...all the same or each one slightly different? Philosophy of bike fit....

[2manyoranges]

Now, I am a big one for getting the bike right. 69cms for me, centre of bb to saddle. 72cms from rear of saddle to centre of bars. Perfect....so let's set up every bike exactly like that...and that makes all my bikes EXACTLY RIGHT....doesn't it? That way I am going to avoid back injury and knee and hip joint pain...

But maybe trying to get exactly the same cockpit dimensions in every bike is a bad idea. What if those measurements - even after a professional bike fit - are wrong for me, or change as I develop better muscularture as the season progresses? I think of friends who have serious repetitive injuries from tennis, running, and cycling. Yes, it's clear that if you are running with far too low a saddle (don't we just see that on the road all the time?) or way too high (rock those hips) or too much reach (ouch my lower back) and so on, then you need to get that sorted - to get into the ZONE OF BEST FIT. But I actually think that one reason that I am not wingeing as much as some others I know when I ride is that I have a number of bikes and they are all slightly different in fit and geometry; they do not place exactly the same highly specific stresses and strains on my joints and body.

What varies? Q for a start. I run different pedals - Hope, Burgrec, DMR. These all place two feet slightly different distances apart - Burgtec notable in having very inboard design. And some of my bikes are boost, some 68, some 73. I always aimed for very low Q but that's gone out of the window with modern frame geometry. Reach - the actual reach varies a lot from bike to bike - and definitely is very different on my older and very new bikes. There's no way that I can tune all my bikes to get exactly the same actual seat tube angle, the right saddle-bar distance and then exactly the same reach figure.

So even if they are all built up approximately around the same reach and saddle height and Q, it does necessarily vary from bike to bike, which I am beginning is actually a good thing. My COTIC commuter bike is very different to my hack Ragley MTB, which is different again to my Transition, which is VERY different to the '94 nickel P7 Orange.

And one area which suggests that 'getting it exactly the same all the time' might induce repetitive strain injury is my wrists. All my bars have the same backsweep - 9 deg - which is an industry standard, pretty much, and I have bloody awful carpel tunnel syndrome - which I can relieve by adjusting position on my bike which has bar ends but not on my 760 wide modern bikes, where bar ends would be a serious danger.

So....unlike some others, I have stopped really fretting about each bike converging on a set of measurements which get my body into exactly the same position and am focussing on getting the set up into a zone of right fit and then just fiddling to get it to feel right. Oh...and focusing on riding. not my bike.....

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Nothing, but nothing is more important than comfort. Little point having the most power-efficient position known to man if it makes your testes feel like piranhas are nibbling at them.

My other issue with pro bike fits, having had one myself and soon reverting back to my own personal fittings, is one of correctness. The various systems differ in sometimes significant ways as to what is correct, and they can't all be right...

Who was it (might have been old mono plum Armsteong?) that used to cause their team much annoyance as when no one was looking he'd simply hoik the seat half an inch higher than their fit people told him it should be.

 

[Mickeyspinn]

I've never had a "pro" bike fit....I've wondered how the process goes...

Is it simply...morning I'd like a pro fit on my bike and then....yes sir ....ooooohh looks good on you sir...

Or is it....right....what are you wanting to achieve? Want to be the best champ you can be at hill climbing,descending, sprinting,time trialing...(insert any type of cycling) etc...
Do you get questioned about ailments...like you've worked with power tools all your life and your right arm is way more defined muscularly but also prone to poor circulation and getting hand cramps......that dicky hip after getting a fracture....ligament damage from a nasty cut....etc.. etc....

Probably just like you I've done all the measurements and tried to relate that to all bikes but it never works like that! My set ups now go by the distance I want from each bike....some are short distance blast bikes 20-40 miles max...all the way to the extreme of just how many miles and hours can I do in 24hrs. Remarkably the fit/set up always looks close but when measured...nope all different!

If you ride regularly know how to wield a spanner and an allen key I think your the pro fitter.

It'd be interesting to hear from someone who has had a pro fit and how and why the process is done!

 

[Mickeyspinn]

Nothing, but nothing is more important than comfort. Little point having the most power-efficient position known to man if it makes your testes feel like piranhas are nibbling at them.

My other issue with pro bike fits, having had one myself and soon reverting back to my own personal fittings, is one of correctness. The various systems differ in sometimes significant ways as to what is correct, and they can't all be right...

Who was it (might have been old mono plum Armsteong?) that used to cause their team much annoyance as when no one was looking he'd simply hoik the seat half an inch higher than their fit people told him it should be.

Chopper...How'd the process for you go with a pro fit? Did you ask for comfort or performance or taking into account an ailment or was it simply to a chart of what the supposed average of a perfect human being is?

 

[grantoury]

The only thing I measure is the length from pedal axle center to top saddle, this is the same for all my bicycles. For the length I use an old fomula originally made up for road bikes. (saddle to pedal = inseam x 1,08 From there I adjust bars and stems to taste. My transport bike has a higher handlebar, the rest lower for speed. Not extreme and I have at least 12 degrees backsweep. Never had a pro bike fit. I don't like being told how to sit on my bicycle...

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Chopper...How'd the process for you go with a pro fit? Did you ask for comfort or performance or taking into account an ailment or was it simply to a chart of what the supposed average of a perfect human being is?

Being and awkward cuss - and a bit younger than i am now - I asked for a compromise between comfort and efficiency. I fully declared the quite significant orthopaedic injuries I am carrying (got a lot of titanium in my right arm and shoulder, limited arc of movement on that side, and nerve damage.)

It was a Retul fit, but not long ago I was chatting it over a coffee with a chap who is a recently qualified CycleFit tech and he claimed some fundamental differences in approach between the systems. So who would be right? Would either be right? I don't honestly feel the inclination to keep throwing cash at practitioners of the various systems in the hope of finding out.

 

[clubby]

I've never had a "pro" bike fit....I've wondered how the process goes...

I had a bike fit as part of my custom frame build. Builder had gone through a lot of questions about what I wanted from the design and measurements of the bike I was currently on.
Bike fitter sent out a pre-appointment questionnaire asking for basic measurements, lifestyle, injuries and aims of the fit. On the day he took height, inside leg, wingspan measurements and did flexibility test. Was able to determine my leading leg based on flexibility imbalance. Next he checked my cleat placement and made a minor adjustment on one foot, then started to cover me in marker dot stickers. These are used by the computer’s cameras to track and compare body movements when pedalling.
Since I was in for a fresh build I was put on an adjustable static bike, but the same process can be done on your own bike on a turbo set up.
Bike had been set up to mimic my current geometry and I was given 10 minutes to warm up and settle in. After this time the computer had a baseline for pedalling pattern and power output. As I wanted a longer reach than I currently he started to adjust the reach and bar position. With this came an adjustment to seating position to improve pedalling efficiency. To be honest, I couldn’t really feel those changes but you could see the increase in power on the screen.
Once finished the information was sent to the builder and used to come up with the final geometry.
From my point of view the fit was a confirmation we were on the right track with the sizing. I don’t think they are foolproof, for example the fitter suggested a 120mm stem on a modern MTB build, but I trusted the builder to use the sizing info in combination with his experience to build the bike I wanted. Had the bike 7 years and all I’ve changed fit wise is the bars, as I’ve got used to wider ones on newer bikes.

If getting one done, know what you want to achieve and check how experience your fitter actually is. The one my builder used did Cancellara’s fittings for Trek and also the Athertons amongst others.

 

[CassidyAce]

Now, I am a big one for getting the bike right. 69cms for me, centre of bb to saddle. 72cms from rear of saddle to centre of bars. Perfect....so let's set up every bike exactly like that...and that makes all my bikes EXACTLY RIGHT....doesn't it? That way I am going to avoid back injury and knee and hip joint pain...

But maybe trying to get exactly the same cockpit dimensions in every bike is a bad idea. What if those measurements - even after a professional bike fit - are wrong for me, or change as I develop better muscularture as the season progresses? I think of friends who have serious repetitive injuries from tennis, running, and cycling. Yes, it's clear that if you are running with far too low a saddle (don't we just see that on the road all the time?) or way too high (rock those hips) or too much reach (ouch my lower back) and so on, then you need to get that sorted - to get into the ZONE OF BEST FIT. But I actually think that one reason that I am not wingeing as much as some others I know when I ride is that I have a number of bikes and they are all slightly different in fit and geometry; they do not place exactly the same highly specific stresses and strains on my joints and body.

What varies? Q for a start. I run different pedals - Hope, Burgrec, DMR. These all place two feet slightly different distances apart - Burgtec notable in having very inboard design. And some of my bikes are boost, some 68, some 73. I always aimed for very low Q but that's gone out of the window with modern frame geometry. Reach - the actual reach varies a lot from bike to bike - and definitely is very different on my older and very new bikes. There's no way that I can tune all my bikes to get exactly the same actual seat tube angle, the right saddle-bar distance and then exactly the same reach figure.

So even if they are all built up approximately around the same reach and saddle height and Q, it does necessarily vary from bike to bike, which I am beginning is actually a good thing. My COTIC commuter bike is very different to my hack Ragley MTB, which is different again to my Transition, which is VERY different to the '94 nickel P7 Orange.

And one area which suggests that 'getting it exactly the same all the time' might induce repetitive strain injury is my wrists. All my bars have the same backsweep - 9 deg - which is an industry standard, pretty much, and I have bloody awful carpel tunnel syndrome - which I can relieve by adjusting position on my bike which has bar ends but not on my 760 wide modern bikes, where bar ends would be a serious danger.

So....unlike some others, I have stopped really fretting about each bike converging on a set of measurements which get my body into exactly the same position and am focussing on getting the set up into a zone of right fit and then just fiddling to get it to feel right. Oh...and focusing on riding. not my bike.....

Interesting question. I've never had a professional bike fit; I just listen to what my body tells me. And what my body tells me is pretty much what you've said: variations within a zone of right fit work. That way, the strains are distributed and, by-and-large, I'm without cycling-related injuries. (The one area where I was suffering was in my thumbs, partly due to prior injury, but abandoning all rapid-fire-type shifters for gripshift solved that.) I think, too, for many of us who ride a lot, it's nice to have one bike that's markedly more relaxed than the others. Some people have cruisers for that purpose.

 

[CassidyAce]

Nothing, but nothing is more important than comfort. Little point having the most power-efficient position known to man if it makes your testes feel like piranhas are nibbling at them.

...

That was an image that my brain had never conjured up of its own accord and, frankly, never, ever, wanted!

 

[clubby]

Being and awkward cuss - and a bit younger than i am now - I asked for a compromise between comfort and efficiency. I fully declared the quite significant orthopaedic injuries I am carrying (got a lot of titanium in my right arm and shoulder, limited arc of movement on that side, and nerve damage.)

It was a Retul fit, but not long ago I was chatting it over a coffee with a chap who is a recently qualified CycleFit tech and he claimed some fundamental differences in approach between the systems. So who would be right? Would either be right? I don't honestly feel the inclination to keep throwing cash at practitioners of the various systems in the hope of finding out.

Did you have any issues you were trying to solve or was it a case of looking for improvements? When you say you soon reverted to your old settings, how long did you give it? All changes feel weird until you get used to them.