Originally Posted by
elcruxio
I'm confused. I did the competetive cyclist fit calculator. Here's the results.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TH][/TH]
[TH]The Competitive Fit
[/TH]
[TH]The Eddy Fit
[/TH]
[TH]The French Fit
[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Seat tube range c-c
[/TD]
[TD]58.9 - 59.4
[/TD]
[TD]60.1 - 60.6
[/TD]
[TD]61.8 - 62.3
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt"]
[TD="class: left"]Seat tube range c-t
[/TD]
[TD]60.8 - 61.3
[/TD]
[TD]62.0 - 62.5
[/TD]
[TD]63.7 - 64.2
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Top tube length
[/TD]
[TD]58.3 - 58.7
[/TD]
[TD]58.3 - 58.7
[/TD]
[TD]59.5 - 59.9
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt"]
[TD="class: left"]Stem Length
[/TD]
[TD]12.2 - 12.8
[/TD]
[TD]11.1 - 11.7
[/TD]
[TD]11.3 - 11.9
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]BB-Saddle Position
[/TD]
[TD]82.6 - 84.6
[/TD]
[TD]81.8 - 83.8
[/TD]
[TD]80.1 - 82.1
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt"]
[TD="class: left"]Saddle-Handlebar
[/TD]
[TD]58.5 - 59.1
[/TD]
[TD]59.3 - 59.9
[/TD]
[TD]61.0 - 61.6
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Saddle Setback
[/TD]
[TD]6.8 - 7.2
[/TD]
[TD]8.0 - 8.4
[/TD]
[TD]7.5 - 7.9
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
According to this the crux is absolutely perfect (competetive fit, which is where I'm aiming at). I've ordered a 130mm stem to try out. With that I can get my saddle handlebar to 63cm which again allows me to move my saddle a bit forward. The saddle position is the one thing I'm seriously struggling with right now. I can't feel the difference in the saddle positions if the chances are not major. I might go with a setback of 8cm. it's 10cm now and it's affecting my spinning speed. Mashing on the other hand is now easier.
Now it seems to me, there are at least two schools in bike fitting. The one that favours the the smallest frame possible and the one that favours a much longer fit. I don't know which I'm going to go with yet. It'll become apparent when I buy a new bike in few years. Looking at pro's today it seems that they are riding very small frames. But then again they are professional athletes who can manage it.
I think the issue really is new riders underestimate the 'journey' to arrive at a good fit...as a good fit is different for each rider as we are each a unique mix of musculature, flexibility and body proportions. All play into the mix.
I really look at bike fit as four things:
1. saddle height
2. setback from BB
3. drop
4. Reach to the handlebar.
Lets say you can refine your saddle height without too much difficulty. Btw, I see many struggle with saddle height among my riding friends...mostly ride with too high a saddle.
So then it comes down to parameters 2-4 or 3 variables.
Lets now subdivide each of the three variaables into 3 distinct levels.
Taking setback for long legged rider which you are:
little: 70
medium: 90
a lot: 110: Schleck/Boonen territory.
Then drop:
0 drop: how I ride
50mm drop: average road bike drop
100mm: closer to aggressive
Then reach:
570mm: std. 5'10" reach
590mm: short 6'er reach
620mm: pro 6'+ reach
In mathematical terms you have a 3 X 3 matrix construct. My view to derive the best fit which no fitter can tell you...you need to try all combinations
3^3 = 27 combinations. No. of combinations can go up to 100 or higher if you want to set up the fit experiment even more elaborately.
So it depends how much you want the best fit at the end of the day. Try all combinations and determine your best fit.
Hope that helps.
PS: a comment about what you wrote I highlighted in bold print above. Your comment is mixed and really what I see in terms of fit on the 41 which is a significant departure from the pro world. Yes pro's ride small bikes. They do this primarily for a short head tube for a low handlebar for aerodynamics. They also ride a LONG cockpit for adequate reach. You will determine that bigger drop is more comfortable with a longer reach. I am a proponent of close to pro reach for the average rider i.e. saddle tip to handlebar center. But average riders are very different from pros. Most...no all are much less flexible. So I advocate little or no drop and a long reach for power. Each of us has to find our own best combination of fit and don't believe there is a direct path other than experimentation.