Classic & Vintage - Ever measure yourself, C-C?

I'm starting a project where I measure very carefully the frames I really like to ride. My wife who teaches yoga sometimes brings up the point that it's all related to the proportions of our bodies and then I add that it's all about how a person rides.
I know how to measure top tube and seat tube and all that but exactly how should I measure my thigh and my calf and my foot and how does that relate to my top tube and my seat tube and the angle between the two?

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

Good luck!

Interesting, they omit three measurement that I've always considered very important. Foot size is an imporatant factor in saddle height and seat tube length. Shoulder width relates to bar width. Hand size will dictate the bar curve and drop.

As for measuring myself, no, I've never done it. You can't measure yourself with sufficient accuracy. Though I have been measured, several times, and I've done dozens (perhaps hundreds?) of other cyclists, in my roles as a coach and an LBS manager.

https://www.wrenchscience.com/Secure/Fit/Height.aspx

I think "fit" is one way today's cyclists try to buy performance. Whenever the discussion veers into measuring bone length and adjusting things by a millimeter or two, I like to put up this picture of Sean Kelly:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a101/Noel3006/2149328875_8b4b5e92c1.jpg

Renowned for being arguably the best all-around professional in the 1980s, as well as for having the worst position on the bike of any pro anyone could remember.

So to my way of thinking, we're better off getting our positions "into the neighborhood" using either common and widely recognized formulas or the advice of a decent bike racer, and then putting our time and energy into riding as much as possible.

+1. I just buy bikes with frames in my size range, and adjust saddle, bar, & stem to my comfort; including changing to a shorter/longer stem & longer seatpost, if necessary.

Sometimes I think "whatever works" is about as exact as you can get, but many custom builders seem to really know how to do it right. I've heard lots of things about custom bikes, and "it doesn't fit" has yet to be something I've come across.

T-Mar raises a good point. You should always consider the contact points on the bike, and foot size/shoe type make a difference, the bars are hugely important, as well as the saddle. If the bars or saddle are all wrong, the fit of the bike itself becomes less of an issue, no matter how good it is.

I've been a guinea pig on more treadmills than I care to remember, but I do remember one study that measured outside leg length, and relative lengths of femur, tibia, along with torso dimensions and arm bone lengths, also for some bio-mechanical study back pre-Windows. I think the results indicated I'd never run a 5-min. mile, or a 2:30 marathon. They were right, 4:08 and 2:20:57.

I still feel winning on bikes, and running, is 75% based on the ability to suffer, but taking the suffering out of the bike fit would seem to make sense.

I'd measure myself, but if my wife caught me, I'd never hear the end of it.

Interesting, they omit three measurement that I've always considered very important. Foot size is an imporatant factor in saddle height and seat tube length. Shoulder width relates to bar width. Hand size will dictate the bar curve and drop.
......

^ Terrific insight on yet one more reason why there is such a range of preferences among people with the same nominal bike inseam.

I think "fit" is one way today's cyclists try to buy performance.


True, but if you are more comfortable then it is easier to perform at your best.
Some folk's position is so whacked that they risk doing damage to themselves long term.
When I see bikes imaged here that show a BF members favorite ride with the saddle tilting 10° or more up or down, they are showing all that they are taking extreme measures to get the bike comfortable underneath them.

Shoe size does make a difference, but that is still not all, I have really big heels compared to many, measure from my approx ankle rotation point and the ball of my foot and I would be similar to someone with a 2 size plus smaller shoe.

I am now more inclined to measure the range of angle change between my upper and lower leg, and keeping in mind where my knee is over the pedal. This cannot be done alone, a camera helps with a telephoto though.

Seat tube angle is either what one uses as a guide by the builder to where to place the seat or you work around it to get the saddle where you want. As most of us here are obtaining bikes that were not made bespoke for us, one adjusts the saddle to where it works.

On most of my bikes I use the same bend of bar and same saddle, so measures are easier. On bikes that differ, I need to be more careful.

That all written, humans are extremely adaptable, a cm one way or another often is not significant, unless one is racing. When I raced, I was growing, what a chase it was. I was given a photo of me on my track bike once, Whoa! Time for a new stem.

One bike I have my heel actually hits the Rear Skewer interesting...The Q was too small on the bike and my handlebars when I added 6cm and went to 44cm I could breath for the first time on a bike also relating to the top tube length I have a long back so a longer top tube stretched me out... Fit is such an important thing get someone to measure you...really!

"It's another way to obsess." - my sweetie Sharon.

Interesting thread. I've entered my (same) measurements on three different websites, and they came up with different results. F.i. they seem to agree on overall reach (about 70 cm's for me), but not on the saddle height in relation to the BB. The maximum difference there is over 6 cm's! I've compared the outcomes with one of my favorite bikes. That turned out to be close to what the Competitive Cyclist calls the French Fit, with the exception of the overall reach (top tube + stem). My top tube (or stem) seems to be about 5 cm's too short. As it happens I've just acquired a nice Koga-Miyata ('93 RoadWinner) that is close to the ideal French Fit, so I'll be trying that tomorrow, weather permitting.

The CONI method:

http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/coni/part_2_chapt_05.pdf

I put every bike on mine on a trainer and ride it for a bit until I get it to feel right. I then ride it outside for a while, and wind up making more subtle adjustments. I have found that different bikes have slightly different measurements (saddle to bars, etc). I do not know why this is, and can only attribute it to slightly different equipment.

I was just marveling at some of the oddball bike setups on the sat morning ride today. I'm not one to tell someone else how to set up their bike unless they ask but there are some real doosies out there. Usually its the weekend warrior who gets 40-50 in on the weekend but maybe not much more.
All of them have "better bikes" than me as I'm on the token 9sp steel steed, but I feel bad that most of them probably went to the LBS and were given "what they had" on the floor with a crank on the seatpost and a swap of the pedals. Over time they try to fix what hurts and end up with things I saw today:
Saddles maxed forward/rearward or angled oddly
Saddles too low or too high
Bars rotated forward so far the ergo bend is horizontal
No spacers but a riser stem
Knees angled way outward
Super stretched out with locked elbows just to ride on the hoods.
Stem/Bars slammed "race style" but rotated hoods up high and cant use the drops

Granted, this was the pack at the back, not the fast front group but I still feel bad as they must be suffering.

There's a certain connection one has riding a bike that not only fits but one that you built from the ground up, knowing you tightened every bolt and lubricated every bearing. (Its even nicer when your bike rides quieter and shifts snappier than most others as well.)

The CONI method:

http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/coni/part_2_chapt_05.pdf (http://www.os2.dhs.org/%7Ejohn/coni/part_2_chapt_05.pdf)

I've experimented a lot with "C&V" fit, beginning with the CONI method and working my way back to the early years of the sport. I have one bike set up based upon the advice of top racers of the 20s: saddle nose 5 cm. behind the BB spindle, height set by "heels on the pedals without rocking", saddle-to-bar based upon elbow to first knuckle, and bars at the same height as the stem. It's extremely comfortable - as you'd expect, from a time when TdF stages were occasionally in excess of 300 miles - and as efficient (for my typical 18 MPH, anyway) as anything else.

Those years of experimentation play a big role in my opinion that fit isn't nearly as important as many modern riders are led to believe. Yes, it's possible to get it really wrong and suffer because of it, but I firmly believe it's not the dark magic the $200+ "fit gurus" would have us believe.

I raise the saddle until my achilles tendon starts hurting; then drop it back down a little..

I always marvel at these "fit" threads.

Never went to a professional fitter. Never measured myself, ;). Never used an online calculator.

But through trial and error, I found a 57-58 fits about right. I have 4 bikes, all of which were setup completely independent from each other. I'd futz with the seat, seatpost, stem and bars. Buy a longer or shorter something when the bike seemed "off'. Earlier this summer for funsies I compared all 4 setups. All of the seats and bars were all within a half a centimeter. The only thing that was different was the relative position of the BB to the seat and bars. And that's beacause of the different frame geometries over the 75 year span of my bikes.

Just ride until it feels right. Don't worry about what someone else says is "correct".

Never went to a professional fitter. Never measured myself, ;). Never used an online calculator.
Me neither too, umph.


...for funsies I compared all 4 setups. All of the seats and bars were all within a half a centimeter.
Me too. 'xcept it wasn't that many bikes.

When I started out there was the CONI method and I have been though the Guimard, Borysewicz, Koechli and NECA methods, among others. IMO, all these do is get you into the ballpark. From there, you need a coach or fitter who can ask the proper questions about how you feel on the bicycle, in certain conditions, in order to fine tune the position. Also, the position is not fixed in stone but is dynamic and will change as we develop and age. Lastly, the body is a remarkly adaptive structure and can perform well in vastly different positions, if given the time to adapt. Sean Kelly is a prime example but my favourite is the radical Merckx rode by Bauer in the 1993 Paris-Roubaix. It had a super slack seat angle, super long chainstays and a knee over the bottom bracket postion. Despite the truly radical position, he finished a respectable 21st, on a machine most of us wouldn't even consider riding.

When I started out there was the CONI method and I have been though the Guimard, Borysewicz, Koechli and NECA methods, among others. ...

That reminds me of Norman Hill, who coached a number of the North Hollywood Wheelmen for a time around 1974-75. He had almost all the guys, Juniors, using large toe clips and other absolutes. ?! These guys were under gear limits, 44x14 max. A low cadence hill climbing set up was not the winning ticket.

That reminds me of Norman Hill, who coached a number of the North Hollywood Wheelmen for a time around 1974-75. He had almost all the guys, Juniors, using large toe clips and other absolutes. ?! These guys were under gear limits, 44x14 max. A low cadence hill climbing set up was not the winning ticket.

Wow, that's low. I seem to recall the Junior limit being 50 x14T at the time, at least that's what I recall riding. I know there was lots of concern about learning to spin and not blowing out your knees, but that is extreme. I only ever had problems with the gearing limit on one occasion. It was a race with a mixed field and I was with the lead pack of Seniors when the course changed direction and hit a very long, flat, open area with a strong tailwind. I was spun out with the 50 x 14T and eventually lost contact, finishing the race by myself.

The 12-and-under limit in my day was 50x16. I still have some "custom" Regina straight blocks: 16-17-18-19-20-21. Field sprints were all about who could get to the last corner first. After that is was a 200 RPM parade to the line.

what ever happened to NEC's "Fit Kit"?


I do agree with SixJours that sometimes fit is over rated and taken to extremes. if your comfortable on the bike go ride it. I am not certain about the rest of you but I I doubt on a 20 mile ride my bum stays in the same spot on the saddle more than a few miles at time. you don't always sit back down in the exact same spot after stopping, you slide back at times when climbing, and don't get me started on moving on the bars. general fit is important but I think there is a limit esp if you have several different bikes

It would never work for me to measure myself C-C. I'm too off-center.

I knew a guy named Lefty...

Wow, that's low. I seem to recall the Junior limit being 50 x14T at the time, at least that's what I recall riding. I know there was lots of concern about learning to spin and not blowing out your knees, but that is extreme. I only ever had problems with the gearing limit on one occasion. It was a race with a mixed field and I was with the lead pack of Seniors when the course changed direction and hit a very long, flat, open area with a strong tailwind. I was spun out with the 50 x 14T and eventually lost contact, finishing the race by myself.

The Southern Cal gear limit in '72 -'75 for Juniors and Intermediates was 84.9" 44x14. Many ran 47x15 which was just a bit shy. Up till and including 1974 the gear limit was off for two months prior to the Nationals on the road as there was no National limit.
When training with the Seniors it was hummingbird legs time on the flats. I used to love pulling a fair pull with the Cat. 1 guys in 53x15's or 53x16's. No ranked Senior used anything else than a 53 big ring, because as John Howard said in an interview, 52 teeth chainrings just don't cut it.
In 1975, the gear limits went National, with the Juniors getting 52x15 max all year.
That was a pretty useful top, it kept one from doing stupid things to their legs and the Seniors could never drop you. Many guys ran too big a ear anyway.
The track had National gear limits earlier. I think over time they have moved them around a bit.

+1 to everyone who suggests using one of the established fit mesurement systems and then listening to what your body tells you and adjusting accordingly.

+1 also to those who state that it doesn't have to be to-the-millimeter precise, although I think there is one exception: if you are a serious racer, meaning a pro or maybe a Cat. I amateur with a serious chance to turn pro. For these folks, a 1% difference in performance can be the difference between winning and losing, or even between getting a contract and not getting one. They need to be dialed in so as to be in the most aero, most efficient position they can tolerate. For the rest of us, obsessing to that degree is pointless, unless you like or can't help obsessing.

I do think it is worth paying fairly serious attention to the seat height, however, because getting that wrong can do unpleasant and potentially serious things to your knees. Otherwise, and unless you are one of the aforementioned racers, get it close, tweak it so you can becomfortable on your bike, and enjoy the ride.

Seems to me the high level racers are the ones least in need of "perfect" over fit. As evidence, I point out the days back when pro cyclists couldn't expect to have a proper back-up bike in a race. Unless you were a star, you had to rely on a "close enough" bike if you needed a replacement during a race. At best, a mechanic would lean out a window on the fly, to adjust your seat height. But if you look back at old footage, you'll see that a pro would still look flawless on the "loaner" bike even though it didn't really fit him: he knows how to sit properly on the bike, so things being a bit out of whack don't make as a much of a difference.

Contrast that with the typical recreational rider, who is doing so many things wrong that a poorly fitting bike just makes it that much worse. But of course, making the bike fit "perfectly" down to the last millimeter doesn't change the fact that he's still doing a bunch of things wrong. So no matter how you slice it, the millimeters just don't matter. IMO, of course. ;)

what ever happened to NEC's "Fit Kit"?...

The Fit Kit's real claim to fame were the unique RAD pedals used to set cleat angle. Just about every thing else could be accomplished using a measuring tape, level and plumb bob. When pedal sysyems with floating cleats were developed, the Fit Kit appears to have lost much of it's lustre. Which is too bad, because RAD was simple and worked well and there's much to be said for setting your cleats in the neutral position, even if they can float. If they are too far off the neutral, it's possible to disenage with the twist that often occurs during sudden accelerations.

I'm paying a lot mpore attention to fit since I began doing physical therapy to rehab chronic right hip pain. Part of the PT involved looking at bike fit. I've always gravitated toward 57cm as my "sweet spot," with the ability to go a cm or so in either direction and still be comfortable. But the hip has compelled me to rethink that a bit. I've noticed that it's harder than I realized to get my saddle back far enough to position my knees over the crank adequately. The bikes I ride regularly now all have Arione saddles, regardless of how this looks. I was worried when I got my Grandis that it would be too small, but it has actually given me the best fit I've found so far, with a 56cm seat tube amd 55cm top tube, thoough a slightly longer than usual stem. Which is all to say, the size range I can comfortably ride over any distance, say, 20+ miles, has narrowed, while the need to pay attention to fit specifics has expanded, all related to physical problems that less-than-ideal fit very likely contributed to to begin with.

I can pretty readily measure my inseam, arm, shoulder width, and upper/lower arm, though errors are possible. What I can't do my myself is measure back angle or leg angles. I've had a good fit done with goniometer-based adjustment, and it was a good thing to do, very beneficial. But since then I've taken to more saddle setback and being in better balance over the BB. That essentially means KOPS is not right for me, and hence my knee angles are not what they were.

Nonethiless I'm having IAB's experience, that several of my bikes adjusted for comfort, balance, and feel have ended up with the same numbers.

I knew a guy named Lefty...

I know an Ilean

Why I need to be framed for my fit...
I have a bike that my cycling fanatic friend and I built in 1996 since then I have hyper extended the tendons in my leg and bent a bone in my shoulder, I had not ridden that bike in 15 years when I got on it I realized it did not feel right.
So I re positioned a few things moved my brake hood 2mm to the left I increased my q 15mm lengthened my stem by 30mm and went from baskets to SPD my cycling fanatic friend has since then become an Osteopathic Doctor and he now fits people for their body and their components. He told me to simple buy a bigger frame old was a 510 steel steel seat post steel stem and well you can imagine it was very heavy...and only a 58cm this was determined to be the best geometry in the price range and we built it well with limited funds and FUN in mind. I am 6'5" 260lbs and he told me to get a ti bike in the 60-62cm range and see it that would be a better fit... well I did and built the frame up and he spent a few hours with me fitting me... The bike disappears when I ride now. My cycling position is great I can breath better and just to be sure I got back on the steel beast and promptly got off. I just bought a vintage 68cm frame valite tubing and adjusted to the same measurements. I did this because I always needed a rise in the stem so I lowered the seat and like magic I prefer the steel bike a Fuji Royale II. The weight is almost the same the more I ride the more I notice the differences so ride get a fitting and make sure they are competent. Most quality bike shops include a fitting with a new bike buy a certified fitter I am blessed enough to have a friend that can do it and two great bike shops nearby that I can casually discuss fitting. This is not a mark of distinction but in reality makes cycling more fun and enjoyable and I want to ride much more often. So get fit. If you look at a Racer his position is so different from years of developing his riding style that, his fitting will be different. My Doctor fit me differently on same size bikes with different components every millimeter can make a difference.

Glad to hear that things worked out well for you. Once you have your magic fit, all you need are the relative dimensions of the body contact points to each other.

I've been into road bikes for a relatively short amount of time, only about 2 years or so (although I'm a lifelong cyclist). I swung into it pretty hard, and within a year I've build up a fast roadie, a fast vintage and a drop-bar fixie. I've come to this point via several frames and several component sets, just swapping them out based on feel, not measurements. After every ride or so, I made little adjustments to the saddle, the bars etc. and when I took the tape measure to them a short while ago, I found out I reached numbers within 1 cm of each other on all the key measurements across the three bikes. I had myself measured and crunched some numbers according to the CONI and Guillimard methods, and came roughly to the same conclusion as I reached by trial and error. Interesting, huh? I could have saved me a lot of time swapping out stems and fidgeting saddles, but it's nice to know taht the methods work!

Trial and error, for me. Mostly error.

Bike shops tell me 52-54.

I cannot ride a 54, after several hundred dollars spent on 54's with the "hope fit" system.
Several stems, several seat posts; each one, I hoped, would be 'the solution."

I ride a 56cm square, but my ideal fit, over the years, I've learned would be a 55.5x55.5
That's my hunch and I'm keeping to it.

I can ride a 58cm, and have done so, on centuries.
Mostly because measurements vary among those who sell me frames.

I can ride a 59cm, and have done so, on two centuries.
Enough for me to stop tempting fate. Standover was not an option.

I suppose I could have saved a lot of time, and money,
by measuring myself at various intervals determined by a chart.
However, there are many charts, theories, and approaches to the proper fit.
They all come back to trial and error.

I wouldn't say finding my "perfect" fit was an accident, but it sure wasn't on purpose.
For most of us, we gravitate towards what works, over time, with several bikes.
I'm just glad I wasn't experimenting with $1000 bikes.

I'm just glad I wasn't experimenting with $1000 bikes.

exactly. I bought my first bike based on standover height, a 60 square peugeot for 25€. I felt like I was on the rack. Two lbs's advised me 56'ers, but those felt still too stretched out. Turns out my arms are quite short, along with short hands, so I need short tt's, yet st's are much more open for any size between 53 an 60 .

I build a lot of frames for a kid, Mickey Dennoncourt who owns the Spooky brand. He convinced me to build my latest bike to "his" geometry and in doing so, I ended up measuring my whole body and drawing it up in autocad. At the end of the day, I switched out my stem a couple of times, adjusted my saddle and ended up loving the bike. Just like anything else I find with a 58 TT. I think a lot about the way I fit on a bike when I am riding. What else is there?

I just bought a nice original Peugeot PR10 that came with the original 1976 instruction manual for Peugeot owners, featuring Bernard Thevenet on the cover, who'd just won the previous year's TdF.
In this manual are clear instructions on how to get the right bike, and set it up correctly. It's not difficult. For the poor souls not proficient in Dutch:


measure your inside leg and deduct 25 cm's
buy the Peugeot nearest in size (seat tube, C-T)
put your heel on the pedal when the crank is aligned with the seat tube - the leg should be not quite stretched (see fig. a)
adjust saddle height accordingly
put crank in horizontal forward position - the knee should be above the middle or the front of the pedal (see fig. b)
adjust seat setback accordingly


Bernard Thevenet:

http://www.mijnalbum.nl/GroteFoto-UWYFVQ4B.jpg

Instructions:

http://www.mijnalbum.nl/GroteFoto-FITVI4KI.jpg

http://www.mijnalbum.nl/GroteFoto-F7G76LPM.jpg

...but my favourite is the radical Merckx rode by Bauer in the 1993 Paris-Roubaix. It had a super slack seat angle, super long chainstays and a knee over the bottom bracket postion. Despite the truly radical position, he finished a respectable 21st, on a machine most of us wouldn't even consider riding.

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=232082&d=1325383288

Reminds me of early, slack-geometry racers from the 1920's - essentially DL-1's with drop bars.

-Kurt

Like others, I've found that my bikes all have very similarly sized cockpits, though I haven't measured myself and haven't used any fancy methods. If I'm setting up a new bike, the two measurements I pay close attention to are a)top of saddle to pedal spindle and b)sit bones to center of brake hoods. When those two metrics are where I want them, I'm generally within millimeters of the final product.

Like others, I've found that my bikes all have very similarly sized cockpits, though I haven't measured myself and haven't used any fancy methods. If I'm setting up a new bike, the two measurements I pay close attention to are a)top of saddle to pedal spindle and b)sit bones to center of brake hoods. When those two metrics are where I want them, I'm generally within millimeters of the final product.

Me too. I don't measure. I just move my saddle until it feels right. I change the stem if I feel I need to. I think I like my saddle farther back than most people, but I haven't measured to verify. I often have my saddles all the way back or almost all the way back.

Reminds me of early, slack-geometry racers from the 1920's - essentially DL-1's with drop bars.

-Kurt

The picture is so ridiculous I had to go verify it with other sources. I was pretty sure it was going to turn out a Photoshop job. At 60 degrees, the seat tube is at least 6 degrees shallower than any I have come across from the 20s onward - and those all used steel seatposts with the clamp facing opposite what we consider standard today, so they the riders weren't nearly as far back as Bauer sat. Strange...