Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Fitting Your Bike
Reload this Page >

How much difference should a dialed-in fit make??

Notices
Fitting Your Bike Are you confused about how you should fit a bike to your particular body dimensions? Have you been reading, found the terms Merxx or French Fit, and don’t know what you need? Every style of riding is different- in how you fit the bike to you, and the sizing of the bike itself. It’s more than just measuring your height, reach and inseam. With the help of Bike Fitting, you’ll be able to find the right fit for your frame size, style of riding, and your particular dimensions. Here ya’ go…..the location for everything fit related.

How much difference should a dialed-in fit make??

Old 11-21-17, 06:03 PM
  #1  
Virgo
Thread Starter
 
Phamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: KFWA
Posts: 1,273

Bikes: A touring bike and a hybrid

Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 454 Post(s)
Liked 97 Times in 69 Posts
How much difference should a dialed-in fit make??

Sorry in advance for this extremely long post.

A week or two ago, I posted over in Commuting forum about the struggles I was having with headwinds, mostly on the return leg of my 12 mi each way commute. My family and I are now on week 11 or 12 of being car free, with no prior experience, and we were not in great physical shape to start so it has been very challenging but also very rewarding. Some very helpful members over there in Commuting happily provided me with advice and encouragement, and since then I've made some adjustments to my approach and technique and riding into headwinds has become noticeably much easier.

I also have been trying to fine tune the overall fit of my bike (an 80's Raleigh road bike) to provide me with the most efficient position and also maximize my comfort for the trip, which averages out to about an hour each way.

For context, I am 6' tall, long torso, and the Raleigh is a 58cm frame (I think it might be called "square"
when the top tube and seat tube are the same length) and the frame and hardware seem to fit me fine now (after swapping handlebars, stems, and saddles to my satisfaction, which only took me about 3 years).

I was reading up on how to find the right position for my feet on the pedals (KOPS) and realized that I had my feet way too far forward and was effectively pedaling with mostly my toes - and was starting to have cramps in my calves and my feet were starting to fall asleep the last few miles of my commute either way.

I don't use any sort of foot retention, so adjusting the position was mostly just paying attention to where my feet were sitting on the pedals relative to my knees and making notes of how my shoes looked in relation to the pedals.

Once I felt like I had my feet mostly dialed in, I noticed my hips were rocking side to side pretty wildly during all but the slowest pedaling, so I lowered my saddle. And then lowered it some more. And then lowered the nose a little. And slid it forward. And then lowered the height some more. By the time I was done, the saddle was a good 3/4" or close to 20mm lower, forward by roughly the same amount, and the nose tilted several degrees lower.

Since then I've only made minuscule adjustments, 1 or 2mm this way or that or a couple degrees tilt, and I am not exaggerating when I say that I eliminated all sources of discomfort related to the fit of my bike. Not only that, but it seems like I have cut 15 minutes from my commute when there's no wind or a tailwind, and closer to 30 minutes when I have a considerable headwind to contend with (strong headwind equals about a 75 minute ride, now I seem to be doing it in about 45-50).

Understanding that there are countless other variables in play like how much sleep I got the night before, what I ate (if anything) for breakfast, whether I had coffee, is it raining, etc., has anyone had or does anybody know of anyone who has had a similar experience - or perhaps I should rephrase: if one's saddle height, front to back position, and foot position on the pedals are out of whack by 20mm each (or more), is it possible (or likely) that addressing those issues will come with such a remarkable increase in performance and comfort?

To me, it seems like a big part of what has determined my performance on long rides so far has been my own aversion to pain - I'll sit or pedal one way and it hurts so I won't "push it". Since I have made those adjustments, it's really been more of a matter of warming up, finding the pace my body more or less wants to work, and really small adjustments to my posture, grip, etc. I have about 75-100 miles on the adjustments and don't get anything but the usual squawks from my 36 year old body of a non-athlete.

Joseph
Phamilton is offline  
Old 11-22-17, 05:34 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Ashton, MD USA
Posts: 1,296

Bikes: Trek Domane SL6 Disc, Jamis Renegade

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked 304 Times in 217 Posts
I'd been riding a Trek 520 for 20 years, based on the original simple bike dealer "fitting" and very few tweaks. I set up my cleats for SPD pedals by following online guidelines, put on a new seat and added a bit of tilt, etc. Did some commuting, some multi-day touring, lots of 50 mile+ rides and pretty much felt fine.

This year I bought a new high end (Trek Domane) bike that came with a fancy Retul fitting session. I first did the same old bike dealer "fitting" and rode the new bike for a month. Different geometry from the 520, plus different gearing: 2 x 11 vs. 3 x 9 on the 520. The Domane is a good deal lighter than the 520, going up hills was noticeably easier but on long, hilly rides I was feeling it in my knees and legs where I never had that on the 520.

So, did the Retul fitting session and the bike fitter moved my cleats all the way back on my shoes and raised my seat by about 3/4 inch. Went back and did the same hilly long rides and huge improvement - back to legs just just feeling tired, not sore, just like on the 520!

I can't say that the position change made me any faster, too many variables. But, it definitely made a difference in efficiency, that either translates to higher speed for the same effort or less effort for the same speed!

John P.
jpescatore is offline  
Old 11-22-17, 12:05 PM
  #3  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Yes, getting your fit right makes a big difference. And like you say, a lot of getting faster is not getting negative reinforcement for working harder. You can't put it all down to fit, though. Every week you're getting stronger. That'll go on for years.

BTW back in the day I rode rat-trap pedals with clips and straps. I left the right strap just pulled tight, not threaded through the buckle, and only fully buckled the left one. If that'd work for you, that's an immediate and inexpensive improvement you could make.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 11-22-17, 12:12 PM
  #4  
Virgo
Thread Starter
 
Phamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: KFWA
Posts: 1,273

Bikes: A touring bike and a hybrid

Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 454 Post(s)
Liked 97 Times in 69 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
Yes, getting your fit right makes a big difference. And like you say, a lot of getting faster is not getting negative reinforcement for working harder. You can't put it all down to fit, though. Every week you're getting stronger. That'll go on for years.

BTW back in the day I rode rat-trap pedals with clips and straps. I left the right strap just pulled tight, not threaded through the buckle, and only fully buckled the left one. If that'd work for you, that's an immediate and inexpensive improvement you could make.
Figuring out some sort of retention has definitely been on my mind - thank you for the tip!
Phamilton is offline  
Old 11-22-17, 12:13 PM
  #5  
Virgo
Thread Starter
 
Phamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: KFWA
Posts: 1,273

Bikes: A touring bike and a hybrid

Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 454 Post(s)
Liked 97 Times in 69 Posts
Originally Posted by jpescatore
I'd been riding a Trek 520 for 20 years, based on the original simple bike dealer "fitting" and very few tweaks. I set up my cleats for SPD pedals by following online guidelines, put on a new seat and added a bit of tilt, etc. Did some commuting, some multi-day touring, lots of 50 mile+ rides and pretty much felt fine.

This year I bought a new high end (Trek Domane) bike that came with a fancy Retul fitting session. I first did the same old bike dealer "fitting" and rode the new bike for a month. Different geometry from the 520, plus different gearing: 2 x 11 vs. 3 x 9 on the 520. The Domane is a good deal lighter than the 520, going up hills was noticeably easier but on long, hilly rides I was feeling it in my knees and legs where I never had that on the 520.

So, did the Retul fitting session and the bike fitter moved my cleats all the way back on my shoes and raised my seat by about 3/4 inch. Went back and did the same hilly long rides and huge improvement - back to legs just just feeling tired, not sore, just like on the 520!

I can't say that the position change made me any faster, too many variables. But, it definitely made a difference in efficiency, that either translates to higher speed for the same effort or less effort for the same speed!

John P.
I think we're mostly talking about the same sort of thing. Thanks so much, John, for your reply!
Phamilton is offline  
Old 11-22-17, 12:15 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bristol, R. I.
Posts: 4,340

Bikes: Specialized Secteur, old Peugeot

Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 663 Post(s)
Liked 496 Times in 299 Posts
Based on my own experience, a good and comfortable bike fit is a variable thing that is dependent on fitness level and length of ride. The bike that is perfectly comfortable for a 5 to 10 mile ride may cause considerable discomfort during a 50 to 70 mile ride. I've found that as my rides got longer I kept fiddling with bike fit which improved comfort over several years. During those same years, my body got stronger but I also did some exercises to strengthen those muscles that were not up to the task. For example, neck muscles got sore early on in a low position. That situation improved with neck exercises.

So I would say, keep tweaking your bike fit as seems necessary and be aware it will change over time. The one tip I have found helpful in making changes is to mark, say with a white out marking pen, the position of the handle bar and seat post. Then if a change does not seem to work out, it is simple to get back to the previous position.
berner is offline  
Old 11-22-17, 12:40 PM
  #7  
Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 427
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 17 Posts
I've been tweaking the fit of my bike for the last few months to find the most comfort over long rides. I sort of been making it a game out of it in my mind. Sometimes I find myself thinking about what needs to be adjusted while I'm out riding. I'll tweak it, go for a ride and do it all over again. It's like a hobby of mine whenever I go out. Sort of weird thinking but I enjoy it. Sooner or later you might be going faster and longer that you ever expected to without ever knowing it...
RockiesDad is offline  
Old 11-22-17, 12:57 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,830

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Mentioned: 128 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4745 Post(s)
Liked 3,861 Times in 2,510 Posts
My huge fit breakthrough happened the spring of my second season of racing. I'd been riding a light bike with sew-ups and never considered fit. (Long before the internet and before "fit" was used as a verb applied to bicycles. The nmechanic at the bike shop I was working in encouraged me to buy the last year's bike in the basement, a Fuji Professional, at the employee discount. I did. But my good seat on, slid back because this was a 74 seat tube angle frame. Put the stem and all other adjustments in "normal" settings. Did my 45 mile training loop easy the next morning because this was a mid season change to a crank 5 mm longer. That easy ride matched my best time ever. Next time, 2 minutes came off. The times kept falling and I rode races at speeds I never believed possible for this body.

My experience may be extreme, but it also shows just how big a factor fit can be. I was riding the same seat wheels and tires. Same gears. The racing bike was maybe 2 pounds lighter, not enough to make any real difference on a course with just small hills.

It sounds like you are progressing to a better fit and that it is paying off. Keep considering foot retention. When I started pulling my toestraps tight it was like I fitted a turbocharger to the bike. (This was long before I even dreamed of racing but it was fun! That and the move to sewups were the changes that rivaled bike fit for performance. In those days clinchers were dogs. Clinchers were grandma's straight 6 sedan to Joe's 427 V-8 (sewups) in automobile terms of the era.)

Berner (post above) has some good advice re: keeping track of changes. I mark with pieces of tape the last setting. When I set up a new bike, I go for rides with no tape on the handlebars beyond enough electrical tape to keep the cables in place. I bring the wrenches for the stem and brake levers. Bars don't get taped until I like what I have. That first tape job is with old fashioned cloth tape because I can unwind it, move the levers and retape, many times if I need to. I put a yardstich under the handlebar dropout flat and mark on the seatstay where it hits. Now, on the road I can change handlebar rotation and sight down the flat to see how much I changed it. I also dial in handlebar rotation for riding in the drops, not sweating too much about what this is doing to the brake lever position. After the drops are dialed in, then I fine tune the lever location. (The reason for the cloth tape.)

Keep riding and tweaking! Report back.

Ben
79pmooney is offline  
Old 11-22-17, 06:02 PM
  #9  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Originally Posted by 79pmooney
My huge fit breakthrough happened the spring of my second season of racing. I'd been riding a light bike with sew-ups and never considered fit. (Long before the internet and before "fit" was used as a verb applied to bicycles. The nmechanic at the bike shop I was working in encouraged me to buy the last year's bike in the basement, a Fuji Professional, at the employee discount. I did. But my good seat on, slid back because this was a 74 seat tube angle frame. Put the stem and all other adjustments in "normal" settings. Did my 45 mile training loop easy the next morning because this was a mid season change to a crank 5 mm longer. That easy ride matched my best time ever. Next time, 2 minutes came off. The times kept falling and I rode races at speeds I never believed possible for this body.

My experience may be extreme, but it also shows just how big a factor fit can be. I was riding the same seat wheels and tires. Same gears. The racing bike was maybe 2 pounds lighter, not enough to make any real difference on a course with just small hills.<snip>
And it may not just be fit. I've ridden "nice" bikes on which I simply could not seem to get the power to the asphalt and others where the bike would keep going faster as long as I kept shifting up. Some mystery of frame design or frame/wheel/tire matchup. I really have no idea other than to test ride bikes.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 11-23-17, 06:34 AM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,853

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1851 Post(s)
Liked 654 Times in 498 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
And it may not just be fit. I've ridden "nice" bikes on which I simply could not seem to get the power to the asphalt and others where the bike would keep going faster as long as I kept shifting up. Some mystery of frame design or frame/wheel/tire matchup. I really have no idea other than to test ride bikes.
This is where the hypothesis (i.e. suggested phenomenon) of planing could be posed as an explanation. The idea is, what could be different between two bikes with identical geometry, setup and contact point locations? One answer is that the frame in one bike is transferring energy to the road better than the other one, enabling better speed and responsiveness in a wide range of riding conditions. This has been discussed widely on other sites. The theory is that thinner-gauge frame tubes flex a little more under pedaling stresses (the downstrokes) and spring back at the two bottom positions. When the frame releases its energy the BB shell rotates in the horizontal plane so the crankset is pulled forward, with the result of applying tension in the chain. This of course would add to the propulsion energy applied to the ground, if this suggested explanation is right (planing is not my idea, but the above is my idea of how it could work).

In Bicycle Quarterly there have been articles over the past five or so years documenting riding results that support that planing exists and that it most likely works as above, but I haven't seen really detailed testing at the level of a frame.

Sorry for the long detour, but I'm trying to suggest a performance improvement that is independent from fit, as Carbonfiberboy suggests. I suppose I should start another thread if there's much discussion of this point here.
Road Fan is offline  
Old 11-23-17, 07:47 AM
  #11  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Originally Posted by Road Fan
This is where the hypothesis (i.e. suggested phenomenon) of planing could be posed as an explanation. The idea is, what could be different between two bikes with identical geometry, setup and contact point locations? One answer is that the frame in one bike is transferring energy to the road better than the other one, enabling better speed and responsiveness in a wide range of riding conditions. This has been discussed widely on other sites. The theory is that thinner-gauge frame tubes flex a little more under pedaling stresses (the downstrokes) and spring back at the two bottom positions. When the frame releases its energy the BB shell rotates in the horizontal plane so the crankset is pulled forward, with the result of applying tension in the chain. This of course would add to the propulsion energy applied to the ground, if this suggested explanation is right (planing is not my idea, but the above is my idea of how it could work).

In Bicycle Quarterly there have been articles over the past five or so years documenting riding results that support that planing exists and that it most likely works as above, but I haven't seen really detailed testing at the level of a frame.

Sorry for the long detour, but I'm trying to suggest a performance improvement that is independent from fit, as Carbonfiberboy suggests. I suppose I should start another thread if there's much discussion of this point here.
Unfortunately for this theory, the fastest (for me) single bikes have been very stiff carbon. However our steel CoMotion tandem feels faster to us than did an aluminum Cannondale, supposedly a stiffer bike, which felt "dead" to us. Though I've talked to and ridden with tandem teams riding Calfees and suspect that a Calfee would feel (and be) even faster.
__________________
Results matter

Last edited by Carbonfiberboy; 11-23-17 at 08:16 AM.
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 11-23-17, 09:34 AM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,853

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1851 Post(s)
Liked 654 Times in 498 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
Unfortunately for this theory, the fastest (for me) single bikes have been very stiff carbon. However our steel CoMotion tandem feels faster to us than did an aluminum Cannondale, supposedly a stiffer bike, which felt "dead" to us. Though I've talked to and ridden with tandem teams riding Calfees and suspect that a Calfee would feel (and be) even faster.
Yes, well, I've tried a bike that BQ said is a great planer, and while it is a really nice ride, I don't percieve anything I think is notable in its propulsion. The frame tubes are OX-Plat standard diameter with 7-4-7 TT and DT with a special stiff chainstay design, and it was designed for 650b. so with 42 mm donut tires it's a very smooth ride especially on not so smooth pavement. I can feel the ride quality and the aspects of low-trail handling, but not sure about planing. I think my 1980 Masi (small frame, no clue on tubing except, it's LIGHT) might plane, but I'm sure my two steel Mondonicos (one SL and the other ELOS) are nice and quick, but not as cushy as the Masi (well, maybe the ELOS is ... hard to say).

The differences BQ has documented were noticable to them but small.

So I can't disagree with your results or your interpretation.
Road Fan is offline  
Old 11-23-17, 01:11 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,853

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1851 Post(s)
Liked 654 Times in 498 Posts
Originally Posted by Phamilton
Sorry in advance for this extremely long post.

A week or two ago, I posted over in Commuting forum about the struggles I was having with headwinds, mostly on the return leg of my 12 mi each way commute. My family and I are now on week 11 or 12 of being car free, with no prior experience, and we were not in great physical shape to start so it has been very challenging but also very rewarding. Some very helpful members over there in Commuting happily provided me with advice and encouragement, and since then I've made some adjustments to my approach and technique and riding into headwinds has become noticeably much easier.

I also have been trying to fine tune the overall fit of my bike (an 80's Raleigh road bike) to provide me with the most efficient position and also maximize my comfort for the trip, which averages out to about an hour each way.

For context, I am 6' tall, long torso, and the Raleigh is a 58cm frame (I think it might be called "square"
when the top tube and seat tube are the same length) and the frame and hardware seem to fit me fine now (after swapping handlebars, stems, and saddles to my satisfaction, which only took me about 3 years).

I was reading up on how to find the right position for my feet on the pedals (KOPS) and realized that I had my feet way too far forward and was effectively pedaling with mostly my toes - and was starting to have cramps in my calves and my feet were starting to fall asleep the last few miles of my commute either way.

I don't use any sort of foot retention, so adjusting the position was mostly just paying attention to where my feet were sitting on the pedals relative to my knees and making notes of how my shoes looked in relation to the pedals.

Once I felt like I had my feet mostly dialed in, I noticed my hips were rocking side to side pretty wildly during all but the slowest pedaling, so I lowered my saddle. And then lowered it some more. And then lowered the nose a little. And slid it forward. And then lowered the height some more. By the time I was done, the saddle was a good 3/4" or close to 20mm lower, forward by roughly the same amount, and the nose tilted several degrees lower.

Since then I've only made minuscule adjustments, 1 or 2mm this way or that or a couple degrees tilt, and I am not exaggerating when I say that I eliminated all sources of discomfort related to the fit of my bike. Not only that, but it seems like I have cut 15 minutes from my commute when there's no wind or a tailwind, and closer to 30 minutes when I have a considerable headwind to contend with (strong headwind equals about a 75 minute ride, now I seem to be doing it in about 45-50).

Understanding that there are countless other variables in play like how much sleep I got the night before, what I ate (if anything) for breakfast, whether I had coffee, is it raining, etc., has anyone had or does anybody know of anyone who has had a similar experience - or perhaps I should rephrase: if one's saddle height, front to back position, and foot position on the pedals are out of whack by 20mm each (or more), is it possible (or likely) that addressing those issues will come with such a remarkable increase in performance and comfort?

To me, it seems like a big part of what has determined my performance on long rides so far has been my own aversion to pain - I'll sit or pedal one way and it hurts so I won't "push it". Since I have made those adjustments, it's really been more of a matter of warming up, finding the pace my body more or less wants to work, and really small adjustments to my posture, grip, etc. I have about 75-100 miles on the adjustments and don't get anything but the usual squawks from my 36 year old body of a non-athlete.

Joseph
I would agree with your experience, too. I was between jobs a few years ago, and wanted to go off on a long ride in the Upper Peninsula. I decided to use my Woodrup frame, a really nice British 531 all DB frame with a long wheel base and decent comfort. I started riding it in March to get used to it and to train up to consecutive 60 mile days. The initial fitting was the one I had used the previous season with mixed success. As I gradually succeeded with refinement I learned a few things.

1. don't ride with pain. If I do it just gets worse until I have significant abrasion that then has to heal, cutting into my training time.
2. The Selle Anatomica instructions (from back in the Tom Milton days) knew what they were talking about.
3. Any set of contact points that is good for 20 miles might not be good for 40, et cetera.
4. When I got to the metric century capability, I ran that ride a few days apart to help train my legs better for it, then tried the 60 + 60.
5. By this time I was only making very small changes - I could tell pretty quick when it was too much. When it was good the bike just disappeared, my easy spin was 90 rpm, and my mind would kind of zone out for 10 miles at a time --- nice!

Finally at the UP tour (Shoreline MUP Tour, for those interested!), I did ride two good days as I expected, as good as in the training. But I got a phone call at that point, which was a job offer! Great news, but I had to cut the ride short to go home and fill out the paperwork.

Good summer! I built a comfy bike, learned a lot about fitting myself, built up my distance, had a decent ride in the UP, and got a new job that ended my unemployment!
Road Fan is offline  
Old 11-28-17, 03:23 PM
  #14  
Virgo
Thread Starter
 
Phamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: KFWA
Posts: 1,273

Bikes: A touring bike and a hybrid

Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 454 Post(s)
Liked 97 Times in 69 Posts
Originally Posted by Road Fan
This is where the hypothesis (i.e. suggested phenomenon) of planing could be posed as an explanation. The idea is, what could be different between two bikes with identical geometry, setup and contact point locations? One answer is that the frame in one bike is transferring energy to the road better than the other one, enabling better speed and responsiveness in a wide range of riding conditions. This has been discussed widely on other sites. The theory is that thinner-gauge frame tubes flex a little more under pedaling stresses (the downstrokes) and spring back at the two bottom positions. When the frame releases its energy the BB shell rotates in the horizontal plane so the crankset is pulled forward, with the result of applying tension in the chain. This of course would add to the propulsion energy applied to the ground, if this suggested explanation is right (planing is not my idea, but the above is my idea of how it could work).

In Bicycle Quarterly there have been articles over the past five or so years documenting riding results that support that planing exists and that it most likely works as above, but I haven't seen really detailed testing at the level of a frame.

Sorry for the long detour, but I'm trying to suggest a performance improvement that is independent from fit, as Carbonfiberboy suggests. I suppose I should start another thread if there's much discussion of this point here.
Sorry to resurrect this now, I needed a few days to find time to research exactly what planing is supposed to mean. I think it's interesting and would be enjoy reading a discussion about it, although it's arguable that I'd have anything valuable to offer as a NOOB. When you first mentioned planing, though, it reminded me of a few times when I've been riding my bike when it felt like I was hydroplaning, or maybe "up on the step" as seaplane pilots call it. Basically, the combination of resistance and exertion was such that I could ride efficiently, comfortably, and quickly, and felt like it was infinitely sustainable. Maybe it should always feel like that :-/ I had to work harder to get up to the correct speed for that pace, but after I got there it felt like it became easier. Not exactly like I had broken through a wall because it was usually right at the beginning of a ride. I dunno. Maybe I was imagining things, or got too much sleep. Seems like quite a different thing than planing as you are referring to it. I can't remember now where I read about it, maybe BQ?
Phamilton is offline  
Old 11-28-17, 04:38 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times in 228 Posts
Originally Posted by Phamilton
Sorry to resurrect this now, I needed a few days to find time to research exactly what planing is supposed to mean. I think it's interesting and would be enjoy reading a discussion about it...
The frame having the "just right" flex to redirect the energy spent flexing it into forward motion. My unvarnished opinion with no "physics argument": "planing" is unfounded by mechanical explanations and at best psychological.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 11-28-17, 05:57 PM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1971 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 629 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton
The frame having the "just right" flex to redirect the energy spent flexing it into forward motion. My unvarnished opinion with no "physics argument": "planing" is unfounded by mechanical explanations and at best psychological.
I don't think that Heine's hypothesis of the cause is complete and convincing, but I'd be surprised if the effect itself is purely psychological.
HTupolev is offline  
Old 11-28-17, 11:33 PM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,082
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 439 Post(s)
Liked 263 Times in 161 Posts
If your fit is way off then it will make a big difference if it is close then you might not even notice it.
Bmach is offline  
Old 11-29-17, 11:19 AM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,853

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1851 Post(s)
Liked 654 Times in 498 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton
The frame having the "just right" flex to redirect the energy spent flexing it into forward motion. My unvarnished opinion with no "physics argument": "planing" is unfounded by mechanical explanations and at best psychological.
Well, I presented it as a hypothesis which I can’t prove. In the old bicycling science pages there was an account of a finite element model that supports it, but that isn’t enough, either. As far as a psychological deception, I have one example of the bikes Heine card were good at planing, and I do not experience nirvana, as my Post explained.

But I have had an experience similar to that of Phamilton while riding my 1980Masi, and to a lesser degree on my ELOS Mondonico.
Road Fan is offline  
Old 11-29-17, 12:20 PM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times in 228 Posts
Originally Posted by Road Fan
Well, I presented it as a hypothesis which I can’t prove. In the old bicycling science pages there was an account of a finite element model that supports it, but that isn’t enough, either. As far as a psychological deception, I have one example of the bikes Heine card were good at planing, and I do not experience nirvana, as my Post explained.

But I have had an experience similar to that of Phamilton while riding my 1980Masi, and to a lesser degree on my ELOS Mondonico.
I don't disbelieve your experience, but I do disbelieve the explanations I've read of Heine's purported planing.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 11-30-17, 09:09 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,853

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1851 Post(s)
Liked 654 Times in 498 Posts
Do you have an explanation to suggest?
Road Fan is offline  
Old 12-01-17, 03:27 PM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times in 228 Posts
Originally Posted by Road Fan
Do you have an explanation to suggest?
Are you asking me?

I do not believe that frame flex returns energy to forward motion, other than a tiny amount that is due to some very much secondary effects (which I don't want to go into, since it would start a round of "physics arguments").

I would suggest that the movement of the bottom bracket, due to frame flex, can be harmonious with a person's pedal rhythm, and that sometimes feels better (and draw whatever physiological or psychological implications from that, I'm not suggesting anything specific). In particular - and this is speculating - I can see how a particular orientation of the BB might arise, while the cyclist's body has shifted to one side during out-of-the-saddle pedaling, where his downward force is aligned with the plane of rotation of the crank. With no flex, his force would be at an angle to the plane of rotation, and that at the very least will change how that pedal stroke feels. And, possibly, his time-wise distribution of power through the pedal stroke.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 12-04-17, 08:31 AM
  #22  
Virgo
Thread Starter
 
Phamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: KFWA
Posts: 1,273

Bikes: A touring bike and a hybrid

Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 454 Post(s)
Liked 97 Times in 69 Posts
Update:

This weekend I picked up a pair of el cheapo pedals w/ toe clips and straps. I've ridden them around 25 miles so far I guess. I am adding foot retention to the list of things I should have been doing 10 years ago. It's not exactly like it made me that much faster, although I did average around 2 mph faster on my commute this morning. I'm pretty sure the "planing" that I had been experiencing intermittently was just when I happened to be seated correctly on the bike and pedaling smoothly at a good cadence. The toe clips and straps force me to pedal smoothly, and also make my fit adjustments easier to feel/adjust. My entire ride this morning was of that "planing" sensation I was feeling before.

I have a leg injury I've discussed in other forums that leaves me with a significant strength/flexibility imbalance and the clips/straps also help immensely with that, so much so that I'll keep the retention regardless of any performance gains or go-fast feelings.
Phamilton is offline  
Old 12-10-17, 12:12 PM
  #23  
Senior Member
 
linberl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 3,460

Bikes: Trident Spike 2 recumbent trike w/ e-assist

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1321 Post(s)
Liked 374 Times in 288 Posts
Correct bike fit will change how you engage your glutes and hamstrings vs. your quads. If your fit is off, you will be using more of one rather than the proper balance - that's going to slow you down and reduce your power. Getting it right means max power/speed with minimal pain.
linberl is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
herzogone
Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling
14
05-11-18 07:40 AM
WonderMonkey
Commuting
31
03-02-18 11:11 PM
oldlanesign
Commuting
4
10-18-13 12:34 PM
TrojanHorse
Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg)
8
07-30-12 01:43 PM
shelleyspins
Road Cycling
1
06-26-10 06:13 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.