Have you tried adjusting your fit to get yourself more stretched out? You claim to be a fatass, but unless your belly is hitting your legs, there’s nothing about being fat that prevents you from having a more acute torso angle.
fuckin run away and join the circus then
[quote=CheshireCat]edit: biek after profit from same dude that did all the other GHCX dudes.
[/quote]
ok that takes it from a genocide-inspiring abortion to merely being a shitty nü-fred fit
they’re a better length for your inseam but they’re perversely enabling your shitty practice of shoving the saddle forward
and really at your leg length you’re much better off with shorter-reach bars and getting your saddle much further back, seriously setback should never be compromised for reach
my inseam is only 2" longer than yours and with the same saddle I have 13cm of setback nose-to-bb (with 175s it’d be close to 14cm with the saddle at its rearward limit)
where are you at with the Dave Kirk test on your current setup?
bike fit is a funny thing, but im with fred in the 13cm setback club
What I’m sayin is that I have good stretch. I spend about 50% of my time in the drops on my Snowaguchi.
Belly hitting legs is one thing that keeps me honest. Back aches after long rides is another.
That said, I’m limber as fuck. When I touch my toes I can put my palms flat on the ground with about 30 seconds of warmup.
i’d also like to point out something
a good position for cyclocross =/= good road bike fit
setback for me is 6.1
reach is 80.5
and saddle height is 78.5
also a little over 3 inches of saddle to bar drop
that’s from ari at bespoke on an SLR saddle and using short reach bars and a 110cm stem on a 56cm frame
what’s more important about fit is not how it looks, but that the correct groups of muscles are being engaged at each point of the pedal stroke. If that’s not happening, even if your fit looks pro, you’re going to be slower.
using software like retul can help with this.
[quote=truckdoug]i’d also like to point out something
a good position for cyclocross =/= good road bike fit[/quote]
Yeah, I have my road bike set up the same as my CX bike because I haven’t done a road race in 3 years now.
CX and MTB only.
Road is merely a training vehicle for the summer MTB endurance races. The idea being that if the road fit is similar to the MTB/CX fit then it will take less neurological adaptation when I get on the MTB to make power. my road bike is a MTB training sled.
I’ve been wondering about this. It seems stupid, but I see the logic Milin has. If the focus is on cross, why not train the cross muscles even on the road bike?
this guy has a terrible fit lolololol
(I’m being sarcastic)
lbs bro brought up good point that bikes should be designed for the biggest and smallest first then fit to the middle
also, another bad fit. we should tell jeremy powers that he’d have been faster if he slid his seat back.
edit: the saddle isn’t even behind the BB. I don’t even know if that’s uci legal, or is that only in road racing now?
I want to get a fit, but the one fitter in town that I trust moved to Reno. Shop that sponsors the team does Retul fits, but guy has less than 6mos of experience.
retul is only useful if you know how to use it and properly interpret the data.
There are quite a few good fitters in socal if you’re ever out that way.
fittecheric comes highly recommended from a TT1 pro racer.
https://twitter.com/#!/FitTechEric
I like compact bars for cross, but otherwise I’m set up pretty much as I would be on a road bike. I can see the logic in higher bars and a little shorter stem as the terrain tends to slow down steering somewhat and having weight distributed a little further back for gnar descending, sand, etc… could be good, but meh. The typical HOOD LYFE cross position doesn’t work for me.
[quote=CheshireCat]also, another bad fit. we should tell jeremy powers that he’d have been faster if he slid his seat back.
edit: the saddle isn’t even behind the BB. I don’t even know if that’s uci legal, or is that only in road racing now?[/quote]
Same guy’s road bike
[quote=CheshireCat]also, another bad fit. we should tell jeremy powers that he’d have been faster if he slid his seat back.
edit: the saddle isn’t even behind the BB. I don’t even know if that’s uci legal, or is that only in road racing now?[/quote]
the nose is probably 5-6cm behind the bottom bracket, neither of those bikes are set up quite like yours. i just think it’s funny that you’re always dismissive of collective knowledge that’s aimed at getting average people around the where they should be for proper handling/muscle engagement/comfort, and use yourself as an example when you are obviously at the extreme end of things.
[quote=Patch][quote=CheshireCat]also, another bad fit. we should tell jeremy powers that he’d have been faster if he slid his seat back.
edit: the saddle isn’t even behind the BB. I don’t even know if that’s uci legal, or is that only in road racing now?[/quote]
Same guy’s road bike
zing
.
.
[quote=truckdoug]my view is to use the position that allows a proper trunk/leg angle and arm/torso angle and let the pedal stroke sort itself out.
that said, most people i know who self select saddle height are way to high and way to far forward
atmo[/quote]
One thing I’ve noticed about my pedalling style (also correctly pointed out in that comparison) is that a high cadence is super awkward with longer cranks. I tried 175s on my Cross Check for a minute and absolutely hated it. I don’t think my setback was quite on the money at the time, but still…
I’m a little worried about how this is going to work out with my 29er. 172.5 was not an option so I went 175. Frame has a 68mm bb shell, so I suppose I could try an outboard bearing compact road crank set up 1x9 if I just can’t deal with the length and q factor issue.