Or the jerk tellin old dentists how their stems are way too short: http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=5686
(he gets a perfect foil a few pages in, obsessed with his Serotta certified fitter and dedicated to his 80mm stem)
Dave Moulton (also worth looking around a bit, there are some other relevant articles like this one on saddle height.)
Oooh. Also jsut discovered this series on frame design: Part 1Part 2Part 3, also the MTB]. Not necessarily his philosophy only, but I assume interesting reading that will keep me up for a while longer this evening.
[quote=Dirty Sanchez]
Or the jerk tellin old dentists how their stems are way too short: http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=5686
(he gets a perfect foil a few pages in, obsessed with his Serotta certified fitter and dedicated to his 80mm stem)[/quote]
“put the least different from my current stem on the bike while it was on the trainer, got on the bike for 10 minutes, and guess what? My stem isn’t too short.”
welp, i didn’t go and read each link individually, but dave kirk’s post on saddle setback, in my mind, is the conclusive view on the matter and the link i send out when people ask about setback.
heath, how about you step up to the plate and 1) post your ideas on fit, and 2) a side profile of you riding your bike.
as for me, my views are generally drawn from steve hogg, who publishes articles on his website here (http://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/articles/) and is the resident fit expert over at cyclingnews.com/ (http://www.cyclingnews.com/tag/fitness). for the record, his conception of finding setback is right on the money with dave kirk’s, which was in turn right on the money with the local track shop guru/occasional grouch who gave me my first proper race fitting.
its hard to when you don’t ride a bike[/quote]
you’re really in no position to be critical of others with regard to posting pictures of themselves riding a bike
step 1: find the caad10 which fits best and most comfortably, with the level components you prefer
step 2: buy the next size smaller
step 3: install -17* stem in 120, 130 or 140 sizeway on top of bearing cap. slamming directly onto bearing itself is only necessary if you’re over 6’4" and a -20* doesn’t get you low enough.
step 4: traditional bend bars only.
step 5: slam the saddle all the way back on the rails
This KB essay is classic. internally consistent, well thought through, not much actionable though if you follow this line of thinking you can arrive at things like the dave kirk setback test: http://sheldonbrown.com/kops.html
especially because it has to focus on balance and handling and almost entirely ignore the usual consumer-centric comfort crap, making it actually useful
the tridork stuff is interesting in a somewhat similar way given how focused they are on aerodynamics and power production at the expense of all else
Mountain bike fitting is black magic ATMO, specially when the important fit number is really your reach (from standing above the bottom bracket, not seated) and the road bike school of fitting goes completely out the window.
