Now that you came here, you can ask Her what She wants for a Bike fit, we aint going to be riding it.

"Standardized fit dimensions" are, at best, a starting point for individuals. Some riders are quite tolerant of a variety of bike positions and others very particular. You may have to make adjustments.

BTW, Greg LeMond's fitting method was based largely on him and he had unusual proportions in that his femurs were longer than most people relative to his leg length and overall height. His frames had shallow seat tube angles that didn't work for most riders. So, be aware that a "standardized fitting method" may not be standardized for you.

Thanks. If that's true, then using LeMond's (and perhaps others') method would possibly result in a bike that doesn't fit Molly at all. Perhaps my method - duplicating a professionally fitted ergo setup for a similarly-sized rider - may actually be a better starting point. And I do love eggs Benedict.

I finished the initial setup (new shorter bars and stem, and seat moved forward slightly) 2 days ago. Jane, my beautiful assistant and test rider, loved the way it rode and felt. So I'm close. But Molly had asked for flat handlebars; I don't have any and had to order those. And the handlebar tape I bought looks cheesy - shiny plastic. So it's all back apart again, waiting on the new bars. Hopefully I'll get the bars in before Sunday. The original bars were 40cm, as are the new bars. Wishing now I'd ordered the bars in the narrower 38 cm size. Molly is smallish. But Jane never noticed the difference when I narrowed her bars from 40 to 38 cm. Hopefully Molly will also be fine with it.

These are fun projects. For around $100 and a few hours of labor, I think I can provide a good friend with a bike she'll be much happier with, and will therefore ride more. Thanks for the help, all of you. DB

You realize that brake levers (and/or shifters) for flat bars have a different clamp diameter and configuration than those for drop bars and the stem's handlebar clamp diameter may be different so plan on changing them also. The conversion from drop to flat bars is not completely straightforward.

Incorrect.
Lemond's published fitting methodology is based on his French coach Cyril Guimard's fitting system which was developed over many years with the assistance of physiologist Dr. Ginet, engineer Wilfied Huggi, the Renault wind tunnel and TdF cyclists. It does not replicate GL's fit but produces a unique competitive baseline fit for each rider.

Greg's position was optimal for him and custom frames were made to measure for him, as one would expect for a World Champion.
Read the sub-chapter "Be Wary of Steep Seat Tubes" to understand the logic of Guimard/LeMond on efficient frame design for stage racing in the classic period in GL's "Complete Book of Bicycling".

-Bandera

Oops. I think I misspoke. I meant road bike bars (with drops) that are flattened slightly on the top, providing (for some) a more comfortable grip:


http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=355823

If you want to add top mount additional brake levers , they go on the big round part in the Center.

AKA, Interruptor levers, as they interrupt the housing , the cable passes straight through.

My reference to Eggs Benedict wasn't a criticism. Using a stand-in for measurement is a proven and valid method. As I said in the same post, the result is what counts, not the method.

I disagree with the bolded statement above, unless we're just arguing semantics 8-). Saddle position should never be used to adjust reach. Period. Saddle position should only be used to adjust the position of the rider over the pedals. Reach should then be adjusted with the stem length and angle, handlebar choice and lever position.

Regardless of where the saddle was originally, the OP should adjust the saddle positon based on the rider's preference and comfort over the pedals. We have no idea if the original position was bad or not, but the fact remains that (it sounds as if) he simply moved the saddle to reduce reach, not to position the rider over the pedals. That is not the correct sequence to obtain good fit.

On the other hand, I would never argue against anything that the rider truly feels is better and more comfortable. So... regardless of my pedantry, it sounds like the right moves were made. Because, even with the rules of thumb, measurments, etc., trial and error and tweaking are the way good fit is accomplished. Bottom line is that she loves the bike and rides comfortably.

Thanks.

It's not quite as pretty as it was before. But it's certainly more functional for the current owner. The top 2 left hand photos are "Before." The other 2 photos are "After":

LeMond's preference for shallow seat tubes was the key to relieving knee pain for me. When that book first came out I was racing and suffering from serious knee pain. I read the book, set the saddle to his suggestions and the 20 years since has been blissfully pain free.

Yes, top tubes of his bikes are too long for me, but love 72 degree seat angles! Allows me to locate my knees behind the pedal spindle.

Speaking of Cinelli bars, it is a little known fact that handlebar design reached its absolute zenith with the model 66.

Been downhill ever since. Ritchey has some nice traditional deep drops, but it's not quite the same.

Now I'm really confused. I thought you originally said that the bike was a Cannondale. That one certainly looks like a Giant to me...

For WIW. Giant may have gotten the frame contract to build the new Cannondale branded stuff.

They are that Big.. Now .. really huge. Merida is Big too..

The drop levers look like they're way high up on the bars. You might get a better result by moving the levers down, then rotating the handle bars. That provides a little more flat space making riding on the hoods easier.

I guess if you take a 35" sleeve length and have to be careful not to step on your own fingers, that's correct. :)

That's an awful large amount of spacers below the stem, especially if the steerer is carbon. In general, that looks like you are trying to fit too large a frame to someone.

I think it implies the opposite, that the frame is too small. Apparently the rider wants the handlebars at about saddle height and it takes a lot of spacers to get them high enough if the frame is too small. Note, there is a fair bit of seat post exposed also.

You are right, I meant to type small instead of large :)

I mis-typed. It is indeed a 50 cm Giant frame, not a Cannondale. Thanks for catching it - apologies for the error.

Remember, this is the second owner, a female app. 5' 3" to 5' 4". Those spacers . . . I believe they may have been installed to bring the original, looong Cinelli's up, thus providing a bit more of a comfortable ride for the original owner (who was probably around 5'9" tall, short legs, long arms). The first thing I did was to replace those loooong Cinelli bars with a stem and handlebar that brought the bars within reach of the new owner. But keeping that 6 cm of spacers in place while shortening the reach had the effect of rotating her up. Another poster pointed that out, and I could see it when my wife test rode the bike. So the second thing I did was to drop the stem 2 cm on the fork tube, so it's only a 4 cm rise. Small steps, but much better. See photo below. She's riding the bike now, happily, but I also suggested she may want to rotate the bars forward a bit as well. Thanks. DB



http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=356468

:-) Well said.