I have made a general observation, and wanted to field some opinions. My observation is that most people are riding a bike that is too big for them.
How's that? I have noticed many pros, and other guys that race on off the shelf bikes. I know some guys get custom bikes from major manufacturers because they bring in the money so they can do that. What I have noticed, is that most racers in pics are running anywhere from a 13o to a 140 stem. I have a friend that I ride and race with who also rides with 130's, prefers 140's.
What I think is that most LBS's have come to put people on a bike that is actually too big. Therefore you see cylist riding bikes with damatically shortened stems and saddle to bar drop that is almost nill.
Anyone want to discuss, this is just my observation, so I would like to hear from others. I am not stating this to start an argument, just wanted to see if others feel the same way I do about this.
Your argument seems to recognize an attribute of racers, but why does this relate to LBS suggestions for more casual riders?
What does the fact that racers prefer obscenely long stems have to do with other people riding with short stems?
In my mind your "evidence" seems to indicate is that racers ride frames that are too small... Or at least have too short a top tube.
Racers prefer a streched out agressive position, so should their preference influence casual riders?
My tender parts don't get crunched on my top tube, and I have the traditional fist full of seat post exposed (on a traditional frame, much more on a compact frame).
Just because the general public doesn't get sold bikes that are set up for aggressive racing posture doesn't to me indicate that they are too big.
Longer stem etc means a slightly smaller frame which would tend to be more rigid
I agree with SCDETAILER, and each of my bikes has been smaller than the previous one, as I'm getting more familair with the right fit. I don't race, just long supported endurance rides and the traiing spisnrequired for those.
I found that most of the people I meet on the road ride bikes which are 2 to 4 CMs too large, and a lot of those don't have the right setup anyway, ie.g the saddle is too high, too low etc.
LBSs around here don't spend much time getting the right fit for customers, once the "crown jewels" aren't under pressure, off you go🙂
the average person buys something that is on sale. the deal is too good to pass up. or the shop may not have the exact correct size and they got too many of the wrong size in on booking. and fit is like a personal preference even for the professionals. i have a few bikes have even been fitted for one of them and am still quite clueless. well i can reach the pedals etc. and lots of the salesman at the lbs have no training and just use their personal preferences which may or may not work for others. where was i again? oh yeah happy trails!
How's that? I have noticed many pros, and other guys that race on off the shelf bikes. I know some guys get custom bikes from major manufacturers because they bring in the money so they can do that. What I have noticed, is that most racers in pics are running anywhere from a 13o to a 140 stem. I have a friend that I ride and race with who also rides with 130's, prefers 140's.
Racers generally prefer a longer reach for better aerodynamics. Manufacturers don't build frames with exceedingly long top tubes because normal people wouldn't buy them. The longer stems are to compensate for this.
the average person buys something that is on sale. the deal is too good to pass up. or the shop may not have the exact correct size and they got too many of the wrong size in on booking. and fit is like a personal preference even for the professionals. i have a few bikes have even been fitted for one of them and am still quite clueless. well i can reach the pedals etc. and lots of the salesman at the lbs have no training and just use their personal preferences which may or may not work for others. where was i again? oh yeah happy trails!
This is exactly what I was talking about. I had a bike fitter in an LBS tell me that he didn't care what size the bike was to a certain extent, he would just put a shorter stem on it. This to me seems to be the mentality of some of the shops, granted not all.
I would also like to echo the point that I think that most people are also not fitted correctly to the bikes that they have, be them too small or too large.
Why is it the opinion of so many that a person has to be fitted to a bike? For efficiency in racing etc, I can see why a difference of a cm or two on any of the dimensions would be critical, but if we attempt to make blanket statements about all riders (as the OP did), we are for the most part talking about casual riders.
The arguments about sizing I have seen in this thread so far would indicate that the same bike geometry would be appropriate for someone riding competetively in one of the spring classics as riding on a fully loaded tour or cruising along a rail trail looking at the scenery... I say hogwash!
Comfort is key for most riders, not efficiency. And comfort can not be assured by assuming that the measurement of those interested in raw speed and lower wind resistance are the proper measurements for all riders or situations.
I would gladly agree with a more narrowly defined statement:
"The majority of cyclists ride bikes that are not the proper size or geometry for efficient high speed riding."
Why is it the opinion of so many that a person has to be fitted to a bike? For efficiency in racing etc, I can see why a difference of a cm or two on any of the dimensions would be critical, but if we attempt to make blanket statements about all riders (as the OP did), we are for the most part talking about casual riders.
The arguments about sizing I have seen in this thread so far would indicate that the same bike geometry would be appropriate for someone riding competetively in one of the spring classics as riding on a fully loaded tour or cruising along a rail trail looking at the scenery... I say hogwash!
Comfort is key for most riders, not efficiency. And comfort can not be assured by assuming that the measurement of those interested in raw speed and lower wind resistance are the proper measurements for all riders or situations.
I would gladly agree with a more narrowly defined statement:
"The majority of cyclists ride bikes that are not the proper size or geometry for efficient high speed riding."
I'm not sure where you're going with this, but a cm or two either way can have a huge impact on comfort for a recreational rider. Whether you're fitting for a time trial or fitting for a saturday cruise, it still has to fit.
Why is it the opinion of so many that a person has to be fitted to a bike? For efficiency in racing etc, I can see why a difference of a cm or two on any of the dimensions would be critical, but if we attempt to make blanket statements about all riders (as the OP did), we are for the most part talking about casual riders.
The arguments about sizing I have seen in this thread so far would indicate that the same bike geometry would be appropriate for someone riding competetively in one of the spring classics as riding on a fully loaded tour or cruising along a rail trail looking at the scenery... I say hogwash!
Comfort is key for most riders, not efficiency. And comfort can not be assured by assuming that the measurement of those interested in raw speed and lower wind resistance are the proper measurements for all riders or situations.
I would gladly agree with a more narrowly defined statement:
"The majority of cyclists ride bikes that are not the proper size or geometry for efficient high speed riding."
Why would a proffessionals position be considered uncomfortable? They seem to do fine riding more than four or five hours at a time. I think it all goes back to fit, but I still think that most people are on a bike that is too big, and I will stand by that.
I'm not sure where you're going with this, but a cm or two either way can have a huge impact on comfort for a recreational rider. Whether you're fitting for a time trial or fitting for a saturday cruise, it still has to fit.
Actually, I would have to disagree with myself, and agree with you on this point. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that what is a good fit for a racer is a good fit for a casual rider.
I guess I didn't edit myself adequately to catch this error. 🙂
However, it doesn't necessarily mean that what is a good fit for a racer is a good fit for a casual rider.
At least for those of us who aren't too vain to admit that we're considerably less flexible than the average pro racer. There is some hope though, as reflected by the ever increasing popularity of "comfort road" bikes.
Why would a proffessionals position be considered uncomfortable? They seem to do fine riding more than four or five hours at a time. I think it all goes back to fit, but I still think that most people are on a bike that is too big, and I will stand by that.
I think we can agree that proper fit is essential. We'll just have to disagree that proper fit varies depending on type of riding to be done.
As far as most bikes being too big... I think there must be a regional bias on bike size issues (or is it just my area?), because around here almost nobody rides a bike that is large enough. About 50% of the bikes I see around here the rider could easily stand over the seat without getting close to touching a sensitive area. And when they ride, their knees are usually above their waists at the top of the stroke. I will have to keep my eyes open for the few people on road bikes when they come out again in the spring. 😉 Perhaps they ride bikes that are too big... now I will have to look!
It actually makes a whole lot of sense for new riders and even seasoned veteran riders that aren't interested in racing to ride larger frames. A larger frame puts the rider in a more upright and less stretched-out position with the saddle and handlebar being closer to the same height or with the bar being a bit higher than the saddle.
Unless you're racing, it doesn't make sense for you to ride a bike that puts you in a position that has you folded in half and fully stretched out like Jan Ullrich. That's no position to be riding in unless you're primarily interested in speed and not comfort. For the average cyclist, and for practical cycling in general (like commuting or touring as opposed to racing) the more relaxed and upright position of a larger frame makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately marketing like that you'd find in BUYcycling magazine and the like wants people to believe they should be riding a bike just like the one Lance rides.
Rivendell Bicycle Works has a great take on bike fit for comfortable, practical cycling. The Rivendell bike fit philosophy makes tons of sense for about 90% of the riders out there. Unfortunately most shops either just don't know or they don't care and would rather sell you the "latest and greatest".
The Rivendell fit philosophy can be found here for anyone who's interested:
Why would a proffessionals position be considered uncomfortable? They seem to do fine riding more than four or five hours at a time. I think it all goes back to fit, but I still think that most people are on a bike that is too big, and I will stand by that.
Pro riders aren't really interested in comfort. They're so fit that they can get away with contorting their bodies into tight aerodynamic positions for ridiculously long periods of time. Take a look at the positions that pro riders are in when they're on their TT bikes. It's a widely publicized fact that Lance Armstrong thinks his TT bike is horribly uncomfortable. But the pros don't really care about comfort, they care about speed and efficiency. That certainly doesn't mean that this is the method that Joe Average should use to size his bike!
