# Help with fitting



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

I've been riding a 58cm Trek 1500 for the past few years. Today however I upgraded my saddle to a Specialized Toupe Team and I asked the LBS (a different one then where I purchased my bike since the old LBS moved over 40mins away by car) and they told me my I was really pushing a 58cm frame and that I should be at a 60cm he adjusted my seat post all the way to the insert minimum level and said it should even be a tad higher.

When I purchased the bike they fitted me using something called Body Scan and they setup the bike and the guy watched me in a trainer and said it fit good. And it felt good and it road good but being that its my first road bike I wouldn't know what its suppose to be like...even though it felt good perhaps it wasn't efficient. 

I was just thinking though when my original LBS did the body scan I had 3 options to choose from:









I picked option 2. Perhaps my new LBS is putting me in option 1 since raising the seat is making the angle of my back change. 

Anyways I want to see for myself, I found a bike fit formula online called "Lemond System" problem is the formula for frame size is inseam(cm) x .65 = frame size in CM. 
Well my inseam is 226cm and according the formula I need a 147cm frame obviously this formula isn't asking for the same measurement that came up with the 58cm frame size...so what do I measure on my bike to get a frame size the Lemond System is looking for? Whew, thanks to everyone who's read this long post!


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

What were the 3 options? Also, I've never heard of inseam * .65 for frame size...maybe saddle to cleat, but not frame size.

How tall are you?


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

Hi thanks for responding This is where I got the formula from .

The 3 options were basically how bent or upright you wanted to be on the bike. I tried hot linking the a picture but it didn't come through. Click here to see the 3 options I'm talking about.(in my original post I said perhaps the new lbs is putting me in option 1...i meant option 3. Oh and I'm 6' 1"


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Can't believe i've overlooked this, but: 226cm inseam? That's 7.5ft!


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

iliveonnitro said:


> Can't believe i've overlooked this, but: 226cm inseam? That's 7.5ft!


hmm clearly my inches to cm conversion is a bit off....my inseam is 89cm


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

So is there a problem anymore?


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

iliveonnitro said:


> So is there a problem anymore?


According to the calculation I need a size of 57.85....58cm. So I guess I'm good, unless you can suggest another 'self-fit' method/formula I can try out?


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

Jason, I'm not a bike fit expert, but this recommendation for a 60 cm frame doesn't make sense to me. I'm also 6'1", 88 cm inseam, have been on 57 or 58 cm frames quite happily as long as I've been riding as an adult. A 60 would be too big for me, particularly because the top tube would be so long that it would stretch me out way too much. I suspect the same would be true for you.

Sounds like the original fitting when you bought your bike involved a good bit of time and observation, and you've been happy with how the bike feels and rides. No better assessment of a fitting than that! Now a different LBS puts much less effort into measuring/evaluating what you need (at least based on your post), and recommends a frame that is 2 cm bigger? This is a cynical and perhaps completely unfair question, but does that LBS just happen to have a 60 cm sitting on the floor taking up space?

Sorry, sounds like one of those "it ain't broke, so don't fix it" deals.


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

LookDave said:


> Jason, I'm not a bike fit expert, but this recommendation for a 60 cm frame doesn't make sense to me. I'm also 6'1", 88 cm inseam, have been on 57 or 58 cm frames quite happily as long as I've been riding as an adult. A 60 would be too big for me, particularly because the top tube would be so long that it would stretch me out way too much. I suspect the same would be true for you.
> 
> Sounds like the original fitting when you bought your bike involved a good bit of time and observation, and you've been happy with how the bike feels and rides. No better assessment of a fitting than that! Now a different LBS puts much less effort into measuring/evaluating what you need (at least based on your post), and recommends a frame that is 2 cm bigger? This is a cynical and perhaps completely unfair question, but does that LBS just happen to have a 60 cm sitting on the floor taking up space?
> 
> Sorry, sounds like one of those "it ain't broke, so don't fix it" deals.


To be fair to the new LBS, it was just a quick visual as my new saddle is quite a bit thinner then my old saddle so I asked him to take a look and make sure it was at the proper height. He said I should be higher based on the bend in my knees....but he wasn't really a expert. The LBS has a specialized certified fit tech that comes in and does fittings every week...but I just don't have the $$$ for that right now my new saddle was my present to myself for the summer.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Your leg bend has approximately 10 degrees of freedom where there is optimal performance and no pain. Unless you're going for the maillot jaune, don't worry about 3mm.


----------

