A question for the fitters out there- I’ve been tweaking my position on my new tri bike myself using a digital camera, and I think I’m getting close. I’ll post a pic after my latest tweaks over the weekend. My question is that I’d still like to get a professional fit after I’m done with my tweaking and have ridden on it a while to fine tune it. The only shop in my area that is FIST certified offers two types of fittings- the basic (put you on a wind trainer) sort of fit, and the “advanced aero fit” which basically puts you on a Computrainer to optimize the position for max power.
Now my question is this (a post of Julian’s got me thinking about this)- do I really want the position that generates the max power? What if I can cut frontal area by 10% and only lose 1-2% power? Shouldn’t the goal be to find the position with the least frontal area that I can still ride comfortably? I’m asking because the cost difference between the two fittings is substancial, and I’m not 100% sold that that’s the best way to go about determining proper fit. Any thoughts?
If you go to a fitter like PK Racing they will find the right balance btwn power and aero for you. Most fit sessions are in the 3hr ballpark and anyone I know who has gone there feels like they got their money’s worth. Something a fitter can also help you with is establishing a fit range. For shorter more power based events, you would have a higher (less aero) power fit, and for longer Ironman events, a lower (more aero) efficiency fit. They can also play with getting you to the limit of what your flexibility can handle. When Gordo was fitted a couple of seasons ago (and shared his cheesecake photos on xtri) they went for a total optimal fit that was actually beyond his flexibility range at that time. Over time he then moved towards that set up through stretching and strengthening exercises. Now he’s dialed. Either way, I’ve yet to hear of someone not feel their fit from a knowledgeable fitter was worth the expense.
For shorter more power based events, you would have a higher (less aero) power fit, and for longer Ironman events, a lower (more aero) efficiency fit.
I would have thought it would be the other way around. For a long event I’d want to go with comfort (less aero but still aero), and for a short event like a sprint I’d want to be as aero as possible. But that’s just me I guess.
I think “fitting with power” is largely a marketing ploy. Unless you are fit REALLY wrong, adaptation to your existing position will generally skew the readings in such a way that the results are pretty much useless. This is WAY different from using power readings in the wind tunnel, where you are making fairly small changes and measuring the effects on aero v. power, or using a meter to chart adaptation to a position over, say a week or two. I have fit people metering wattage, and quite often power output suffers in the new position until the rider acclimates to it - upon re-testing a week or 2 later, wattage is up.
Having said this, It looks like I am going to start incorporating power readings into my fits; customers want it, and I will be able to charge more for it, so I’m cool with it. It’s all to my (the fitter’s) benefit. Cha-ching. I’m just not looking forward to the first dozen or so conversations that are going to sound just like this:
“yes, you ARE putting out slightly less peak power in this position, but you’re not adapted to it yet, your average cadence is higher now, and your balls don’t hurt anymore - come back in a week, and we’ll talk about it”
I set myself up for my road bike much the same way you did, though perhaps not as thoroughly. Then I went for a fitting. I opted for the basic fitting, thinking that if it went really well then I would go for the advanced fitting(with CT and all.) The only changes the fitter(both FIST and Serotta certified) made were to pull in my aerobars and rotate them up to close the space between my hands and my head, which should make me more aero and less stretched out, and to suggest that I lower my seat a little, since I was rocking a little at very high cadences.
Since I have a Computrainer, he said that the advanced fitting was a waste of my money, because I can more accurately test position changes than he could, and see their results both immediately and over time. His main concerns were making me comfortable for an Ironman distance race and addressing the fact that the races I do are relatively hilly.
The new aerobar position did take a week or so to get used to, and I had to move the armrests out a little, and now it feels fine. Since it is up more, I can’t use them for torque as much as before.
So if you’re looking to verify that your position is good, as I was, I’d go for the basic fitting. By the end of the fitting, both you and the fitter will be able to tell if you should get the advanced fitting.
BTW, fredly, you are right on the money about the conversation you will be having. For an extra $50, you could tell people to slather Chamois Butt’r on the undercarriage to eliminate chafing. It will be money well spent for them. It took me months, but I have gotten the numbness problem eliminated, and am working on the chafing problem.
My view on this fitting topic - as shared by many europeans: Some companies made a product out of a lot of common sense, some really new discoveries (essentially the steep position called the “american position” in europe) and some hype.
My problem with it is, that it doesnt take adaption of an athlete into the picture. Its very static to put somebody on a computrainer and fit him in a way to optimize the values currently existing. If you take a typical roadie with no tri background he will be best of in a shallow roadlike position most of the time. But thats not the best position, better to recommend him a training program (flexibility, strength, increasing time in steeper and steeper positions) to get him to somewhere around 76 degrees (very steep might be a long term plan).
I don`t think fitting myselve or somebody else on a bike is rocket science. Use some formulas, now your limiters, try out some things, take photos, all of this stuff makes me competent in making decisions when in trouble. I personally started on a Trek 1400 (a semisteep 74.5 road bike - similar to the 1500 - multisportgeometry but without the hype) set up at either 73 degrees (saddle a little bit back) for road riding or 76.5 degrees (forwardbent seatpost - medium Syntace C2) for tris and recently invested into a caliente with a base angle of 76 degress, which I will start to ride at about 77 degrees, developing into 78 by help of flexibility training. I think that riding a bike within +/- 2 degrees seat angle should always be fine from a steering and handling point of view.
For long distance events, I would definitely aim at an angle of the caliente to about 76.5 degrees. What I discovered for me:
The trek with a shorty clip on (Profile Jammer) is useless for me. Tried it in a draft legal but rode in the drops exclusively (about 74 degrees).
The trek with a 76.5 seatangle works great in races, but sucks in slow training.
From a theoretical point of view, 1 should be rideable, but I dont like it.