fingerboxer

Hello there!
My name is Anton, i'm from Russia.
Couple of days ago i've done my first ever bikefit procedure. Here is the link (can't attach file because <10 posts) i.ibb. co/TkWSLLn/IMG-20211226-055935.jpg

My height is 178cm, inseam ~85-86cm. Arm span 176cm.

My first road (gravel tbh) bike was Kona Rove NRB 2018, size 54, geometry you can find easily on geometrygeeks.
Even with 50mm stem it was very long and max distance, which i cover in one day was ~240km. That was very hard)

So, now i'm a bit confused about bike size that i need and my reach. Looks like i need kid's bike.
Wanna to purchase something like Scott Addict 20 2019 in size 52. But even in this "S" size won't be it long for me?

Iride01 

If you run through Scott's size calculator for the Scott Addict 20 model year currently on their website for the USA, then it comes up with a M size for you. However I had to guess on your arm length as they don't want span but just top of shoulder to wrist. I used 60 cm for that.

Why do you think a S will be too long for you? Long in what way? The reach is only 530 cm on a S and 545 cm on a M size frame.

I still believe most should try on the bike before they buy. Even if it is not the very bike you are going to buy, you can try out Scott Addicts in the sizes they have near you and then base your sizing for the bike you order on that. Or are there absolutely none nearby to try?

Here is your pic. But I don't really know what to make of it. I don't use fit calculators if that's from some fitting website or app.

https://i.ibb.co/TkWSLLn/IMG-20211226-055935.jpg

fingerboxer

Thank you for pic posting!)
I have ~62cm arm length from shoulder to palm center.
Look at "frame reach parameter" and "frame stack", 329mm and 629mm. Extremely short and high. With this parameters i have comfortable road postition. With 100mm stem.
Scott's bike above have 377,3mm reach and 550,5mm stack. So, to get my comfortable fit i need to use 50-55mm stem with more than +10 degree.

Iride01 

If the pic is what the fit website says you should look for, then I think you did something wrong. Or, the Scott Addict is not the bike for you. Look for something even more relaxed in it's fit.

That's part of the reason I've never used or liked those fit calculators. They come up with numbers that are almost impossible to find an already built bike with matching numbers. To me they seem more suited to someone that is having a bike custom made for them.

If this is your first road bike, then go with what the shop person says that is selling you the bike, or with some other person you trust. Don't spend your life's savings on your first road bike. Get something that you won't miss the money if you make a bad sizing decision.

I did mistakenly state the sizes for reach in my other post. Those are actually effective top tube lengths.

fingerboxer

Made my fit offline, in bikestore with Retul gear) So, yes, i have not standard params, which hard to find.

Carbonfiberboy 

Do you still have your gravel bike? The photo below is what a good road bike fit looks like. Note particularly the torso upper arm angle of almost 90° and the slightly bent elbows. Also note the angle of her back with respect to the horizonatal. It's very close to 45°. A properly fitted road bike will often feel like it has too much reach if one has not already been a road bike rider for some time. One gets used to it. It's actually the most comfortable position for long distance riding. The long reach and 45° torso are shock absorbers.

Get on your gravel bike in front of a mirror or a large shop window and see if your body is in the position shown in this photo. It it isn't, try to get it into that position and see what changes you'd have to make to do so.

I agree with the above advice about buying a new expensive bike. My first 2 road bikes were used, the second one closer to what I wanted than was the first one. Once I knew exactly what I wanted, I bought new.

PeteHski

Your fit numbers look very dubious to me. 771 mm saddle height is almost certainly too high for your inseam. Frame stack is ridiculously high at 629 mm for a small or medium road bike. Likewise reach is extremely short at 329 mm. Nobody makes road bikes with those frame stack/reach dimensions (as you have seen for yourself). So I think you need a second opinion on your fit!

Edit: If your fit really does turn out to be accurate for your size/proportions then you are into custom frame geometry to get a decent fit. Putting a 50 mm stem on a standard road bike with a huge stack of spacers is not going to do the handling any favours at all.

SquishyBiker

I'm 171cm with an 86cm inseam, and I look for a combined effective top tube and stem length of around 620-625mm - for you to look for a 50mm stem for a similar size bike seems like theres something else that needs to be looked at.
One thing I checked is something the GCN guys suggested - check to see how much of the front hub you can see behind the straight bar when holding the drops. I checked this on a 555mm frame with a 65mm stem, making 620mm seat to bars reach, and the front hub is all but hidden by the cross bar to me, so I think I'm close to a good fit.

FFwd to 1:00

cyclezen

... and the 'hub sighting' thing, mostly worthless...
funkiest 'fit' numbers I've seen in a while... LOL!
luv it though... 75 seattube angle & then 73 setback, did they happen to suggest the amount of seatpost offset you'd need to get that?
Dropbar width 38, and 'grip reach' of 38 ??? are there dropbars with that ?
but you gotta do what you gonna do...
Ride On
Yuri - I luv these threads !

Carbonfiberboy 

Bicycles are designed and built with little variation in their proportions. For instance a bike with an effective seat tube length of 52cm might have an effective top tube length between 51.5 and 52.5, though many will be 52cm X 52cm. This means that all one has to do is get the basic size right and then add stem, bars, seatpost, and bottom bracket cranks of the appropriate length for your proportions, arriving at a fit looking somewhat like the photo I posted.. The top tube length is the most important measurement. Unless you are a very experienced rider and are buying a bike for a specific purpose, ignore stack height, seat tube angle, and all those other measurements. Focus on top tube length first. Stems, bars, and seat posts are quite inexpensive compared with the cost of the rest of the bike. If you are buying the bike online, unseen, just buy the stock bike, however it comes. Worry about the stem length and angle later.

To get a good idea of top tube length, go to this calculator: https://www.competitivecyclist.com/S...ulatorBike.jsp
and put in your measurements. Someone will have to help you with some of them. You'll have a choice of fit styles. I think the "Eddy Fit" will work for most people.
The Scott Addict comes in 15mm top tube increments (Top Tube Horizontal). If I were between measurements, I would get the smaller bike rather than the larger. It's easy to add 10mm to stem length.

PeteHski

It's all about choosing the right reach and stack for me. Good luck finding a reach/stack of 329/629 on a road bike. It's going to be extremely short and tall.

fingerboxer

Thank you all for answers) I think the best way would be stretching. I'm not yoga specialist, but.. it really can help to achieve the result and use desirable bike?

Iride01 

Yoga or not, the best thing to do is buy a bike that has the geometry to give you the position you want or the position that will be comfortable to you. The Scott Addict might not be that bike.

Sometimes looking at your numbers for your fit I get the idea that it's really telling you to get a cruiser bike geometry. Considering the saddle setback it's stating, it might match up with a cruisers more typical 69° seat tube angle. Though other numbers are just way to wacky for anything. So still, I think you messed up somewhere. Maybe not.

Trust a person at the shop for guidance. If you put all these numbers in yourself and have no cycling experience you might have some misconceptions of what some of the data is you were supposed to enter.

fingerboxer

These number got from offline Retul's bikefit specialist for 200$. It was 1.5 hr fit with all measurings. So, it's not my fantasy)

Carbonfiberboy 

I understand that you got a very detailed fit. But what I, and I think other posters, are curious about is what was the purpose of the fit? Was it to suit your beliefs in your comfort? That's what seems most possible. Normally a bike fit is to fit a rider to a particular type of bike: mountain, road, triathlon, time trial, etc. Every type of bike has a particular fit which has been found to be most successful for that type. There will be minor variations, but it can take an expert to tell them apart.

In the usual system the rider want to participate in a particular section of the cycling sport, which will involve a particular type of bike. Fitting a rider according to their personal view of their comfort is not so much stressed. It's a bit like the fable of the giant's bed: If you're too short, you get stretched. If you're too tall, you get shortened. Bikes are rather like that. You choose a particular section of the sport, in your case apparently road biking, you get a bike, and you spend a couple years getting comfortable on it, which mostly involves becoming flexible and strong, which is sort of the whole idea of cycling.

Many people when first starting to ride develop sore muscles and/or various joint problems. They usually think that a bike fit will fix that. My belief is that is an illusion. What they need to do is to get physically fit. That might involve stretching, calisthenics, work with weights, and probably all of those in addition to doing a lot of riding. To some extent, you fit yourself to your bike. The purpose then of a bike fit is to make this transition possible.

fingerboxer

My main goal was to get the most comfortable endurance fit numbers for 300km+ rides (ACP, PBP, local rides).
On my last bike - Kona rove NRB (54cm, 388 reach, 590 stack, 563 ETT) i was ride only about 2000km, but it was very long frame for me, even with 50mm stem. So, i sold them.
I was literally hanging on my arms, not sitting in the saddle. My wrists and lower back were just dying.
Maxmimum distance in one day was 240km, for me it was a limit of this bike.
Now i know what i want - not gravel frame with 47c tyres, but endurance one with 28-32c, shorter and more comfortable fit, when biggest part of my body weight pointed in a saddle.

Carbonfiberboy 

Since you know what end result you desire, all that's left is to get a bike that's set up for that. You don't seem to think those on this thread know what they're talking about, so ask over on the Long Distance forum: https://www.bikeforums.net/long-dist...rance-cycling/

I did some randonneuring in my mid-60s and now just do a few long distance rides per year. Too old for PBP, my best result was a 15 hour 400k.

PeteHski

Problem for you is that there are no endurance road bikes with a 329 mm reach and 629 mm stack - or anywhere remotely close to those figures.

For example a Specialized Roubaix (which has a very high stack, even for an endurance road bike) has a reach of 353 and stack of 540 in the smallest size (44). A size 54 has a reach of 376 and stack of 585. A size 58 would give you the correct stack of 630, but with a reach of 392. So you are not going to find a suitable frame off the peg unless you start looking at very short and tall commuter bikes.

fingerboxer

What about Argon 18 Dark Matter 2020?
Found S (53cm/598/367) with good price.
Yeah, it's more CX, than endurance, but not classic gravel.

Iride01 

Well the numbers you quote for the Argon are not anything like the number suggested by your fit. The Argon geometry is essentially a road bike geometry. The main thing making it more CX is being made for wider tires than many road bikes and the components and gearing more suited to CX.

If you want to get a bike, go shopping for a bike. Sitting on your computer might get you a bike, but you won't know for certain it fits you until you get it. And I have seen some bikes on the manufacturers website that I thought were aesthetically pleasing and the bike I had to have, but when I saw them in person they were just ugly.

Something isn't right with your retul fit. I thought the retul fit was also supposed to suggest bike models that matched what they come up with based on your measurements. Did this one not suggest anything? Of course as wacky as those numbers seem I guess it couldn't find anything.

Carbonfiberboy 

Endurance road isn't what the OP thinks it is.

Carbonfiberboy 

Here' a nice discussion of successful PBP bikes: https://signaturecycles.com/2019/09/...s-brest-paris/
These look a lot like the bikes of my friends who've finished PBP. Many European riders ride without fenders, US riders not so much.

PeteHski

Well it's still a lot longer and lower than your Retul fit numbers. Honestly nothing out there in "endurance road" is going to match those numbers. I would go back to your Retul fitter and ask their advice on frames.

fingerboxer

he advised me topstone sm+60mm stem, addict 20 S+70-80mm, infinito 50+80-90mm.
I think i can stretch to it
Salsa Fargo 2 have 350 reach and 594 stack)

PeteHski

Okay so just taking a look at one of those suggested bikes above, Infinito size 50:-

Reach = 375
Stack = 539

That is miles away from your fit numbers. I also very much doubt that you would be able to get your saddle height to 771 with a 450 seat tube. Alarm bells should be ringing with this kind of fit data.