[CR]Re: Frame fit/biomechanics

(Example: Production Builders:Teledyne)

From: "Ben Sanford" <B.Sanford@cox.net>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
In-Reply-To: <20020911224301.51794.77725.Mailman@phred.org>
Subject: [CR]Re: Frame fit/biomechanics
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:19:26 -0400

I'll have to add a bit to what Brandon wrote below concerning bike fit.

I have an identical twin brother who is also into biking. He rides 2000+ miles annualy, and I usually top 6000. We have a similar fitness level and recently rode a century ride together. We both ride geared bikes and track bikes on the road. I have a '73 Eisentraut track bike and he has a Paramount track bike. We are both 6 ft tall, the same age (obviously), same 33 1/2" inseam, same shoe size, etc.

However, when it comes to bike fit we have different opinions. I perfer 165mm crank arms on the track bikes and he goes with the 170's. He prefers a higher seat, which results in a frame size about 1.5 cm larger. As for gearing, we are a bit closed, he goes with slightly lower gearing, around 67 gear-inches and I perfer a bit higher - 69 gear inches.

This example is just to show that even people with identical physical measurements will often find that they prefer different things in their bike fit.

Ben Sanford Falls Church, VA

______________________________________________________________

From: Brandon Ives <brandon@engineering.ucsb.edu>

This is one of the oldest questions in cycling, over 100 years ago builders and racers asked the same questions. . . over and over and over. . .

The biggest problem is using the term "ideal", what is meant by this? Ideal for what? Ideal for who? Looking at bike fit for years and having quite a few physical therapist friends who know nothing about bikes but love to talk about bike fit and biomechanics with me I come up with one sure thing. That is, there is NO "ideal" set way to "fit" a bike. ... Each person is an individual and that's the real key to fit.

enjoy,
Brandon"monkeyman"Ives
SB, CA