# Bike Sizing - 52 vs 49 Tarmac



## jtmoney528 (Dec 11, 2014)

Background: I got into biking about 10 months ago and bought a friends used bike to make sure that I enjoyed it. I came from a running background (12+ years of competing) and wanted something with less impact. Now I am doing 4-5 rides a week for a total of 150-200 miles (I know, not a ton). I am having some knee issues (top of the knee) and I think it is due to sizing on the bike. It does not ever hurt while biking, just after while walking around. I need to get a fit done but I was holding off because I was looking at buying a new bike and wanted to get a fit on a new bike. I was looking at getting used because you get a lot more bike for the money.

Fit: Short leg long torso - 5"7 - On the 52 frame bike I have the saddle barely above the frame. I have done several different at home bike fit videos and from what I can tell I am at the correct position. I can get an leg inseam measurement if needed also.

Current Bike: 52 Frame Scott CR1 Pro - 2007 - Full Ultegra - 172.5 crank arms

Future Bike: Specialized Tarmac SL4 – Do I go with a 52 or a 49 and raise the seat up some more? I am looking at getting into racing so I wanted to get more of a race geometry bike.

I am more than happy to provide picture or any other information needed that could help.

Thank you in advance.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Sounds like your saddle is way to low and front knee pain would be a symptom of that.

Get a fit when or before you buy a new bike. Don't guess at a size, buy and then get a fit.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

jtmoney528 said:


> I need to get a fit done but I was holding off because I was looking at buying a new bike and wanted to get a fit on a new bike.


This is backwards. Get a fit in order to buy a correctly sized bike. Fitting first. Choosing the correct bike second.

Forget the online fitting advice.

Go get fit.


----------



## jtmoney528 (Dec 11, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Sounds like your saddle is way to low and front knee pain would be a symptom of that.
> 
> Get a fit when or before you buy a new bike. Don't guess at a size, buy and then get a fit.


Thats what I kind of figured people would say, thank you, I will just go down that route before I spend thousands on a new bike, makes sense to me.

Thank you for your advice.



tvad said:


> This is backwards. Get a fit in order to buy a correctly sized bike. Fitting first. Choosing the correct bike second.
> 
> Forget the online fitting advice.
> 
> Go get fit.


Thank you for your advice, I have a good LBS that I will get a fitting done at.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

One thing I've noticed with most people who just got into riding is that they keep their saddle really low. This can cause knee pain.

If you want to get a proper bike fit go to an independent fitter (not a shop that sells bikes) and get a fit done on something like the guru fit system. This is basically an adjustable bike that they can change all the dimensions of as you are sitting on it. From there they can determine the proper frame size for you to buy. Sometimes it comes down to personal preference. If you look at the Tarmac 49 vs 52 the reach is exactly the same. I think this means you essentially would run the same stem size on both. The difference is in the stack (i.e. reduced head tube 100mm vs 120mm) and the stand-over height. There will be plenty of seatpost available in both sizes. I think it will come down to how flexible you area. If you are flexible enough you can get into a lower position on 49.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

never mind.


----------



## Gregory Taylor (Mar 29, 2002)

Until you get that fitting session lined up, one rough-and-ready method for determining your saddle height is to set your bike up on a trainer, spin for a bit to get loose, and then take off your shoes. Put your heels on the center part of the pedal. Gently spin using your heels to push the pedals. What you want is for your leg to be fully extended at the bottom of the pedal stroke. Adjust the saddle height accordingly and re-check.

Again, this isn't a substitute for a professional fit, but it is one method for getting your saddle height reasonably close.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

I am 5'8" also short legs (30") long torso and a Tarmac 52cm fit me well.
The top tube slopes down so there will plenty of stand over and seat post height.
I use 170mm cranks, you might want to try 170mm or even shorter cranks.
I also found a zero setback seat post helped because I needed to be further forward.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

deviousalex said:


> Sometimes it comes down to personal preference. If you look at the Tarmac 49 vs 52 the reach is exactly the same. I think this means you essentially would run the same stem size on both. .


incorrect

look at the effective top tube on the geometry sheet, which is really the most important number on any geometry sheet for determining fit. the 49 has 51.8cm ETT. The 52 has 53.7 ETT. That is two different 'reach' measurements. The 53 is nearly 2cm longer 'reach.' Same rider would use different stem lengths between these two bikes.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

BCSaltchucker said:


> incorrect
> 
> look at the effective top tube on the geometry sheet, which is really the most important number on any geometry sheet for determining fit. the 49 has 51.8cm ETT. The 52 has 53.7 ETT. That is two different 'reach' measurements. The 53 is nearly 2cm longer 'reach.' Same rider would use different stem lengths between these two bikes.


Actually he's correct. The assumption is that the person is going to put the seat in the same place relative to the bb on each and what would be different is the set back of the seat posts. I don't think you know that reach actually is.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

ah yes got it. I mistakenly conflated reach with ETT

but with his saddle slammed to the top tube on the 52, the handlebar height would be way too high I think. I know different topic, but that seems crazy to me. These modern bikes with sloping top tube usually built to have fair amount of seat post exposed.


----------



## jtmoney528 (Dec 11, 2014)

Ok, I may of exaggerated a little bit, here is a picture, sorry its not the best, its the only one I had handy:

If you want a better one I can take one, no problem.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

BCSaltchucker said:


> ah yes got it. I mistakenly conflated reach with ETT
> 
> *but with his saddle slammed to the top tube on the 52*, the handlebar height would be way too high I think. I know different topic, but that seems crazy to me. These modern bikes with sloping top tube usually built to have fair amount of seat post exposed.


His saddle is almost certainly WAY too low. I'm just an inch taller than him and think I have short legs and have about 8inches of seatpost, I'm guessing, on a 52.3 ett frame that has the same seat tube length as the tarmac. Unless this guy has REALLY short legs the seat shouldn't be even close to as low as he describes. And if his legs really are that short that means the upper body is proportionally really long and basically there isn't an off the shelf bike that would fit right. I tend to doubt that's the case and he just has the seat way too low. Front knee pain would support that being the case.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

jtmoney528 said:


> Ok, I may of exaggerated a little bit, here is a picture, sorry its not the best, its the only one I had handy:
> 
> If you want a better one I can take one, no problem.
> 
> View attachment 310213


Sorry, I got a little mixed up myself. My most recent reply was as if you had a 52 Tarmac which I was obviously wrong about. Seat still looks a little low for a 5' 7" guy (if the TT slopes as much as the picture would indicate) but I couldn't find a geo chart for that bike and off course don't know your exact measurements so who knows.

Until you can get a fit us Greg Taylor's suggestion to see if at least you are in the ballpark.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

jtmoney528 said:


> Ok, I may of exaggerated a little bit, here is a picture, sorry its not the best, its the only one I had handy:
> 
> If you want a better one I can take one, no problem.
> 
> View attachment 310213


judging on this pic, it appears to me that you'll be better off with a size 49cm, and a longer stem. 

In addition, you'll also want to go with a *shorter* 165mm crankset. People with knee issues should really consider shorter crankset. I have knee issues too, and the difference between a 170 and a 165 crankset is significant for me in terms of pain management.

I'm also 5'7" with a slightly longer legs and arms, but average torso, and I can fit either the 49 or 52. However, with the 52, I would have to use a shorter stem, push the saddle way forward, and lower the saddle, and this makes the bike looks less aesthetic overall. With a 49, I put on a longer stem, raise my saddle, which makes the bike looks very aesthetic to the eyes.

However, I'm also very flexible, so even with a shorter headtube of a 49, I can still slam my stem all the way down. If you are not flexible, and you go on a 49 with its shorter headtube, then you may have to end up adding a lot of spacers underneath the stem (so that you don't have to hunch down and strain your back). Some people consider too many spacers underneath the stem to be not aesthetic.

But on-bike flexibility is also something you will improve over time though.


----------



## jtmoney528 (Dec 11, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> judging on this pic, it appears to me that you'll be better off with a size 49cm, and a longer stem.
> 
> In addition, you'll also want to go with a *shorter* 165mm crankset. People with knee issues should really consider shorter crankset. I have knee issues too, and the difference between a 170 and a 165 crankset is significant for me in terms of pain management.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your response, that was my thought too, get a 49 and move the seat up and make any other adjustments (get a fitting done) that needed to be done. Also I am very flexible too, so that should not be a problem at all. Thanks for the advice on the crankset too, that is a good idea.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

At 5'7, that 52cm Scott is perfectly sized for your inseam AND upper body, assuming your seat height is correct. I agree with some previous posts that your seat is possibly too low. Or, you're trying to push too big gears too soon.

I'd rather see you drop the handlebars bit by bit and rotate the bars down, and mind you I'm not a "Slam That Stem" advocate. That will provide a more powerful position, engaging your glutes. Comfort must be maintained. Aerodynamics is a least concern.

It also looks like your saddle may be tilted back even taking into account the photo and the bike's position.

I hardly think a professional fit is necessary to get you on the right bike and fitted properly. The "heels on the pedals" method described above will get you so close as to practically remove seat height as a pain causing issue.

For a couple very worthwhile sources for fitting yourself to a bike, get a copy of Andy Pruitt's book, Complete Medical Guide for Cyclists, or Arnie Baker's book, Bike Fit.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

My $0.02:

- for seat height on your current bike, read this article from Steve Hogg, and try his test. That will guide you into the right height for _your body, and function_.

- for your next bike, visit a good, competent fitter first, and get the right size frame for you and your body. It will save you money and grief in the long run. The once you do get the new bike, go back and get a proper fitting. Most good fitters, who use dynamic fitting methods, will include an actual fit follow-up of a new bike in their test fit. Even if they don't, let a good one guide you into the right frame size. Don't be surprised if it varies by brand.

Just for grins, you might invest an hour to watch this video from University of California Mini-Medical program. It's an excellent overview of the fitting process, and what "accommodations" are all about (most of us over 40 need something).


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

here's something interesting about Cavendish and his bike size that you may find interesting

Tour Tech 2014: Mark Cavendish?s (special) Specialized Venge | road.cc

Cav is 5'9", and he used to ride a Specialized 52cm. But then he switched to a Specialized 49cm, and the stem used looks to be at least 120mm, with a -12deg bend. When Cav was still at Sky, he rode a Pinarello 46.5cm (which is equivalent to a Specialized 49cm).

Now... I realize Cav is a pro, and it seems that the trend among pros tend is to squeeze themselve into a smallest frame possible. But still, Cav at 5'9" is taller than you,.. and since he road a whole Tour on a 49cm, so I can only assume that a 49cm is something he can live with, and it's certainly something that may work for you considering that you're 2" shorter.

anyway, just some thoughts


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Really interesting. You see a lot of max length stems in the Word Tour UCI teams. That said, I don't think any of us over 40, recreational types should take our fit leads from Cav, or his peers. Those guys are truly exceptional.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

The Tarmack 4 is a really, really nice bike! And a really, really light bike, wth Red at a 49 it's probably around 14lbs unless I'm reading the reviews wrong? If it were me, I'd buy the smallest bike I could be fit comfortable on, for a few grams of weight savings and because it looks better (to me). 

Two things, again, if it was me, I'd talk with the shop and ask around some. I wouldn't necessarily avoid being fit by the shop. In this price range I'd talk to a shop about a pro fit being included and buy from a shop that is known for quality fitting. I would let that guide my purchase decision, there are great bikes out there in that price range. The LBS you choose will be around for a free tune up and unlimited fit tinkering I'd suspect and that's a big plus. Especially as new to riding as you are. But again, that's just me. 

And, since it hasn't been mentioned, cycling, like plenty of other sports, requires time for adaptation. 10 months to 150 miles a week is likely a confounding factor in your knee pain. Your running background will help you with endurance but only slightly in your development as a cyclist. Get a pro fit with your bike and back down miles until you are confident that you have separated the two and their unique contributions as potential causes. Remember, even with a great fit there is likely some tinkering left... At least there was for me. 

Good luck, welcome and keep us posted!


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

jtmoney528 said:


> Thank you for your response, that was my thought too, get a 49 and move the seat up and make any other adjustments (get a fitting done) that needed to be done.


I think you have it the wrong way around. FIRST you get the fit done. Then the fitter will bring tell you which size bike to buy and what else you'll need (stem size & angle, setback seatpost vs not, crank length, handlebar size). Once everything is purchased the fitter will then set the bike up properly for you.



aclinjury said:


> Cav is 5'9", and he used to ride a Specialized 52cm. But then he switched to a Specialized 49cm, and the stem used looks to be at least 120mm, with a -12deg bend. When Cav was still at Sky, he rode a Pinarello 46.5cm (which is equivalent to a Specialized 49cm).


The Garmin-Sharp team was offloading some team bikes on my local CL. One of them was David Millar's Cervelo P5, size 56. Dude is 6'4".


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

deviousalex said:


> I think you have it the wrong way around. FIRST you get the fit done. Then the fitter will bring tell you which size bike to buy and what else you'll need (stem size & angle, setback seatpost vs not, crank length, handlebar size). Once everything is purchased the fitter will then set the bike up properly for you.


^Can't be repeated often enough.

Internet fitting suggestions are about as accurate as tossing darts blindfolded.


----------



## Roland44 (Mar 21, 2013)

tvad said:


> Forget the online fitting advice.
> 
> Go get fit.


^
This! I couldn't agree more.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

ibericb said:


> Really interesting. You see a lot of max length stems in the Word Tour UCI teams. That said, I don't think any of us over 40, recreational types should take our fit leads from Cav, or his peers. Those guys are truly exceptional.


you have a good point.

But... we ride race bikes like them, we want stiff frames like them, we want the latest aero frames they use. I know plenty of 40something working dads who when riding in a fast club ride, they pretend to be pros, and some of them even have condensing manners as if they were racing for money. So, we take plenty of cues from the pros (and the marketing people know this). Why else would we spend $3000, $4000, $5000, and more on a bike just so we can be normal? Like it or not, we want/wish to pros, and we take plenty of cues from them. Maybe not all of us, but a whole lot of the people who put out $3000-$5000+ to buy a Tarmac, a Pinarello, a Cervelo, a Felt, all these high profile bikes... are looking to be something special when they ride their bikes.

Having said that, what the pros have over the normal guys is mainly aerobic power. Pro cyclists having no special flexibility than a normal Joe. A normal Joe, assuming he is not injured, can certainly train his body to be flexible like a pro. A normal Joe just doesn't have the aerobic capacity of a pro, that's about it in my books. Pro cyclists have nothing special in term of flexibility. 

I remember reading an article mentioning that Chris Froome rides with a bad back many time, he as back issue. When he moved to Sky, the Sky fitters decided to move his saddle up and forward, and that made his back even worse. Since then, they have moved the saddle back to where it was. And Sky instituted a lot more core training into Froome, and the back issue has improved. Froome is great on the bike because of his aerobic capacity, and that's pretty much it. 
1
And on a related note, I also read in an article comparing different athletes of different sporting disciplines, e.g., basketball, football, soccer, running, swimming, ballerina. And you what, cyclists have some of the weakest core amongst those sports, and except for ballerina, cyclists have the lowest bone density (lower than a person who does zero sport in his life!) So there is nothing speical about a pro cyclist other than his aerobic capacity.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

The question of why so many pros ride apparently small frames for their body size has been extensively discussed in internet forums, and familiar media outlets - search "pro cyclists small frames". There are a number of hypotheses (for example, read through just this thread alone), but so far I haven't seen one that holds up under scrutiny as an accepted definitive answer explaining why. I have my own SWAG, but since it too is just another hypothesis I'll keep it to myself. 

To your point, however, while I agree that aerobic capacity and the power capability within that distinguish top pros, I believe there is more physically to their distinction from the "average Joe", including neuromuscular capabilities like muscle force-velocity, etc. Aerobic capacity is probably the dominant one, but I don't believe it is the only relevant distinction. Further I suspect there are psychological differences that enable them to do things that the rest of us wouldn't willingly attempt.

Relating that to the subject of this thread - choosing the right frame size - unless you have the makeup of a top pro, are willing to work, train and ride like one, and are willing to spend for the supporting resources that they have at their call, then IMO following their lead on frame size and fitting is a fool's errand. I believe the rest of us would be better served to get a frame that best fits, and meets and serves our needs individually as average Joes best.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> judging on this pic, it appears to me that you'll be better off with a size 49cm, and a longer stem.
> 
> In addition, you'll also want to go with a *shorter* 165mm crankset. People with knee issues should really consider shorter crankset. I have knee issues too, and the difference between a 170 and a 165 crankset is significant for me in terms of pain management.
> 
> ...


No offence but this is a really good example of why to ignore internet fitting advice.
-He has no idea what you look like on the bike so just because it's set up a certain way doesn't mean anything. It might be the perfect size but it's owner might not know anything about set up. I could put a short stem on any bike and a picture of it wouldn't mean squat without showing what it does to my body position.
-If you just want to look pro that has nothing to do with getting a proper fit. You can look at pictures and copy them if that's the goal.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> No offence but this is a really good example of why to ignore internet fitting advice.
> -He has no idea what you look like on the bike so just because it's set up a certain way doesn't mean anything. It might be the perfect size but it's owner might not know anything about set up. I could put a short stem on any bike and a picture of it wouldn't mean squat without showing what it does to my body position.
> -If you just want to look pro that has nothing to do with getting a proper fit. You can look at pictures and copy them if that's the goal.


oh no offence taken.

I remember over 15 years ago I was into race motorcycles. Many guys, young and old, would buy these race replicas to ride on the street. One of the iconic brand was and still is the Ducati. The Ducita at the time had a horribly uncomfortable geometry AND a gas tank that would make you contort like a master yoga. The Japanese racers were a little more comfortable, but barely. These are still race crafts after all. Yet, hordes and hordes of guys, both young and old, were willing to buy these race bikes. And riding these race bikes are always a handful and demand your full concentration and stamina to ride these things. Some guys would work hard to make themselves become fit so they can ride these bikes for more than 100 miles, while other didn't get fit and suffer with these bikes.

Same thing with race bicycles. If anyone willing to ride a race craft, then he must also be willing to work to get in shape. Otherwise, stick to an endurance bike with a more upright geometry. People looking to buy a pure race craft, and then he also wants comfy of a couch, then he's going in the wrong direction from the get go.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

ibericb said:


> The question of why so many pros ride apparently small frames for their body size has been extensively discussed in internet forums, and familiar media outlets - search "pro cyclists small frames". There are a number of hypotheses (for example, read through just this thread alone), but so far I haven't seen one that holds up under scrutiny as an accepted definitive answer explaining why. I have my own SWAG, but since it too is just another hypothesis I'll keep it to myself.
> 
> To your point, however, while I agree that aerobic capacity and the power capability within that distinguish top pros, I believe there is more physically to their distinction from the "average Joe", including neuromuscular capabilities like muscle force-velocity, etc. Aerobic capacity is probably the dominant one, but I don't believe it is the only relevant distinction. Further I suspect there are psychological differences that enable them to do things that the rest of us wouldn't willingly attempt.
> 
> Relating that to the subject of this thread - choosing the right frame size - unless you have the makeup of a top pro, are willing to work, train and ride like one, and are willing to spend for the supporting resources that they have at their call, then IMO following their lead on frame size and fitting is a fool's errand. I believe the rest of us would be better served to get a frame that best fits, and meets and serves our needs individually as average Joes best.


a 49cm vs a 52cm Tarmac isn't really all that dramatic on specsheets. The OP, if he's flexible like he says he is, can fit a 49cm IMO. A Tarmac is a race bike, meant to be ridden like one, so anyone buying a Tarmac should be in decent shape and condition to begin with. If a 5'9" can ride a 49cm, then so should a 5'7", well within range. I'm 5'7" myself, and one of my current bikes is in fact smaller than a 49cm Tarmac, it's a bike that I use to hammer on the flat, but I've ridden it on centuries. 3 years ago I would not have felt comfortable on such bike, but after 3 years, I've gained significant flexibiliy! Had I gotten a bigger bike that is equivalent to a 52cm Tarmac, it would have been too big for me today. The OP said he has good flexibility, so I reckon he's still in good shape, so that's why I said what I said to him. It's not like he's 6' and I'm telling him to go try a 49cm. But who knows, maybe he's not as flexible as he think he is, so maybe a 52cm Roubaix (not Tarmac) might even be better!


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

As yourself if it's wise to take online fitting advice from the owner of this bike.









PS - This is aclinjury's bike.


----------



## jtmoney528 (Dec 11, 2014)

Thank you all for all of your help, I am looking into and at all of the links and videos provided and going to do some more research and get a fit done.

No reason for personal attacks guys, just looking for advice here.

I used to run 90-100 miles a week in college (XC and Track) and compete in 1m / 3k 5k 10k, so I am not new to endurance sports but I am new to biking hence why I am asking for advice. Last year I was still running 60 miles a week, so I was in pretty good shape already when I switched to biking.

I know you cannot see me on this bike but here is another picture of the bike on a trainer (closer up, easier to see):


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

tvad said:


> As yourself if it's wise to take online fitting advice from the owner of this bike.


Clearly, the head tube is too long.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Aug 21, 2004)

Going by the advice here I'm 2nd guessing my own fit. 
5'8" on a Medium Tarmac and TCR and have at least as much (probably a little more) exposed seat post on each but love my position.
If you ride with experienced guys they can tell you if you're in the ballpark as far seat height.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

tvad said:


> As yourself if it's wise to take online fitting advice from the owner of this bike.
> 
> View attachment 310233
> 
> ...


Apart from a bike with a head tube too tall I really don't see the issue with that fit. If you look at the contact points it looks fine. As aclinjury said he has really worked on flexibility so the bike probably fit his needs before he went ultra negative on the stem. Hell this looks like a lot of pro fits on the Cervelo R series of bikes.


----------



## ColaJacket (Apr 13, 2015)

jtmoney528 said:


> Thank you all for all of your help, I am looking into and at all of the links and videos provided and going to do some more research and get a fit done.
> 
> No reason for personal attacks guys, just looking for advice here.
> 
> ...


The pictures of the bike without you on it, are worthless for fitting advice. Even with you on it, they can help if the fit is very off, but if it is just off, and the picture doesn't capture the correct information, the picture could still be worthless.

GH


----------



## jtmoney528 (Dec 11, 2014)

I only posted that picture because the other picture was on a incline and hard to see correct angles and all of that, I know that it isnt terrible helpful, no reason to so negative though. I was asking for advice, not for someone to post up and tell me something is worthless.

Thank you again everyone for your help and advice, it is much appreciated :thumbsup:


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

jtmoney528 said:


> I only posted that picture because the other picture was on a incline and hard to see correct angles and all of that, I know that it isnt terrible helpful, no reason to so negative though. I was asking for advice, not for someone to post up and tell me something is worthless.
> 
> Thank you again everyone for your help and advice, it is much appreciated :thumbsup:


Being told your post (and it's responses) are worthless was the best and probably most sincere advice given on this thread.
If you feel differently go right ahead and spend thousands of dollars based on the fitting advice given here based on a bike picture.


----------



## jtmoney528 (Dec 11, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Being told your post (and it's responses) are worthless was the best and probably most sincere advice given on this thread.
> If you feel differently go right ahead and spend thousands of dollars based on the fitting advice given here based on a bike picture.


Thank you for your excellent advice, appreciate all the help you have given me


----------



## ex_machina (Oct 20, 2015)

I would think with a long torso you should definitely size up. Have you tried a 54 specialized also?

As far as fitting, GCN makes some pretty good videos on the subject. 

I agree that posting a photo of your bike doesn't really help anyone assess your fit. A photo of you sitting on the bike might help.

Ultimately, you are better off getting a fit with an experienced fitter. Maybe talk to someone in your local cycling club for a recommendation or two. Good luck. 



jtmoney528 said:


> Background: I got into biking about 10 months ago and bought a friends used bike to make sure that I enjoyed it. I came from a running background (12+ years of competing) and wanted something with less impact. Now I am doing 4-5 rides a week for a total of 150-200 miles (I know, not a ton). I am having some knee issues (top of the knee) and I think it is due to sizing on the bike. It does not ever hurt while biking, just after while walking around. I need to get a fit done but I was holding off because I was looking at buying a new bike and wanted to get a fit on a new bike. I was looking at getting used because you get a lot more bike for the money.
> 
> Fit: Short leg long torso - 5"7 - On the 52 frame bike I have the saddle barely above the frame. I have done several different at home bike fit videos and from what I can tell I am at the correct position. I can get an leg inseam measurement if needed also.
> 
> ...


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> ...
> 
> Having said that, what the pros have over the normal guys is mainly aerobic power. Pro cyclists having no special flexibility than a normal Joe. A normal Joe, assuming he is not injured, can certainly train his body to be flexible like a pro. A normal Joe just doesn't have the aerobic capacity of a pro, that's about it in my books. Pro cyclists have nothing special in term of flexibility. ...


Back to the subject of pro's who ride what seem like frames too small, looking for something else this morning I stumbled on this "Ask Nick" column from 2012, within which the question was addressed (last Q in the column). Legan gave this answer, which makes more sense to me than most of the alternative explanations I've seen:

_
In more modern times, pros often use a smaller frame that a similarly sized recreational rider because they want to ride a big drop to the handlebars. As head tubes continue to grow for a given frame size, pros are forced onto smaller frames to maintain their positions. Drop is the big difference between the average pro and the average recreational rider. The rest is a function of that difference.

Pros don’t necessarily run more setback than you or me, it’s just that their saddles are farther back on the rails because seat tube angles tend to steepen as frame sizes go down. The longer stems are there to make up for shorter top tubes on smaller bikes._​
He further counsels:

_The real lesson here though is to stop looking to pro riders for cues on what we should be riding. That thinking assumes too many things, the most obvious being that a given pro has a good position. It cracks me up when fans want to know the measurements of their favorite pro. Those numbers are only meaningful to two people: 1. The rider, and 2. The mechanics whose job it is to recreate the position on multiple bikes.

No matter what, trying to mimic a pro’s position is silly because it means that you’re likely denying what your body would actually benefit from. Doing so can actually be a performance inhibitor!_​
So why the interest in a big drop? One reason is probably aerodynamics in out of the saddle sprint phases, where speed is high (as will be drag) and so is power pedaling. The aerodynamic position analysis of TT positions won't work here - it's too limiting for power. If you're a fan of the get your head down school of drag reduction, then getting the bars down probably helps. It seems to have been one factor (of several) in Cavendish's success, as explained here (the foundation research publication from Menaspa' can be found here - Cav is clearly the unnamed subject).


----------



## masont (Feb 6, 2010)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Sounds like your saddle is way to low and front knee pain would be a symptom of that.
> 
> Get a fit when or before you buy a new bike. Don't guess at a size, buy and then get a fit.


This. You can't get a fit online. You can't fit yourself. You don't know what you're doing. 

Find someone who does, get fit, then go buy a bike.


----------



## masont (Feb 6, 2010)

deviousalex said:


> One thing I've noticed with most people who just got into riding is that they keep their saddle really low. This can cause knee pain.
> 
> If you want to get a proper bike fit go to an independent fitter (not a shop that sells bikes) and get a fit done on something like the guru fit system. This is basically an adjustable bike that they can change all the dimensions of as you are sitting on it. From there they can determine the proper frame size for you to buy. Sometimes it comes down to personal preference. If you look at the Tarmac 49 vs 52 the reach is exactly the same. I think this means you essentially would run the same stem size on both. The difference is in the stack (i.e. reduced head tube 100mm vs 120mm) and the stand-over height. There will be plenty of seatpost available in both sizes. I think it will come down to how flexible you area. If you are flexible enough you can get into a lower position on 49.


If it were me I'd tell him to get a fit from a good local fitter rather than tell him to get a fit from a fitter who may or may not be good based on what kind of building they are in, but that's just me.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

masont said:


> If it were me I'd tell him to get a fit from a good local fitter rather than tell him to get a fit from a fitter who may or may not be good based on what kind of building they are in, but that's just me.


I'm not saying the guru fit system is the be-all-end-all (if this is what you're talking about). I'm just giving the OP an example of something tangible that he can google and see what I'm talking. Hence the use of the words "something like".


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

deviousalex said:


> I'm not saying the guru fit system is the be-all-end-all (if this is what you're talking about).


I think the distinction was lost between someone who sizes a rider using an adjustable sizing rig to determine correct frame size/geometry for the rider, and someone who sizes an existing frame to a rider using various stems, spacers, etc. 

Some shops will do the latter to make a sale, whereas a shop that has a size cycle rig (Guru or other) will more than likely size the rider before recommending a frame size/geometry. It really doesn't matter if the latter is in a shop or not...it's the technique and approach to fitting that matters.

This is an important difference when discussing fitting and "fitters" that is sometimes (often?) misunderstood.


----------



## masont (Feb 6, 2010)

tvad said:


> I think the distinction was lost between someone who sizes a rider using an adjustable sizing rig to determine correct frame size/geometry for the rider, and someone who sizes an existing frame to a rider using various stems, spacers, etc.
> 
> Some shops will do the latter to make a sale, whereas a shop that has a size cycle rig (Guru or other) will more than likely size the rider before recommending a frame size/geometry. It really doesn't matter if the latter is in a shop or not...it's the technique and approach to fitting that matters.
> 
> This is an important difference when discussing fitting and "fitters" that is sometimes (often?) misunderstood.


Mostly this, but full disclosure: I fit people in an LBS, though it's become less of what I do lately. 

I've seen great work done in a LBS from very well trained fitters as well as great work done from an independent/PT. I've seen awful fits from both too. Just because a fitter works either for himself or for a shop has little to do with how competent he is. I'm mostly just exhorting to paint with a slightly more narrow brush.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

masont said:


> Just because a fitter works either for himself or for a shop has little to do with how competent he is.


No doubt, but I don't believe that was the point of the comment to which you replied.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Kemmelberg (Dec 27, 2005)

It can be difficult to find enough seat to bars drop on small frames, so us short dudes commonly use negative 17degree rise stems. So I don't see anything unusual about this set up. It's a great looking bike.

I think one issue that is commonly ignored when talking about drop is that having the handlebars lower gives you more room to roll your pelvis forward.


----------



## masont (Feb 6, 2010)

tvad said:


> No doubt, but I don't believe that was the point of the comment to which you replied.
> 
> Just sayin'.


Ah. I read "If you want to get a proper bike fit go to an independent fitter (not a shop that sells bikes)" and thought he was recommending people stay away from getting fit at a LBS. 

If he was drawing a distinction between a shop that sells bikes and a shop that offers real fits rather than saying "don't get fit at a LBS" then I totally read it wrong.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

masont said:


> If he was drawing a distinction between a shop that sells bikes and a shop that offers real fits rather than saying "don't get fit at a LBS" then I totally read it wrong.


That's the gist of how I read it. Based on what was actually written, I can understand your take on it, too.


----------



## ngl (Jan 22, 2002)

jtmoney528 said:


> I used to run 90-100 miles a week in college (XC and Track) and compete in 1m / 3k 5k 10k,
> 
> View attachment 310238


That's equivalent to 3 marathons per week. Good grief that's a lot of running! What was your schedule?


----------



## ex_machina (Oct 20, 2015)

Wow, you've gotten a ton of advice.

I'm still not convinced your choices of sizes is correct. If you are 5'7" I seriously doubt a 49 is your correct size. A 52 could work, but so could a 54. I think you are way off in sizing.

Try a 52 or 54. These are the sizes recommended by specialized:


http://www.ridemallorca.com/files/2014/Specialized-sizing-guide.pdf


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

ex_machina said:


> Wow, you've gotten a ton of advice.
> 
> I'm still not convinced your choices of sizes is correct. If you are 5'7" I seriously doubt a 49 is your correct size. A 52 could work, but so could a 54. I think you are way off in sizing.
> 
> ...


What if he has short legs? I'm 6'2" and fit my 56 really well. My 58 also. If he can ride comfortable and be fit to a 49 so be it. And, it's been said to death, but no internet thread is going to help...


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

j
I know you cannot see me on this bike but here is another picture of the bike on a trainer (closer up said:


> 310238[/ATTACH]


Looking at the photo, I still think my original comments stand-Assuming your saddle height is correct, the frame is the correct size. I can't tell much about how the top tube/stem combination fits but assuming it does, I think all you need to do is lower the bars and rotate the bars down, but not for that "slammed" look. A 49cm frame would be too small for you.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

tvad said:


> As yourself if it's wise to take online fitting advice from the owner of this bike.
> 
> View attachment 310233
> 
> ...


ah... I will fill in some info for others who's reading this. You got the pic from my other thread where I asked about cutting the headtube of this bike to make it lower for me (because I CAN FIT such bike). My conclusion from the input in that thread was that I shouldn't risk cutting the headtube of a custom Serotta. I also said in that thread that this bike was originally built up using a 120mm, -10deg stem, and was meant for a more "roubaix" bike, but I now wanted to use it for flat out hammering steady-state, flat ride, and I wanted a lower handlebars. Hence, the decision boiled down to

1) cut the headtube
2) get another bike
3) put a -25deg stem on

Decision 1 would involve dramatic irreversible altercation. Decision 2 would involve spending a lot of money, and I have no desire to spend money. So decision 3 it is. You know, sometimes in life, you have to make do with what you have and can't just spend money and "get something for the job", ya know, because money is a scarce resource for most people.

Now, other than a somewhat subjectively unaesthetic look (which i admit in my original thread from which you took the pic), what exactly is wrong? Care to elaborate? The bottomline is you don't know, and you don't know because you have seen me pedal hard on this bike.

Let's me say this, when it's my turn to pull, I hit 32-33 mph for over 1 mile on this baby, that's over 400W for about 2 minutes, for a guy ~116lbs. You think it's easy for a 116 pound weekend warrior to put out that kind of wattage, while in an extreme aero position (short of using a tri bike), for 2 minutes, if he doesn't what he's doing, amigo? 
And did I not say in this thread, and did I not also say in my original thread from which this pic came, that I have worked hard in the last 3 years to be where I am today in terms of flexibility? I have also mentioned to the OP that my suggestion to him getting a 49cm is also predicated on his flexibility, which he has stated that he is flexible. I just gave him an advice based partly what I think of his ability down the road, i.e, he's a motivated athlete who is/will work hard to be fit on the bike, and that one day he'll aspire to hammer fast on the flat, while having the flexbility to hold a good aero position. My advice is not too far out there, now is it? Furthermore, the differences between a 49cm and 52cm isn't all that earth shattering.

I think I know myself, my body, and my on-bike capacity based on my body and flexibility much much more than you. Now for you to post a pic of my bike and then asking me if I knew what I was doing,.. you would need to know me more than me. You don't!


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

^Touched a nerve, I see.

With the phenomenal performance you write about, you should consider turning pro. 

The fitting caution still applies. It's an undeniably wonky set-up.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

ibericb said:


> Back to the subject of pro's who ride what seem like frames too small, looking for something else this morning I stumbled on this "Ask Nick" column from 2012, within which the question was addressed (last Q in the column). Legan gave this answer, which makes more sense to me than most of the alternative explanations I've seen:
> _
> In more modern times, pros often use a smaller frame that a similarly sized recreational rider because they want to ride a big drop to the handlebars. As head tubes continue to grow for a given frame size, pros are forced onto smaller frames to maintain their positions. Drop is the big difference between the average pro and the average recreational rider. The rest is a function of that difference.
> 
> ...



first off, I want to say that the advices from "Ask Nick" is full of flip-flops. He pretty much said disregard pros position, in fact, disregard what the pros are riding, or how they're riding them. He said that pros have terrible position. So... I guess that all those fitters on pro teams are useless then? So Nick must know the pros better than their fitters? Then why don't we stop buying race bikes? After all, pros ride race bikes, and surely these are not good for the average joes. Maybe we should just get hybrids with those comfortable upright geometry then. If pros position are so terrible, they why do they keep doing it? Interestingly, Nick doesn't go into detail why they ride terribile position. And to complicate matter, he doesn't define what exactly is "terrible", is it pain? is it power development? is it aero? What is defined as terrible? We don't know what he's talking about.

Sounds like Nick is speaking from mostly personal experience. I also have my personal experience too. I have an extremely strong core. I have a very good flexibility that I will put up against any pros out there. I'm dedicated to the training, and train in position that I put out the most power over various duration. I'll say one thing, the position that I put out the most power in a steady state is in fact when I'm hunched over with back close to horizontal. Now I admit, this position was initially very comfortable for me to hold under high steady-state power because the back would start to strain, and breathing can be difficult if you're not used to breathing in such position. But over 3 years, I've since trained my back to be strong, and get used to breathing techniques in such position. Now I'm pretty good at holding such position and make good power in it. This is something that one has to work at it to get there. What was "terrible" for me 3 years ago is now second nature when I get on the bike. If anyone who's willing to ride a RACE bike, then be willing to put in the time to work to be able to ride such bike as intened. If you're too lazy, or don't have the capacity for whatever reason, then for godsake get a roubaix or hybrid bike. But don't go getting a thoroughbred race bike and try to make it ride like a couch. Race bikes aren't meant to be ridden with comfort. I mentioned in my post above about my motorcycle days. If you get a race replica, then you need to ride it like one. Don't expect a race replica to ride like a cruiser, and don't attempt to change a replica into a cruiser, because at the end of the day, you'll end up with a turd. That's my philosophy. Maybe the OP likes my philosophy, maybe he doesn't. But it does seem that my philosophy is not common in here!

I only brought Cav up as an example that if a 5'9" can make himself fit into a 49cm, then it's not too stretch to think that a motivated 5'7" can too. I guess I could have intially used myself as an example of a 5'7" fitting into a frame smaller than a 49cm, but I thought mentioning Cav would be more interesting than mentioning myself first, since readers know more about Cav then they do about aclinjury!


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

tvad said:


> ^Touched a nerve, I see.
> 
> With the phenomenal performance you write about, you should consider turning pro.
> 
> The fitting caution still applies. It's an undeniably wonky set-up.


No you didn't set off any nerve, but I just wanted you to know that you were mouthing off and lowballing. You used a pic of my bike to question my setup, but left out all the details in between. No lowballing allowed!

The only wonky thing about it is the aesthetic (I already mentioned this). If it was a bike with an ultralow headtube, then I wouldn't have to resort to a such negative stem, and everything would look normal but aggressive. But I already stated my decisions why.

And no, I'm not turning pro because as much as I like cycling, I don't like racing. I cycle because I have an injury, I've always looked at cycling as a sissy sport, guys who have to use mechanical device to do work, i'm in the school of thinking that "real athletes have to run and jump on their legs, with excellent coordination". Pro cyclists have good aerobic capacity, but sorry they're not real athletes in my books. Cycling is my second choice sport. And furthermore, I'm well over the age of pros. But you missed my point. My point was that I know more about myself than you. Comprendes amigo?


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> ...I just wanted you to know that you were mouthing off and lowballing. You used a pic of my bike to question my setup, but left out all the details in between. No lowballing allowed!


No idea what you're talking about.

I'm certain you believe your bike set-up works great for you. 

Others can decide how they should approach your fitting advice based on the pic of your bike set-up. It's totally up to each reader. 

Personally, I'm taking it with a grain of salt.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> Sounds like Nick is speaking from mostly personal experience.


Well, he was a World Tour wrench, so that makes sense



> Now I'm pretty good at holding such position and make good power in it. This is something that one has to work at it to get there. What was "terrible" for me 3 years ago is now second nature when I get on the bike. *If anyone who's willing to ride a RACE bike, then be willing to put in the time to work to be able to ride such bike as intened. If you're too lazy, or don't have the capacity for whatever reason, then for godsake get a roubaix or hybrid bike. But don't go getting a thoroughbred race bike and try to make it ride like a couch. Race bikes aren't meant to be ridden with comfort. *



That was my point in a previous reply within this discussion, when I said:

_"unless you have the makeup of a top pro, are willing to work, train and ride like one, and are willing to spend for the supporting resources that they have at their call, then IMO following their lead on frame size and fitting is a fool's errand. I believe the rest of us would be better served to get a frame that best fits, and meets and serves our needs individually as average Joes best. "_



> I only brought Cav up as an example that if a 5'9" can make himself fit into a 49cm, then it's not too stretch to think that a motivated 5'7" can too. I guess I could have intially used myself as an example of a 5'7" fitting into a frame smaller than a 49cm, but I thought mentioning Cav would be more interesting than mentioning myself first, since readers know more about Cav then they do about aclinjury!


Based on what you've shared here, you clearly aren't the "average Joe". With all sincerity I'll say it's truly impressive. At your your power to weight ratio you're up there with World Tour riders who win stages, and races.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> ah... I will fill in some info for others who's reading this. You got the pic from my other thread where I asked about cutting the headtube of this bike to make it lower for me (because I CAN FIT such bike). My conclusion from the input in that thread was that I shouldn't risk cutting the headtube of a custom Serotta. I also said in that thread that this bike was originally built up using a 120mm, -10deg stem, and was meant for a more "roubaix" bike, but I now wanted to use it for flat out hammering steady-state, flat ride, and I wanted a lower handlebars. Hence, the decision boiled down to
> 
> 1) cut the headtube
> 2) get another bike
> ...


You forgot to include yourself in the picture so we can see what 116 lbs 400 Watts looks like. I weigh 138 and certainly can't do that kind of wattage but may have when I was younger. And there is no way I could ride that much saddle to bar drop I have like 1.5 inches. I disagree about cyclists not being athletes, I used to run a lot. I wasn't a great runner but could do 5:30 pace over a 10K. What I don't like about cycling is the egotism and people who have to one up you on the road and the whole Strava business.
With running you just have to worry about yourself, not some imaginary competitor which I choose not to do. Getting back to the OP I think he could ride a 49 or 52, 54 would be way off.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm 5'6" and I borrowed my friend's Crux in a size 46 and that fit alright. Saddle setback probably wasn't optimal (but I was limited in stem length to 110mm because of the cable housing length) but it fit alright. These sizes in numbers like 46, 49, 52, etc are fairly meaningless. The biggest change between the 46 and 52 is standover height not eTT/reach.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

ibericb said:


> Well, he was a World Tour wrench, so that makes sense
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just knew it the second I mentioned my power, you would come up with something comparing it to pros. You did not disappoint. The thing is, I hammer like this only once per week, and I tend to time my exercise/training routine to so that I "peak" on a day that I will expect to go hard. And, I only put out such burst for about 2 minutes, and maybe for 2-3 times during the whole ride. But when I'm on the trainer, my effort is limited to mostly ~30 seconds @ 400W, but repeated more times. There is no way in hell I can last thru the week if my training session include many many 400w efforts @ 2 minutes, I simply can't last.

World tour Pros,, on the other hand, will hit 6 w/kg for 20-30 mins... AFTER they have put in 4-5 hours of riding.. day after day. And that is what special about them. 

They already have the genetic makeup that give them great aerobic capacity and the correct muscle type that no training can give. And like I already said, aerobic capacity and muscle type is what mainly separate them from the average joe. Other then this, I don't believe they have any other advantage over the average joes. Pros are skinny, so can an average joe if he is committed to watching his diet. Pros are flexible, but so can an average joe if he is dedicated to become flexible. Pros have strong core, so can an average joe. You mentioned pros have the psychology, I thought about this one, and honestly, I've seen a lot more average joe weekend athletes or amateur athletes who are much more intense than many of these cycling pros. I would not be so quick to give the psychological edge to the pros out of default.

edit:
one point that I'd like to make based on personal experience. When exercising at submaximal intensity over a long duration (4-5+ hours), then comfort is important, because pyschologically speaking, a person tend to be able to work harder if he's more comfortable. Maybe because at submaximal, I still have time to think about the discomfort.

But at maximal threshold, and definitely at well above maximal threshold, I find that the body goes into hyperdrive both mentally and physically, that hormones and adrenalines are kicking in and the pain is drowned out, because basically I go into a more primal "fight or flight" mode. I hammer until my legs give out, and I can care less about comfort because I don't think about it. This is sort of like being in a zone, when everything is drowned out around, and you only focus on one thing.

But comfort itself is also a very subjective parameter, and furthermore, the perception of comfort also changes over time. For example, what was uncomfortable for you years ago may be comfortable today. Think about it, humans didn't evolve to sit and pedal, we evolved to walk. So simply the act of riding a bike alone should uncomfortable for us, and that looks to be the case based on all the complaints amateur cyclists report. But... the human mind is also a very determined thing, ie., we can train ourselves to disregard pain, and to a large extent too. Some extreme examples are master yogists, a lot of meditators of the east. Ever try to sit in a meditating lotus position? It's the simplest position in meditation, yet it's extremely uncomfortable if you've never done it. But after practicing in this position for a while, it becomes second nature to your body, and you will find yourself sitting in it even if when you're not meditating. What was once uncomfortable has now become comfortable.

Now there is physical limitations on what an individual's anatomy will physicall allow him to do, but I find that humans are extremely determined beings capable of applying great changes to themselves once they put their minds to it


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

Don't forget the dope.......


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

jnbrown said:


> You forgot to include yourself in the picture so we can see what 116 lbs 400 Watts looks like. I weigh 138 and certainly can't do that kind of wattage but may have when I was younger. And there is no way I could ride that much saddle to bar drop I have like 1.5 inches. I disagree about cyclists not being athletes, I used to run a lot. I wasn't a great runner but could do 5:30 pace over a 10K. What I don't like about cycling is the egotism and people who have to one up you on the road and the whole Strava business.
> With running you just have to worry about yourself, not some imaginary competitor which I choose not to do. Getting back to the OP I think he could ride a 49 or 52, 54 would be way off.


I personally don't want to post a pic of me on here. I just don't like the idea of people potentially using a pic of me and posting in the wrong light or just to take a jab. Sh*t like this happens on online forums all too frequent. Therefore I choose to remain anonymous. But let me just say, at 5'7" and 116 lbs, I weight less, when height is taken into consideratin, then all pros on the Tour. Take any pros, including skinnies like Froome, Contador, Schleck (is he still racing?), and divide their weight by height, and they still weight more than me. The guys who draft behind me call me a bamboo leaf. But I'm skinny because of my diet (i'm mainly vegan), and I stay skinny because of health reason, not for cycling purposes. In fact, if I was really serious about racing bike, my ideal weight should be closer to 130 lbs. I think I can make more overall power and a higher w/kg if I gain more weight, but I don't care about gaining weight for the good of cycling because that is not a goal in my life. Cycling is a hobby for me, not a goal.

now what sort of "perceived effort" do I feel when I'm hitting 400w at my weight? First of all, I'm skinny, my legs are skinny, so I simply cannot just let my legs fall down on the pedals like a big guys would. At 400w, and at 100-105 rpm, I still have to actively recruit all my muscle fibers to put force onto the pedals, and that means I must go into the drops and pull myself down to hold position on the seat (which at times I'm almost hovering over instead of sitting on it). The lactic burning sensation in the arms and in the legs will start to build up after about 30 seconds, at the 1 minute mark breathing becomes labored, might start to pedal square, your mind start to wonder how much longer you can last. Anything past 1 minute will require that I be on a good day, and a strong will. If I'm in a zone, I can pull it close to 2 min. I think of it as a personal challenge, that's all.

And like you, i don't like cycling because of too many egos and pissing contests. Ya know, I'm not young anymore, and don't care for the egos and the associate story bragging. But there is some blood in me who still want a personal challenge in an activity, I guess. But with a blown knee, I can't do the stuff I like, like running and basketball and soccer. Honestly, I'd never thought I'd do cycling, always looked at it as a fringe sport for people who have no athletic ability other than cardio. But alas, injury put me into cycling. You ran 5:30? If I recall correctly, that's a decent training pace for a college xc guy!


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

goodboyr said:


> Don't forget the dope.......


if you ain't doping, you ain't doin' it right


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

deviousalex said:


> I'm 5'6" and I borrowed my friend's Crux in a size 46 and that fit alright. Saddle setback probably wasn't optimal (but I was limited in stem length to 110mm because of the cable housing length) but it fit alright. These sizes in numbers like 46, 49, 52, etc are fairly meaningless. The biggest change between the 46 and 52 is standover height not eTT/reach.


that's what I've been saying. Difference between a 49 and 52 ain't all that much. The OP said he's flexible, and from his tone, he's also a motivated guy who will one day want to go hard on the bike, be it in racing or just as a personal challege. That's why I said for him to consider the 49, because it's easier to make a small bike a bit bigger than it is to make a big bike a bit smaller. Hell when I got the Serrota (bike you see above), friends who have been cycling for a long time, all were saying I was getting a too small of a frame and too aggresive of a geometry, but now, it all works out well (well except for maybe the ugly -25deg stem). But one day when I no longer care for aero or hard hammer ride, I reckon I'll go back to the less aggressive stem and make the bike handsome looking again.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

jtmoney528 said:


> Thank you all for all of your help, I am looking into and at all of the links and videos provided and going to do some more research and get a fit done.
> 
> No reason for personal attacks guys, just looking for advice here.
> 
> ...



are you planning on keeping the Scott? if you plan to keep the Scott, then I think you should at least go to bikeshop and try out a 49cm Tarmac. This way, you can have 2 different bikes of different sizes for different purposes. A 49cm tarmac would put in a more aggressive position, and maybe you want this for aggressive ride down the road. If you have NO intentions whatsoever down the road to ride aggessively much, then you should also consider a Roubaix.

Can I be honest with you? Your handlebars seem a bit high, and I think that's not an aggressive setup at all. You definitely have lots of room to improve in term of body positioning. A 49cm tarmac will put you in an even more aggressive position. Do you think you can handle that? Personally, I believe you can because you have the right attitude. Barring any limitations due to back injury, I think you can. However, if you do decide to get a 49, then also consider short 165mm cranks too.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

jnbrown said:


> You forgot to include yourself in the picture so we can see what 116 lbs 400 Watts looks like.


You can see watts? That's quite a super power!


----------



## jtmoney528 (Dec 11, 2014)

ngl said:


> That's equivalent to 3 marathons per week. Good grief that's a lot of running! What was your schedule?


Typical week in college with no race events.

Monday - Morning Tempo run / Afternoon easy
Tuesday - Workout
Wednesday - Mid-mileage day (13-15)
Thursday - Easy
Friday - Workout
Saturday - Easy
Sunday - 20% of total mileage (20-21)


----------



## jtmoney528 (Dec 11, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> are you planning on keeping the Scott? if you plan to keep the Scott, then I think you should at least go to bikeshop and try out a 49cm Tarmac. This way, you can have 2 different bikes of different sizes for different purposes. A 49cm tarmac would put in a more aggressive position, and maybe you want this for aggressive ride down the road. If you have NO intentions whatsoever down the road to ride aggessively much, then you should also consider a Roubaix.
> 
> Can I be honest with you? Your handlebars seem a bit high, and I think that's not an aggressive setup at all. You definitely have lots of room to improve in term of body positioning. A 49cm tarmac will put you in an even more aggressive position. Do you think you can handle that? Personally, I believe you can because you have the right attitude. Barring any limitations due to back injury, I think you can. However, if you do decide to get a 49, then also consider short 165mm cranks too.


I got the Scott to make sure I wanted to get into biking and was planning on getting a new bike 1 year or 2 years down the road after I made sure.

I plan on riding hard and that is a great idea to setup a tarmac as the go hard bike and keep this bike as an easy day/recovery/bad weather bike, great advice. I really enjoy pulling hard on group rides, and going pushing myself solo.

Thank you for the advice on the cranks too, I am going to go get a fitting done on this bike and then go from there for a new bike, and I like your idea of one aggressive setup and one more relaxed.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

jtmoney528 said:


> Thank you for the advice on the cranks too, I am going to go get a fitting done on this bike and then go from there for a new bike, and I like your idea of one aggressive setup and one more relaxed.


No, no, NO! As many people have mentioned in this thread so far. Get a fitting done, period. Not on "this bike" or "that bike". This is especially important seeing how you are about to invest in a purchase of a new bike. Once the fitting is done and you have your numbers (saddle height/setback, reach, etc) then you can adapt your current bike to it AND choose which frame/components to get for your next bike. Yes, there may be some things on your current setup that is not optimal (for example, crank arm length) but there are ways to deal with this.

This may sound like I'm nitpicking, but it's an important distinction. If you tell the fitter you want to be fit to the current bike vs. "I'm buying a new bike and want an optimal fit" the numbers that pop out on the other end may not be the same. For example, if your current bike is too large he may move your seat forward in order to account for the longer reach. This may not be your optimal set back, but it's fitting you for your current bike. Think of an optimal fit of points in space without a bicycle. Once you have the points down, you then get components to fit into this space.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

deviousalex said:


> If you tell the fitter you want to be fit to the current bike vs. "I'm buying a new bike and want an optimal fit" the numbers that pop out on the other end may not be the same. For example, if your current bike is too large he may move your seat forward in order to account for the longer reach. This may not be your optimal set back, but it's fitting you for your current bike. Think of an optimal fit of points in space without a bicycle. Once you have the points down, you then get components to fit into this space.


Excellent comment. OP, pay attention.


----------



## jtmoney528 (Dec 11, 2014)

deviousalex said:


> No, no, NO! As many people have mentioned in this thread so far. Get a fitting done, period. Not on "this bike" or "that bike". This is especially important seeing how you are about to invest in a purchase of a new bike. Once the fitting is done and you have your numbers (saddle height/setback, reach, etc) then you can adapt your current bike to it AND choose which frame/components to get for your next bike. Yes, there may be some things on your current setup that is not optimal (for example, crank arm length) but there are ways to deal with this.
> 
> This may sound like I'm nitpicking, but it's an important distinction. If you tell the fitter you want to be fit to the current bike vs. "I'm buying a new bike and want an optimal fit" the numbers that pop out on the other end may not be the same. For example, if your current bike is too large he may move your seat forward in order to account for the longer reach. This may not be your optimal set back, but it's fitting you for your current bike. Think of an optimal fit of points in space without a bicycle. Once you have the points down, you then get components to fit into this space.


Thank you, I understand now that it is best to get a fitting done in a neutral setting, and not related to any bike then adapt whatever bike I have/and or purchase to that fittings numbers, makes sense, thank you for clarifying that for me.


----------



## ngl (Jan 22, 2002)

jtmoney528 said:


> Typical week in college with no race events.
> 
> Monday - Morning Tempo run / Afternoon easy
> Tuesday - Workout
> ...


I've ran marathons (and still run 1/2 marathons). Even with that schedule (which doesn't add up to anywhere near 90-100 miles a week by the way) you wouldn't be able to tempo run on Monday or do any kind of a workout on Tuesday after running 20-21 on Sunday! Google marathons and recovery.


----------



## jtmoney528 (Dec 11, 2014)

ngl said:


> I've ran marathons (and still run 1/2 marathons). Even with that schedule (which doesn't add up to anywhere near 90-100 miles a week) you wouldn't be able to tempo run on Monday or do any kind of a workout on Tuesday after running 20-21 on Sunday! Google marathons and recovery.


I did not know you wanted a full mileage breakdown, but I can do that if you want me to? The only days I put mileage in at all was my long days and mid-distance days, which was 35 miles total, leaves me 5 days to get 55 miles in..... I dont see how you do not think that it is doable?

Monday - Morning - 2 Warmup - 3 TEMPO - 2 cooldown
Monday - Evening - 5 miles easy = 12
Tuesday - Workout - 3 warmup - generally around 5 miles of workout - 3-4 miles cooldown. = 11
Wednesday - Mid mileage - 14-15 miles
Thursday - Easy Recovery Day - 10
Friday - Workout - Michigan for example (1,12,800,400) (1.5 tempo in between) - 6 miles - 3 warmup - 3 cooldown = 12
Saturday - Easy Recovery 11
Sunday - 20

Tempo runs were at 10k race pace (generally 3 miles long), its a tempo run, not a all out workout. Also I was not training for marathons or 1/2 marathons, I raced 3k/5k/10k on the track and 8k/10k in cross.

I ran from middle school through college, highschool was one of the top running programs in the US and college was a D2 college again one of the top D2 programs in the US, aka my coaches knew what they were doing.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

aclinjury said:


> ah... I will fill in some info for others who's reading this. You got the pic from my other thread where I asked about cutting the headtube of this bike to make it lower for me (because I CAN FIT such bike). My conclusion from the input in that thread was that I shouldn't risk cutting the headtube of a custom Serotta. I also said in that thread that this bike was originally built up using a 120mm, -10deg stem, and was meant for a more "roubaix" bike, but I now wanted to use it for flat out hammering steady-state, flat ride, and I wanted a lower handlebars. Hence, the decision boiled down to
> 
> 1) cut the headtube
> 2) get another bike
> ...


Seriously? You weigh 116lbs?


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> I just knew it the second I mentioned my power, you would come up with something comparing it to pros. You did not disappoint.


Glad I didn't disappoint you.

It was a compliment - you obviously worked hard, and the achievement shows. That was part of the point.




> ...
> Now there is physical limitations on what an individual's anatomy will physicall allow him to do, but I find that humans are extremely determined beings capable of applying great changes to themselves once they put their minds to it


There has been a lot of research done on the psychology of winners, and while for me it is a subject about as firm as jello, one of the distinctions is that elite athletes seem to have a mental capability to push past the physical signals of fatigue (e.g., pain), and just keep going without restraint, when others submit to those signals and moderate their effort in turn, often without even conscious thought. It's a complex subject, but it is held by many as a key component in systems models of fatigue.


----------



## ngl (Jan 22, 2002)

jtmoney528 said:


> I did not know you wanted a full mileage breakdown, but I can do that if you want me to? The only days I put mileage in at all was my long days and mid-distance days, which was 35 miles total, leaves me 5 days to get 55 miles in..... I dont see how you do not think that it is doable?
> 
> Monday - Morning - 2 Warmup - 3 TEMPO - 2 cooldown
> Monday - Evening - 5 miles easy = 12
> ...


This is BS and it's not doable. Secondly, no coach would have you run 90-100 miles a week to compete in 1m / 3k 5k 10k races.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)




----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

tvad said:


> D
> Excellent comment. OP, pay attention.


Second that, great post.


----------



## jtmoney528 (Dec 11, 2014)

ngl said:


> This is BS and it's not doable. Secondly, no coach would have you run 90-100 miles a week to compete in 1m / 3k 5k 10k races.


This just shows how much you know about competition running, I knew high school programs when I was in highschool that did more than 90 miles a week, its called PAVO, their furthest race was 5k.

I dont know how you could say it is BS, it's pretty normal to run high mileage for a lower mileage race. The same could be said of any endurance sport.


----------



## jtmoney528 (Dec 11, 2014)

I have a fitting scheduled for tomorrow, thank you all for advice!


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Great. Let us know what you learn in the process.


----------



## milkbaby (Aug 14, 2009)

ngl said:


> This is BS and it's not doable. Secondly, no coach would have you run 90-100 miles a week to compete in 1m / 3k 5k 10k races.


LOL

You obviously should stick to cycling because you don't know running. I'm just a citizen runner and have run 70 to 80 miles a week divided up along the week similar to the OP's schedule (and I've also run over 100 miles a week before too, just not regularly). I have a pal that ran for a D-I school who ran sub 4 minute mile for track, was a pro runner, who ran this kind of training schedule.

Anyhow to the OP, if you have time and money to get a pro fit, then go for it. You can get semi close by going by the generally accepted "rules" that you can Google, e.g. knee over pedal spindle, 125-135 degree leg angle at the bottom of the pedal stroke, etc. It is all just a starting point for your individual fit. If you look at pictures of the pros, they have fits that go all over the place too.

From the picture of your bicycle, we can't say anything for sure how you fit on it and whether it works for you. I will say that it is similar in set up to the vast majority of cyclists out there.

As a runner with a big engine, if you can get down riding in a group, you have the chance to be a very good cyclist as well.


----------



## jtmoney528 (Dec 11, 2014)

Ok, I had my fitting today and here were the changes:

Seat was WAY too low, we moved it up quite a bit - biggest change
New longer stem
Seat moved forward
Cleats moved forward
Handlebars angled further down

I also changed to a different saddle, the one I had I was having numb issues.

I went for a short ride after and I could already feel a difference in balance and comfort.

Overall it was a great experience, he walked me through each change and why he was making each change.

Thank you again to everyone, very glad I got a fitting done because the changes were major!


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

jtmoney528 said:


> Ok, I had my fitting today and here were the changes:...
> 
> the changes were major!


Cool!

Now just a word of caution - don't go out and try hammering a century this weekend to fully experience the benefits of the new fit. The significant adjustments will challenge and tax your body (muscles and joints) in new ways. You''re not starting over from scratch, but you are starting anew. Take it easy at first, and ease back into full swing over a week, or longer.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Which size did he recommend for the new tarmac? Were you fitted on an adjustable bike before addressing the changes needed to the current bike?


----------



## jtmoney528 (Dec 11, 2014)

ibericb said:


> Cool!
> 
> Now just a word of caution - don't go out and try hammering a century this weekend to fully experience the benefits of the new fit. The significant adjustments will challenge and tax your body (muscles and joints) in new ways. You''re not starting over from scratch, but you are starting anew. Take it easy at first, and ease back into full swing over a week, or longer.


Thank you for the advice, he gave me the same advice too. Told me that it would take a bit for my muscles and body to get used to the new correct position, going to take it nice and easy for a bit to let me body fully adjust. With the time change I am on the trainer all week and weekends I am hoping for decent weather to get out.



deviousalex said:


> Which size did he recommend for the new tarmac? Were you fitted on an adjustable bike before addressing the changes needed to the current bike?


He suggested getting a 52, he said it was the perfect size for me. He took all the measurements first and recorded them down for future reference. After he took all the measurements he adjusted my current bike, watched me ride, then adjusted each individual item on my current bike to get me in the correct position. Overall it was a great learning experience.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> Seriously? You weigh 116lbs?


yep, but I'm trying to gain weight at this point.
When I was weightlifting (more than a decade ago), I usually maintained a weight at about 137 - 142 lbs. Then when I started to get serious again about cycling again, and by now I had stopped weightlifting, my weight was about 130. The I started seriously cycling, weight dropped to about 125 lbs. This was with no change in my diet (I was still eating meat). Then, I went vegan, and at the same increased my training (20 hrs/wk), and I did this for almost a year. The weight dropped to as low as 114 lbs believe it or not, but by now I was killing my body a bit. I then stopped cycling for a month to rest, ate a bit more meat, and I gained to 123 lbs. Now that I have been back on the vegan diet, and started training 14-16 hrs/wk, my weight dropped back to 116-117 lbs at this point. But, my long term goal is to be able to eat a vegan diet and maintain a 125-lb body weight and still be able to put in at least 15 hrs/wk on the bike.

But so far, this goal has been elusive. So it appears if want these 3:

- be 125 lbs
- be vegan
- 15 hrs/wk on the bike

i can only pick 2 out of 3, unless I abandon the vegan and get more meat/fish in my diet. I will probably re-introduce a bit more fish and meat back in my diet, but I'm still pondering if I should do it because afterall I'm not a pro and wondering why I should be at 125 lbs (which many have said will be more beneficial for me on the bike).


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

ibericb said:


> Glad I didn't disappoint you.
> 
> It was a compliment - you obviously worked hard, and the achievement shows. That was part of the point.
> 
> ...


I'm very interested in the psychology of sports. It's something I've tried to studied upon ever since competing in track & field at the highschool level. I notice that the "greatest" athletes who dominanted their sport actually don't seem to have any more of a gifted skill than the guys who came in 2nd. But when the pressure is on, the great ones rise up all of the sudden. Something about their minds.

researchers are still not sure what constitute the pain we feel when we push to our limits. People say it's lactic buildup. Is it really the lactic? Researchers are not so sure, despite guys repeating this mantra all the time. I don't know. But... what I do know is that when I'm focused, I tend to zone everything out, I definitely get more aggressive. In my interval training, I train with this focus too. I use the trainer for this purpose because it's hard to push until you nearly collapse on the road. And by using a trainer, I don't waste time riding to/from any training point. Here's the problem I've found. Most people can train like this once in a while and they look at it as something they must do as a chore. But the good ones will be much more dedicated and enthused to doing it, it's something like meditation for them, an enjoyment. I tell myself, I'll do this now because I like it, but I'll stop when I'm no longer enjoying doing it.

curiously, I've noticed that my sensation of "comfort" differ depending on my intensity. For example, when I'm doing a 4,5,6-hr ride at zone 2/3, comfort for me means different than when I'm doing a short but well above threshold moment. My body positioning also changes, maybe this is why comfort changes. So comfort itself has a lot of subjectivity to it. Guys talk about comfort as if it's a trivial topic, but I'm of the opinion that if you delve deep, comfort is a complex topic itself.

but my philosophy is still if one is riding a race craft, then be prepare to train one's mind and body to adapt to the stype necessary to ride such a race craft as intenede to be ridden. Sure there are things one could try to amend it to make such craft more "comfortable", but at the end of the day, it's still a race craft and not a couch. One has to find that balance of trying to make a race craft comfortable, and just say "hell with it, I'm manning up and putting out the training to remodel my body and mind to ride such thing". It's a trial-n-error method that hopefully as ones continues, the "man up" psychological aspect starts to dominate over the comfort aspect. I'm of the opinion that there is nothng comfortable when you're performing at the extreme of your abilities, it takes determination at this point, determination to ignore pain, and pain is something we can desensitize to a great degree if we train to embrace it.


----------

