing stem length by 10mm.
Handlebar positioning has always been one aspect of bike fit that’s confounded me. You can achieve the same torso position by adjusting reach and drop, with a longer reach obviously having the same affect as more drop. However the resulting difference in arm position can make a major difference in comfort and stability.
kg
The only thing is, when you change that parameter (frame size to get a higher head tube for a higher position) you also change wheel base, and then weight distribution and possibly even seat angle.
Bike fit has to be done carefully because one change effects everything. Reach too short? Heck, that’s easy: Shove the seat back! Not quite partner, you just threw your seat tube angle relationship off. Lengthen the stem? Certainly, only now the bike won’t corner worth a darn.
Bike fitting is about understanding what parts of the bike need to be used to address which fit issues. It is not rocket science, a “black art”, salesmenship or smoke and mirrors. It is a relatively simple skilled trade steeped in baloney and B.S. because so few people have really taken the time to dedecate themselves to the nuts and bolts of it and stick with it.
Excellent, it is always great to learn from the experiences of other tall guys. I will give it a shot and if I have enough guts maybe post a picture. And my bike is 63cm Trek, not sure if I mentioned that.
Despite what some people say, fit is not an exact science, and there is still room for personal preference. You need to find a position that strikes a balance among aerodynamics, power, control, ability to breathe properly and, maybe most important, comfort. The right balance must account not only for your body measurements, but also for your flexibility, tolerance for pain and type and distance of riding you do.
Here is a blurb from competitivecyclist.com about the 3 different styles of bike fit they promote: The Traditions of Road Riding and Our Three Styles of Fit
When we look at the bikes we sell we recognize that most of them descend from the traditions of road racing and long distance riding. There are also bikes for time trialing, cyclocross, and other cycling “disciplines” and each of these has its own traditions and optimal fit options. Very few of us actually race and many of us don’t ride as long as we might like, but the bikes we sell can all be fit to suit your preferred riding.
We see three basic styles of road riding fit, each designed to meet clear goals and expectations. We believe that a bicycle that fits your riding style is the one that creates the best experience. We need first to determine what style of fit (or combination of styles) matches you best before we go about achieving a precise, personal fit for you.
The three styles of fit work with the sometimes complementary and sometimes competing objectives of comfort, speed, efficiency, and power. Creating a great fit involves creating priorities among these objectives and knowing yourself. All bikes should fit comfortably, but this priority can be weighed against other objectives. Every choice we make about fit and the bike we choose (frame, fork, model, material, size, parts, etc.) has consequences for our cycling experience. We can explain either by e-mail or telephone how different choices will change your experience and what the advantages and relative compromises will likely be.
For example, the more aerodynamic and “aggressive” Competitive Fit emphasizes speed and efficiency but favors those who can adjust to positions that others will find difficult to maintain over long days in the saddle. In other words, the Competitive Fit may for some become uncomfortable over longer distances or it may not suit those for whom the priority of greater comfort actually increases speed. The slightly more relaxed Eddy Fit adds comfort but compromises some aerodynamic and power efficiency in order to gain endurance and ease. The exceptionally comfortable French Fit understands speed as a feature of comfort and puts power and efficiency in terms of longer endurance goals.
Each of the three styles of fit can be achieved on the same model bicycle, though perhaps not the same size or parts set up. Knowing how you want to ride will help determine what you want to ride. The Competitive Fit.
It’s called the Competitive Fit because it’s our signature fit. We’ve found that this is the look and the feel that most of our customers expect out of their new bike. This is the most “aggressive” fit and suits those with an interest in racing, fast club riding, as well as those with a greater measure of body flexibility to work within the racer’s comfort zones. Most modern road bikes, like the majority we offer at Competitive Cyclist, are usually pictured in sales catalogues with the Competitive Fit. But this doesn’t mean that you should ride a bike that looks or fits like this.
Wanna look like a pro? This is the fit. It features a low, aerodynamic bar position that places slightly more weight on the hands than on the pedals and saddle, a close knee to pedal spindle ratio that emphasizes power and efficiency, and it puts the rider low in the handlebar drops. Typically the frame chosen will be the smallest that is appropriate. In fact, since the heyday of mountain bikes in the 1990s and more recent studies of professionals looking for an aerodynamic advantage, the Competitive Fit has become most bike shop’s conventional wisdom.
After all, who doesn’t want to look and ride like a pro? This fit is easy to sell but may not work for you since it actually best suits those who are willing to accept its clear emphasis on speed over comfort. For most of us, the pure Competitive Fit is too extreme even if it is still viable for young riders and racers, for those who love shorter, faster rides, and for those who just find this comfortable. Expect to be rather low even on the tops of the bars where you will spend the majority of your cruising time on the brake hoods, expect too to be lifting your neck slightly to see ahead of you with a rather “short and deep” reach into the bars as you push back on the saddle to stretch out.
The Competitive Fit creates a more compact body position with the chest low and the back as flat as is necessary to get down into the drops. The saddle to handlebar drop is sometimes as much 10cm or more. The Eddy Fit.
Lots of folks find the Competitive Fit to be ideal. But for those who find its aerodynamic emphasis to be overly aggressive and uncomfortable, the Eddy Fit is almost certain to be ideal for you. It’s a position that reminds us of the way Eddy Merckx looked on his bike in the early 1970s, and it dates from well before Eddy’s time and continued in the pro peloton well into the 1980s.
There is nothing “dated” about this style of riding. We all know that Eddy, Bernard, and Guiseppe were all very, very fast riders! Bike design has not, in fact, changed that radically since their time—only the look, the fashion, and the style of riding. The Eddy Fit is simply no longer the “fashion” among pros who keep pressing the envelope of comfort to create more efficiency and power.
The Eddy Fit emphasizes less saddle to bar drop. You will notice less exposed seat post on traditional frames and a lower saddle to bar ratio on all fits, including compact designs. Typically it requires a size up of about 2-3cm in frame size from what is today usually offered by in current aero professional look of today. But make no mistake about it, this fit will get you down the road with speed, efficiency, and power.
A few differences from the Competitive Fit in addition to a taller front end and less saddle/bar drop is a less craned neck and easier forward-looking position, slightly less weight on the hands and more on the saddle and pedals, and a knee position that usually moves a bit behind the spindle (rather than a knee-over-the-spindle position, thus adding a bit of power). Bikes set up for the Eddy Fit change their look only subtly in comparison to the Competitive Fit though the results are dramatic in terms of greater comfort. This fit is easier on the neck and shoulders but no less suited for racing or fast solo or club riding.
We adjust this fit by “sizing up” the frame and adjusting the stem lengths to create proper balance, proportion, and to maximize the frame’s potential. This position lets you into the drops with less stress on the neck and back and so encourages you to go low into the bars for longer periods. The Eddy Fit typically features a saddle/bar drop of only a few centimeters. The French Fit.
This fit is so named because of its legacy in the traditions of endurance road riding such as brevet rides and randonneuring. However, the French Fit isn’t merely about touring, riding long, or even sitting more upright. It is about getting the most out of a bike that fits larger and provides much more comfort to the neck, back, and saddle position.
While the Competitive Fit generally puts you on the smallest appropriate frame and the Eddy Fit sizes up a bit or raises the bars, the French Fit puts you on the largest appropriate frame. While this bucks some current conventional wisdom - and is, in fact, the least commonly used position of the three we espouse - it is still the position advocated by some of cycling’s wisest and most experienced designers, who also happened to be riders who like to go fast and far with an ideal amount of comfort.
This fit features a taller front end (with a larger frame and/or head tube extension and stem), handlebar to saddle drops that are much closer to level, and favors riders who are looking to ease stress on the neck and back, ride as long and as far as they like, and are not concerned with the looking like an aggressive professional. In comparison to the Eddy Fit, the rider has even more weight rearward and a slightly more upright position such that “hands in the drops position” is close to the Competitive Fit’s “hands on the hoods position.” Some may say that this was not how modern race bikes were “meant” to fit but we have learned that the French Fit’s size up tradition works great on the most modern bikes.
By increasing the frame size we raise the bars without radical riser stems and still create balance and proportion with respect to the important knee-to-pedal dynamic. It is important to remember that as frames get larger the top tube effectively shortens. This means that the longer top tube on a larger frame is appropriate because as the bars come “up” and the ratio of saddle to bar drop lessens, the rider achieves a “reach” from the saddle to the handlebars that is just right!
We recommend this fit for riders who really want to be comfortable and fast over longer distances. Please note that the French Fit disregards all emphasis on stand over height (standing with the bike between your legs and your shoes flat on the ground) because the French Fit school believes that this measurement has little actual value regarding fit. An ideal compromise for those who can’t shed their concern regarding stand over height is the choice of a “sized up” compact design to achieve a higher relative handlebar position.
Nevertheless, a French Fit can work with traditional, non-sloping frames as well. As an example, a person who might ride a 55cm or 56cm frame to achieve the Competitive Fit, might ride as much as a 59cm or 60cm in the French Fit. While bikes in the French Fit are not the racer’s fashion they tend to look elegant, well proportioned, and ride like a dream.
Sorry for the dumb question but what is a toeclip overlap? thx