Bike adjustments

Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'd love to hear from Andrew and Chalo, about what their shops do to
choose frame sizes and fit a new bike to a rider.

I usually fit a buyer to whichever frame size is the tallest that makes sense to stand over (for the application), then work out their preferences with stem and handlebar variations. Nine times out of ten, that's the best approach.

I can't think of a time when a customer ever asked for a lower position than their bike allowed.

Frank Krygowski wrote:

I don't disagree with your reasons. But I still bet that for most
people, it's a matter of aesthetics.

I think the easy higher bar height available for most folks when they use a sloping top tube frame is a benefit. Handlebar stems don't vary as much as they used to.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 06:25:24 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Of course, I have other shoes available, but prefer
the construction boots:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/shoes.html
After I took the photo, I found another 10 pairs.

My goodness, all those shoes! You must be a wealthy man.
But I count 15 pairs and one lonely sandal.

I just counted 27 pairs in the photo. That includes a pair of roller
skates (2nd row, first pair), sandals (2nd row, 2nd pair), Wellingtons
(1st row, 2nd pair), and a really ancient pair of bicycle "touring"
shoes with flat soles (2nd row, 2nd from last on the right).

Most of shoes were acquired over the last 45 years or so. On the
average, I would guess one pair per year, which is easily affordable.
However, I have the incurable habit of buying new shoes just before
the old shoes self destruct. I don't have the good sense to simply
recycle the old shoes, since they are still wearable and can
theoretically be repaired. So, I save them, resulting in an obvious
surplus of old shoes. I recently decided that it was time to purge my
collection, and donated those that were in tolerable condition and
dispatching to the local dump all but 10 of the best pairs. Since
then, I have added one pair of construction boots, awaiting the
inevitable demise of my current daily carry boots.
https://www.sears.com/wolverine-men-s-6inch-steel-toe-work-boot-w08308/p-067VA11220601P
I don't particularly like this style, but Wolverine discontinued the
style I prefer.
https://www.shopyourway.com/wolverine-mens-cirrus-alloy-toe-work-hiker-boot-brown/315548

Imelda Marcos's shoe collection, originally about 3,000 pairs:
https://www.google.com/search?q=imelda+marcos+shoes&tbm=isch


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 16:46:39 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/9/2019 12:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 09:13:56 +0700, John B.
wrote:

But from your posts you seem to be an electronic sort of guy. Do
electronic guys wear hulking great boots?

Generally no. The local electronic types favor sandals, bare feet,
various "athletic" shoes, and ecologically correct, fair trade, and
sustainable shoes.

Like these?
https://safr.kingfeatures.com/idn/cn...OTA wLmdpZg==

Yep. Among my friends are a few that subscribe to nearly every
eco-fad. For example, "grounding" and "earthing" have been around for
a while:
https://www.earthrunners.com/pages/earthing-shoes
Generous surface area connecting your foot and the
grounded conductive element allows for ample electron
transfer.
and
Insulated modern rubber shoes interrupt our body's ability
to connect with earth in the way our ancient ancestors lived.
Ummm... right. Perhaps you should wrap your bicycle tires in aluminum
foil to be sure that you're getting the necessary grounding?



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 22:36:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/9/2019 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 04:27:09 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 9:21:33 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 23:27:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 12:57:20 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 04:02:35 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 8:20:33 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 23:03:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 12:49:42 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:28:56 PM UTC-8, wrote:
As part of the ordering process of my gravel bike I was measured last Wednesday to determine the correct frame size. The measuring program didn't take the handlebar/shifter/shifter position into account in contrast to saddle make and type. I found that strange because most of the time you are riding on the hoods. It was a rainy day yesterday so I took the time to measure all my current bikes which I adjusted by 'feel' giving the purpose/riding style of that bike. Results:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/1HbWyM6g1gNqoyMx5

So today I went back to the LBS (another 100 km round trip) to discuss this. In the meantime the manufacturer emailed the shop a drawing of their proposal. Strangely this drawing did show the measurements of the position of the shifter on the handlebar and this came very close what I measured on my bikes especially measurement E, F and D. With the mechanic we figured out the correct frame size taking the chosen handlebar, a stem length of 110 mm and the new Ultegra shifters and the manufacturers proposal/my measurements into account. My question is what do these measurement programs exactly do? Are there people that close a bike only based on these measurements?

Lou

Lou, if its a compact, buy a "medium." Done. Why should it be any more difficult than buying one of your Canyons?

The measurements are intended to impress you. Shop drawings and proposals?
What, are you buying from General Dynamics? What are you buying?

Back in the day, seat tube length was a big deal, but now with compacts and long seat posts, the important measurement is TT, so I suppose they're trying to get your TT just right to size the bike with a stem that is not too short or too long, which might affect steering in some metaphysical way. Unless you're built like ET, they'll pull a "medium" out of stock, declare it custom and hand it to you.


Yes that is what I thought. 7 body measurements (left and right footlength ???) which resulted in 19 adjustment proposals, even a seattube angle of 73.74 degrees. WTF? Bike will be custom build (parts) but frame will not be custom. I just wanted the right size to begin with (over-the counter) and not ending up with a 80 mm stem. These are good guys btw but they soon found out that I'm not the average customer ;-) They are dealers of BMC, Cannondale, Cervelo, IDworx, Santos, De Rosa, Bianchi and the brand I'm buying now which made me part of an American family. How about that for marketing ;-)

Lou.

It used to be much simpler. Buy a bike that you could stand over; set
the seat height and position; set the stem position; ride the bike and
make any more changes.

It still works for me :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

Yes I remembered that time, where all frames had horizontal top tubes, only 2 saddles and handlebars to choose from and of course that awful quill stem. Most of the time people rode to large frames. That time passed thank god.

Lou

Really? And just how are modern bikes fitted better? Do your feet
reach the pedals better? Do your hands reach the handlebars better?

Never said that. Chosing a bike frame by just stand over height doesn't work anymore with sloping top tubes and handlebars that come in different shapes (drop and reach).

But tell us how far back your memories reach. Brooks, for example made
various models of bicycle seats in 1880
--

You are playing silly again.

Well, you said that, " I remembered that time, where all frames had
horizontal top tubes, only 2 saddles and handlebars to choose from".

I was amazed that you could be that old and asked you how far back
your memories went. Certainly if you could remember back when there
were only two bicycle seats to choose from it must have been Before
Brooks (for example) started selling more than one model of seat.

So who's being silly? You for exaggerations to bolster your arguments?
Or me for questioning your exaggerations?
--
cheers,

John B.

John you started to ridicule todays bike fitting by stating that the stand over height method and raising/lowering the saddle and handlebar still works for you. Bike fitting today and the past is all about getting your butt, feet and hands on the right position relative to each other while riding your bike depending on:
- preference,
- riding style,
- your physical condition/ability,
- body proportions.
Today there is a lot more choices in handlebar drop/reach, frame geometries and saddles then there were in the past. They all determine were your butt, hands and feet end up giving a particular frame. A simple test if your nutts don't hit the top tube and the lower/raise a handlebar and saddle would be a not so smart method to choose a frame size/bike.

Lou

I originally said, "It used to be much simpler" and it really was. And
"fitting" a bike as I described it accomplishes everything that your
multi hundred dollar "fittings" do. I assume that you did notice my
last caveat, "then ride the bike and make any more changes".

But perhaps you are correct and modern day man needs to have his bike
"fitted".

It apparently is a recent necessity as I don't believe that Eddy
Marckx ever had a bike fitting, and he won 11 Grand Tours and more
than 500 bike races.

For that matter Frank (another old guy) has never mentioned a bike
fitting and he has ridden across the U.S. and in innumerable foreign
places, or Jay the intrepid (semi old) who rides to work come rain or
come shine, who has never mentioned a fitting, or Terrible Tom (yet
another oldie) who spends his days climbing mountains.

Strange isn't it that none of these old geezers has ever mentioned
whacking out nearly 300 dollars to have their arse fitted to a
bicycle and yet they ride/have ridden a substantial number of
miles/kilometers.

While neither Eddy, nor I, nor (probably) Jay ever paid for a bike fit,
I suspect that Eddy was supplied with any frame, component or adjustment
that might make him a tiny bit faster or more comfortable. I remember
reading that he had serious troubles with saddle sores. (And BTW, I
really don't think I belong in the same category of either Eddy or Jay.)

Well, when he was managing his team they rode 200 km three times a
week, did the sprints and intervals on the off days and raced on
Sunday. Probably enough miles for anyone to develop saddle sores :-)

Over the decades, I did make adjustments to my bike fit. My handlebars
rose by at least an inch, and on one bike they were brought closer to me
via a shorter stem. It's easy to explain that by lesser flexibility,
although I'm still quite flexible. (I can still mount our tandem by
kicking my leg forward over the handlebars plus handlebar bag.)

My saddle height actually went up a bit over the decades. I don't really
know why.

But pay for bike fit? No, I've never done that.

I suggest that it is pretty much a matter of knowing what you are
doing as opposed to not knowing. Which, I suggest, is where the
"fitting" comes into play. Cholo mentions sizing a bike for his
customers but have you ever asked for any advise in sizing a bike? In
the last 20 years?

But I still think that the old criteria - knee over the center of the
pedal, leg straight with the heel on the pedal and the distance from
the nose of the seat to the handle bars approximately as long as your
forearm and bars at a level that in the drops the bars block vision
of the front axle will probably get the majority into a comfortable
position that they can perhaps modify a bit as they become more used
to the bike.

Which solves all problems except for the saddle :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 22:25:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/9/2019 5:20 PM, James wrote:
On 10/12/19 4:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/9/2019 11:59 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 6:48:49 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/8/2019 7:48 PM, James wrote:
On 8/12/19 10:28 am, wrote:
As part of the ordering process of my gravel bike I was
measured last
Wednesday to determine the correct frame size. The
measuring program
didn't take the handlebar/shifter/shifter position into
account in
contrast to saddle make and type. I found that strange
because most
of the time you are riding on the hoods. It was a rainy
day yesterday
so I took the time to measure all my current bikes which I
adjusted
by 'feel' giving the purpose/riding style of that bike.
Results:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/1HbWyM6g1gNqoyMx5

So today I went back to the LBS (another 100 km round
trip) to
discuss this. In the meantime the manufacturer emailed the
shop a
drawing of their proposal. Strangely this drawing did show
the
measurements of the position of the shifter on the
handlebar and this
came very close what I measured on my bikes especially
measurement E,
F and D. With the mechanic we figured out the correct
frame size
taking the chosen handlebar, a stem length of 110 mm and
the new
Ultegra shifters and the manufacturers proposal/my
measurements into
account. My question is what do these measurement programs
exactly
do? Are there people that close a bike only based on these
measurements?


The last bike I bought (gravel) was advertised with a chart
that was scaled to leg length.* According to my leg length I
should have chosen an XL frame, but I reviewed the frame
angles and geometry against my custom road racing bike, and
decided on a L size frame.* The XL would have had my hands
too high.* Even so, with the L frame I have the head stem
all the way down, and I used a longer stem than the supplied
one of course, and I used a longer seat post too.

I also dislike the sloping top tube "compact" design, for
the simple reasons that;

a) longer frame tubes would probably weigh less than a long
seat post, and a longer seat post likely stresses the frame
more.

b) the sloping top tube is very difficult to sit on while
you're stopped somewhere to admire the view and eat a banana.

c) the area in the triangle is reduced which restricts that
available to carry water bottles or frame bags and stuff, if
you so desire.


While bucking current fashion, you are not alone.

The #1 item in custom orders is 'level top tube'.

I wonder why this is the #1 request. Is it people who are invested in
using their old Silca frame pumps?

I suspect it's just aesthetics. And if a person likes it, why not? A
custom bike should accommodate one's quirks.


I identified 3 reasons above that have nothing to do with aesthetics.

Using a frame pump isn't a reason for me, but perhaps for a small group.

The only practical reason I can think for a sloping top tube is
increased stand over clearance, but that has never been a problem for
me.* A non-practical reason might be to boast a slightly lesser frame
weight, or stiffness increase perhaps, but these are advertising claims.

I don't disagree with your reasons. But I still bet that for most
people, it's a matter of aesthetics.

You mean two right angle triangles back to back aren't an elegant
sight :-(
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 20:23:21 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 16:46:39 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/9/2019 12:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 09:13:56 +0700, John B.
wrote:

But from your posts you seem to be an electronic sort of guy. Do
electronic guys wear hulking great boots?

Generally no. The local electronic types favor sandals, bare feet,
various "athletic" shoes, and ecologically correct, fair trade, and
sustainable shoes.

Like these?
https://safr.kingfeatures.com/idn/cn...OTA wLmdpZg==

Yep. Among my friends are a few that subscribe to nearly every
eco-fad. For example, "grounding" and "earthing" have been around for
a while:
https://www.earthrunners.com/pages/earthing-shoes
Generous surface area connecting your foot and the
grounded conductive element allows for ample electron
transfer.

That's just silly. Just take the shoes off and walk. that will give
you all the grounding possible.

Of course, it takes a bit of time to attain the ability to walk over
any surface without shoes but after all, anything worth doing is worth
doing well. :-)

and
Insulated modern rubber shoes interrupt our body's ability
to connect with earth in the way our ancient ancestors lived.
Ummm... right. Perhaps you should wrap your bicycle tires in aluminum
foil to be sure that you're getting the necessary grounding?

Grounding spikes (or nails) will prove a better solution.
https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/met...nd-spikes.html
A spike or nail inserted into the tire so that the point reaches the
metal rim and the head contacts the road will provide a far better and
longer lasting "ground" than any flimsy aluminum foil :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 20:10:30 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 06:25:24 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Of course, I have other shoes available, but prefer
the construction boots:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/shoes.html
After I took the photo, I found another 10 pairs.

My goodness, all those shoes! You must be a wealthy man.
But I count 15 pairs and one lonely sandal.

I just counted 27 pairs in the photo. That includes a pair of roller
skates (2nd row, first pair), sandals (2nd row, 2nd pair), Wellingtons
(1st row, 2nd pair), and a really ancient pair of bicycle "touring"
shoes with flat soles (2nd row, 2nd from last on the right).

Most of shoes were acquired over the last 45 years or so. On the
average, I would guess one pair per year, which is easily affordable.
However, I have the incurable habit of buying new shoes just before
the old shoes self destruct. I don't have the good sense to simply
recycle the old shoes, since they are still wearable and can
theoretically be repaired. So, I save them, resulting in an obvious
surplus of old shoes. I recently decided that it was time to purge my
collection, and donated those that were in tolerable condition and
dispatching to the local dump all but 10 of the best pairs. Since
then, I have added one pair of construction boots, awaiting the
inevitable demise of my current daily carry boots.
https://www.sears.com/wolverine-men-s-6inch-steel-toe-work-boot-w08308/p-067VA11220601P
I don't particularly like this style, but Wolverine discontinued the
style I prefer.
https://www.shopyourway.com/wolverine-mens-cirrus-alloy-toe-work-hiker-boot-brown/315548

Imelda Marcos's shoe collection, originally about 3,000 pairs:
https://www.google.com/search?q=imelda+marcos+shoes&tbm=isch

On a bit more serious vein, why metal toe shoes? They always seemed
heavier than plain toes and I wore common old military "brogans" (work
shoes} and Redwing boots for probably 30 years and never bumped a
toe.

--
cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 2:41:49 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 04:27:09 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 9:21:33 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 23:27:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 12:57:20 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 04:02:35 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 8:20:33 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 23:03:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 12:49:42 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:28:56 PM UTC-8, wrote:
As part of the ordering process of my gravel bike I was measured last Wednesday to determine the correct frame size. The measuring program didn't take the handlebar/shifter/shifter position into account in contrast to saddle make and type. I found that strange because most of the time you are riding on the hoods. It was a rainy day yesterday so I took the time to measure all my current bikes which I adjusted by 'feel' giving the purpose/riding style of that bike. Results:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/1HbWyM6g1gNqoyMx5

So today I went back to the LBS (another 100 km round trip) to discuss this. In the meantime the manufacturer emailed the shop a drawing of their proposal. Strangely this drawing did show the measurements of the position of the shifter on the handlebar and this came very close what I measured on my bikes especially measurement E, F and D. With the mechanic we figured out the correct frame size taking the chosen handlebar, a stem length of 110 mm and the new Ultegra shifters and the manufacturers proposal/my measurements into account. My question is what do these measurement programs exactly do? Are there people that close a bike only based on these measurements?

Lou

Lou, if its a compact, buy a "medium." Done. Why should it be any more difficult than buying one of your Canyons?

The measurements are intended to impress you. Shop drawings and proposals?
What, are you buying from General Dynamics? What are you buying?

Back in the day, seat tube length was a big deal, but now with compacts and long seat posts, the important measurement is TT, so I suppose they're trying to get your TT just right to size the bike with a stem that is not too short or too long, which might affect steering in some metaphysical way. Unless you're built like ET, they'll pull a "medium" out of stock, declare it custom and hand it to you.


Yes that is what I thought. 7 body measurements (left and right footlength ???) which resulted in 19 adjustment proposals, even a seattube angle of 73.74 degrees. WTF? Bike will be custom build (parts) but frame will not be custom. I just wanted the right size to begin with (over-the counter) and not ending up with a 80 mm stem. These are good guys btw but they soon found out that I'm not the average customer ;-) They are dealers of BMC, Cannondale, Cervelo, IDworx, Santos, De Rosa, Bianchi and the brand I'm buying now which made me part of an American family. How about that for marketing ;-)

Lou.

It used to be much simpler. Buy a bike that you could stand over; set
the seat height and position; set the stem position; ride the bike and
make any more changes.

It still works for me :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

Yes I remembered that time, where all frames had horizontal top tubes, only 2 saddles and handlebars to choose from and of course that awful quill stem. Most of the time people rode to large frames. That time passed thank god.

Lou

Really? And just how are modern bikes fitted better? Do your feet
reach the pedals better? Do your hands reach the handlebars better?

Never said that. Chosing a bike frame by just stand over height doesn't work anymore with sloping top tubes and handlebars that come in different shapes (drop and reach).

But tell us how far back your memories reach. Brooks, for example made
various models of bicycle seats in 1880
--

You are playing silly again.

Well, you said that, " I remembered that time, where all frames had
horizontal top tubes, only 2 saddles and handlebars to choose from".

I was amazed that you could be that old and asked you how far back
your memories went. Certainly if you could remember back when there
were only two bicycle seats to choose from it must have been Before
Brooks (for example) started selling more than one model of seat.

So who's being silly? You for exaggerations to bolster your arguments?
Or me for questioning your exaggerations?
--
cheers,

John B.

John you started to ridicule todays bike fitting by stating that the stand over height method and raising/lowering the saddle and handlebar still works for you. Bike fitting today and the past is all about getting your butt, feet and hands on the right position relative to each other while riding your bike depending on:
- preference,
- riding style,
- your physical condition/ability,
- body proportions.
Today there is a lot more choices in handlebar drop/reach, frame geometries and saddles then there were in the past. They all determine were your butt, hands and feet end up giving a particular frame. A simple test if your nutts don't hit the top tube and the lower/raise a handlebar and saddle would be a not so smart method to choose a frame size/bike.

Lou

I originally said, "It used to be much simpler" and it really was. And
"fitting" a bike as I described it accomplishes everything that your
multi hundred dollar "fittings" do. I assume that you did notice my
last caveat, "then ride the bike and make any more changes".

But perhaps you are correct and modern day man needs to have his bike
"fitted".

It apparently is a recent necessity as I don't believe that Eddy
Marckx ever had a bike fitting, and he won 11 Grand Tours and more
than 500 bike races.

For that matter Frank (another old guy) has never mentioned a bike
fitting and he has ridden across the U.S. and in innumerable foreign
places, or Jay the intrepid (semi old) who rides to work come rain or
come shine, who has never mentioned a fitting, or Terrible Tom (yet
another oldie) who spends his days climbing mountains.

Strange isn't it that none of these old geezers has ever mentioned
whacking out nearly 300 dollars to have their arse fitted to a
bicycle and yet they ride/have ridden a substantial number of
miles/kilometers.
--
cheers,

John B.

Who said that a fit cost multi hundreds of dollars/euro's? They charge anything extra for it when buying a new bike in almost any bikeshop here. You can however go to a bikeshop for only a bike fit. Then it cost around 100 euro. A fit takes about an hour. Personally I would not spend that money for just a fit.


Lou

On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 00:01:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 2:41:49 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 04:27:09 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 9:21:33 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 23:27:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 12:57:20 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 04:02:35 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 8:20:33 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 23:03:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 12:49:42 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:28:56 PM UTC-8, wrote:
As part of the ordering process of my gravel bike I was measured last Wednesday to determine the correct frame size. The measuring program didn't take the handlebar/shifter/shifter position into account in contrast to saddle make and type. I found that strange because most of the time you are riding on the hoods. It was a rainy day yesterday so I took the time to measure all my current bikes which I adjusted by 'feel' giving the purpose/riding style of that bike. Results:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/1HbWyM6g1gNqoyMx5

So today I went back to the LBS (another 100 km round trip) to discuss this. In the meantime the manufacturer emailed the shop a drawing of their proposal. Strangely this drawing did show the measurements of the position of the shifter on the handlebar and this came very close what I measured on my bikes especially measurement E, F and D. With the mechanic we figured out the correct frame size taking the chosen handlebar, a stem length of 110 mm and the new Ultegra shifters and the manufacturers proposal/my measurements into account. My question is what do these measurement programs exactly do? Are there people that close a bike only based on these measurements?

Lou

Lou, if its a compact, buy a "medium." Done. Why should it be any more difficult than buying one of your Canyons?

The measurements are intended to impress you. Shop drawings and proposals?
What, are you buying from General Dynamics? What are you buying?

Back in the day, seat tube length was a big deal, but now with compacts and long seat posts, the important measurement is TT, so I suppose they're trying to get your TT just right to size the bike with a stem that is not too short or too long, which might affect steering in some metaphysical way. Unless you're built like ET, they'll pull a "medium" out of stock, declare it custom and hand it to you.


Yes that is what I thought. 7 body measurements (left and right footlength ???) which resulted in 19 adjustment proposals, even a seattube angle of 73.74 degrees. WTF? Bike will be custom build (parts) but frame will not be custom. I just wanted the right size to begin with (over-the counter) and not ending up with a 80 mm stem. These are good guys btw but they soon found out that I'm not the average customer ;-) They are dealers of BMC, Cannondale, Cervelo, IDworx, Santos, De Rosa, Bianchi and the brand I'm buying now which made me part of an American family. How about that for marketing ;-)

Lou.

It used to be much simpler. Buy a bike that you could stand over; set
the seat height and position; set the stem position; ride the bike and
make any more changes.

It still works for me :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

Yes I remembered that time, where all frames had horizontal top tubes, only 2 saddles and handlebars to choose from and of course that awful quill stem. Most of the time people rode to large frames. That time passed thank god.

Lou

Really? And just how are modern bikes fitted better? Do your feet
reach the pedals better? Do your hands reach the handlebars better?

Never said that. Chosing a bike frame by just stand over height doesn't work anymore with sloping top tubes and handlebars that come in different shapes (drop and reach).

But tell us how far back your memories reach. Brooks, for example made
various models of bicycle seats in 1880
--

You are playing silly again.

Well, you said that, " I remembered that time, where all frames had
horizontal top tubes, only 2 saddles and handlebars to choose from".

I was amazed that you could be that old and asked you how far back
your memories went. Certainly if you could remember back when there
were only two bicycle seats to choose from it must have been Before
Brooks (for example) started selling more than one model of seat.

So who's being silly? You for exaggerations to bolster your arguments?
Or me for questioning your exaggerations?
--
cheers,

John B.

John you started to ridicule todays bike fitting by stating that the stand over height method and raising/lowering the saddle and handlebar still works for you. Bike fitting today and the past is all about getting your butt, feet and hands on the right position relative to each other while riding your bike depending on:
- preference,
- riding style,
- your physical condition/ability,
- body proportions.
Today there is a lot more choices in handlebar drop/reach, frame geometries and saddles then there were in the past. They all determine were your butt, hands and feet end up giving a particular frame. A simple test if your nutts don't hit the top tube and the lower/raise a handlebar and saddle would be a not so smart method to choose a frame size/bike.

Lou

I originally said, "It used to be much simpler" and it really was. And
"fitting" a bike as I described it accomplishes everything that your
multi hundred dollar "fittings" do. I assume that you did notice my
last caveat, "then ride the bike and make any more changes".

But perhaps you are correct and modern day man needs to have his bike
"fitted".

It apparently is a recent necessity as I don't believe that Eddy
Marckx ever had a bike fitting, and he won 11 Grand Tours and more
than 500 bike races.

For that matter Frank (another old guy) has never mentioned a bike
fitting and he has ridden across the U.S. and in innumerable foreign
places, or Jay the intrepid (semi old) who rides to work come rain or
come shine, who has never mentioned a fitting, or Terrible Tom (yet
another oldie) who spends his days climbing mountains.

Strange isn't it that none of these old geezers has ever mentioned
whacking out nearly 300 dollars to have their arse fitted to a
bicycle and yet they ride/have ridden a substantial number of
miles/kilometers.
--
cheers,

John B.

Who said that a fit cost multi hundreds of dollars/euro's? They charge anything extra for it when buying a new bike in almost any bikeshop here. You can however go to a bikeshop for only a bike fit. Then it cost around 100 euro. A fit takes about an hour. Personally I would not spend that money for just a fit.


Lou


Comprehensive fits (£250) take up to four hours
Read more at
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitnes...JT1L1CyRivE.99
(note: Pounds Sterling 250 is abut US$ 330)

Dynamic Premium Fit - $400
https://www.trekbicyclesuperstore.co...ting-pg731.htm

Mobile Bike Fit: $395.00
https://www.bcbikefit.com/pricing/
--
cheers,

John B.