Fifty Plus (50+) - Bike Fit

As some of you know i recently bought a LHT. Its my first drop bar bike in a looooong time. I'll start out by saying i've got it really comfortable to ride. However i've read that bar should hide front axle when riding. Does that mean in drops? When in drops axle is hidden,but on hoods or flats part its 2 to 3inchs back of bars. So again would this not seeing axle be in drops?
Im actually just curious,im not changing anything cause im comfortable which is main thing. But would be good to know.

That's not a hard and fast rule. If you're comfortable then it should be ok.

Thanks RonH, but being so many hand positions on drop bars it sure would be nice to know which position they are suggesting you should not be able to see axles in. Im guessing they mean in the drops. Anyone?

There's a lot of questionable "wisdom" and outright BS surrounding bike fitting: KOPS, the bar/axle alignment thing the OP asked about, detailed body measurement formulae, etc, etc. Many have little foundation in actual biomechcanics. Some may simply be obsolete but still floating around. Mike Bontrager did a nice debunking of KOPS somewhere (don't have the link).

The fact is that the "best" bike fit can vary depending on the individual, and on what you want to do on the bike. To use an extreme example, the time trialer and the long distance tourist will want their bikes to fit quite differently. Ditto for the 20-something vs. the 50+ 'er.

Basically, if your arms are slightly bent when on the hoods, and if your knees are locked (or nearly so) with your HEEL on the pedal, and you're still able to breathe while in the drops, you're probably 80% - 90% there.

FWIW, I have two road bikes (see sig). I'm 5'-5". The Giant, frame size "small" (probably equivalent to a 52cm traditional level top tube frame) is more aggressive with a 53cm top tube and a 63cm reach (from middle of the bar to the seatpost centerline) and the bars about 5cm (2") lower than the seat. I put bars with a shallow drop on the Giant to keep the drops usable. The vintage Schwinn Super Le Tour has a smaller frame (49cm) with shorter 51cm top tube and about a 60cm reach with the bars only 3cm (1.2") below the seat. Bars are original. Both are comfortable and I have done centuries on both. I'd say the Giant puts a little more strain on my back and shoulders on a long ride, the Schwinn on my butt. Or to put it another way: the Giant is a little bit of a pain in the neck, the Schwinn a little pain in the a$$. :)

I do not know or care if I can see the front axles.

In short, bike fit is about choices and compromises and individual circumstances/preferences. And for a person of a given height there is not necessarily one perfect frame size.

I could probably get about the same setup on the Schwinn with the next largest frame size too but my "boys" would be close to the top tube. BTW, many consider the 1"+ or "two finger" crotch clearance rule to be questionable as well; being (in their view) more about liability avoidance than actual fit and comfort. Richard Schwinn (Waterford) and the Rivendell people are among them. They would regard my 49cm Schwinns as too small. And they might be right: I had to use a longer and taller stem and a longer seat post to dial in the bike, but not so much as to look silly. But hey, it was a great deal on CL and it's a sweet ride.

The fixed gear is about like the Super Le Tour - same dinky frame size.

Finally, all of this concerns road bikes. Mountain, comfort and cruisers - they're different beasts and I know little about them.

For a very good article saying what I just said but in more detail see How to Fit a Bicycle by Peter White (http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm).

Can the rules. If it's comfortable, it's right.

SP
Bend, OR

Rules are there just so they can get bent. According to the norm for older riders- you should have the bars above saddle height and be using a short bar stem. Problem is the rules are made by younger people that haven't tried to ride in that position yet. They don't have the maturity to use their commonsense and just ride a bike that is set up for you and no- one else.

My short top tubed bike and on the flats- the axle is rearwards of the bars- Can't tell you about the other bikes as I just ride them.

As others have said, these are soft rules, not carved in stone laws. I have found the hiding the hub beneath the handlebar trick to work pretty well for me. I tend to set my aggressive go-fast bikes where the bar hides the hub when I am in the drops. For my more relaxed riding bikes, I use the hoods position. For either setup, I make sure that my elbows are bent when I am in position and that I can take my hands off the grips without my upper bady wanting to drop toward the bars.

Practically, I think most of the rules are subject to bending, at least.

But, usually that handlebar rule shows up in books about setting up bikes for road racing. I'd therefore assume the expected position is based on riding in the drops or with your hands on the hoods and pulling hard to get more pedal torque. Not based on relaxed hood or ramp riding. That makes the rule even less applicable to "normal guy on a bike" riders.

Here's one man's opinion: http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm

I read somewhere that the "can't see the axle when in the drops" is an old wives tale used by some LBS to avoid doing any real work in fitting you a bike.

I guess what started this is my LBS who sell Surlys dont sell too many tourers. And while i tried to explain that i subscribe to the Lemond/Rivendel style of fit and it works for me, they thought i was buying to big a size.They wanted me to get next size down which also worked not bad for me. There reasoning was because i could see my axles on the tops and somewhat on the hoods. When i pointed out it felt right to me more than next size down, then they wanted to put shorter stem on it . They are good guys there,but i think they cater more to fixed gear bikes when it comes to drop bar bikes. In the end i bought what felt comfortable (the bigger size) and still find it to be so,but i just wondered where this not seeing axle thing came from.
Incidentely when im in the drops i cant see axle. My thinking is they adhere to the not seeing axle thing but dont even have that right. Anyway thanks all for the info.

I have used the formula I read in a LeMond book about 20 yrs. ago. It included buying a frame (measured C to C) based on .665 of your inseam (measured in bare feet) and the "down in the drops/handlebar obscuring the front axle" thing. I end up with a 54-55 frame which is perfect for me. And, the stem ends up being pretty much spot on as well. IMHO, this is a good method to start with. A little tinkering based on your individual ergos might be required. We are all so different that I don't think any one formula works for everyone.

The Peter White article is really good for fitting a bike. The Lemond method is really good for fitting a racing bike. These may overlap but are not necessarily the same thing (all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles).

Actually i had discussed on here a few times that there was no way i could ride a drop bar bike cause it would instantly take my back out and always did,actually any bars below saddle do that to me . But with the Lemond/Rivendell fit my bars are 1" and a bit above saddle and the drops are shallow so that if i ride on hoods for awhile to limber up i can even ride in the drops for quite a ways with no bad results. Im delighted. So i stand corrected by those i argued with on this 50+ forum about drop bars ,with the caveat that the tops must be above saddle for me to loosen up first. And here ive been using flat bars on weekend tours all this time and now im more comfortable on this Surly than any bike ive ever owned.

Hiding the front axle with the top of the handlebar is not a reliable adjustment, because there are too many variables, such as fork rake. If the bike fits, ride it!

In the drops on my two Italian bikes the front axle is hidden by the bars when I am in the drops and look downward. On my new Cross Check, much the same, when in the drops. I like my saddles 4 to 6 inches higher than the tops of the bars, I am 57. But all three of these bikes have the same effective top tube length within .5 cm and are set up much the same with the Surly having the bars perhaps only three inches below the saddle, it may need a slightly longer stem because as I raise the bars they also shift rearward of course, but still dialing it in including most likely dropping the bar another inch.

I don't see how you guys can ride with the bars even or higher than the saddle, why do that, it seems to defeat the purpose of having drop bars?

In the drops on my two Italian bikes the front axle is hidden by the bars when I am in the drops and look downward. On my new Cross Check, much the same, when in the drops. I like my saddles 4 to 6 inches higher than the tops of the bars, I am 57. But all three of these bikes have the same effective top tube length within .5 cm and are set up much the same with the Surly having the bars perhaps only three inches below the saddle, it may need a slightly longer stem because as I raise the bars they also shift rearward of course, but still dialing it in including most likely dropping the bar another

I don't see how you guys can ride with the bars even or higher than the saddle, why do that, it seems to defeat the purpose of having drop bars?

Its a touring thing,drop bars give one all the hand positions one can get plus out of the wind when needed. I have not seen to many touring type bikes where the saddle was more than an inch either above or below saddle. Comfort for day in day out riding long distances.

Its a touring thing,drop bars give one all the hand positions one can get plus out of the wind when needed. I have not seen to many touring type bikes where the saddle was more than an inch either above or below saddle. Comfort for day in day out riding long distances.

Well put. I'm really enjoying having my bars even with the saddle on my Roubaix. If my bars were 6" lower than my saddle I don't think I could lift my head enough to see where I'm going, much less be very comfortable.....................and nowadays, at 63, I'm into comfort. :thumb:

Jim

In the drops on my two Italian bikes the front axle is hidden by the bars when I am in the drops and look downward. On my new Cross Check, much the same, when in the drops. I like my saddles 4 to 6 inches higher than the tops of the bars, I am 57. But all three of these bikes have the same effective top tube length within .5 cm and are set up much the same with the Surly having the bars perhaps only three inches below the saddle, it may need a slightly longer stem because as I raise the bars they also shift rearward of course, but still dialing it in including most likely dropping the bar another inch.

I don't see how you guys can ride with the bars even or higher than the saddle, why do that, it seems to defeat the purpose of having drop bars?

The only reason to have the bars much below saddle height is for racing, where being more aerodynamic can give you an edge. Of course if getting to the 100km point of the club ride .001 seconds faster then anyone else, is important, then be our guest. However for many riders, coming in first out of 20 riders or 18th really doesn't matter that much, so comfort becomes the key, higher bars are more comfortable, being easier on the neck and back, so many riders prefer that position.

I guess what I am saying, is for me, having the bars high, having the drops as high as the top bar on a racer, is uncomfortable to me. it makes my rear end hurt and makes my lower back hurt. I find it more comfortable to be in a lower position. Obviously, there is room for disagreement, I just don't see how y'all do it. To me it looks inefficient and uncomfortable.

I ride two different set up bikes. The one I like to ride has the saddle 4" higher than the bars. But if it is going to be long ride- my back enjoys the other one where the saddle is only 2" higher. But one bike has a bit more speed- and the other is easier up hills. Haven't decided which set up I prefer- but the back has.

The only reason to have the bars much below saddle height is if that works better for you.

fixed it for you

Simply my opinion, people tend to buy frames too large for them. I, again, my opinion, think the bars up too high at or above saddle height looks dorky and is an indication of a frame that is too large. Saddle height should be set at least in the vicinity of .883 X PBH and the top tube should be sufficiently below your important parts that a less than graceful dismount on uneven terrain does not unduly endanger them. The bars should be set below saddle height from two to six inches depending upon type of bar, head tube height and intended nature of the bike and it's use. Simply an opinion that many people do share. If you complain about saddle pain, drop the bars, if your knees hurt, raise the dang saddle up and spin at 60 to 90 RPM.

Different strokes for different folks. Far too many "should"s in the previous post.

Different strokes for different folks. Far too many "should"s in the previous post.

I am sorry you don't like my "shoulds" as I clearly stated it as "should" per my opinion. If you don't like it, too bad. There are two schools of thought on bike fit, competitive fit, high seat, lower bars and then the looks about right low seat and high bars thinking and I fully admit I fit into the competitive fit school of thinking. I also don't complain about hurt knees, hurting backs or rears or other similar issues that are rampant on bikes that are fitted by "that looks about right" methodology. IN MY OPINION, the fitment which produces the greatest efficiency ultimately produces the greatest comfort and satisfaction--MY OPINION.

Further, IN MY OPINION, the OP asked a fair question, one which many dismissed and to which I find some wisdom so I disagree with the majority consensus. If the OP is setting his bike up with a drop bar and the tops are below the saddle four inches give or take when he is in the drops, if he looks down, with proper posture (elbows bent etc), he should see the top bar obscure the axle, MY freaking opinion, like it or not.

There are two schools of thought on bike fit, competitive fit, high seat, lower bars and then the looks about right low seat and high bars thinking and I fully admit I fit into the competitive fit school of thinking.


I'm thinking you might of missed a 3rd school of thought. That would be: The seat set at the proper height and fore/aft positioning (just like the "competitive fit"). Then the bars set at a comfortable height for the rider, which doesn't cause neck pain issues/comfort issues when in the drops. In my mind this would be the "touring fit" and is what I'm going to strive for when I have my bike fit done professionally.

Regards, Jim

fixed it for you

Bars much below the saddle was a position developed for racing, in that it provides the most aerodynamic position, if you like that position, then knock yourself out. Personally, I like the more upright position with the top of the bars, above the saddle, but that is because I don't like having to bend my neck into an unnatural position, which bothers it after a while, or trying to see stuff over the top of my glasses which defeats the purpose of wearing the stupid things.

It wasn't my intention to piss anyone off, but I seem to have a talent for it.:o

All I'm trying to say is that there are more than one or two ways to set up bikes so that they are comfortable and perform well. Much depends on the individual rider's dimensions, physical condition, preferences, goals etc. This is not to say that there are not many bikes out there that are not set up well.

One of my road bikes is set up fairly aggressively with the bars 2.5 inches below saddle height and the other a more relaxed 1 inch below. (I ran the fast bike at 4 inches for years, but herniated lumbar discs have changed my comfort parameters). Both have the same saddle height relative to the pedals and the same distance from saddle to bar. The front axle is hidden by the bar top on both, one while in the drops, one while on the hoods. My elbows are slightly bent and my weight is well balanced while riding both bikes. These positions have evolved over years of riding and making adjustments.

The way each of my bikes is set up works well for me and for the type of riding I do. What others "should" do is whatever works best for them. What that is varies.

BluesDawg I'm in the process of setting up a road tandem and my road single. I've been experimenting with all the adjustments you talked about here. Actually I found your info extremely helpful. Thanks for your insights.

As some of you know i recently bought a LHT. Its my first drop bar bike in a looooong time. I'll start out by saying i've got it really comfortable to ride. However i've read that bar should hide front axle when riding. Does that mean in drops? When in drops axle is hidden,but on hoods or flats part its 2 to 3inchs back of bars. So again would this not seeing axle be in drops?
Im actually just curious,im not changing anything cause im comfortable which is main thing. But would be good to know.

I assume this is the bike frame. http://www.surlybikes.com/frames/long_haul_trucker_frame/

The LHT is a touring bike and as you can see in the pic the fork rake is greater to add length to the wheelbase. When you say "back of the bars", I assume the axle appears on the side that is closer to you versus the front wheel when you are on the hoods. That seems odd to me due to the increased fork rake but not necessarily wrong. The frame may be too big for you or the stem too long. Without seeing you on the bike and a lot of experience fitting cyclists on touring bikes, I am NOT in a position to pass judgement.

A larger frame is not necessarily a bad thing. It will stretch you out such that you need less seat to bar drop to achieve the same hip angle (forward bend). If you are comfortable, enjoy the ride and forget about it.

How can there be "rules" for bike fit? Guidelines exist from which riders diverge to suit their various body types and personal tastes. whatever feels good, is good. Riders who race are a different crew altogether. They might be willing to put with discomfort to gain speed and endurance. But for most of us, whatever suits us is the proper fit.

It wasn't my intention to piss anyone off, but I seem to have a talent for it.:o

All I'm trying to say is that there are more than one or two ways to set up bikes so that they are comfortable and perform well. Much depends on the individual rider's dimensions, physical condition, preferences, goals etc. This is not to say that there are not many bikes out there that are not set up well.

One of my road bikes is set up fairly aggressively with the bars 2.5 inches below saddle height and the other a more relaxed 1 inch below. (I ran the fast bike at 4 inches for years, but herniated lumbar discs have changed my comfort parameters). Both have the same saddle height relative to the pedals and the same distance from saddle to bar. The front axle is hidden by the bar top on both, one while in the drops, one while on the hoods. My elbows are slightly bent and my weight is well balanced while riding both bikes. These positions have evolved over years of riding and making adjustments.

The way each of my bikes is set up works well for me and for the type of riding I do. What others "should" do is whatever works best for them. What that is varies.

I don't know, some of us who like bars a little higher get tired of the huge drop crowd, stating that a not having a massive drop makes you something less then a cyclist. I can also see your bars getting higher as you get older, and lose some flexibility. Different bikes can and should be set up differently. A bike intended for high speed fun, might have a larger drop, then an all day cruiser, which might still have a larger drop then a touring bike, that is intended for 8 hours a day in the saddle, for 9 days straight. Currently my mountain/hybrid bike is set up with about a 2" drop, it needs a new fork, as the shock is in the process of giving up, probably has a lot to do with it being designed for a 77kg rider but needing to put up with a rider that floats between 95 and 100kg depending on the season. By the end of summer I should be around 95kg, this year I did pretty good, max was 97kg. I should be closer to 80kg :eek: will get a solid fork, with the bars about 3" higher, to make riding easier. I think, unfortunately that this will be a winter project.

My wifes bike has the bars about 5" above the saddle, and they are too low at that, no money to fix that one.

Hermes
You hit the proverbial nail on the head. I remember when i was younger i rode rather large framed 10-12 speed "racers" as they were called. I think we all did. As time went on i drank the "cool aid" and started riding smaller frame bikes with the associated back troubles. Recently ive been getting back into longer top tubes hence bigger frames and your exactly right,the stretched out ride is much easier on the back,which allows for higher bar to seat arrangement,yet still with good hip angles. And still able to cut wind resistance some when needed. Hope i didnt put any words in your mouth that you didnt mean.:D