This is not specific to long distance cycling but LeMond Wedges are designed to keep your knee in the same plane as your pedals. I could not keep my knees from moving outward until I got these put under my cleats. It was a great suggestion made by my fitter and I would not be without them. Also putting more wedges on one shoe may produce more even power output between legs and more overall power. We are not talking about 20% increases here. But a fitting and the wedges immediately gave me 8% more overall power output.

The Gunnar is a really nice frame, but the killer for me on it is the $950 (frame/fork only) price tag. It's a spot outside of my range right now to build up on a frame and fork which cost around my current whole bike budget.

I wasn't aware of your budget for this bike. The X-check is a good bike and the fact of the matter is people ride all kinds of bikes ultra distances. The main thing is that it fits. After that you can really make anything work. The long wheelbase of the X-check is certainly welcome for either commuting or distance.

There's a used 59 cm Heron Randonneur for sale on Ebay right now...

The fit is going to be phenominal. I spent about 2.5 hours fine tuning and tweaking everything with the fitting guy yesterday, then we went through a list of potential bikes narrowed down by my price range, and further narrowed the selection by which ones had stock setups best geared toward my goals. The X-Check only needs a swap out of the stem from the stock setup to fall perfectly into my fit parameters.

Thanks, Six jours, but can you elaborate on how 40 mm rake (around 57 mm trail) works better at lower speeds than 60 mm (around 41 mm trail)?

I don't get any faster than 18 or so, and I have a Trek 610 with near-73 degree head angle and formerly around 55 mm rake, and I never liked it. It wandered around and was very tiring to climb on, because I couldn't keep it in a straight line easily. I never did try any 32 mm tires, but with 28s and the fork rake adjusted to around 45 I like it a lot better - more stable, and still a great ride quality.

"works fine" and "not so well" are kinda vague, as descriptors.

Road Fan

I think maybe my post wasn't too clear. IMO, the typical modern trail figures of around 50-60mm don't work as well at low speeds, at least not with wide tires and/or a front load. They feel to me almost as if they are on rails, meaning they're fine until you shift your weight, at which point it takes a large movement to "catch" yourself. Thus I end up riding down the road in a never-ending series of corrections. This same geometry, though, works quite well with narrow tires and no load, at least for me.

If, however, we extend the rake and lessen the trail, the narrow tire/unloaded front very rapidly begins to feel twitchy to me. With wider tires and a front load, though, the low trail bike starts to feel very right: Stable at low speeds, comfortable at high speeds, and neutral response at all times.

The 58cm I've got listed in my sig file is misleading... I'm getting rid of it because it's too small. A 59 still won't cut it. From my fitting this weekend, the smallest I should go is a 62. Thankfully I come in just at that top edge of large production frames, and not needing to go custom.

Clif, I think your warranty is null and void. I read through most of your comments and you don't make any sense. I think your need to be fitted was pretty much like this thread, a way to fulfill the "need" to talk about bicycles.

Who knows, you may have learned something from your fit or this discussion. Lord knows, no one have ever analyzed the art of long distance cycling much more than me. But the speculative BS in this thread isn't based on your recent cycling experience or the equipment you've actually used on long difficult rides.

I've been fitted by some very experienced professionals. But in the end, when it was time to put the "pedal to the metal" - it was the long hard hours in the saddle that revealed the nature and quality of my bicycle's ride.

For whom it may concern - spend some time at your goal weight and achieve some level of gainful fitness before consulting professionals. Fitting a bicycle for a rider going through significant changes in fitness is difficult.

Good luck with your new ride.

I have. I learned that I obviously chose the wrong forum since I really just enjoy riding my bike. While I've gotten some encouraging responses with reasonable discussion about body position and the frame geometry of touring vs LD bikes, I've read more replies telling me I've wasted my money since either a) pro-fitting is a bunk process, or b) I'm just too fat and out of shape to benefit from the process.
To those people who who were encouraging, thanx.
To everyone else, I'll stop wasting your time with my non-sensical posts and my "need" to talk about bicycles. Have fun with your riding... If you remember how.

I wouldn't let Mr. Head worry you, mate. As his name implies, his purpose here seems primarily to be obnoxious.

Everyone needs a hobby, I suppose.

CliftonGK1,
I hope you won't be discouraged by some of the above advice. I should have spoken up earlier about bicycle fitting. When I got my LHT in June I did so through my LBS. I am right on the margin between a 54 cm and 56 cm and they did not have any LHT's in stock to try. So, he put me on a "FitCycle" (or some name like that) and it came out 54cm. This was very tramatic since the 54cm is where the LHT wheel size changes to 26" and I agonized greatly over this decision.

Finally, I couldn't really see that a 26" wheel would be in any way worse than 700c for touring and possibly was even better so I bought the 54cm. Suffice it to say, it fits perfectly and--being the first one that has been custom fit by a professional--is by far the most comforable bike I have ever had. In addition, by GPS measurement over the same long distance routes (up to about 100 miles), it is comparably fast to my Specialized Roubaix Expert! I average about 14 to 16 mph on both and if the LHT is slower it is not yet statistically discernable. (I don't have a lot of data on this yet and the winds which I think can dominate average speed variations change a lot from summer to fall around here. Still, the averages are within +/-1 mph ride after ride.))

Regarding the Roubaix, it has take longer to get this bike to be comfortable mainly due to searching for a good long distance seat. It this case, the only way I found to know is to ride long distances. A 50 mile ride can be fine, but a 100 mile ride can turn really uncomfortable if things aren't right. I haven't gone further than that for many years (working up to it) but all the advice on this forum says even more problems will be uncovered. Eventually, I found the Brooks Team Professional seat looks to be the one but this wasn't easy because it took about 500 miles to break in (unlike my B17) and I almost gave up on it.

Anyway, it surely depends on the LBS but having the fitting done was an excellent idea . Probably there is more tuning to do as I do longer distance rides, but having the fitting done produced a really good starting point. I am sure it will for you as well.

Yeah. First name Dick, I see.

IMO your professional fit was NOT a waste of time if you have left it happier with the bike, better able to ride it and train, and more confident that you can exert yourself without injury. Psychological? Maybe, maybe not. Of real vaue? Absolutely!

There is so much written about fitting that complete contradictions can be found among experts, all of whom come recommended. I don't have 20 recent years of cycling, and I tried the inputs of a range of print and on-line experts, and ended up at one point with at odd position, to say the least. It just didn't work after the first 5 miles! I went to a local shop, where the owner is experienced, trained in good fitting tools, has fit many triathletes, and would spend 2 hours with me for $80, and would do free rechecks and adjustments subsequently.

Best thing I ever did! No knee pain, butt pain, back pain, and I'm getting stronger.

Road Fan

Well, someone had to call out this thread out -as non-sense. If I thought the discussion was worthwhile - I'd had said so. Yes, you may continue, but realize many "long distance cyclists" may realize that this thread is a pathetic exercise in meaningless conjecture.

If you want to talk details about fit, you have to have experience to support your conclusions, not hypothetical crap form some ad literature.

Somewhere in there lurks the unspoken idea that we care.

BTW, Clifton, I'm sorry if I came across as attempting to discourage you. That wasn't my intention. I still maintain that someone of your experience doesn't need to pay anyone to set you up on a bike, but that isn't meant as an insult. *shrug*

Good for you - Six Jours - don't let reality get in the way.

I do not think a brevet/long distance geometry bike is a necessity right out of the gate when you start ridding long distances. I used a LHT for that purpose for some time and also used it for commuting and road rides. Needless to say a french geometry bike handles so much better... I think ridding what you have and evolving from there works good enough. Mostly when you are constrained by a budget, I think the main thing is getting out there and ridding.

Reality aside, my own short experience is that riding too much too soon is as likely to cause joint and tendon problems as poor bike fit, so often it's not easy to distinguish between the two. Also, staying off the bike because of pain until it subsides is easier said than done, so it's best to do everything possible to avoid problems ahead of time. If getting fitted for a new bike by a "professional" does that, it's worth every penny.

When I first felt the need to ride double centuries, I went down to my local used bike shop and got myself a $180 mid-70s steel Mercier that felt like it was about the right size. The previous owner had upgraded the drive train to 12 speed. Woopee! It weighed 27 lbs. stripped, had 27" tires, felt like one was pushing it through sand, and was so noodly I'd feel like I was ripping the bars off it when I sprinted. I rode a lot of miles on that bike.

After a few years of that bike, I felt the need to ride in the mountains, so I went down to my LBS and got a carbon Trek. After a couple of years, I went to a 2 cm. longer stem because my flexibility had improved. That's still my rando bike, and an absolutely fabulous bike for the purpose.

I also have a bike I built up from a $129 Nashbar frame, puchased sight unseen. It's got a plastic headset and a $50 carbon fork. It's also got a full Ultegra drivetrain, which is the only important part, since that's what makes the bike go. I'd ride a brevet any day on that bike, heavy harsh aluminum frame and all, and it's a completely different fit from the Trek.

What I'm saying is: man, it doesn't much matter. Buy what bike you can afford and ride it. 90% of what you hear about geometry, fit, and frame material is a lot of crap. You'll learn to ride the bike you have.