My position (Pics)
08-25-08, 09:40 PM
#51
Passista
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,603
Bikes: 1998 Pinarello Asolo, 1992 KHS Montaña pro, 1980 Raleigh DL-1, IGH Hybrid, IGH Utility
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 870 Post(s)
Liked 722 Times
in
397 Posts
I usually leave these threads alone. I am a pro fitter but I prefer to fit people in person.
My observations are:
The saddle is not too high quite the opposite it is too LOW.
The OP's arms are freakishly long for his body hence he needs a longer stem by at least 2 cms.
My very first impression is the bike was too small for you. But at 5 10" you should be on a 56cm. It's just your arms that throw the whole thing off. You looked cramped to me. The pictures you took are excellent. Thank you. The one of you on the hoods sealed it for me your reach is too short.
If I was fitting you and selling you bike I would have recommended the 58cm. With all the spacers you have on the 56cm you should just be on the 58cm it would have a longer top tube you could ride a 110mm or 120mm stem and your reach based on your arms length would be appropriate. (with this bike looks like 130mm and I don't recommend that unless you are a crit banger)
Now let me set the rest of this thread on fire by saying that inseam is not important when sizing for a bike. The most important measurement is your trunk (notch to crotch) and then relate that measurement to the manufactures geometry charts for their top tube. You can jack a saddle up 300mm or down to the frame. But if you mess around with saddle fore and aft you mess with power transfer if you mess with stem lengths you mess with the handling characteristics of the bike. So top tube is the most important and least "adjustable" measurement in regards to achieving the correct reach. The OP is a classic example where if you size him to inseam the bike ends up too small for him.
KOPS is nonsense. Another ridiculous and archaic measurement that has stayed in practice for far too long. Tell me that the KOPS, taken in a static position, is where you will be pedaling the entire time you on the bike and I have a bridge to sell you.
My observations are:
The saddle is not too high quite the opposite it is too LOW.
The OP's arms are freakishly long for his body hence he needs a longer stem by at least 2 cms.
My very first impression is the bike was too small for you. But at 5 10" you should be on a 56cm. It's just your arms that throw the whole thing off. You looked cramped to me. The pictures you took are excellent. Thank you. The one of you on the hoods sealed it for me your reach is too short.
If I was fitting you and selling you bike I would have recommended the 58cm. With all the spacers you have on the 56cm you should just be on the 58cm it would have a longer top tube you could ride a 110mm or 120mm stem and your reach based on your arms length would be appropriate. (with this bike looks like 130mm and I don't recommend that unless you are a crit banger)
Now let me set the rest of this thread on fire by saying that inseam is not important when sizing for a bike. The most important measurement is your trunk (notch to crotch) and then relate that measurement to the manufactures geometry charts for their top tube. You can jack a saddle up 300mm or down to the frame. But if you mess around with saddle fore and aft you mess with power transfer if you mess with stem lengths you mess with the handling characteristics of the bike. So top tube is the most important and least "adjustable" measurement in regards to achieving the correct reach. The OP is a classic example where if you size him to inseam the bike ends up too small for him.
KOPS is nonsense. Another ridiculous and archaic measurement that has stayed in practice for far too long. Tell me that the KOPS, taken in a static position, is where you will be pedaling the entire time you on the bike and I have a bridge to sell you.
08-25-08, 09:44 PM
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SE Minnesota
Posts: 12,275
Bikes: are better than yours.
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
So it looks to me like this is a classic example of top tube/torso only sizing.
08-25-08, 09:55 PM
#53
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: IL
Posts: 305
Bikes: Ridley Damocles, CAAD10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So I chose to start with the 110, but like I said, I am going to try a 120.
08-25-08, 09:56 PM
#54
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,705 Times
in
2,524 Posts
my interpretation of the pictures is that the OP probably doesn't drop his heel like that while riding. So the saddle height is probably ok. If you look at the left foot, the heel is further up. If the OP really does ride toes down on the left side, and heels down on the right side, it might be time for orthotics and spacers. But my guess is the right foot is not in its natural position due to the fact that he was posing for a picture.
08-25-08, 10:01 PM
#55
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: IL
Posts: 305
Bikes: Ridley Damocles, CAAD10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
my interpretation of the pictures is that the OP probably doesn't drop his heel like that while riding. So the saddle height is probably ok. If you look at the left foot, the heel is further up. If the OP really does ride toes down on the left side, and heels down on the right side, it might be time for orthotics and spacers. But my guess is the right foot is not in its natural position due to the fact that he was posing for a picture.
08-26-08, 05:47 AM
#58
Voice of the Industry
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
Since inseam determines saddle height, do you discount saddle to bar drop or account for it otherwise?
It looks more to me that he was sized by either height or torso rather than inseam. The crude traditional inseam x .65 method would have put him on a 58. Coincidentally, that's what you're recommending. As you've noted, the OP is all arms and legs. If he's matched "notch to crotch" to a manufacturer's top tube geometry as you suggest, then his extremities receive no accounting and he's on a smaller frame.
So it looks to me like this is a classic example of top tube/torso only sizing.
It looks more to me that he was sized by either height or torso rather than inseam. The crude traditional inseam x .65 method would have put him on a 58. Coincidentally, that's what you're recommending. As you've noted, the OP is all arms and legs. If he's matched "notch to crotch" to a manufacturer's top tube geometry as you suggest, then his extremities receive no accounting and he's on a smaller frame.
So it looks to me like this is a classic example of top tube/torso only sizing.
Looks are sized center to center and the Optimum is an upright geometry that melds perfectly with a rider that is more legs than torso.
As to Vireo...sorry....ridiculous assertions, the OP is not George Hincapie. Most recreational riders including some that are quite fast do not want to ride stretched out or with a Lemond suggested seat height. The only way you can deduce that is with a personal fitting and not by looking at pictures.
OP...you look fine on the bike. You can experiment with your saddle height and maybe try a slightly longer stem but you maybe at the sweet spot for your present flexibility starting out in particular. Fit is a work in progress and you are off to a good start.
Keep in mind that many top riders and even riders like myself have a 25-30 degree knee bend at the bottom of their pedal stroke. It is hard to tell from the pictures but your leg extension at the bottom looks a bit more than that.
Good Luck.
Last edited by Campag4life; 08-26-08 at 08:25 AM.
