Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

Competitive Cyclist Fit Calculator: Thoughts

Notices
Road Cycling It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle. -- Ernest Hemingway

Competitive Cyclist Fit Calculator: Thoughts

Old 05-17-12, 08:11 AM
  #1  
owen006
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 CCs fit measurements corresponded well to the bikes I ride.
owen006 is offline  
Old 05-17-12, 08:20 AM
  #2  
Carbon Unit
Live to ride ride to live
 
Carbon Unit's Avatar
 
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.
Carbon Unit is offline  
Old 05-17-12, 08:22 AM
  #3  
Gluteus
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.
Gluteus is offline  
Old 05-17-12, 09:11 AM
  #4  
owen006
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
Originally Posted by Carbon Unit View 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.
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.
owen006 is offline  
Old 05-17-12, 09:14 AM
  #5  
rushbikes
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
Originally Posted by Gluteus View Post
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.
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.
rushbikes is offline  
Old 05-17-12, 09:17 AM
  #6  
MajorMantra
Senior Member
 
MajorMantra's Avatar
 
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.
MajorMantra is offline  
Old 05-17-12, 09:20 AM
  #7  
VeeDubOne
Senior Member
 
VeeDubOne's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by rushbikes View Post
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 find CC's measurements to be accurate for both my bikes; one of which i bought from them. Measure twice, cut once applies. Best results are obtained by having someone else measure you 2-3 times for the same measure. Surprising how often you get different numbers each time. In a game of mm's it pays to be accurate. And it helps to have a Tape measure that has Cms...often the ones in the big box stores have only inches.
VeeDubOne is offline  
Old 05-17-12, 10:00 AM
  #8  
RollCNY
Speechless
 
RollCNY's Avatar
 
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.
RollCNY is offline  
Old 05-17-12, 10:29 AM
  #9  
owen006
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
Originally Posted by RollCNY View 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.
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.
owen006 is offline  
Old 05-17-12, 10:29 AM
  #10  
Rex81
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.
Rex81 is offline  
Old 05-19-12, 07:21 AM
  #11  
denvertrout
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Denver
Posts: 207
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
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
denvertrout is offline  
Old 05-19-12, 11:22 AM
  #12  
halfspeed
Senior Member
 
halfspeed's Avatar
 
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.
halfspeed is offline  
Old 05-20-12, 02:20 AM
  #13  
momo15
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.
momo15 is offline  
Old 05-20-12, 07:38 AM
  #14  
brundle_fly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
CC put my saddle height about 3cm too high.I tried it thinking it was how it should be and nearly permanently ruined my back.
brundle_fly is offline  
Old 05-20-12, 08:00 AM
  #15  
DaveSSS 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Loveland, CO
Posts: 6,281

Bikes: TWO Cinelli superstar disc with SRAM Force AXS

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked 264 Times in 213 Posts
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.
DaveSSS is offline  
Old 05-20-12, 08:53 AM
  #16  
thenomad
Riding like its 1990
 
thenomad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: IE, SoCal
Posts: 3,789
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
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.
thenomad is offline  
Old 05-20-12, 09:03 AM
  #17  
FrenchFit 
The Left Coast, USA
 
FrenchFit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,757

Bikes: Bulls, Bianchi, Koga, Trek, Miyata

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 361 Post(s)
Liked 21 Times in 14 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveSSS View 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.
+1
FrenchFit is offline  
Old 05-20-12, 12:08 PM
  #18  
halfspeed
Senior Member
 
halfspeed's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by DaveSSS View 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.
I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice this. If they really wanted it to be useful, they'd generate suggested stack and reach numbers and publish them for all of the frames they sell.
__________________
Telemachus has, indeed, sneezed.
halfspeed is offline  
Old 05-30-12, 10:33 AM
  #19  
owen006
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.
owen006 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Robert A
Road Cycling
5
06-24-18 11:00 AM
MNX1024
Road Cycling
1
11-27-12 10:37 PM
Kevinative
Road Cycling
19
02-14-11 10:47 AM
Schmadley
Road Cycling
25
09-24-10 12:42 PM
Saddle Up
Western Canada
0
04-13-10 03:53 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.