Originally Posted by howsteepisit
Lets see, a difference in TT length of 1.5 cm, thats oh, 0.6 inch. Get real. thats not a signifiant difference. How long of stem do you think is corect by the way? the difference between 80 cm and 100 cm is still less than an inch. I find more difference due to early/late season flexabilty and conditioning to make a greater difference than that. It probably more the overall geometry of the frame than anything about the fit.
To a "princess and the pea" member of the pro peloton, a half inch difference in the distance between the rear of the saddle to the front of the stem is "life or death". To "Joe Average Cyclist" such differences are trivial.
It is easy to make half inch adjustments in fit by moving the saddle half an inch one way or the other (KOP's is another "princess and the pea" doctrine with little value to recreational cyclists) or by getting a stem that is half an inch shorter or longer.
I've set up most of my road bikes so that the distance from the rear of the saddle to the front of the stem is 31 1/2 inches. By having all my bikes set up to identical measurements, it feels "natural" when I ride one bike in the morning and one bike in the afternoon. BUT, if I set up all my bikes with a RS to FS distance of 32 inches, that would soon feel natural, as it would if all of my bikes had a RS to FS measurement of 31 inches.
In a wind tunnel, it might be possible to prove that there was a "magic" RS to FS measurement that was 1% more "aero" than some other measurement. But, if someone is riding for relaxation and fitness, should he obsess over finding that hypothetical 1%?
If a customer says "I'll never shop at a certain LBS because I have a half-inch fitting disagreement with one of their staff members", I'd suspect that the staff at the LBS is saying "I hope that guy with a half-inch brain takes his business elsewhere".