Competitive Cyclist Fit Calculator: Thoughts
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fruithurst, AL
Posts: 44
Bikes: 2010 Scattante XRL COMP, 1995 Cannondale R500-2.8 Aluminum, 1991 Paramount Series 5, 1985 Club Fuji, 198? Puch customized, 1971, Puch Clubman, 2003 Giant Sedona, and various others
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Competitive Cyclist Fit Calculator: Thoughts
What are your thoughts about Competitive Cyclist Fit Calculator? I tried it out and CC’s fit measurements corresponded well to the bikes I ride.
#2
Live to ride ride to live
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 4,896
Bikes: Calfee Tetra Pro
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I used it to determine if a used frame would fit my wife. It think it was right on. It matched up closely with the bike she is riding.
#3
Maximus
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It's a good starting point.
There are others, such as this (Pedal Force):
https://pedalforce.com/online/bikefit...33cd975c193e2e
In my case, they matched.
There are others, such as this (Pedal Force):
https://pedalforce.com/online/bikefit...33cd975c193e2e
In my case, they matched.
#4
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fruithurst, AL
Posts: 44
Bikes: 2010 Scattante XRL COMP, 1995 Cannondale R500-2.8 Aluminum, 1991 Paramount Series 5, 1985 Club Fuji, 198? Puch customized, 1971, Puch Clubman, 2003 Giant Sedona, and various others
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That is what I am doing now. My wife has progressed from a Giant Sedona Hybrid to one of my old road bikes. I did the Competitive Cyclist fit on both of us. Surprise, my bike fits me but my old bike doesn't fit my wife. Bad part, she has become accustom to my old road bike and doesn't like me constantly fiddling around with her bike. I think I will buy a frame that fits her better and change out the components. That way she will fit the bike better and still have all the controls she has learned to use.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It's a good starting point.
There are others, such as this (Pedal Force):
https://pedalforce.com/online/bikefit...33cd975c193e2e
In my case, they matched.
There are others, such as this (Pedal Force):
https://pedalforce.com/online/bikefit...33cd975c193e2e
In my case, they matched.
I typically advise people looking for a new bike to check out both calculators at CC and WS to cross reference the results. Also, measure yourself multiple times, rather, have someone else measure you. The results are only as good as the input.
They're good for determining correct frame size but won't take the place of a professional fitter.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The CC calculator is ok as a starting point but since it makes no mention of things like seat angle it's a pretty rough guide.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Also one at WrenchScience: https://www.wrenchscience.com/
I typically advise people looking for a new bike to check out both calculators at CC and WS to cross reference the results. Also, measure yourself multiple times, rather, have someone else measure you. The results are only as good as the input.
They're good for determining correct frame size but won't take the place of a professional fitter.
I typically advise people looking for a new bike to check out both calculators at CC and WS to cross reference the results. Also, measure yourself multiple times, rather, have someone else measure you. The results are only as good as the input.
They're good for determining correct frame size but won't take the place of a professional fitter.
#8
Speechless
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Central NY
Posts: 8,805
Bikes: Felt Brougham, Lotus Prestige, Cinelli Xperience,
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I used it, and it spit out numbers that no manufacturer makes a bike remotely close to (like a 690mm effective top tube). It basically called me a knuckle dragger, so I went back into my cave and hit my computer with big stick.
#9
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fruithurst, AL
Posts: 44
Bikes: 2010 Scattante XRL COMP, 1995 Cannondale R500-2.8 Aluminum, 1991 Paramount Series 5, 1985 Club Fuji, 198? Puch customized, 1971, Puch Clubman, 2003 Giant Sedona, and various others
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There is your niche, you should produce a custom line of bikes for people like yourself who need an extra long top tube. You can throw in the stick for computer beating with every bike purchased.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I used it and it came out pretty close, but I had my wife do the measurements and we were very careful with them. I couldn't imagine doing the measurements myself and coming remotely close to accuracy.
So that gave me a starting point to buy a used bike with, then I took it to my local bike shop and they fine tuned it to my fit for $40. Highly recommend doing this.
So that gave me a starting point to buy a used bike with, then I took it to my local bike shop and they fine tuned it to my fit for $40. Highly recommend doing this.
#11
Senior Member
If she is comfortable on your old bike let it be and let her ride it. If she mentions that something doesn't feel right then feel free to meddle with it

#12
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 1 Time
in
1 Post
Unless they've fixed it recently, the CC fit calculator gives you a seat tube and top tube measurement but no head tube measurement. Since seat tube measurements have been useless for most of the past decade and head tube measurements have become critical, the calculator has become pretty much obsolete. Use it with caution, especially if you have long legs.
__________________
Telemachus has, indeed, sneezed.
Telemachus has, indeed, sneezed.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Getting the measurements correct is key. My wife is a PT, and she did all of mine. I set up the bike as per their calculations, and then a few months later had a pro BG fit done at the LBS. They had to do so little that they didn't even charge me for the fit.
#15
Senior Member
Unless you're buying your first bike, I don't see the point in comparing what you currently ride to some computer generated numbers. It's not difficult to compare your current bike's fit to a proposed new one and get a frame that fits nearly the same.
The output from this calculator proposes fits that cover such a huge range of possibilities that it's worthless. The seat tube range has nothing at all do do with the fit of a bike and it's totally out of date, with most modern frames having sloping TTs. What really matters from a vertical standpoint is the frame's stack height. The TT length is meaningless without a seat tube angle to go with it. It requires both to define a frame's reach.
In my case, the calculator proposed seat tubes that were much too large for my inseam and only the longest saddle height was what I really use. The calculator actually did come up with a reasonable range of TT lengths, but with no STA, it's meaningless, since the STA can change the reach by 10-20mm.
The output from this calculator proposes fits that cover such a huge range of possibilities that it's worthless. The seat tube range has nothing at all do do with the fit of a bike and it's totally out of date, with most modern frames having sloping TTs. What really matters from a vertical standpoint is the frame's stack height. The TT length is meaningless without a seat tube angle to go with it. It requires both to define a frame's reach.
In my case, the calculator proposed seat tubes that were much too large for my inseam and only the longest saddle height was what I really use. The calculator actually did come up with a reasonable range of TT lengths, but with no STA, it's meaningless, since the STA can change the reach by 10-20mm.
#16
Riding like its 1990
seems to get close but yes, bikes have differing angles which make a difference and frames are not always offered with the ST and TT lengths that are 'ideal' so its the TT that matters most. Seems to agree with what I'd figured out on my own.
#17
The Left Coast, USA
Unless you're buying your first bike, I don't see the point in comparing what you currently ride to some computer generated numbers. It's not difficult to compare your current bike's fit to a proposed new one and get a frame that fits nearly the same.
The output from this calculator proposes fits that cover such a huge range of possibilities that it's worthless. The seat tube range has nothing at all do do with the fit of a bike and it's totally out of date, with most modern frames having sloping TTs. What really matters from a vertical standpoint is the frame's stack height. The TT length is meaningless without a seat tube angle to go with it. It requires both to define a frame's reach.
In my case, the calculator proposed seat tubes that were much too large for my inseam and only the longest saddle height was what I really use. The calculator actually did come up with a reasonable range of TT lengths, but with no STA, it's meaningless, since the STA can change the reach by 10-20mm.
The output from this calculator proposes fits that cover such a huge range of possibilities that it's worthless. The seat tube range has nothing at all do do with the fit of a bike and it's totally out of date, with most modern frames having sloping TTs. What really matters from a vertical standpoint is the frame's stack height. The TT length is meaningless without a seat tube angle to go with it. It requires both to define a frame's reach.
In my case, the calculator proposed seat tubes that were much too large for my inseam and only the longest saddle height was what I really use. The calculator actually did come up with a reasonable range of TT lengths, but with no STA, it's meaningless, since the STA can change the reach by 10-20mm.
#18
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 1 Time
in
1 Post
Unless you're buying your first bike, I don't see the point in comparing what you currently ride to some computer generated numbers. It's not difficult to compare your current bike's fit to a proposed new one and get a frame that fits nearly the same.
The output from this calculator proposes fits that cover such a huge range of possibilities that it's worthless. The seat tube range has nothing at all do do with the fit of a bike and it's totally out of date, with most modern frames having sloping TTs. What really matters from a vertical standpoint is the frame's stack height. The TT length is meaningless without a seat tube angle to go with it. It requires both to define a frame's reach.
In my case, the calculator proposed seat tubes that were much too large for my inseam and only the longest saddle height was what I really use. The calculator actually did come up with a reasonable range of TT lengths, but with no STA, it's meaningless, since the STA can change the reach by 10-20mm.
The output from this calculator proposes fits that cover such a huge range of possibilities that it's worthless. The seat tube range has nothing at all do do with the fit of a bike and it's totally out of date, with most modern frames having sloping TTs. What really matters from a vertical standpoint is the frame's stack height. The TT length is meaningless without a seat tube angle to go with it. It requires both to define a frame's reach.
In my case, the calculator proposed seat tubes that were much too large for my inseam and only the longest saddle height was what I really use. The calculator actually did come up with a reasonable range of TT lengths, but with no STA, it's meaningless, since the STA can change the reach by 10-20mm.
__________________
Telemachus has, indeed, sneezed.
Telemachus has, indeed, sneezed.
#19
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fruithurst, AL
Posts: 44
Bikes: 2010 Scattante XRL COMP, 1995 Cannondale R500-2.8 Aluminum, 1991 Paramount Series 5, 1985 Club Fuji, 198? Puch customized, 1971, Puch Clubman, 2003 Giant Sedona, and various others
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thanks for all the input. A lot of good info.