“As for tri fit… our view differs significantly from other companies for one main reason - we are not myopic in our view of tri fit. We don’t presume to tell racers what is best for them. We let their bodies’ dictate which geometry is most efficient and we balance that with aerodynamic concerns. We have no interest in espousing the parochial view of tri fit (or road fit for that matter) to which other companies seem to be attached. Certainly we can, and do, produce bicycles with very tri specific geometries, such as that is defined by other companies. There is theoretically no limit to the steepness of the seat tube angle we can produce, for example.”
First let me say that I own neither a Serotta or a ABG group bike. Also I fit my self and I do not know my frames angles or even whether i ride steep or slack.
I have followed the various Serotta threads with curiosity though. By my definition they are much less myopic than the normal “tri bike” builders. A standard tri bike manufacturer is saying that they have the best geometry. Serotta is saying that they will custom fit a frame to you. Now its certainly possible that Serotta will come up with a frame that is bad, but they are not being myopic in their view that one set of numbers is correct.
I agree. Frame geometries are dictated by rider dimensions and how the bike is going to be used.
I also agree there is no one, across the board, “right” geometry that applies to every rider. I’ve never maintained that. In fact, I’ve always said the contrary.
It’s too bad that, as cerveloguy mentioned, Paul Levine is on vacation now and can’t see all these threads. I think he would have found them interesting.
Its funny when I first got into cycling (mid 80s) the dream bike was a custom. Now they are practically gone. When I finally decide to stop racing I would like to get a “Sunday group ride” bike. Solely to show off a bike as functional art. Preferably 60s/70s Hetchins curly stay, wood rims/tied spokes, fat Seta silk Tubies, Brooks saddle, 50 anniversery gruppo, Rivendell lugged stem, sewn leather bar wrap will do nicely.
“There is theoretically no limit to the steepness of the seat tube angle we can produce, for example.”
Hmmm, “myopic” and “parochial”.
The fact that a custom bike can have a 90 degree or 60 degree seattube does not make your particular custom bike any better. The tough part of custom is not welding the seattube at any particular angle, it is figuring out which angle is the right one for you. And the only way to figure this out is by fitting you, for which Serotta, jut like anybody else in the world, uses a system. And there is no inherent difference between fitting and then drawing a conclusion on which standard bike fits your needs and doing a fitting and then designing a custom bike that is exactly the same as that standard bike.
There only is a difference if the fits shows that none of the standard bikes works for you. And that is certainly the case from time to time, but not that frequently. Given how often a regular customer fits on a Cervelo without a problem (and the bike shop has 2-3 other brands to try if the customer doesn’t) and that we have over the past two years fit a total of 40 very picky CSC riders on stock frame without a single problem I would say the need for custom is limited.
The problem with standard bikes comes much more from customers being set on buying a bike even if it doesn’t fit. Ask Tom DEmerly how often he has a perfect standard bike sitting on the floor for a customer yet the customer is dead-set on something that doesn’t fit, jsut because of coolness or color.
Gerard.
P.S. Nothing against Serotta, I have a Serotta mountainbike and it is wonderful and fits like a glove. It was custom made - for Steve Larsen - yet fits me very well.
Fit the person to the Bike
Vs
Fit the bike to the person
When designing a workstation - do you design an adjustable system so that it can fit most operators or do you build a tailor made workstation? Or perhaps you decide what are the correct dimensions for people you don’t know. In a Formula –1 cockpit the seat is designed specifically for each driver unique anatomy. In an Alfa Romeo GTV the seats are designed to fit slim Italians with short hands and long legs. In a Toyota the seats are okay for most people excluding the top and bottom 5% of the population.
For most systems, the best thing is to design a specific work-system for each operator. This is costly.
If someone suffers from occupational stress do you send him or her to a stress management workshop or do you redesign their workflow? Fit the person to the job or fit the job to the person?
Most companies choose the former solution. However, this is a patronising approach as it blames the employee’s coping ability as the source of the problem. Taking yoga classes so that you can use a P3 in the way it was designed to be ridden is similar in its approach. Fit the person to the job or fit the job to the person?
Another critical interface is bike to road. When you modifiy the geometry to eclusively facilitate the rider- especially if the rider’s posture needs improvement on the bike- it is sometimes at the cost of the way the bike interfaces with the road. It can handle unusually or even poorly.
Ernesto Colnago was rumored to be resistant to making custom frames for his pro teams. If this rumor is true, I am told that it was because he didn;t want to distrube the bike’s relationship with the road under the rider- how the bike steers and how the weight is distributed.
Careful, if you take a reasoned approach this forum wont be any fun ;-). I agree that most people will fit a stock frame. As I read the situation even Serotta sees thier market as the few who don’t, the few who want something unique, and the few who just simply like the full custom experience.
When I was in HS I met a guy who when to Europe frequently. He would pay big bucks to get full tailered suits. Frankly, to me they didn’t look as well made as a normal mass produced suit. I still thought that it was cool that he did it.
td, maybe you can help me because i don’t get it. it seems like serrota is arguing that they can put together a seatube, top tube and down tube together in lengths and angles that fit a person in their optimal position with regards to where their hands feet and butt go. great. unless my reading comprehension skills have deserted me, that wasn’t even a point of contention from slowman’s comments - he seemed to be arguing that when you introduce the concept of aerobars and a steep riding postion, that the important considerations become the angle of the headtube, rake of fork, and geometry of the rear triangle - all of which determines how the bike will handle when riding in the aero position. to me these are clearly two distinctly different points that are not mutually exclusive. i would propose that i can be perfectly fit on a custom bike and that it could still handle like crap, no?
I’m not TD, slowman or serotta, but I’m sure that Serotta contends that they can both put you in an optimal position and build a sweet handling, fast, comfortable frame to accomadate that position. No opinion on if they can do that, but I’m sure that the feel they can.
Actually no where in any of these threads have we gotten to the crux of the matter. Has anyone been fit by a FIST fitter, then fit by a Serotta fitter. If so what were the differences in the body position and the bike dimesions?
“By my definition they are much less myopic than the normal “tri bike” builders. A standard tri bike manufacturer is saying that they have the best geometry.”
i don’t know of any tri bike company that says this. who says this? it’s entirely possible that i, as a reviewer of a lot of companies’ bikes, might opine on the rationale of a geometry. for example, if you steepen the seat angle, you ought to shorten the top tube. or, if you slacken the head angle, you ought to add some offset. or, if you steepen the seat angle and fail to shorten the top tube your bike’s cockpit is going to be much too long when in the aero position.
but, that’s me saying it. i don’t believe any bike company making tri bikes says their geometry is best for triathlon, and if serotta is saying that any bike company says this, the onus is on serotta to produce an example of this statement. further, if an intelligent reader is just going to take serotta’s statement at face value, the reader takes on this onus.
so, which bike company is making the statement you describe?
I was probably being more general and less exact than I should have. Also it depends on your definition of “Tri bike company”. My view is that any company which produces one geometry or geometry per size, is “saying” that it is the best geometry. Obviously virtually any company that offers only stock bikes (road or tri) will admit that some outliers will not fit.
The design (any design) must address a number of requirements. Some of these requirements may require compromising other requirements and require some form of a trade-off.
One way of not meeting all your requirements is testing your design in (controlled) laboratory conditions. Field studies are also important, so that you address external real world constraints within the context of use. One example will be fitting people in a bike shop without testing handling, descending, or climbing. You are effectively designing a human-machine work system in a laboratory.
I believe that Dan has a valid argument regarding companies like Serotta designing a bike that fits the anthropometric attributes of an individual without being able to asses its impact on handling when ridden in a triathlon aerodynamic position. In contrast, Cervelo have studied the impact of riding in this position on handling (and other factors), but their solution may not fit some body types or people who have particular constraints. There is no one solution for everyone.
In my view the most important thing is learning exactly what you need as a consumer, what will work for you as a rider and what your real requirements. Unlike other products, a bike will under perform or even cause you pain if you make the wrong buying decision. For example, buying a P3 because Dan think it is good, because Bjorn has one, or because some website has a $800 discount are probably the wrong reasons. And as I can recall Dan himself argues that Triathlon bikes are not for everyone, so when he recommends a bike he recommends it as a good option for those who require that type of bike within a particular price level.
I think that is part of the confusion. To me; “Tri Bike”, “Tri Position”, “Tri Fit” all convey the notion of maintaining arm, hip, leg angles, in an aerodynamic (low/narrow) position with a relatively steep angles and aero bars.
To say that a person doesn’t have the strength or flexibility to be folded over like Bjorn on a P3, means that that person may not need/want a tri bike/position/fit. Their bike/position/fit to do triathlons might not really fit (ha ha) the definition of “tri”, it doesn’t invalidate the notion of the ‘optimal’ tri fit/position/bike.
What kind of company is Trek or Litespeed? How about Felt? Mandaric builds road and tri bikes as well, and so does Cervelo, Elite, Softride, etc…
I think it’s tough to say that a “company” is a tri bike company, but there are certainly companies that are known for their tri bikes, like the ones that you listed.
Yes Sir. I agree. It seems as though we are actually reaching a consensus. I think the thesis of what you are sayng is something each of us in this discussion can agree on readily.
In fact, I think we have similar philosophies/techniques. Perhaps they are presented differently.
I know that one of the (many) biggest failing on my part as a businessman and bike seller has been the ability to effectively communicate both the need for good fit and also just exactly what constitutes good fit- and that it is different for everyone.
If I could somehow instill in every customer what it means to have to good fit- how tangible and beneficial it is- then we would sell more bikes becasue people would be more excited about buying “fit” rather than a given paint scheme, rear derailleur model or whatever.
Now, Paul Levine not being here to chime in (he’s on vacation according to cerveloguy’s commnication with Paul last week) I would suggest that Paul has done a great job of communicating the importance of fit.
“My view is that any company which produces one geometry or geometry per size, is “saying” that it is the best geometry.”
go to your local serotta dealer. you’ll see a variety of “stock” serottas on the floor. in fact, certain serotta dealers are telling me that serotta is becoming more attached to the idea of selling the higher end serotta’s right from the floor and then having these floor models replaced by serotta.
so, does the fact that serotta offer stock geometry mean that serotta believes this stock geometry is the best geometry? or does it mean that this is the geometry designed to accommodate the largest number of people for the riding task at hand?
and, if this is the case with serotta, is it not fair to assume this is also the case for bike companies that offer stock sizes?
is the fact that bike companies offer stock sizes also an implicit admission by these companies that they don’t believe in the concept of geometries that might be available only through a custom program?
most companies don’t cover the breadth of a market. serotta doesn’t sell $2000 bikes. but this is not an admission by serotta that there is no value in $2000 bikes. the fact that a company doesn’t offer custom geometry isn’t a “statement” by that company.
I dont get the “Serotta” badge on this whole issue…there are so many…why not pick on Zinn, Holland, Spectrum, Havnoonian, IF, Bruce Gordon, Waterford, Steelman, Elite and on and on and on. Serotta is not the only company out there talking “custom”…I have a “Custom” Litespeed Ultimate…was I dumb to get that? Could a Cervelo out of the box fit me as well? Really, I dont care…I would not ride a Cervelo.