Just slam the saddle all the way back and be done with it IMO (when you're that tall on a smallish frame)

Mmkay.
So if I were to go really specific with this I should probably measure all the inseams and stuff again... I did it a year back but of course I don't have the info anywhere. The funny thing is that the competetive cyclist calculator recommended a 58-60cm TT back then and I just accepted it.

Well, it's stem shopping tomorrow then
Thanks for all the info. I want to learn to do this stuff myself. Doing bicycle related activities (be it maintenance etc) independently has become a kind of a passion and I think this is one of the most important things to know.

+1.
Generally, unless you're dealing with a highly knowledgeable owner, unless he's been very lucky with finding employees you'll be "fit" by someone with very little practical knowledge, no academic training, and perhaps a marketing tool/device at his disposal.

Honestly, how many "fitters" are exercise physiologists, or even a trainer of any kind?

I'll agree with Campag's later post that the Competitive Cyclist fit calculator is probably the best online tool around. Of course, a shop can foul that one up. Had a buddy use the fit calculator, went into a shop and rode a bike that matched the output, and the shop eventually persuaded him that it "looked too big". They put him on a bike that was one size smaller, which he rides now and has issues related to a cramped cockpit.

Pretty easy to mess up the body measurement process. You need a girl friend or wife to help...and do it twice.
You need at least a 60cm top tube. Per the Competitive Cyclist fit calculator...I need a 590mm top tube and I am almost 5' inches shorter at just over 6' feet.
My personal view is you should be on 63-64cm center to top bike since you are 98% in height...what the largest frame is designed for...guys your size. If you scrounge enough you can find a 150mm stem as well. I ride a 150mm stem on my size Large 29er.

Or, you learn by getting a good fit, and talking to the fitter about what he or she is doing for you.

Changing your fit when you don't know what you're doing can be counter-productive. For example, the fitter may recommend a change that feels wrong at first, but is actually a better fit, and takes a week or more for you to adapt to it. If you're fitting yourself and it doesn't feel good right away, you're almost certainly not going to stick with it.

You can't really observe yourself well when you're in the saddle. And if you don't know what you're doing, how will you know what to look for?

A good fitter is also a little less likely to advocate lowering a stem because it "looks good" or is more macho.

And of course, you could do the cheapskate mode of getting people to do a fit for you over the Internets. In which case good luck, because you're going to get a lot of conflicting advice from people who have no idea how you actually move on the bike.

That's not quite as bad as getting a medical diagnosis via Web forum, but it's close.

I think we each need to go our own way. To use your medical diagnosis analogy. A patient can go to five doctors and get five different diagnoses.
A car owner can go to five different repair shops and get five different repair suggestions.
A bike owner can go to five different fitters and get five different suggestions for setback, reach and drop...common btw.

In the end, the consumer has to determine his best course. The irony of decision making is...it takes talent to recognize good advice...what I believe in large measure separates people at all levels...even among better amateurs.

FYI you can't depend 100% on what people here say, I only use it for insight/ ideas. Even if they do know what there talking about they are not along side you watching you pedal like a fitter would do.

I'm confused. I did the competetive cyclist fit calculator. Here's the results.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TH] [/TH]
[TH][h=4]The Competitive Fit[/h][/TH]
[TH][h=4]The Eddy Fit[/h][/TH]
[TH][h=4]The French Fit[/h][/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Seat tube range c-c[/TD]
[TD]58.9 - 59.4[/TD]
[TD]60.1 - 60.6[/TD]
[TD]61.8 - 62.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt"]
[TD="class: left"]Seat tube range c-t[/TD]
[TD]60.8 - 61.3[/TD]
[TD]62.0 - 62.5[/TD]
[TD]63.7 - 64.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Top tube length[/TD]
[TD]58.3 - 58.7 [/TD]
[TD]58.3 - 58.7[/TD]
[TD]59.5 - 59.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt"]
[TD="class: left"]Stem Length[/TD]
[TD]12.2 - 12.8[/TD]
[TD]11.1 - 11.7[/TD]
[TD]11.3 - 11.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]BB-Saddle Position[/TD]
[TD]82.6 - 84.6[/TD]
[TD]81.8 - 83.8[/TD]
[TD]80.1 - 82.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt"]
[TD="class: left"]Saddle-Handlebar[/TD]
[TD]58.5 - 59.1[/TD]
[TD]59.3 - 59.9[/TD]
[TD]61.0 - 61.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Saddle Setback[/TD]
[TD]6.8 - 7.2[/TD]
[TD]8.0 - 8.4[/TD]
[TD]7.5 - 7.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

According to this the crux is absolutely perfect (competetive fit, which is where I'm aiming at). I've ordered a 130mm stem to try out. With that I can get my saddle handlebar to 63cm which again allows me to move my saddle a bit forward. The saddle position is the one thing I'm seriously struggling with right now. I can't feel the difference in the saddle positions if the chances are not major. I might go with a setback of 8cm. it's 10cm now and it's affecting my spinning speed. Mashing on the other hand is now easier.

Now it seems to me, there are at least two schools in bike fitting. The one that favours the the smallest frame possible and the one that favours a much longer fit. I don't know which I'm going to go with yet. It'll become apparent when I buy a new bike in few years. Looking at pro's today it seems that they are riding very small frames. But then again they are professional athletes who can manage it.

Me too!

No power loss for me. You just need to reorient your posture and pedaling stroke a little.

Maybe not. I'm an old guy with a bad back and it's the best solution. 6' with 13cm from mid-saddle to bar tops.

An online fit calculator is not a substitute for knowledge and experience.

It can't observe your pedal stroke, it can't see if you are throwing your knee out slightly, it can't see the angle of your elbows.

The Crux also isn't the same as a typical road bike; it's a cross racing bike. It isn't as far off as some bikes (e.g. if you ride a 54 road bike, you'll usually ride a 52 cross), but the calculator won't take that into account.

It won't be as far off as some cross bikes, but it's not the same. For example, compare the Crux 54mm to the Allez 54mm. Seat tube length, head tube angle, head tube length, stack & reach are all slightly different. Competitive Cyclists' online calculator isn't going to compensate for the geometries of the different bicycles; its numerical precision masks the fact that it's at best an estimation.

If you're having issues with fit that you can't fix yourself, then get a real fit.

I think the issue really is new riders underestimate the 'journey' to arrive at a good fit...as a good fit is different for each rider as we are each a unique mix of musculature, flexibility and body proportions. All play into the mix.
I really look at bike fit as four things:
1. saddle height
2. setback from BB
3. drop
4. Reach to the handlebar.

Lets say you can refine your saddle height without too much difficulty. Btw, I see many struggle with saddle height among my riding friends...mostly ride with too high a saddle.

So then it comes down to parameters 2-4 or 3 variables.
Lets now subdivide each of the three variaables into 3 distinct levels.

Taking setback for long legged rider which you are:
little: 70
medium: 90
a lot: 110: Schleck/Boonen territory.

Then drop:
0 drop: how I ride
50mm drop: average road bike drop
100mm: closer to aggressive

Then reach:
570mm: std. 5'10" reach
590mm: short 6'er reach
620mm: pro 6'+ reach


In mathematical terms you have a 3 X 3 matrix construct. My view to derive the best fit which no fitter can tell you...you need to try all combinations
3^3 = 27 combinations. No. of combinations can go up to 100 or higher if you want to set up the fit experiment even more elaborately.

So it depends how much you want the best fit at the end of the day. Try all combinations and determine your best fit.

Hope that helps.
PS: a comment about what you wrote I highlighted in bold print above. Your comment is mixed and really what I see in terms of fit on the 41 which is a significant departure from the pro world. Yes pro's ride small bikes. They do this primarily for a short head tube for a low handlebar for aerodynamics. They also ride a LONG cockpit for adequate reach. You will determine that bigger drop is more comfortable with a longer reach. I am a proponent of close to pro reach for the average rider i.e. saddle tip to handlebar center. But average riders are very different from pros. Most...no all are much less flexible. So I advocate little or no drop and a long reach for power. Each of us has to find our own best combination of fit and don't believe there is a direct path other than experimentation.