Fit question stretched out on the hoods

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Post by Mark1978 »

I guess the other option is to flip my stem back from -7 to +7 which would reduce reach by 6mm in itself and put me higher by 18mm. But would be slightly less aero which would be a shame but not the end of the world I guess.
reohn2
Posts: 45159
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Post by reohn2 »

Mark1978 wrote:I guess the other option is to flip my stem back from -7 to +7 which would reduce reach by 6mm in itself and put me higher by 18mm. But would be slightly less aero which would be a shame but not the end of the world I guess.

I reckon that would be your first and best option.
If you're comfortable with the saddle where it is,moving it forward or lowering it only folds the knees more at the top of the pedal stroke,a sign of the saddle being too high is saddle soreness as the pelvis rocks even slightly,too low and the knees take the strain.

Edit;Read Paul Smith's post on the 'Sudden back pain' thread.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
OnYourRight
Posts: 283
Joined: 30 Jun 2013, 8:53pm

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Post by OnYourRight »

Mark1978 wrote:I guess the other option is to flip my stem back from -7 to +7 which would reduce reach by 6mm in itself and put me higher by 18mm. But would be slightly less aero which would be a shame but not the end of the world I guess.

Good idea. And it wouldn’t even necessarily be less aerodynamic. The bars themselves aren’t less aerodynamic higher up; only you are if you sit higher up. I see many people on road bikes who practically never use the drops because their bars are too low or too far away. If the new higher bars allow you to tuck into the drops more often when your speed creeps up, you might end up on average more aerodynamic than before.

You might not, of course. But getting rid of pain would be worth an aero penalty anyway.

On a related note, I’m increasingly wondering whether ‘compact’ bars make any sense. They often seem to be used to allow people to get into the drops more often despite a low bar position. But another way is to simply raise the bars and shorten the reach, putting the drops within comfortable reach (while going fast, of course). And that way, the tops of the bars are much more comfortable to use while going genuinely slowly. Compact bars allow less variation of position, and therefore less variation of speed with good comfort.
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Post by Mark1978 »

Here's a picture of my position if it helps shed any light.

Image
andrewjoseph
Posts: 1420
Joined: 17 Nov 2009, 10:48am
Location: near Afan

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Post by andrewjoseph »

Difficult to tell but looks like your arms are close to locked out.
--
Burls Ti Tourer for tarmac
Saracen aluminium full suss for trails.
andrewjoseph
Posts: 1420
Joined: 17 Nov 2009, 10:48am
Location: near Afan

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Post by andrewjoseph »

OnYourRight wrote:
Mark1978 wrote:I guess the other option is to flip my stem back from -7 to +7 which would reduce reach by 6mm in itself and put me higher by 18mm. But would be slightly less aero which would be a shame but not the end of the world I guess.

Good idea. And it wouldn’t even necessarily be less aerodynamic. The bars themselves aren’t less aerodynamic higher up; only you are if you sit higher up. I see many people on road bikes who practically never use the drops because their bars are too low or too far away. If the new higher bars allow you to tuck into the drops more often when your speed creeps up, you might end up on average more aerodynamic than before.

You might not, of course. But getting rid of pain would be worth an aero penalty anyway.

On a related note, I’m increasingly wondering whether ‘compact’ bars make any sense. They often seem to be used to allow people to get into the drops more often despite a low bar position. But another way is to simply raise the bars and shorten the reach, putting the drops within comfortable reach (while going fast, of course). And that way, the tops of the bars are much more comfortable to use while going genuinely slowly. Compact bars allow less variation of position, and therefore less variation of speed with good comfort.


Compact bars also allow people with small hands to be more comfortable. Better reach to levers, less extreme positions.
That's why my wife and I have them. On my own I spend 90% of the time on the drops.
--
Burls Ti Tourer for tarmac
Saracen aluminium full suss for trails.
reohn2
Posts: 45159
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Post by reohn2 »

andrewjoseph wrote:Compact bars also allow people with small hands to be more comfortable. Better reach to levers, less extreme positions.
That's why my wife and I have them. On my own I spend 90% of the time on the drops.


+1 for compact drops,I've been using FSA Vero's for some 3 years now,fantastic,and at £23 from CRC not expensive either.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Post by horizon »

Mark1978 wrote:Yeah he said first try the saddle further forward or dropping the saddle another 2mm and try a shorter stem as the last thing - probably due to the expense.

However I worry that moving the saddle would change my leg position too much so I'm inclined to give the shorter stem a go.


Quite right! I thought we'd done this issue to death - you set the saddle up correctly then figure out the front end - you never alter the saddle to improve the reach. A new stem is £20. It used to be called a 1/2d worth of tar.

Mark1978: because you are short, people might think that your legs are short in relation to your body but the reverse might be true. If that is so, you might struggle to get a comfy reach, especially if you have short arms. You're welcome to spend a few hours reading through my posts on this very subject. :mrgreen:
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Post by Mark1978 »

horizon wrote:
Mark1978 wrote:Yeah he said first try the saddle further forward or dropping the saddle another 2mm and try a shorter stem as the last thing - probably due to the expense.

However I worry that moving the saddle would change my leg position too much so I'm inclined to give the shorter stem a go.


Quite right! I thought we'd done this issue to death - you set the saddle up correctly then figure out the front end - you never alter the saddle to improve the reach. A new stem is £20. It used to be called a 1/2d worth of tar.

Mark1978: because you are short, people might think that your legs are short in relation to your body but the reverse might be true. If that is so, you might struggle to get a comfy reach, especially if you have short arms. You're welcome to spend a few hours reading through my posts on this very subject. :mrgreen:


He did say during the fit that I have short legs and a longer body, in proportion to my height, which is why I need a relatively low saddle compared with my reach.

I did email him asking if I should not try the stem first but he replied again saying try the saddle, but I'm going to ignore that and flip my stem, again according to Stem Chart that brings my bars 6mm closer and 18mm higher.

That being said; while I'm sure reach is an issue, given the pain normally comes on with climbing, i.e. when I'm putting a lot of effort through my legs, rather than just sitting and spinning, I'm not sure if it's the full story.
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Post by horizon »

Mark1978 wrote:
He did say during the fit that I have short legs and a longer body, in proportion to my height, which is why I need a relatively low saddle compared with my reach.



I thought he might say that. :mrgreen: :D

My inside leg is 33" and my height 5' 10" giving a proportion of 47%. My arms are an inch or two less than my height (Ape Index) meaning that the reach problem is exacerbated.

What I do think is that there are loads of variables, each one affecting the other. Legs my not be the end of the story either as there is the pelvis to be accommodated so how much we are able to lean at the hips may vary. Throw in a few more things like fitness level and flexibility and it becomes very hard indeed to know which fact is the critical one.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Post by MikeF »

I been following this thread with interest. Good points made and Colin's are very useful.
Should it be put on "Too Good to Lose"?
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
OnYourRight
Posts: 283
Joined: 30 Jun 2013, 8:53pm

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Post by OnYourRight »

horizon wrote:My inside leg is 33" and my height 5' 10" giving a proportion of 47%. My arms are an inch or two less than my height (Ape Index) meaning that the reach problem is exacerbated.

I’m even worse, with a cycling inseam of 34¼" and a height of 5' 10". However, my arm span is about an inch longer than my height, so I suppose I end up about as tricky to fit on a bike as you.

As you suggest, flexibility is undoubtedly a factor. And there are many other things affecting bike fit.

For these reasons, I don’t much like fit formulae, though sometimes they’re a good starting point.

I’ve never really had back pain, though, so I don’t have much advice for Mark1978 on that.
Valbrona
Posts: 2696
Joined: 7 Feb 2011, 4:49pm

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Post by Valbrona »

Mark1978 wrote:He did say during the fit that I have short legs and a longer body,...


You and I could do a swap of body parts, that would sort it.
I should coco.
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Post by Mark1978 »

I've gradually come to the conclusion - this year especially, that I'm never going to be bothering the top of the Strava league tables, nor keeping up with the lead groups on sportives etc, therefore while being super aero is good because it's fast and fast is fun, I'd much rather be able to do significant distance i.e. >60 miles in comfort. I do tire of finding rides difficult not because I'm tired but because of dealing with pain in various places!
User avatar
CREPELLO
Posts: 5559
Joined: 29 Nov 2008, 12:55am

Re: Fit question stretched out on the hoods

Post by CREPELLO »

Mark1978 wrote:I do tire of finding rides difficult not because I'm tired but because of dealing with pain in various places!
Ahh, pain - tis a moveable feast :wink:
Post Reply