Bike fit question

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Mark Heiple


[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:mark-
[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!)

"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.

competitivecyclist.comCCYOpen ↗
ATOR_INTRO

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.

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.

competitivecyclist.comCCYOpen ↗
TOR_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:mark-
[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!)