Bike fit question

Mark Heiple said:

[snip]
saddle girth: 6.9 cm (not sure what that means, or how they came up with
it)
[snip]
(Sorry for beating a dead horse, this is more frustrating than
buying a car!)

Dear Mark,

If your saddle girth is only 6.9cm, either your horse is assuredly dead
or else you were trying to saddle a rat. The belly-band that holds a
saddle in place is--

Oh, sorry, they probably mean an exotic measurement intended to cause
riders to worry about how wide the nose of a bicycle seat is.

You might consider just buying a larger frame and adjusting the seat and
handlebars until you feel comfortable.

Otherwise, you may waste a lot of time that you could have spent riding
on ridiculously over-exact and often useless measurements.

Computers have many fine qualities (if air-tight, for example, they
float), but they are very poor at riding bicycles.

Good luck,

Carl Fogel

--

A quick look at the numbers tells me that yes, you've got a fairly short
torso, but why in the world would "standover height" be a relevant
recommendation? I'm also curious why you measure a 44cm shoulder width, yet
the handlebar recommendation is only 40-42cm. Also, I'm sure I missed it,
but what was the recommended top tube plus stem length?

How tall are you? And is your seat presently at the height indicated?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Mark Heiple" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm trying to replace my too small 57cm Lemond, and I'm still trying to
find bikes to test ride. I went to a bike shop and got measured, and
came up with the following results (I also posted this in the stock vs.
custom frame thread).

foot length: 27.0 cm
Inseam: 92.0 cm
thigh length: 44.0 cm
torso length: 58.9 cm
arm length: 69.0 cm
shoulder width: 44.0 cm
hand size: large

The computer spit out the following numbers (all c-c):
seat tube: 62 cm
seat tube angle: 72.5 degrees
exposed seat post: 12.7 cm
stem angle: 10 deg
steerer stack: 5.0 cm
handlebar width: 40-42 cm
handlebar drop: 5.0 cm
saddle girth: 6.9 cm (not sure what that means, or how they came up with
it)
saddle to stem drop: .5 cm (I thought I had more on my current bike, but
maybe not)
Saddle to pedal distance: 99.1 cm
stand over height: 82.5 cm
crank arm: 175 mm

They didn't have a suggested top tube length or head tube angle.

The problem is finding bikes big enough to test ride. It seems like a
bad idea to buy a bike that I haven't ridden, but I can't find any that
are big enough.

The bike shop I got measured at seems like the best in the area and I
would like to buy from them, but they didn't have anything in my size.

The other bike shops in the area seem to be the kind that just want to
push merchandise, not help you figure out what you need. They don't
want to spend the time or even appear to know how to make sure you get
the right fit.

So in this kind of situation, how do you find a bike and have any
confidence that it really fits well? I thought my 57 cm fit when I
first got it, but that turned out to be wrong.

My first choice would be to find a 59 or 61 cm Lemond, but the bike shop
where I was measured said that from my measurements, I have long legs
and a short torso, and a Lemond with its long top tube might not be the
best fit for me. How do you figure out what top tube length is best?

Thanks.

(Sorry for beating a dead horse, this is more frustrating than buying a
car!)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

A quick look at the numbers tells me that yes, you've got a fairly short
torso, but why in the world would "standover height" be a relevant
recommendation? I'm also curious why you measure a 44cm shoulder width, yet
the handlebar recommendation is only 40-42cm. Also, I'm sure I missed it,
but what was the recommended top tube plus stem length?

I asked the bike shop why they didn't have a recommended top tube
length.

They answered that those measurements aren't enough to recommend a top
tube length, I would have to go through the more thorough fitting (with
the sizing machine they don't have yet?). They said the 'quickie'
fitting that I went through isn't enough.

They measured my stem and it came out to 115 mm. With my bike's top
tube of 57.5 cm and my seat all the way back on the rails, they said my
bike might actually be a little long for me. If they know that much, I
don't understand why they don't recommend a top tube length.

They said I should shoot for a top tube length that allows a 110 mm stem.

Another thing that confuses me: since the recommended seat tube length
is 62 cm, I asked if I should start out looking at a 61 cm Lemond. They
said no, that would be too big - try a 59. Huh???

I test rode a Klein (56 cm, too small), and asked if I should try to
find a 61. Again, they said no - try a 58.

So I don't understand how I'm supposed to use the bike fit results to
figure out what size bike to look for.

Quoted message said:

How tall are you? And is your seat presently at the height indicated?

I'm 6'2". Some of the recommended bike measurements came from my old
bike (I think). I checked Lemond's web site, and they list a stand over
height of 82.1 cm for a 57cm, which is close to their recommendation. I
know the 72.5 deg seat tube is from my lemond.

I they said my seat is currently 3 cm lower than the 99.1 cm saddle to
pedal distance. They were going to recommend I raise my saddle until
they saw I have it all the way back on the rails.

I think the handlebar measurement might also be from my bike. I tried
measuring that myself, and it is in the 40-42 range. It feels a little
narrow to me.

Thanks.

"Mark Heiple" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm trying to replace my too small 57cm Lemond, and I'm still trying to
find bikes to test ride. I went to a bike shop and got measured, and
came up with the following results (I also posted this in the stock vs.
custom frame thread).

<snip>

DIY - Competitive Cyclist has a nice online fit calculator; the best free
one I've run across. It matched the fit numbers I'd arrived at over the
years pretty well. Run through it and compare your results. You might not
end up with a perfect fit straight off, but you'll at least get the right
size frame and can make small adjustments from there.

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=FIT_CALCULATOR_INTRO

In article <[email hidden]>,

carlfogel said:

Mark Heiple said:

[snip]
saddle girth: 6.9 cm (not sure what that means, or how they came up with
it)
[snip]
(Sorry for beating a dead horse, this is more frustrating than
buying a car!)

Dear Mark,

If your saddle girth is only 6.9cm, either your horse is assuredly dead
or else you were trying to saddle a rat. The belly-band that holds a
saddle in place is--

Maybe that's why my stand-over height is so low, rat legs are kind of
short 🙂

Quoted message said:

Oh, sorry, they probably mean an exotic measurement intended to cause
riders to worry about how wide the nose of a bicycle seat is.

You might consider just buying a larger frame and adjusting the seat and
handlebars until you feel comfortable.

Otherwise, you may waste a lot of time that you could have spent riding
on ridiculously over-exact and often useless measurements.

Computers have many fine qualities (if air-tight, for example, they
float), but they are very poor at riding bicycles.

Good luck,

Carl Fogel

I decided to go the bike fit route, because last time I tried the 'buy a
frame and play with seat and handlebars until I'm comfortable' route and
it didn't work out.

I don't expect a bike fit to generate perfect results, but I was hoping
to at least get a good starting point, and I don't even have that.

Thanks.

Mark Heiple said:

They measured my stem and it came out to 115 mm. With my bike's top
tube of 57.5 cm and my seat all the way back on the rails, they said my
bike might actually be a little long for me. If they know that much, I
don't understand why they don't recommend a top tube length.

With Lemond's slack seat tube angles, it's strange that you have to shove
the saddle all the way back (unless you have a very long thigh bone).

Quoted message said:

They said I should shoot for a top tube length that allows a 110 mm stem.

That sounds reasonable, but going down to 90 mm wouldn't too be bad if it
resulted in a comfortable fit.

Quoted message said:

Another thing that confuses me: since the recommended seat tube length
is 62 cm, I asked if I should start out looking at a 61 cm Lemond. They
said no, that would be too big - try a 59. Huh???

They're probably looking at the top tube length of the larger frame (which
is the right way to do it). If this were a custom frame they would go with
a 62 cm seat tube and a smaller top tube.

Quoted message said:

I they said my seat is currently 3 cm lower than the 99.1 cm saddle to
pedal distance. They were going to recommend I raise my saddle until
they saw I have it all the way back on the rails.

If you raise the saddle, you should move it forward slightly to keep the
same KOPS position. So what's the problem?

Art Harris

Mark Heiple said:

I test rode a Klein (56 cm, too small), and asked if I should try to
find a 61. Again, they said no - try a 58.

I'm 6'2".

Here's some data for comparison. I'm about the same height, but my torso
is long and legs short. I have a tough time fitting most bikes that
claim to be 58cm or smaller. I like 60-62cm frames. Naturally, all
manufacturers are different, but it's a good starting point.

I think your bike shop is trying to fit you on a bike that's too small.
Fitting a 6'2" guy with a 56cm frame as the first attempt makes me think
that the bike shop guy was incompetent. I think you should insist on
riding bikes of the ~60 cm variety, and find a different shop if this
one puts up a fight. You might even find that you like a bigger (63 cm?)
bike.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

In article <[email hidden]>, dvt <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Mark Heiple said:

I test rode a Klein (56 cm, too small), and asked if I should try to
find a 61. Again, they said no - try a 58.

I'm 6'2".

Here's some data for comparison. I'm about the same height, but my torso
is long and legs short. I have a tough time fitting most bikes that
claim to be 58cm or smaller. I like 60-62cm frames. Naturally, all
manufacturers are different, but it's a good starting point.

I think your bike shop is trying to fit you on a bike that's too small.
Fitting a 6'2" guy with a 56cm frame as the first attempt makes me think
that the bike shop guy was incompetent. I think you should insist on
riding bikes of the ~60 cm variety, and find a different shop if this
one puts up a fight. You might even find that you like a bigger (63 cm?)
bike.

The bike shop wasn't really trying to push a 56 cm frame on me. It was
just to try it out and see how stiff Klein frame felt, compared to my
Lemond. Before I got on, they said "this will feel small, but try it
anyway..."

I told them pretty early on that I wasn't going to buy a bike off the
floor, I was going to build one up with my pick of components. They
really had no reason to push a floor model on me.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Harris said:

Mark Heiple said:

They measured my stem and it came out to 115 mm. With my bike's top
tube of 57.5 cm and my seat all the way back on the rails, they said my
bike might actually be a little long for me. If they know that much, I
don't understand why they don't recommend a top tube length.

With Lemond's slack seat tube angles, it's strange that you have to shove
the saddle all the way back (unless you have a very long thigh bone).

Quoted message said:

They said I should shoot for a top tube length that allows a 110 mm stem.

That sounds reasonable, but going down to 90 mm wouldn't too be bad if it
resulted in a comfortable fit.

Quoted message said:

Another thing that confuses me: since the recommended seat tube length
is 62 cm, I asked if I should start out looking at a 61 cm Lemond. They
said no, that would be too big - try a 59. Huh???

They're probably looking at the top tube length of the larger frame (which
is the right way to do it). If this were a custom frame they would go with
a 62 cm seat tube and a smaller top tube.

Quoted message said:

I they said my seat is currently 3 cm lower than the 99.1 cm saddle to
pedal distance. They were going to recommend I raise my saddle until
they saw I have it all the way back on the rails.

If you raise the saddle, you should move it forward slightly to keep the
same KOPS position. So what's the problem?

Art Harris

I got my bike at the wrong bike shop, which provided no help in getting
it set up correctly. I don't claim that I have my seat position in the
best spot, but after experimenting I feel a bit more comfortable with
the seat farther back. I can try sliding it forward and up a bit and
see if it feels any better.

dvt said:

Mark Heiple wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I test rode a Klein (56 cm, too small), and asked if I should try to
find a 61. Again, they said no - try a 58.

I'm 6'2".

Here's some data for comparison. I'm about the same height, but my
torso is long and legs short. I have a tough time fitting most bikes
that claim to be 58cm or smaller. I like 60-62cm frames. Naturally,
all manufacturers are different, but it's a good starting point.

I think your bike shop is trying to fit you on a bike that's too
small. Fitting a 6'2" guy with a 56cm frame as the first attempt
makes me think that the bike shop guy was incompetent. I think you
should insist on riding bikes of the ~60 cm variety, and find a
different shop if this one puts up a fight. You might even find that
you like a bigger (63 cm?) bike.

It seems like this to me, too. I'm 6'0" with a thin build, and I ride a 60cm
frame w/ a 44cm bar. I prefer a 59cm Lemond over a 57cm, mostly because of the
bar height (I look for a 19cm-plus head tube). I can't imagine cramming a 6'2"
rider onto a 57cm Lemond.

FWIW, I saw something recently where Lance Armstrong is 5'10" and rides a 58cm
Trek. So even top racers aren't riding dinky frames anymore.

Matt O.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

DIY - Competitive Cyclist has a nice online fit calculator; the best free
one I've run across. It matched the fit numbers I'd arrived at over the
years pretty well. Run through it and compare your results. You might not
end up with a perfect fit straight off, but you'll at least get the right
size frame and can make small adjustments from there.

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=FIT_CALCULATOR_INTRO

So does Tiemeyer: www.tiemeyercycles.com.

I'd try two or three and average the readings. Computerized fits are only as
good as the measurements fed into them.

Good luck!

M

Quoted message said:

I asked the bike shop why they didn't have a recommended top tube
length.

They answered that those measurements aren't enough to recommend a top
tube length, I would have to go through the more thorough fitting (with
the sizing machine they don't have yet?). They said the 'quickie'
fitting that I went through isn't enough.

They measured my stem and it came out to 115 mm. With my bike's top
tube of 57.5 cm and my seat all the way back on the rails, they said my
bike might actually be a little long for me. If they know that much, I
don't understand why they don't recommend a top tube length.

Top tube length would be a problem for a Klein, as they have a steeper seat
tube than your LeMond, making their "effective" top tube longer (since you'd
run your seat further back on the Klein, effectively lengthening the top
tube).

Quoted message said:

They said I should shoot for a top tube length that allows a 110 mm stem.

Why? 9cm is just fine; anything shorter might be an indication of a need
for a shorter top tube, although we have set up bikes with shorter stems and
observed no handling issues. There's no magical sweet spot that you have to
be positioned over the front wheel, regardless of folklore & myth.

Quoted message said:

Another thing that confuses me: since the recommended seat tube length
is 62 cm, I asked if I should start out looking at a 61 cm Lemond. They
said no, that would be too big - try a 59. Huh???

Which model LeMond are you looking at? I'd agree that the 61cm size, which
measures center-to-center, might be a bit big (both in height and top tube
length). Keep in mind that a 61cm Klein is similar to a 59cm LeMond, due to
the different ways they each measure.

Quoted message said:

I test rode a Klein (56 cm, too small), and asked if I should try to
find a 61. Again, they said no - try a 58.

I just took some measurements on a couple of Kleins; no way could you fit a
56cm, and the main issue with the 61cm would be the top tube length. The
58cm Klein, because it has a very high front end, might not be so bad.

Quoted message said:

So I don't understand how I'm supposed to use the bike fit results to
figure out what size bike to look for.

Quoted message said:

How tall are you? And is your seat presently at the height indicated?

I'm 6'2". Some of the recommended bike measurements came from my old
bike (I think). I checked Lemond's web site, and they list a stand over
height of 82.1 cm for a 57cm, which is close to their recommendation. I
know the 72.5 deg seat tube is from my lemond.

At 6'2", you'd take either a 60or 62cm TREK (most often a 62, although your
arm & torso will determine which). For a LeMond, 59cm is quite possible,
61cm a bit less likely. For Klein, the 61cm may be just a bit too big, and
the 58cm might appear a bit on the small side, even though it can most
likely be set up to fit nicely.

Quoted message said:

I they said my seat is currently 3 cm lower than the 99.1 cm saddle to
pedal distance. They were going to recommend I raise my saddle until
they saw I have it all the way back on the rails.

3cm is a *huge* amount to raise a saddle. I'd get a second opinion, just to
make sure, and raise it in, at most, 1cm increments at a time.

Quoted message said:

I think the handlebar measurement might also be from my bike. I tried
measuring that myself, and it is in the 40-42 range. It feels a little
narrow to me.

With a 44cm shoulder measurement, you're in the 42-44cm range, most likely
44cm. I'm a bit narrower across the shoulders, but really like the wider
44cm bars, particularly for climbing.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member

Quoted message said:

FWIW, I saw something recently where Lance Armstrong is 5'10" and rides a

58cm

Quoted message said:

Trek. So even top racers aren't riding dinky frames anymore.

Depends upon the racer. Seems like a number of the Italians are on tiny
little bikes. As for US Postal, sure, Lance rides a bike that's reasonably
large given his size, but what about George Hincapie? That poor guy is
hanging all over his 62cm OCLV... TREK just doesn't make anything big enough
for him. Still, it might be the way he'd want to be anyway, since he sets
his stem way low (he's got a very large drop from seat to bars).

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They said I should shoot for a top tube length that allows a 110 mm stem.

Why? 9cm is just fine; anything shorter might be an indication of a need
for a shorter top tube, although we have set up bikes with shorter stems and
observed no handling issues. There's no magical sweet spot that you have to
be positioned over the front wheel, regardless of folklore & myth.

The bike shop told me that most frames are optimized for a 110 mm stem.
When trying to figure out what length top tube + stem I need, does it
matter where you do it? For example, does a 58 cm tube + 110 mm stem
feel/handle the same as 59 cm tube + 100 mm stem?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Another thing that confuses me: since the recommended seat tube length
is 62 cm, I asked if I should start out looking at a 61 cm Lemond. They
said no, that would be too big - try a 59. Huh???

Which model LeMond are you looking at? I'd agree that the 61cm size, which
measures center-to-center, might be a bit big (both in height and top tube
length). Keep in mind that a 61cm Klein is similar to a 59cm LeMond, due to
the different ways they each measure.

I test rode a 2003 59 cm Lemond Tourmalet this weekend, and it
definitely felt bigger than my 57 cm. My first thought it might be a
little too big (too stretched out), but I don't know if it is too big,
or it is just different than what I'm used to.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I test rode a Klein (56 cm, too small), and asked if I should try to
find a 61. Again, they said no - try a 58.

I just took some measurements on a couple of Kleins; no way could you fit a
56cm, and the main issue with the 61cm would be the top tube length. The
58cm Klein, because it has a very high front end, might not be so bad.

I checked the geometry numbers on Klein's web site, and they list a top
tube length of 58.7 for the 58, 60.6 for the 61. Based on how I felt on
the Lemond, I would guess that the 58 would be the most likely to fit.

They also list 2 seat tube lengths - c-t and "effective". It doesn't
explain which is the more relevant, but the effective length is 58 is
59.8, the 61 is 62.8. Based on this, the 61 would probably be too big.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I they said my seat is currently 3 cm lower than the 99.1 cm saddle to
pedal distance. They were going to recommend I raise my saddle until
they saw I have it all the way back on the rails.

3cm is a *huge* amount to raise a saddle. I'd get a second opinion, just to
make sure, and raise it in, at most, 1cm increments at a time.

I suspect the computer doesn't take into account they type of pedals
being used. I have speedplay zeros, which are supposed to have a low
stack height. I definitely don't have another 3 cm to go.

Thanks.

Mark,

I ride a 61 cm Lemond. I don't remember my measurement details except my
inseam is 93 cm. I was told by bikeshop that I have long legs and short
torso. The shop removed the stem and put on a 17 degree by 90mm (as I
recall). Everything is stock on the bike and have been happy with it so far.
You'll probably fit just fine on a 61 cm lemond. On my bike its way laid
out, and I developed a knee pain after a few thousand miles (not in one
day). I moved the seat forward 1/4 inch and no more knee pain anymore.
I bought my bike at chain reaction in palo alto, dealer seems knowledgable
about bike fit.
"Mark Heiple" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm trying to replace my too small 57cm Lemond, and I'm still trying to
find bikes to test ride. I went to a bike shop and got measured, and
came up with the following results (I also posted this in the stock vs.
custom frame thread).

foot length: 27.0 cm
Inseam: 92.0 cm
thigh length: 44.0 cm
torso length: 58.9 cm
arm length: 69.0 cm
shoulder width: 44.0 cm
hand size: large

The computer spit out the following numbers (all c-c):
seat tube: 62 cm
seat tube angle: 72.5 degrees
exposed seat post: 12.7 cm
stem angle: 10 deg
steerer stack: 5.0 cm
handlebar width: 40-42 cm
handlebar drop: 5.0 cm
saddle girth: 6.9 cm (not sure what that means, or how they came up with
it)
saddle to stem drop: .5 cm (I thought I had more on my current bike, but
maybe not)
Saddle to pedal distance: 99.1 cm
stand over height: 82.5 cm
crank arm: 175 mm

They didn't have a suggested top tube length or head tube angle.

The problem is finding bikes big enough to test ride. It seems like a
bad idea to buy a bike that I haven't ridden, but I can't find any that
are big enough.

The bike shop I got measured at seems like the best in the area and I
would like to buy from them, but they didn't have anything in my size.

The other bike shops in the area seem to be the kind that just want to
push merchandise, not help you figure out what you need. They don't
want to spend the time or even appear to know how to make sure you get
the right fit.

So in this kind of situation, how do you find a bike and have any
confidence that it really fits well? I thought my 57 cm fit when I
first got it, but that turned out to be wrong.

My first choice would be to find a 59 or 61 cm Lemond, but the bike shop
where I was measured said that from my measurements, I have long legs
and a short torso, and a Lemond with its long top tube might not be the
best fit for me. How do you figure out what top tube length is best?

Thanks.

(Sorry for beating a dead horse, this is more frustrating than buying a
car!)