Messurements are they important?

Here is a site that can help you with proper fit: peterwhitecycles.comfitting.htmOpen ↗

But the most important fit aspect to the bike is top tube height. If your looking for a standard designed road bike the top tube, if your standing in shoes flat footed, should be between 1/2 inch to 2 inch clearance from your crotch. All the other things that Peter White discusses can be done later like changing the handlebar reach, moving the saddle up and down and front to rear.

I have 7 road bikes, all of them vary from 55cm to 57cm frames and they all fit fine and can ride either of them for 100 miles and not be in pain.

So yes, you can adjust your stem and seat to a certain point and get the same results. But I know that with my 34" inseam I can't get on a 53cm frame and raise the seat and bars sky high and make it work, nor can I get a 63cm frame and drop the seat and bars all the way down and make it work. But there is a 4cm range where you can.

Peter White's bike fitting advice always makes me chuckle a little... but not as much as someone basing correct frame size on standing over a bike wearing flat soled shoes. Personally, I rarely stand over my bike with both feet unclipped and couldn't give two hoots about the distance between the top tube and my wedding tackle. The only time I cared about that was when on the mountain bike with platform pedals and one foot slips off... but it's been a long time since that and we've had kids since - so the delicate plumbing still works well. My flat soled shoes also have soles of various thicknesses... How about we define what thickness of sole should be worn when defining a measurement that has nothing to do with riding a bike and then somehow jam it into the 'lore of cycling' just to confuse people even more. [IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/ROTF.gif[/IMG]

Sitting square on the saddle is something that sounds really easy but unless you have someone who's knowledgeable about picking various "landmarks" from the top of the pelvis on your back and checking that you're level or by sitting on something like an SMP saddle that gives you instant feedback when you're dangling over one side of the saddle, it can be harder than you think. Most folks have some leg length difference. Most have some functional issues that effect flexibility. Some folks have their inflexible side on the same side as their shorter leg... I'll bet my last beer than these folk will likely not sit square on a saddle as they're probably not used to doing so. I recently discovered that I fall into the latter category and that 'expert' bike fitters shimmed the wrong farking leg. I didn't know that until I got an SMP saddle and I wondered why the right side of my ischiopubic ramus was being rammed down the hole in the middle of the saddle rather than perching nicely on it.

Saddle setback is about the only thing I really agree on with Peter. He shares a similar view with Steve Hogg, basing it on functional ability to pretty much self support the weight of the body without too much assistance from your arms/hands.

But I'm more in the Steve Hogg camp - start out with the feet and work out from there and when you're setting the heights/lengths of various components you need to be replicating the effort and position that you'll be using the bike for. Most folk pedal differently when at the limit than they do when pedaling easy and smelling the roses. If you're out for a quick Sunday jaunt then fine but if you're going to be riding hard you need to be riding hard and replicating that effort and subsequent pedal style change during the fitting.

Yes, that lore of cycling. The unimportance of inseam measurements and top tube distance from the family jews...makes me wonder why ALL custom builders who build, of all things, custom standard road bikes, why they bother with that information. Makes me chuckle as too how little Rivendell, Richard Sachs, Henry James, and on and on, I mean what do those dopes know about proper bike fit! And the silly thing about these guys and their fitting ideas...they do it for free, not for $350 that Steve Hogg's system costs, man, all I can say is there are a lot of unhappy Richard Sachs riders out there that spent a mint on a custom bike and they don't fit!

Since there's not a single definitive bit of data that shows that any particular theory on how inseam should relate to bike size (or crank size), it's only real benefit is to define whether or not a frame will be absolutely out of the range of good fit possibilities. With compact and semi-compact frames, stand over has essentially no relevance at all.

Just because a bike builder uses a particular metric and has done so for years does not mean that metric has any real functional value, where by functional I mean it's a parameter that can be proven (i.e., with real data, not anecdotes or builder memory) to have functional significance.

Can anybody read anymore? Please reread my posts. I stated once in each post I was referring to standard road frames, I never mentioned semi compact or compact frames.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Froze [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Yes, that lore of cycling. The unimportance of inseam measurements and top tube distance from the family jews...makes me wonder why ALL custom builders who build, of all things, custom standard road bikes, why they bother with that information. Makes me chuckle as too how little Rivendell, Richard Sachs, Henry James, and on and on, I mean what do those dopes know about proper bike fit! And the silly thing about these guys and their fitting ideas...they do it for free, not for $350 that Steve Hogg's system costs, man, all I can say is there are a lot of unhappy Richard Sachs riders out there that spent a mint on a custom bike and they don't fit!

Just like you see a fair amount of custom titanium Serrotta's for sale...

Family jews?

Stand over has no real relevance to standard geometry frames either - unless you like sitting on the top tube when stopped at traffic lights. 1/2" to 2" difference between the top tube and the furry plums... That's only a mere 5cm - a huge difference. Yeah you can get a longer seat post but as far as top tube length goes, I'd need something like a 18cm stem if I went from a 58cm frame to a 54.

I guess if you get that all important saddle stand over wrong, your furry plums become the "plums of fury!"

Measuring the circumference of your head and using that as a standard road frame size is more accurate but I don't see that one quoted in cycling lore.

There's a world of difference between making a frame that can provide the desired fit and getting the bike fit correct.

As far as Steve Hogg goes, alot of his information is available for free on his website. It doesn't take much to understand that he might be onto something. Taking the not so massive leap to understand that fitting an unsymmetrical person to a symmetrical bike could require a bit of extra thought. The difference with Steve and guys like Rivendell and Sachs is that he sells a bike fit and not a frame and has a money back guarantee if, after a period of time, you think it sucks and comfort or performance didn't increase. I can't imagine how [censored] I'd be if I waited for 2 years to get my custom Sachs and by back still hurt.

The bike I hated the most was the first custom frame I bought. I "needed" that 71.8 degree seat tube angle like I needed a pick axe in the face. The other two were TT bikes and did the job because I didn't let the frame builder decide what I "needed"

After having fit issues for a long time, following Steve's recommendations on foot positioning, shimming, wedging etc have been rather inspiring. I'm starting to believe that we woefully underestimate proper foot support and shoe positioning.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by swampy1970 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Just like you see a fair amount of custom titanium Serrotta's for sale...

Family jews?

Stand over has no real relevance to standard geometry frames either - unless you like sitting on the top tube when stopped at traffic lights. 1/2" to 2" difference between the top tube and the furry plums... That's only a mere 5cm - a huge difference. Yeah you can get a longer seat post but as far as top tube length goes, I'd need something like a 18cm stem if I went from a 58cm frame to a 54.

I guess if you get that all important saddle stand over wrong, your furry plums become the "plums of fury!"

Measuring the circumference of your head and using that as a standard road frame size is more accurate but I don't see that one quoted in cycling lore.

There's a world of difference between making a frame that can provide the desired fit and getting the bike fit correct.

As far as Steve Hogg goes, alot of his information is available for free on his website. It doesn't take much to understand that he might be onto something. Taking the not so massive leap to understand that fitting an unsymmetrical person to a symmetrical bike could require a bit of extra thought. The difference with Steve and guys like Rivendell and Sachs is that he sells a bike fit and not a frame and has a money back guarantee if, after a period of time, you think it sucks and comfort or performance didn't increase. I can't imagine how [censored] I'd be if I waited for 2 years to get my custom Sachs and by back still hurt.

The bike I hated the most was the first custom frame I bought. I "needed" that 71.8 degree seat tube angle like I needed a pick axe in the face. The other two were TT bikes and did the job because I didn't let the frame builder decide what I "needed"

After having fit issues for a long time, following Steve's recommendations on foot positioning, shimming, wedging etc have been rather inspiring. I'm starting to believe that we woefully underestimate proper foot support and shoe positioning.

Hogg used to seem like a credible source of fit information, but then he started going on about how charity bands can make you sit cockeyed. His proof? Why, there wasn't any at all.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by alienator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Hogg used to seem like a credible source of fit information, but then he started going on about how charity bands can make you sit cockeyed. His proof? Why, there wasn't any at all.

I did the test with my old Oakleys with my physio/massage therapist, who's more well versed in finding anatomical landmarks on the back on my pelvis that I. I just ask her to check the iliac crest several times, each time leaving the room for a few seconds and then rechecking. I thought it was a complete crock o' [censored] too...

... the end result. I don't wear those Oakleys anymore. For now it's 3M clear saftey glasses that kinda sorta look 'sporty'.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by swampy1970 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I did the test with my old Oakleys with my physio/massage therapist, who's more well versed in finding anatomical landmarks on the back on my pelvis that I. I just ask her to check the iliac crest several times, each time leaving the room for a few seconds and then rechecking. I thought it was a complete crock o' [censored] too...

... the end result. I don't wear those Oakleys anymore. For now it's 3M clear saftey glasses that kinda sorta look 'sporty'.

Hogg's test? It's a bullshite test. It doesn't hold anything in particular constant, so there's absolutely no way to say that the results are caused by glasses or rubbery bands around the wrist. A first year college student in a science class would get a failing grade for proposing such a stupid test. It proves absolutely nothing. It absolutely does not remove any human bias--either from the observer or the test subject--from the test and therefore is absolutely not scientific. One of the reasons for the development of the scientific method is to remove human bias from observations because human bias really screws things up. It is proof of exactly how poor science education is around the world.

His claims about polarized lenses are stupid on their face, and he provides zero evidence......zero.....that body position is in anyway affected by the plane of oscillation of the electric field component of a photon. It's farking laughable his tests. Of the many things not held constant in his "tests" and the tests his readers have done, how can anyone be sure what caused the alleged changes that were observed? It's ridiculous. In fact, they're likely so stupid that they won't even merit an Ignoble nomination. Not only do those "tests" not proved anything, they are incapable of proving anything. Hell, I wouldn't let my 13 year old daughter use such a test for anything upon which she was being graded.

If a charity band makes one sit cockeyed, how much more cockeyed am I sitting with a heavy diving watch on? I must be tilting to the point of falling over when I ride.

I'm guessing only Hogg knows the answer to that one, and that answer may not be worth much at all.

There's a trig formula on the web somewhere that will give you the best (more power at a lower metabolic cost, aka HR) seat tube angle pursuant to your lower leg to thigh length ratio. By far the best piece of measurement info I've put into practice. Ymmv.

IMO, start from there (seat tube angle), not neglecting anything along the chain - cleat position on shoe (stack height too), shoe position on pedal (aka q-factor), etc...The powermeter and home trainer have been indispensible in helping me find the best position for comfort and power. Trial and error, baby - the only way to git 'er done!

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by alienator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Hogg's test? It's a bullshite test. It doesn't hold anything in particular constant, so there's absolutely no way to say that the results are caused by glasses or rubbery bands around the wrist. A first year college student in a science class would get a failing grade for proposing such a stupid test. It proves absolutely nothing. It absolutely does not remove any human bias--either from the observer or the test subject--from the test and therefore is absolutely not scientific. One of the reasons for the development of the scientific method is to remove human bias from observations because human bias really screws things up. It is proof of exactly how poor science education is around the world.

His claims about polarized lenses are stupid on their face, and he provides zero evidence......zero.....that body position is in anyway affected by the plane of oscillation of the electric field component of a photon. It's farking laughable his tests. Of the many things not held constant in his "tests" and the tests his readers have done, how can anyone be sure what caused the alleged changes that were observed? It's ridiculous. In fact, they're likely so stupid that they won't even merit an Ignoble nomination. Not only do those "tests" not proved anything, they are incapable of proving anything. Hell, I wouldn't let my 13 year old daughter use such a test for anything upon which she was being graded.

If you do something that's repeatable its not entirely [censored]. There's an effect but the cause... who knows.

He openly states he doesn't know why it happens and has sought to ask those who possibly might to take a looksie.

As posted on his blog:

stevehoggbikefitting.commaterial challenges how to lessen your ability to coordinate your actions without being aware of itOpen ↗

Quoted post said:

.....
Then serendipitously, I had a fit client who was a Professor of Analytical Chemistry who was fascinated by the effect 'Ive described and was able to demonstrate to him on a number of people. He arranged the analysis and if you're interested, I'll forward you a copy. Basically, the Bike Fit wedges have much higher Barium and Copper levels than the Specialized, but that is not a problem as the Bike Fit wedges don't impact on pelvic alignment. The Specialized wedges have much higher levels of Zinc, so my assumption is that is the problem. Happy to be corrected if it is some other factor.
.
.
.
.
I've put this stuff out there for 2 reasons. Firstly, to make cyclists aware
of the issue and secondly, in the hope that someone would read it who could
shed more light on the subject and take it further. Here's hoping you're in
the second category. I look forward to hearing what you find.

Maybe you should ask him for a copy of the analysis.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by tonyzackery [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

There's a trig formula on the web somewhere that will give you the best (more power at a lower metabolic cost, aka HR) seat tube angle pursuant to your lower leg to thigh length ratio. By far the best piece of measurement info I've put into practice. Ymmv.

IMO, start from there (seat tube angle), not neglecting anything along the chain - cleat position on shoe (stack height too), shoe position on pedal (aka q-factor), etc...The powermeter and home trainer have been indispensible in helping me find the best position for comfort and power. Trial and error, baby - the only way to git 'er done!

The last two sentences nailed it. The fine tuning for one guy may/may not work for someone else.

Formulas are a reasonable starting point but dont expect miracles. The formulas that are derived from analysing pro's positions may be great for guys who spend all day everyday on the bike, are young, who don't sit at a desk for hours at a time etc. Taking the "Hinault" formula as an example. This might have been great for Hinault in 1985, but that position was the result of several years of adjustments and subsequent injury possibly caused from making adjustments too fast during periods of high stress. If Hinault has used his own formula in 1980 then chances are it may not have worked that great for him.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by swampy1970 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

If you do something that's repeatable its not entirely [censored]. There's an effect but the cause... who knows.

He openly states he doesn't know why it happens and has sought to ask those who possibly might to take a looksie.

As posted on his blog:

stevehoggbikefitting.commaterial challenges how to lessen your ability to coordinate your actions without being aware of itOpen ↗

Maybe you should ask him for a copy of the analysis.

Uhm, his "tests" aren't repeatable because they're BS tests. They're BS because nothing is controlled in the test to insure that the outcome is the result of the charity band. Moroever, doing a test means you've already introduced a bias into the test.

Data Hogg doesn't provide nor does have any. What he has is anecdotal "evidence" which is not valid. Full stop. Seriously, read up on the scientific method and how to do a proper test. Hogg can't even be sure that what he claims he's seen is actually what happened, and he won't provide the analysis. Already asked, thanks.

Repeatability? Again, read up on how to do a proper experiment. Hogg would be laughed out of the room if he presented data the way that he has to a group of people who actually understand the scientific method.

I imagine all the folks who slept with pyramids under their pillows to benefit from the awesome rewards of pyramid power also could claim their experiences were "repeatable."

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by tonyzackery [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Trial and error, baby - the only way to git 'er done!

BIG PLUS 1!! And it's the cheapest.