On Wednesday, Sep 11, 2002, at 01:21PM, Beyer Jr., Chris (C.C.) <email@example.com> wrote:
>This should be an interesting thread, given the divergence of opinions out there.
BBWWWWWHHHAAAAA. . . . (Evil mad scientist laugh) Here's something I posted on the subject on the Bicycle Science list about a year ago.
From: Brandon Ives <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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. When a person gets a fit that is the "fit" for that time and place, that is not the same "fit" for 6 months later heading into a 15mph headwind. As we get older or our conditioning changes our "fit" changes. Also if two "identical" riders are fit to the same bike the person whose riding style is closer to the standard used for the base of the fit will be more efficient. Optimum output for any particular mode of cycling is also quite different the "ideal fit" for climbing is very different than the "ideal fit" for time trialing or touring.
What we need to talk about is fit balance and this is why there is no
cut-n-dry rules for frame fit after 100 years. I have my own
personal feelings on fit and have read many others over the years and
have found very few that were actually wrong. Check out