Rolla

I've had a "monstercross" bike for about three years now, and no matter what I do, I just can't make it comfortable. I've tried several bars, stems of different angles and lengths, various stem spacers and seatpost setbacks, and I've dialed in the cockpit dimensions almost identically to a similar (comfortable) bike. No matter how I change or adjust things, this one still leaves me with sore wrists or shoulders or neck if I spend more than an hour on it. I know I'm not as limber as I used to be, but it's been frustrating. I put it on Craigslist yesterday.


Ever had a bike that you just couldn't make work?

Steve B.

Well, some saddles suck, but easy to change, so no, every bike has been in my fit range.

I've had bikes that I hated riding, but not for a while. A Lemond Victorie titanium had a flexy b-bracket, I hated the feel. Went to carbon, all good.

jaxgtr

Yep, I have. I had a CAAD9 that I tried for 3 yrs and I finally gave up and called it a day. No matter what I did, and I wanted to like that bike, I just could not make it work. I ended up selling it and buying a Cannondale SuperSix that was so much more comfortable and seemed to fit me better. I told myself, I would never do that again. I would pull the eject switch faster, but before it came to that, I would make sure the fit was right before I buy it.

Rolla

That's exactly where I'm at. Spent three years trying to like it, and now I'm done.

Yep. Lesson learned. The geometry chart and frame diagram that the builder sent me looked great on paper -- and perfectly in my size range -- but obviously something's off. No more remote purchases for me.

79pmooney

I draw up all my bikes, using the BB as the reference point. Locate seat and handlebars relative to the BB. Once I do this, it is usually glaringly obvious why "this bike" doesn't feel right.

Now I do this in a CAD program. Put each bike on a different layer so I can look at any one or several at a time. This could also be done on translucent graph paper over a light table. (Light tables are not hard to make. A sturdy pane of glass or plexiglass over an open box with a fluorescent light inside.)

With accurate work, seatpost setback and stem length and angle can be determined. If possible, I go measure a prospective bike, come home and draw it up and only then make the decision whether to buy it.

Years ago, around the same time I started this drawing, I wrote a program that took as input the usual published specs (seat tube and top tube lengths, seat tube and head tube angles, an eyeball estimate of stem height, wheelbase and chainstay length, my preferred seat and handlebar locations and had the program calculate the required stem and the weight balance between the wheels. I did this to be able to see what stock titanium frames out there were better than a class "B" fit. Answer - none. Landed a good job and placed an order with TiCycles.


+

genejockey 

I have one that I can't make comfortable because it's too stiff. An old Cannondale 3.0 series road bike. When I got it, decades ago, I got it to fit reasonably well, and rode it a lot. Then I got a Ritchey Road Logic, and even though the contact points were much the same, the whole feel, handling, comfort, etc. were so much better that the Cannondale spent the next 20 years barely being ridden. Two years ago, as a Pandemic project, I took the Cannondale apart, removed the old cobbled-together mixed groupset and redid the whole thing in 8 speed RX100 (appropriate for a 1994 bike). I rode it a bit. It was fun. Then I got some other vintage steel bikes to play with and again, the Cannondale has sat. It just isn't as comfortable to ride on most of my rides as any of my other bikes, and it's not the fit, it's the frame.

Rolla

^ This. I've endlessly fussed with the contact points and adjusted them to replicate another bike that is very comfortable, to no avail.

mstateglfr 

Rolla Selling a Black Mountain MC?...just a guess based on you saying its a 'monstercross' bike.
Thats a shame- I love mine for its versatility. Its been my main gravel bike, a singlespeed to use on twisty riverbottom singletrack, and currently has racks plus fenders and a 3x9 for commute and errands.
Cant say Ive ever sat on that bike and thought it to be uncomfortable as its geometry is pretty neutral in most every way.
No point in keepin what isnt comfortable though!


Ive sold off a few bikes that werent comfortable- they were borderline for fit and I just couldnt make the adjustments work well enough to justify keeping.

Rolla

Agreed, and that's why it's so frustrating; it's a great bike -- very versatile, and retro-grouchy in all the right ways. It's comfortable enough for an hour or so, but if I go any longer than that I pay a price the next day. I think that with every passing year my body just gets more and more finicky about positioning. I'm sure the next owner will love it.

Koyote

I have two gravel/allroad bikes with similar geo, touch points in same relative locations, both steel frames. One is like a Cadillac Escalade: heavy, smooth, can be ridden in all-day comfort. The other is a flat-out race bike: stiffer than a very stiff thing that's been dipped in stiffening fluid...It leaves me feeling a bit beat-up after a long ride.

Yep to this. I always hit the weight room more often in winter, when riding outdoors becomes less frequent. And with each passing year, I do more and more core work -- because it helps quite a bit with on-bike comfort and endurance, at least for me. Getting old sucks, and I'm fighting it every step of the way.

RB1-luvr

Yes. Two aluminum frame road bikes that had the seat stays intersect the seat tube low. For me, that is a design for discomfort. Perhaps the energy from bumps is driven upwards into the frame differently, I don't know, but I've had two bikes built that way, and did not keep them long.

freeranger

Guess I've been lucky. Never had a bike that I couldn't make comfortable or wasn't comfortable on from the get-go. That doesn't mean that some didn't feel better than others, but none that were awful.

Rolla

Funny thing is I bought this one to replace a Surly Cross Check that was "awful" for me --- too much reach, not enough stack. This one solved for that, but still has some other aspect that I just can't correct for. Weird.

zandoval 

I have ridden a few that let me know right away they were not the bike I would like. It is strange for me in that it was not the set up of the , stem, bars, or seat that made the difference. It was in fact the stiffness. They both were real tooth rattlers.

For this reason I am thinking that if I ever get a Carbon bike it is going to need big soft tires...

Rolla

I've got a pretty solid fitness regimen, although I know I don't stretch as much as I should. I totally agree that core strength can have a positive effect on cycling comfort. Maybe I'll increase the crunches.

tomato coupe

ftfy

alcjphil

I had a Look 481SL size 55 that I couldn't get comfortable on. I am 5' 10" tall. I had previously had a Look KG381 with almost identical geometry that seemed better. Try as I might, I couldn't get comfortable on that bike, I always felt too stretched out probably because of the 57 cm top tube. I had a chance to exchange that frame for a 54 cm version and the pieces fell into place. For reference, the Look 481SL was available in 1 cm increments. This was a nightmare for distributors who had to carry almost every size along with multiple colourways. Anyway, my Look 481SL in the 54 cm size is perfect. The top tube length is reduced by 1.4 cm and the fit is much improved. As well, the different head angle makes handling more intuitive. This is the bike that I take when I travel, I can trust it anywhere

Rolla

Man, I wish more bikes came in those kind of increments, nightmare or not -- or at least in some odd-numbered sizes, like 53. These days, bikes are sized like T-shirts.

jaxgtr

Yea, I was so close to purchasing a Chapter2 Koko, but they have no shops selling them remotely close to me to be able to get up close and personal with, so I opted out. I had my order in my cart for about 3 weeks, before I just deleted it. The numbers looked good, probably would have been good, I am a lot better now than I was 15 yrs ago about sizing, but that CAAD stuck in my mind.

Odd though, I tested a Domane back in 2016 give or take a year and absolutely hated it... but recently picked up the Gen 4 version and absolutely love it. The Geometry of the bikes have been pretty steady for a while now, small changes here and there, but nothing massive, but this specific version, is such an improvement over the Gen 3 model I had and the Gen 2 model I looked at back in the day.

jaxgtr

That is the interesting thing on some of the newer aluminum frame designs they have out these days. Mimic the carbon design and so much more comfortable than the old giant tubed Al bikes of the past. The Emonda ALR I have is one of the most comfortable bikes I have ever ridden. I was looking at getting an Emonda SL back in 2015, but Trek had just released these. My LBS had a couple in the box that came in, I tried one and found it better the Emonda SL and I saved a boatload of money on it. I can ride it all day and do not feel beat up like I used to feel on AL frames. I recently just put SRAM eTap AXS on it, which sadly to confess, cost twice what I paid for the whole bike in 2015, but it is just that comfortable of a ride for me, I refused to part with it, and at the end of the day, I did not care about the cost.

rekmeyata

I had a Ridley scandium bike once that while it fit great, it rode like a brick, and since it couldn't take tires larger than 25 on the rear and 23 on the front, there wasn't anything I could do to make it comfortable, fortunately and unfortunately the frame failed about 13 months and 8,000 miles later, a crack formed at the top of the headtube, unfortunately the bike manufacture would not honor the 7 year warranty saying that it failed due to fatigue?! Fortunately, I no longer had to ride it!

Rolla

Back when scandium was the new "latest and greatest," I remember people complaining about it being overly stiff. I bet combining that with a 23 - 25mm tires would be like riding a jackhammer!

Ironfish653

It's almost like there's been three decades of design development since Cannondale unleashed the 3.0. The early OCLV bikes weren't exactly a bed of feathers, either; in the 1990's, lighter+stronger+stiffer = faster, or that's how the design ethos went.

My 3.0 is probably the zenith of that style; that is a bike that ​​​​​​feels fast. It is suited to fast, high intensity riding (I mean, it says Criterium on the frame). It's great for a hard, fast thrash to the coffeehouse, but it's a nervous, jittery, rigid handful at casual speeds. It's fun in small doses, but it's definitely not an "all-day" bike

The advances in design and manufacturing have allowed mfgrs to really fine -tune the characteristics of frame designs, but I think that also the (more recent) ability to collect and analyze biometric data, both in and outside the lab, allows them to really quantify what makes a bike more effective

mstateglfr 

Bike details! One is a Gunnar, right? Whats the other?

Koyote

All City Space Horse Disc. It's stout, heavy, smooth, and can go almost anywhere. With hammered steel fenders, it's also pretty good looking, imo.



And the race whip: