Bicycle fit philosophies, "competitive," vs. "eddy," vs. "french"
05-21-06, 11:48 PM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Bicycle fit philosophies, "competitive," vs. "eddy," vs. "french"
I'm just curious how other cyclists approach bicycle fit. competitivecyclist.com discusses three main schools of thought for bicycle fit: (1) competitive fit (2) eddy fit and (3) french fit.
To summarize briefly, the competitive fit puts the rider on the smallest possible bike and values aerodynamics over comfort. Saddle to bar drop can be as high as 10cm. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the french fit which puts the rider on the largest possible bike and values comfort over aerodynamics. Here, saddle to bar drop is usually less than 2-3cm. I think the eddy fit is a compromise between the two, but maybe I'm mistaken. From what little research I've managed to do, it seems as though LeMond and Hampsten both favor the eddy/french style, while the "majors" like Cannondale and Trek go the competitive route.
I'm young, flexible, and in decent shape--yet I still think the competitive fit might be too extreme for anything other than racing. I get the feeling that a more relaxed fit (lower, longer, and more stable) would actually benefit most riders. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be very popular these days. In fact, if you go to a bike shop and mention comfort and racing in the same sentence, you'll likely be directed to the Specialized Roubaix or Trek Pilot--bikes for "old" people. So what do you guys/ladies think? I'm curious to hear what other cyclists out there are doing (i.e. age, riding style, distances, etc.) and what you've learned over the years.
Thanks.
To summarize briefly, the competitive fit puts the rider on the smallest possible bike and values aerodynamics over comfort. Saddle to bar drop can be as high as 10cm. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the french fit which puts the rider on the largest possible bike and values comfort over aerodynamics. Here, saddle to bar drop is usually less than 2-3cm. I think the eddy fit is a compromise between the two, but maybe I'm mistaken. From what little research I've managed to do, it seems as though LeMond and Hampsten both favor the eddy/french style, while the "majors" like Cannondale and Trek go the competitive route.
I'm young, flexible, and in decent shape--yet I still think the competitive fit might be too extreme for anything other than racing. I get the feeling that a more relaxed fit (lower, longer, and more stable) would actually benefit most riders. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be very popular these days. In fact, if you go to a bike shop and mention comfort and racing in the same sentence, you'll likely be directed to the Specialized Roubaix or Trek Pilot--bikes for "old" people. So what do you guys/ladies think? I'm curious to hear what other cyclists out there are doing (i.e. age, riding style, distances, etc.) and what you've learned over the years.
Thanks.
05-21-06, 11:54 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Gabriel Mountains
Posts: 465
Bikes: Vortex, Proteus,Tuscany, Victoire
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you only have one bike and you aren't sure what kind of riding you want to do, the so-called "eddy" fit is probably optimal. If you own multiple bikes, I think people opt for all three styles.
05-22-06, 12:31 AM
#3
or tarckeemoon, depending
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: the pesto of cities
Posts: 7,020
Bikes: Davidson Impulse, Merckx Titanium AX, Bruce Gordon Rock & Road, Cross Check custom build, On-One Il Pomino, Shawver Cycles cross, Zion 737, Mercian Vincitore, Brompton S1L, Charge Juicer
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I like a shorter wheelbase and more standover than I can get with the (French fit) "right" size frame so I tend to go a little smaller, meaning I need to run a longer stem (12 or 13 cm) and a post with a little setback to make it work fit-wise. I like a bike I can steer with my hips.
05-22-06, 12:33 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Northern California
Posts: 10,879
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
Fitness level matters a lot. Competitive riding positions are only comfortable if when you are riding at racing speeds. Slower riders will generally be more comfortable with a more relaxed seat tube angle and/or taller head tube.
05-22-06, 12:34 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Northern California
Posts: 10,879
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
Originally Posted by marqueemoon
I like a shorter wheelbase and more standover than I can get with the (French fit) "right" size frame so I tend to go a little smaller, meaning I need to run a longer stem (12 or 13 cm) and a post with a little setback to make it work fit-wise. I like a bike I can steer with my hips.
05-22-06, 12:34 AM
#6
Baby it's cold outside...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SK, Canada
Posts: 7,310
Bikes: Trek 5000, Rocky Mountain Wedge, GT Karakoram K2, Litespeed Tuscany
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
My Trek is set up for the "Competitive Fit"
My Litespeed is set up for the "Eddy Fit"
I have ridden both over 100km distances this year, both are comfortable... With the Eddy Fit being slightly more.
My Litespeed is set up for the "Eddy Fit"
I have ridden both over 100km distances this year, both are comfortable... With the Eddy Fit being slightly more.
__________________
-Trek 5000* -Project Litespeed* -The Italian Job* -Rocky Wedge* -The Canadian Connection*
-Trek 5000* -Project Litespeed* -The Italian Job* -Rocky Wedge* -The Canadian Connection*
05-22-06, 04:34 AM
#7
Shut Up and Ride
Join Date: May 2005
Location: PA (Worst roads in existence)
Posts: 1,969
Bikes: 05 Cannondale Six 13 (Record 2008 with DT rr 1.1 rims, WI H2 Hubs and CX-ray spokes), OLMO Antares (Micx of 06 Record and Chorus), 1988 Tunturri, 1980's Fuji, 1970's Crescent (Sweeden)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You say you are in good shape. What do you want a bike for? putting on miles at a slower pace, or possibly racing? Personally I would go french or competitve.... But if your intent is to do nothing but centuries then go for a more "eddy" fit.
FYI, the Roubaix is a race bike that some riders on the Gerlosteiner squad actually perfer over the Tarmac.
FYI, the Roubaix is a race bike that some riders on the Gerlosteiner squad actually perfer over the Tarmac.
05-22-06, 06:27 AM
#8
Emondafied
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 4,939
Bikes: See sig
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by domestique
Personally I would go french or competitve.... But if your intent is to do nothing but centuries then go for a more "eddy" fit.
__________________
my bike page - my journal
Current Stable: Trek Emonda SL - Trek Top Fuel 8 - Scattante XRL - Jamis Dakar Expert - Trek 9700 -AlpineStars Al Mega
my bike page - my journal
Current Stable: Trek Emonda SL - Trek Top Fuel 8 - Scattante XRL - Jamis Dakar Expert - Trek 9700 -
05-22-06, 08:17 AM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Originally Posted by marqueemoon
I like a shorter wheelbase and more standover than I can get with the (French fit) "right" size frame so I tend to go a little smaller, meaning I need to run a longer stem (12 or 13 cm) and a post with a little setback to make it work fit-wise. I like a bike I can steer with my hips.
05-22-06, 08:21 AM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Originally Posted by cydewaze
Unless you're saying you'd either go full race or full laid back comfort.
05-22-06, 11:11 AM
#11
or tarckeemoon, depending
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: the pesto of cities
Posts: 7,020
Bikes: Davidson Impulse, Merckx Titanium AX, Bruce Gordon Rock & Road, Cross Check custom build, On-One Il Pomino, Shawver Cycles cross, Zion 737, Mercian Vincitore, Brompton S1L, Charge Juicer
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by johnny99
What does wheelbase have to do with fit?
05-22-06, 01:03 PM
#12
pan y agua
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 30,994
Bikes: Willier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Calfee Dragonfly tandem, Calfee Adventure tandem; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Motebecanne Phantom Cross; Schwinn Paramount Track bike
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1276 Post(s)
Liked 447 Times
in
238 Posts
Bifford,
I'd suggest you get your bike fit with just a little drop from seat to handlebars, with some spacers under the stem, and even (god forbid) some rise in the stem. Then you have the flexibility of lowering the bars if you decide after riding it a bit that you want a more agressive position. (either by cutting the steerer, moving spacers above the stem, or flipping the stem.)
I'd suggest you get your bike fit with just a little drop from seat to handlebars, with some spacers under the stem, and even (god forbid) some rise in the stem. Then you have the flexibility of lowering the bars if you decide after riding it a bit that you want a more agressive position. (either by cutting the steerer, moving spacers above the stem, or flipping the stem.)
05-22-06, 01:08 PM
#13
hello
I'm with eddy......except for one bike which is competitive and 'cool looking', but uncomfortable for those longer rides....
05-22-06, 02:29 PM
#14
Banned.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Towson, MD
Posts: 4,020
Bikes: 2001 Look KG 241, 1989 Specialized Stump Jumper Comp, 1986 Gatane Performanc
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Ride characteristics are determined by a lot more than the bike's 'fit'. The 'fit' of any frame can be adjusted.
My advice is this: If you plan on doing long and fast rides, buy the lightest and stiffest frame you can afford. Buy the smallest size frame that fits you by top-tube length (I can ride a 59 but can fit from a 59 to a 63 c-c and still have stand-over clearance).
If you want a more relaxed 'fit', don't cut the steerer, pile on the spacers and use a short stem. If the ride is too harsh, let a little air out of the tires (100 psi instead of 120), or ride a slightly larger tire. 32* wheels also ride softer than low-spoke count wheels.
Light, stiff frames are the most efficient and fastest. It's a lot easier to 'de-tune' a racing bike than it is to 'tune up' a touring bike.
My advice is this: If you plan on doing long and fast rides, buy the lightest and stiffest frame you can afford. Buy the smallest size frame that fits you by top-tube length (I can ride a 59 but can fit from a 59 to a 63 c-c and still have stand-over clearance).
If you want a more relaxed 'fit', don't cut the steerer, pile on the spacers and use a short stem. If the ride is too harsh, let a little air out of the tires (100 psi instead of 120), or ride a slightly larger tire. 32* wheels also ride softer than low-spoke count wheels.
Light, stiff frames are the most efficient and fastest. It's a lot easier to 'de-tune' a racing bike than it is to 'tune up' a touring bike.
05-22-06, 02:31 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
The choice of three fitting philosophies is a useful approach...just gotta figure out which one suits your body and your riding style. Although 90% of the guys who post in "Road Cycling" claim they are involved with road bike racing, among Americans in general, less than 1% of cyclists are actually involved in racing.
The "fit" that makes sense for a pro cyclist is certainly not the "fit" that makes sense for a recreational or fitness rider, and may be truly dangerous fit for someone who will be commuting or touring in and among heavy motor vehicle traffic.
I have had road bikes in three different sizes over the past decade. Each of those sizes would have been a "good fit" if I was using that bike for a given purpose. I had a size 54 road bike that made it easy to get the bars low enough for a time trial position, and it would be an easy handling bike for the sharp turns typical of crit racing. The size 56 bikes make it easy to get the sort of set-up that is popular among pros involved in stage racing, a higher position that that used in time trialing.
But the size that actually works for what I do (riding in heavy motor traffic, with my head high enough to see what those $^&@% drivers are up to) is a size 58 to size 60. That size enables me to keep my hands as high as the saddle, keep my head up, yet have my back at the 45 degree angle that is comfortable for hours of riding.
Of course, here at the "Road Cycling" Forum, the only fit that counts for most folks (just like the "only wheels that count, "the only pedals that count") is the aggressive, ultra-low racing fit. Because in "cyber-space", everyone is Lance Armstrong.
If America had just 10% of the "road racing cyclists" that post in these Forums, we would have about 1,400 cyclists racing in Europe this year, instead of the actual number, which is 14.
If a road cyclist knows that he won't be racing his bike, he ought to look for the fit that works for his own body type, his own age, and his own style of riding. If your bike is comfortable to ride, you will ride more often, for longer periods, and for more miles.
I love watching the local "I'm pretending that I'm Lance bunch" riding to Starbucks with their noses pressed to the front tires...that "aero" position gets them to their next Latte in some fraction of a second faster. As if some chubby forty year old bank clerk needs to be obsessing about "aerodynamic efficiency".
The "fit" that makes sense for a pro cyclist is certainly not the "fit" that makes sense for a recreational or fitness rider, and may be truly dangerous fit for someone who will be commuting or touring in and among heavy motor vehicle traffic.
I have had road bikes in three different sizes over the past decade. Each of those sizes would have been a "good fit" if I was using that bike for a given purpose. I had a size 54 road bike that made it easy to get the bars low enough for a time trial position, and it would be an easy handling bike for the sharp turns typical of crit racing. The size 56 bikes make it easy to get the sort of set-up that is popular among pros involved in stage racing, a higher position that that used in time trialing.
But the size that actually works for what I do (riding in heavy motor traffic, with my head high enough to see what those $^&@% drivers are up to) is a size 58 to size 60. That size enables me to keep my hands as high as the saddle, keep my head up, yet have my back at the 45 degree angle that is comfortable for hours of riding.
Of course, here at the "Road Cycling" Forum, the only fit that counts for most folks (just like the "only wheels that count, "the only pedals that count") is the aggressive, ultra-low racing fit. Because in "cyber-space", everyone is Lance Armstrong.
If America had just 10% of the "road racing cyclists" that post in these Forums, we would have about 1,400 cyclists racing in Europe this year, instead of the actual number, which is 14.
If a road cyclist knows that he won't be racing his bike, he ought to look for the fit that works for his own body type, his own age, and his own style of riding. If your bike is comfortable to ride, you will ride more often, for longer periods, and for more miles.
I love watching the local "I'm pretending that I'm Lance bunch" riding to Starbucks with their noses pressed to the front tires...that "aero" position gets them to their next Latte in some fraction of a second faster. As if some chubby forty year old bank clerk needs to be obsessing about "aerodynamic efficiency".
Last edited by alanbikehouston; 05-23-06 at 04:09 PM.
05-22-06, 02:44 PM
#16
Banned.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Towson, MD
Posts: 4,020
Bikes: 2001 Look KG 241, 1989 Specialized Stump Jumper Comp, 1986 Gatane Performanc
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Alan,
What a crock of 'doo! A 'racing fit' is no less rideable in traffic than a 'touring fit'. People can lift their head last time I checked.... they can also bend their arms to get lower if necessary. I don't think anybody is talking about riding on time trial bars in heavy traffic....
I will take aerodynamic efficiency any day I can get it. It's like free speed.
USCF license number 53766
What a crock of 'doo! A 'racing fit' is no less rideable in traffic than a 'touring fit'. People can lift their head last time I checked.... they can also bend their arms to get lower if necessary. I don't think anybody is talking about riding on time trial bars in heavy traffic....
I will take aerodynamic efficiency any day I can get it. It's like free speed.
USCF license number 53766
05-22-06, 03:07 PM
#17
Outgunned and outclassed
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Springs, CO
Posts: 998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
About the angry rant,
Just because American bike riders at large are, according to you, 1% cyclists doesn't mean that select few who happen to post on this particular forum have the same proportion of racers as any American on two wheels.
On the OP,
I ride a bike that is 2-4 cm smaller than what is normaly reconmended and I ride it with 9.5cm of saddle to bar drop.
I race this bike, I ride it for centuries, I train on it, I commute on it, I go to the store on it; It is my only bike.
I'm young and flexible and If I could afford a variety of bikes fitted diferently I would buy them. So don't think my situation is ideal, just know that it works.
If you're going to race seriously get a competively fit bike. If not, get whatever fit appeals to you, just know that the differences aren't that important.
What is important, is to get a bike and ride it.
Just because American bike riders at large are, according to you, 1% cyclists doesn't mean that select few who happen to post on this particular forum have the same proportion of racers as any American on two wheels.
On the OP,
I ride a bike that is 2-4 cm smaller than what is normaly reconmended and I ride it with 9.5cm of saddle to bar drop.
I race this bike, I ride it for centuries, I train on it, I commute on it, I go to the store on it; It is my only bike.
I'm young and flexible and If I could afford a variety of bikes fitted diferently I would buy them. So don't think my situation is ideal, just know that it works.
If you're going to race seriously get a competively fit bike. If not, get whatever fit appeals to you, just know that the differences aren't that important.
What is important, is to get a bike and ride it.
05-22-06, 03:15 PM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Originally Posted by alanbikehouston
I love watching the local "pretend I'm Lance bunch" riding to Starbucks with their noses pressed to the front tires...that "aero" position gets them to their next Latte in some fraction of a second faster. As if some chubby forty year old bank clerk needs to be obsessing about "aerodynamic efficiency". The cow manure from all the "pretend racers" fills these Forums to the brim, day after day.
05-22-06, 03:17 PM
#19
more ape than man
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nyc
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
road racing is very healthy here. fields get very large and some of the key races actually fill up to the max numbers. every week there are races going on around here, which are attracting thousands of cyclists.
you don't need to have a pro contract to be a bike racer. many of these guys squeeze training in between family, work, etc. they train year round in the dark while most people are sleeping. all this simply because they love doing it. there is no "pretending" about that.
here is a pic from a local race here. lots of "pretenders"...probably some of them post here.
you don't need to have a pro contract to be a bike racer. many of these guys squeeze training in between family, work, etc. they train year round in the dark while most people are sleeping. all this simply because they love doing it. there is no "pretending" about that.
here is a pic from a local race here. lots of "pretenders"...probably some of them post here.
05-22-06, 04:25 PM
#20
Senior Member
Hmmm, how are you measuring the contact points on the "competitive", "eddy", or "french" fit? I've ridden anywhere from a 52cm to 57cm bike and have ended up with exactly the same position at each extreme. That is, my handlebar-to-seat-to-crank measurements are the same on all the frames. Not sure what the frame-size has to do with "fit" really?
05-22-06, 04:36 PM
#21
hello
Because of the larger frame size, a french fit basically forces you to run your bars close to even in height with your saddle with only a fist full of seatpost exposed at most. It's almost impossible to set your bars, say 3" lower than your saddle on this frame.
05-22-06, 04:53 PM
#22
Well, duh, Mr Obvious.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NIU town
Posts: 2,271
Bikes: see sig, and others
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
nice to see the peleton protecting the Jan.
__________________
03 Specialized Allez CrMo-Singlespeed conversion
03 Specialized Allez CrMo-Singlespeed conversion
05-22-06, 05:36 PM
#23
Reverend
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 528
Bikes: 2005 Trek 2100, Iro Angus Fixed Gear
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
hahaha i noticed that guy too
05-22-06, 05:54 PM
#24
Outgunned and outclassed
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Springs, CO
Posts: 998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
timhaan, what race was that pic from?
I think I might be one of the picutred wanna-be-lance pretenders on my pointlessly agresive bike ruining biking and causing the regression into medevil techniques of bike fiting
I think I might be one of the picutred wanna-be-lance pretenders on my pointlessly agresive bike ruining biking and causing the regression into medevil techniques of bike fiting
05-22-06, 06:01 PM
#25
Banned.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: southern california
Posts: 424
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by alanbikehouston
The choice of three fitting philosophies is a useful approach. Although 90% of the guys who post in "Road Cycling" claim they are involved with road bike racing, among Americans in general, less than 1% of cyclists are involved in racing. So, the "fit" that makes sense for a pro cyclist is certainly not the "fit" that makes sense for a recreational or fitness rider, and is usually a truly dangerous fit for someone who will be commuting or touring in and among heavy motor vehicle traffic.
I have had road bikes in three different sizes over the past decade. Each of those sizes would have been a "good fit" if I was using that bike for a given purpose. I had a size 54 road bike that made it easy to get the bars low enough for a time trial position, and it would be an easy handling bike for the sharp turns typical of crit racing. The size 56 bikes made it easy to get the sort of set-up that is popular among pros involved in stage racing.
But the size that actually works for what I do (riding in heavy motor traffic, with my head high enough to see what those $^&@% drivers are up to) is a size 58 to size 60. That size enables me to keep my hands as high as the saddle, keep my head up, yet have my back at the 45 degree angle that is comfortable for hours of riding.
Of course, here at the "Road Cycling" Forum, the only fit that counts for most folks (like the "only wheels that count, "the only pedals that count") is the aggressive, ultra-low racing fit. Because in "cyber-space", everyone is pretending to be Lance Armstrong.
If America had just 10% of the actual "road racing cyclists" that post in these Forums, we would have about 1,400 cyclists racing in Europe this year, instead of the actual number, which is 14.
The road cyclist honest enough to admit he won't be racing his bike ought to look for the fit that works for his own body type, his own age, and his own style of riding. If your bike is comfortable to ride, you will ride more often, for longer periods, and for more miles. And that beats being a "pretend racer" by a long shot.
I love watching the local "pretend I'm Lance bunch" riding to Starbucks with their noses pressed to the front tires...that "aero" position gets them to their next Latte in some fraction of a second faster. As if some chubby forty year old bank clerk needs to be obsessing about "aerodynamic efficiency". The cow manure from all the "pretend racers" fills these Forums to the brim, day after day.
I have had road bikes in three different sizes over the past decade. Each of those sizes would have been a "good fit" if I was using that bike for a given purpose. I had a size 54 road bike that made it easy to get the bars low enough for a time trial position, and it would be an easy handling bike for the sharp turns typical of crit racing. The size 56 bikes made it easy to get the sort of set-up that is popular among pros involved in stage racing.
But the size that actually works for what I do (riding in heavy motor traffic, with my head high enough to see what those $^&@% drivers are up to) is a size 58 to size 60. That size enables me to keep my hands as high as the saddle, keep my head up, yet have my back at the 45 degree angle that is comfortable for hours of riding.
Of course, here at the "Road Cycling" Forum, the only fit that counts for most folks (like the "only wheels that count, "the only pedals that count") is the aggressive, ultra-low racing fit. Because in "cyber-space", everyone is pretending to be Lance Armstrong.
If America had just 10% of the actual "road racing cyclists" that post in these Forums, we would have about 1,400 cyclists racing in Europe this year, instead of the actual number, which is 14.
The road cyclist honest enough to admit he won't be racing his bike ought to look for the fit that works for his own body type, his own age, and his own style of riding. If your bike is comfortable to ride, you will ride more often, for longer periods, and for more miles. And that beats being a "pretend racer" by a long shot.
I love watching the local "pretend I'm Lance bunch" riding to Starbucks with their noses pressed to the front tires...that "aero" position gets them to their next Latte in some fraction of a second faster. As if some chubby forty year old bank clerk needs to be obsessing about "aerodynamic efficiency". The cow manure from all the "pretend racers" fills these Forums to the brim, day after day.
you seem bitter. are you bitter?
