Theory of Bike Fitting: Tall Riders Walk Their Own Path
Fitting yourself to your bike properly and being comfortable while riding is probably the most important aspect of cycling. It doesn’t matter if you’re riding the Worlds Lightest Bike or your Clunker Rain Bike/commuter; if you feel good on your bike, it will be a pleasure to ride. My 10 kilo, 8-Speed Shimano 105, fender and mud-flap equipped Bianchi XL EV2 is almost as much a pleasure to ride as my 7 kilo Campy Record/Zipp 404 built Cervelo R3 (as long as I don’t ride them side by side). It comes down to the fact that once you’re riding, all you know is how your bike feels, and the light weight and stiffness of my R3 is something I notice when I ride it, but I don’t miss it when I’m on my other bikes. All of my bikes are a pleasure to ride, and I personally believe that is due to the attention I have paid to getting my fit as perfect as I can.
I am a rather tall person by cyclist standards, and a dwarf by Basketball standards. I stand about 6’3″, have a relatively short torso, and have relatively long arms as compared to my torso, but normal for my total height. It seems to me that the American cycling industry has a very good idea how to fit a 5’10” rider to a 56cm frame. From there, it feels like most bike shops scale the model up or scale the model down from that point of reference. In my opinion, the US cycling industry is selling almost every bike customer the wrong bike. Tall riders have dramatically different biomechanics as do shorter people. The proportions and angles between limbs and torso don’t simply scale like you’re enlarging a photo of the same customer and fitting them to a proportionally bigger or smaller bike. Add to that the fact that the physics of the cycling world works against tall (and inevitably heavier) riders, and the problem of fitting yourself to a bike is compounded by the fact the fact that you’re a minority and the industry generally does not put priority on understanding what you need as a cyclist. The result is tall riders on frames that are too large and with handlebars that are too high.
My theory of bike fitting is very simple and is based on two principles:
- Bike stability is the key to a well-handling bike. Stability comes from three primary factors: angle of the head tube and rake of the fork, wheel base (the frame’s geometry), and – most importantly – center of mass of the entire rider/bicycle unit.
- Flex (and error) within the system increases (usually proportionally) with the length of the tubes involved. Basically, when you apply the same force to a short tube versus a long tube, the long tube will bend farther. Now, measures can be take to mitigate this issue, such as cramming a whole crapload of material near the highest stress points as you make the tubes longer, but any kluge you throw at the problem doesn’t change the fact: a longer tube is less efficient at transferring power than a shorter tube or the same dimensions.
I think most bike manufactures understand the second point and their mitigation strategies vary from using different tube sets for different frame sizes to applying more material (and making a relatively heavier bike) to the tubing. That’s fine, the Sasquatch in us taller riders can handle a little extra weight. The keys to bike fitting lie in the first point.
How does a cyclist lower their center of mass? Well, you can be shorter, that works pretty well. Or cut yourself off at the knees, but that has other side effects that I don’t want to get into right now. You could also lower the bottom bracket like Look and Eddy Merckx used to do (I think they raised their BB to the standard height recently).
Buth the real solution is that in most cases – at least in the cycling world, taller means lankier and that means that proportionally, the distances and angles between legs, arms, handlebars, saddles, and pedals start being very different – and should be much more extreme – than the scaled-up picture model of the 5’10” rider on a 56.
I have found over the last 23 years of riding that when I lower my bars, two things happen. First, I have better control over my machine. Second, I go faster. After having my bars as low as they would go on my R3 and consistently feeling they were a bit too high, I bought a 17 degree stem for my R3 which lowered my bars by 2cm- more than I thought I wanted. The results were astounding. Not only does my bike handle better, but I ride about 1-2kmph faster on flats and on climbs. The speed factor can be attributed to freakish bio-mechanics (that may be unique to my physiology) and/or increased aerodynamics, but the bike handling is, I believe, directly related to my lowered center of mass. In fact, John – who is also an Eros Poli-sized rider such as myself – noticed how good a low, aggressive position feels after borrowing one of my bikes during a visit to Seattle.
The bottom line is that you have to be comfortable on a bike, and that means different things to different people based on their size, flexibility, and style of riding. That said, I urge tall riders to experiment with riding the smallest frame you can while still getting enough saddle height and top tube length needed to ride efficiently – and then ride your bars as low as you can. If you need an example from the pros, take a look at Axel Merckx’s position (at the top of this post, as well as compared to Floyd Landis above), or keep in mind that Greg Rast on team Astana had Trek build him a frame with the dimensions of a 61cm frame with the head tube height of a 56cm frame – and slams his handlebar stem right down on his top tube.
It’s all about your center of mass, baby.
I’ve been wondering about this more and more. I stand 5’10” and ride a 56cm frame, so I don’t have that extra height or lanky issue, but I’ve always wondered if I wouldn’t be more comfortable and efficient on a 54. As it is, I barely have my handlebars the requisite 4cm below the seat, but any more and my shoulders get stiff for days.
Oh Joyyyyyy! I hadn’t seen this post. I’ll go and get my notes.
But remember kids, the most important thing is that you have to look good on the bike. For the Velominatus, there is normally always a compromise to be had, unless you go the custom frame approach and even then, those with less fortunate physiologies will still have to compromise.
I recently flipped my Deda stem over so that it has zero rise. I don’t know if I go faster but I feel more like a racer than an “enthusiast” now. Come to think of it – after some issues with speed wobbles on my old frame I’ve become quite the pussy when it comes to descending – last Wednesday was the first time I did a big descent since flipping the stem over and it was the first time I have felt comfortable at 80kph in a long time. I’m usually OTB on long descents and this time I stayed with the leaders.
@Steampunk
A lot of that has to do with your flexibility; if you can’t go lower, then why bother? Also, you’re on a 56 already, so your center of mass won’t be too high. In a case like mine, that starts being a really seriously issue – as is the distance from the bars to the ground if they are too high; you start really having shimmy issues at speed. If you don’t have problems, i wouldn’t worry about it. But, Steve Bauer had a build like what you describe of yourself, and he always went small on his frames, so it is something to consider.
@Jarvis
Absolutely agree 100% (not sure how I missed your comment before?!) on all counts. Looking forward to you finding a minute and revealing to us what lies in those mysterious notes of yours!!
@Cyclops
This is exactly what I’m talking about! If you’re tall and have stability issues, go low!!
@frank
Thanks. My flexibility is getting better, the bigger issue is that it feels like I’m extending too far forward to rest comfortably on the drops. Maybe this is a flexibility thing, but I also wondered if they bars were just too far away and a 54cm would help me to be more comfortable. That, and Bauer is pretty cool. Still a legend in these parts, of course, too.
@Steampunk
Bauer is LEGEND. What a stud! I have to do a piece on him. Of all the whinny bitches complaining about “bad luck”, I’ve never known a happier, more talented cyclist with more truly – genuine – bad luck than Steve Bauer. I would have his kids in a heartbeat.
One thing about “going low”. I think one of the reasons – aside from lowering the center of gravity, is that you gain extra distance in your reach by dropping lower; so you are compensating for a relatively shorter top tube by going extra low to get some additional extension. So, if you are going low, you may want to get a shorter stem, too. Or use this as an excuse to get a new frame.
@frank Good advice on the stem. I just wanted to chime in and give some praise to Bauer. As an amateur he was already a hardman winning races and time trials by minutes and on top of that he was a really nice guy.
Oh and Frank if you had his kids they would be some weird looking trolls…
(I am throwing up all over the room)
@Steampunk
@frank
Have you guys read the latest Zinn letter over at Velonews? Pretty interesting related to tall riders and much more involved than bar/frame hieght. In fact, he posits that has much less to do with stability than other things. Good read: Zinn
@Rob
What a stud that guy was! Man-oh-man! And we would handsome children.
@Marko
Yeah, thanks for posting that, it’s an interesting read. John and I were discussing it a few days ago when everyone was in town.
Honestly, I can’t understand how this guy is considered to be the expert he is. In my humble opinion – and based off my own experience (above) he’s so far off the mark, I can’t begin to describe it.
He is talking about exactly the oposite of what I’m covering here; he just keeps scaling up the frame/cranks etc to match the size of the rider, which is exactly what you don’t want to do. (I think John figured Zinn would put him on 220mm cranks!) I’m about as tall as both those guys, and I’ve never experienced any of the handling problems they describe, in fact, my bikes handle incredibly well. Just drop those bars, baby!
But, to be fair, this is just my theory – and it works for me – but that’s really as far as it goes.
@frank
I’m with you on the crank arm length. But what he says about weight distribution not being too far back and/or being too far aft of the pedal spindle seems to make sense. If that’s the case, my simple mind thinks dropping the bars accomplishes the same thing. It shifts your weight and your mass forward. I think to the point, it may be a false assumption to say that larger frames handle worse than smaller ones and is more an issue of weight distribution and balance. Anyway, this could easily turn into one those long diatribical threads.
@Rob @frank
One of his yellow jerseys is enshrined at my local coffee shop. Very cool.
@Marko
Thanks for the link. More for Frank than me, and he does seem to be talking about fit rather than performance, which was Frank’s theme above. I can’t really comment one way or the other; I just see pics of Frank’s seatpost and I feel so, well, inadequate…
@Marko
You hit the nail on the head, I think – and you have a point with being too far back over the wheel being odd, but I haven’t seen that happen on my bikes, but maybe they all have steeper seattube angles. But I think you nailed it; it comes down to weight distribution and being well-balanced on the bike, which is impossible with the high center of mass that comes with having the bars and the “normal” height that you would for smaller riders on a smaller frame. What’s even worse is bike shops that set big riders up with extra high stack-heights to put the bars up even with their saddles; I’ve seen 6cm stacks; I shudder to think of the speed shimmy associated with that!
I’m going to go online and order me some 345mm cranks and see if I can pop a reverse wheelie every time I pedal.
@Steampunk
Did I mention it’s a 31.6?
@frank On your side, Frank, I suggest the handling problems of tall lanky guys may have nothing to do with the physics of the bike. It didn’t take us shorter, more muscular guys very long to figure out when we were growing up that the taller, lankier kids lacked all coordination, balance, and power. I used to love ripping tall, lanky wide receivers in half on the football field. They seemed so helpless out there. The fact that you don’t have that problem may mean you are one of the few of them are fortunate to have normal coordination and balance. To explain it, I would suggest it may be due to your big head. More neurons and sheeit devoted to motor-control, or else simply an inflated ego that will not allow itself to believe it’s not superior in some respect.
One of the key points in arm comfort is having a 90° angle between the body and the humerus. Get on the floor like you are going to do a push-up, but get on your elbows instead, now look at that aforementioned angle and rock back an forth changing that angle, it’s not easy to hold if it isn’t square to the body.
Within this guideline you have actually a lot of flexibility on position, you can drop the bars way low so your back is parallel to the ground or have both your back/humerus at 45°/45° or 60°/30°. This will simply be dictated by comfort or intent, intent being aerodynamics, comfort often being dictated by your saddle, flexibility, age. Look at Thor’s arms above, 90° to his back/body, the rest of the peleton is much like this. As Americans, we tend to look at these guys and think their position is either very low or stretched and almost always have stems that are too long. Most Europros have a very healthy overlap between elbows and knees when in the drops tucking low.
Your pelvis will only rotate as far forward as it does, limited either by hamstring flexibility or by the structure of your pelvis and how your femurs insert into it. Watch your pelvis as you bend down to touch your toes, it goes a certain amount the stops and your spine starts to bend to make it the rest of the way down. So this is probably the limiter on most people how low your bars can go.
One thing to keep in mind, is that NONE of these positioning things have had any science applied to it (other than wind tunnel testing, and saddle comfort vs. pelvis structure). You can put a saddle all the way back and your cleat all the way back and maybe show an increase in power while YOU are sitting on your bike RIGHT NOW. Train like this for months, and who is to say where you will be. There is no good way to test this, control group, double-blind, continuous training data over time, etc.
I could go on, but I have to get to work.
@michael
Great insights, thanks for that. Reading the post again I realize that the pictures got mixed up when we migrated to the new site layout last Spring. Obviously that’s not by boy Axel Merckx. I’ll try to dig up those pics again at some point. I also will look for some pics of me from the side – everything from before this year is out of date re: positioning.
Bottom line, my position is something I’ve arrived at over years and years of trial and error; it works, for me anyway.
What you say about none of this not being scientific is bang-on; it’s all theory and experience, and very hard to prove aside from saying, “gee, this works” or “this doesn’t”.
A few things to also consider, from a physics perspective that ARE scientifically proven: low centers of mass are more stable than high ones, and long tubes are more flexible than short ones. Therefore, tall riders should keep their frames as small as possible and their center of mass (shoulders) as low as possible. I see tall riders on huge frames with their bars up in the “sit up and beg” position and I weep for them. I bike doesn’t need to feel like a unicycle.
Ignore the cans of Australian piss water in my jersey which I had an inexplicable hankering for; but these pics here are about as close as I can find to side-shots of me on the R3. Try not to be too envious of how Awesome I am.
@frank
Beautiful: you really are an aesthete of the highest order. I can’t even see where the straws enter or exit your jersey. Top grade work!
Frank, how do feel after a century with a good bit of climbing? As a larger chap (taller, don’t want to imply I’m too fat to climb) I have been struggling to get a great fit. After reading this post during the early spring, I tried some of your fitting techniques. To be honest I felt great all season on shorter to moderate rides. But last strenuous century of the season killed me. My position looked alot like yours above. Ended up with the killer pain between the shoulder blades/lower neck. Just curious how it works for you in those situations. I’m thinking a shorter stem might help.
It’s hard to see from those photos, but in the bottom one you look fine, for some reason in the other two you look pretty low, like being in the drops or out on the hoods would be a short term thing, but that’s just the top two photos.
My friend and I went for a fitting a couple of months ago and he’s 6’4″ or 6’5″ (sorry about the rule breakage, not going to convert to metric). He ended up at 45/45 on the hoods where he rides most. It looked too high for me, but IIRC he still had a 6-7cm drop (or more) from saddle to bars.
I ended up in a much more acceptable racing angle, but since then I have lowered my bars as I felt scrunched up, like I was arching my back to ride, which on a long climb is not comfortable. We put me at a 4cm drop from saddle to bars, I’m 5’10”. Later I scooted my saddle forward, then switched back to a longer stem, so all of this fit stuff is opinion anyway. I actually like the way a long stem (>120mm) handles and ‘feels’.
So if my tall friend is at a 6-7cm drop and sitting high and I’m at a 4-5cm drop and sitting moderately low, it makes sense that you could have something much more than 7cm in drop and be completely comfortable.
Watching my tall buddy ride, is strange too, his ankles come down behind the crank bolts and when he is spinning fast, it looks slow, like a freight train looks like it’s going slow because of the size.
Those sunny-in-shorts photos look so out of season already, you do have a nice Washington tan though.
Either way if your position works for you that’s great.
@pakrat
I think the longest ride I did in this position is 285km or so, so not a crazy marathon, but long enough to know it’s comfortable. But I’m pretty flexible in my hips from a life of doing this and skiing.
As for the stem length; it’s ver counter-intuitive, but I suggest you go up in length, not down. There’s a reason pros ride more stretched than regulars. My VMH had the same pain between her shoulders and we put her on a 120mm up from a 100mm and – boom – pain gone, just like that.
You can’t be sure it’s the stem, though, because at the same time, she issued a moratorium on me talking during rides, so it could also have been that.
@michael
My Washington tan, indeed. That pic would have been in June, as I was still riding my XL jersey, which is too big for me, hence, it fits big beer cans. By summer’s end, I was a definite off-pale. It looked sweet.
So I’m back to “Seattle Clear.”
Yeah, that pain between the shoulders can be from either too long or too short.
Too short and you are riding scrunched sort of like Lance Armstrong looks (he actually has a bend in his back that causes that hump, which also has the side effect of making him more aerodynamic).
Too long and your triceps just get tired and maybe your wee wee gets numb from trying to rotate your hips to better reach.
Look for that 90° sweet spot between the upper back and the humerus as a starting point.
@frank
Pros don’t ride more stretched that regulars, take a look at that 90° thing I keep talking about, they are for the most part in that range, when in the drops, dishing out the V, the main difference is how low they are, not how long. Some of them have a huge overlap in the elbow/knee department, bars plumb with the nose. It’s a really common misconception, that I’ve spent 20 years thinking myself.
I love how wordpress knows to automagically link whey you type “The V”.
Here’s a photo of another tall guy with a huge bar drop.
Jeebus.
Giant.
@frank
“Australian pisswater”? Yes. But that is please be aware that Fosters is not sold in Australia- at all.
Im 5’6″ and ride a 51cm. I’ve got bars slammed down and I still don’t have as much of a dramatic seat to height ratio as taller guys do on bigger frames. But, it was a professional fit, so that’s what matters. Just doesn’t look as cool as frank!
Here’s another image to add to your spank bank.
@MrBigCog
Woo, another short arse.
I’m also 5’6″. My best fit ever was a 52 top tube with a 50 seat tube in a trad, non-sloping frame. On this I had a 12cm stem and the seatpost at full extension of the C-Record aero post.
This would put me these days on a 44cm frame on an extreme slope or a 49 on a minor slope.
If you’re running a 10cm stem, my guess is that you could have gone smaller.
Pic of the bike and me back in the day.
I linked to this before but feel it’s better here in all it’s visible glory.
I’ll throw this one in too.
Taylor Phinney’s saddle to bar drop looks pretty small to me when compared to that of Gesink, JVS and Trebon.
@VeloVita
Its working for him.
@RedRanger
Agreed certainly. I was joint pointing out that while he is a tall rider, Taylor’s position may not be the best example of what Frank was getting at with this article judging from the above photo when compared to the others.
@mouse
AWESOME! Avocet 30 on there too, from the looks of it. The hairnet is perfect as well, and I looks like a ctriterium handlebar. Love the look. Top marks.
@michael
Phinney, to my eye, looks very compact – fit very traditionally from my perspective. Obviously he’s going plenty fast so who’s to say anything about it but if I was fitting him I’d have him on a smaller frame with more extension and drop. He’d be UNSTOPPABLE.
I’d say from the shots above, JVS is the closest to what I’m talking about.
@frank
Phinney goes well, but he has been crashing a lot. I guess like father, like son.
Phinney looks like he has short arms too.
Phinney is on the rivet, so he looks all foreshortened. I wouldn’t be taking any positional advice from that photo.
@michael
To quote myself…
The point of that comment was that Phinney may need to drop his bars to crash less.
Ever get the feeling you’re talking to yourelf in public?
I tend to disagree about the lowered-center-of-mass theory that you say would improve control. I am pretty convinced that it is more about the distribution of weight between the two wheels (which is something completely different). The moment you lower your bar you will put more weight on your front wheel. When I look at your bikes I get the impression that your seat is located almost over the rear wheel’s axle. So putting more weight on the front wheel by lowering the handlebar will of course improve bike stability and control. That’s my theory. …
I prefer a large setback myself. Therefore my custom built frame comes with 72.5 ° seat tube angle, 41.5 cm chain stays and a rather short BB-to-front wheel distance in combination with a 135 mm stem and a slightly raised BB. Thereby I achieved a perfect biomechanical position and perfect weight distribution allowing perfect control although my center of mass is somewhat elevated (due to the raised BB).
@grumbledook
Really interesting theory; I’d love to see a side-on shot of your bike. Weight distribution definitely has a good deal to do with it, and one thing I did notice when I lifted the bars by 5mm was cornering improved as before the front wheel was perhaps a bit over-weighted. With all these things, there is a balance between opposing factors and you’ve got to work them out.
But the overall center of mass still plays a critical role and the physics is pretty clear that a lower center of mass = more stable. But to your point, a low center of poorly distributed mass is also crap. This lower center of mass is very apparent when I ride the TSX; the BB is probably 2cm or more lower than the Cervelo; aside from that, the position is almost identical. The TSX falls short in every category of cycling – less comfortable, softer, heavier, etc – but it’s handling is noticeably better. It just sits on the road like a chicken on an egg. (The geometries are also slightly different, but the same effect is noticed on the TSX vs. the Bianchi XLEV2 which have the same geometries except the XLEV2 has a higher BB – i.e the seat/head tube angles are the same.)
OK. I see your point. … And when talking about superior handling, we need to keep in mind each one of us may have different preferences. E.g., I prefer a quickly reacting bike with an almost “nervous” geometry. Therefore, I like it when the BB is higher than the “classic” 7.5 cm drop. But at the same time I like to be in control under each condition, which is achieved in the case of my bike by weight distribution (i.e. long chain stays and short fw-to-BB distance) in combination with a rather long stem. I posted a pic of my road bike already. But you may have another look here.
I think weight distribution vs. center of gravity is essentially a tomato/tomato potato/potato situation. Don’t ask me how that works in type.
More fodder. Trebon’s new bike, presumably fitted to him already.
@michael
I’m in the market for a ‘cross bike and that Felt is giving me serious, SERIOUS carbone. Seeing it in my side, albeit with less saddle setback than I prefer, moves it from Carbone to Wantbone.
@frank
Especially considering the considerable thought I’ve given to SRAM on ‘cross, and my well-established love for Zipp.
Do you think Trebon would mind if I “borrowed” it? Just for tonight? Just for a taste? He can even watch, if that helps close the deal.
I bet if you find him in your town he would let you test ride it if you gave him you car keys, phone and wife. If you and he made it to Portland, I know a Kona pro rider who knows him who would vouch for you for the test ride.