Bike Fit Issues. Please Help

JSexton23

Ok, so I am new to the forum. I came here specifically to address my fit issues that I have been having. Let me begin by telling the back story.

In 2017 I purchased a Soma Smoothie 58cm frame. I rode it very little due to the fact that I could never get comfortable. I was always having too much pressure on my hands. After a short ride my hands would be tired and I would have tightness/cramping in my upper back between my shoulders and my neck would be sore.

Forward to earlier this year. I decided (perhaps incorrectly???) that the frame reach was too much and I needed to go smaller. In my infinite wisdom (read sarcasm and self-depreciation), I had my mechanic move all my components over to a Soma ES 56cm. This was clearly a mistake as the ES 56 actually has 2mm more reach (a measurement I did not realize was so important). I'm having the same issues, too much pressure on my hands while riding.

So, I've used the Competitive Cyclist measuring tool and I will list all the measurements that I use. However, the tool is telling me I need a 53-54cm top tube and a similar saddle to handlebar height. Here are the measurements I obtained from several sessions with my fiancee and a measuring tape:

Actual Inseam 83cm
Trunk 64cm
Forearm 32cm
Arm 63cm
Thigh 60cm
Lower Leg 54cm
Sternal Notch 155cm
Total Height 183.5cm

So, the question is do I need a 55-57cm seat tube and 53-55cm top tube frame? Or did I go the wrong way on moving to a small frame and actually need to go to a larger frame? And I know, I need to have a professional bike fit performed. That's in the schedule. But for now, what's going on??? I want to enjoy riding again.

tangerineowl

My experience with the CC fit guide for a road bike, is the Race Fit worked best. (I initially purchased a frame, considering the Eddy Fit). Thing is though, it doesn't include stack and reach, which to me is a much better place to start when looking at frames online in the geo chart.

The thing with the CC seat tube lengths guide is its based on the old style road frames which mostly had horizontal top tubes, thus longer seat tube lengths. Such frames these days are the minority; they're mostly sloping top tubes. So in most cases you can ignore that number given, unless a frame you're interested in has a really short seat tube length, in which case you'd have to run a crazy long seat post if you can find one to suit. You're saddle height placement is going to be the same either way. Its the saddle fore/aft position that will be affected more or less by the seat tube angle.

Personally for the time being I'd just go into some shops and test ride some bikes labelled as 53/54/55/56, as the frame dimensions (and feel) can vary quite a bit between brands even though they have the same label size.

slowbike

The simple "fit" guide I had given for me on a road bike was to sit on the bike with your hands on the hoods - look down - if you can see the front wheel skewer then you need to change the stem (or frame if you haven't got the leeway).

So try it - if you can see the skewer behind the handlebar then you need a shorter stem - that may or may not be possible - depending on your stem length and the amount the skewer is behind.

That said - that is for a very basic, initial fit - and your position will change over time. I would look at shortening and raising the stem (they're angled - so you could flip it over to lift the handlebars - stems are available in different angles). However, before doing this (and the steps above) you should make sure your saddle is in the right place.

JSexton23

I have experimented with different stem sizes. I am currently using a 90 mm stem and it is still causing issues. I have also moved my saddle fore and aft, and if the saddle is forward it makes the problem worse. I end up putting more weight on my hands with the saddle forward. I have a set back seat post and the saddle is all the way back on the rails. I do not want to go much shorter than 90 mm on my stand because the steering gets twitchy

slowbike

JSexton23 wrote:

I have experimented with different stem sizes. I am currently using a 90 mm stem and it is still causing issues. I have also moved my saddle fore and aft, and if the saddle is forward it makes the problem worse. I end up putting more weight on my hands with the saddle forward. I have a set back seat post and the saddle is all the way back on the rails. I do not want to go much shorter than 90 mm on my stand because the steering gets twitchy

You don't adjust the seat for reach - you adjust it for your legs over the pedals ...

quite understand about not wanting to go too short on the stem.

It is quite probable that you have an incompatible frame

JSexton23

Slowbike wrote:

JSexton23 wrote:

I have experimented with different stem sizes. I am currently using a 90 mm stem and it is still causing issues. I have also moved my saddle fore and aft, and if the saddle is forward it makes the problem worse. I end up putting more weight on my hands with the saddle forward. I have a set back seat post and the saddle is all the way back on the rails. I do not want to go much shorter than 90 mm on my stand because the steering gets twitchy

You don't adjust the seat for reach - you adjust it for your legs over the pedals ...

quite understand about not wanting to go too short on the stem.

It is quite probable that you have an incompatible frame

I understand the point of moving the saddle for balance over the bottom bracket. I’ve tried the test to lift my hands off the handlebars and stay balanced and I always slide forward, speed up my cadence, and fall back onto my hands no matter where my saddle is at.

slowbike

JSexton23 wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

JSexton23 wrote:

I have experimented with different stem sizes. I am currently using a 90 mm stem and it is still causing issues. I have also moved my saddle fore and aft, and if the saddle is forward it makes the problem worse. I end up putting more weight on my hands with the saddle forward. I have a set back seat post and the saddle is all the way back on the rails. I do not want to go much shorter than 90 mm on my stand because the steering gets twitchy

You don't adjust the seat for reach - you adjust it for your legs over the pedals ...

quite understand about not wanting to go too short on the stem.

It is quite probable that you have an incompatible frame

I understand the point of moving the saddle for balance over the bottom bracket. I’ve tried the test to lift my hands off the handlebars and stay balanced and I always slide forward, speed up my cadence, and fall back onto my hands no matter where my saddle is at.

Hmm ... ok ...
I'm going to suggest that perhaps you need to go to an independent bike shop and get a basic bike fit - explain your issues first and see if they're willing just to look at you on the bike and give you their opinion.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

I'm struggling to find my old CC bike fit calculator results from several years before the internet data security rule change (last year?).

I'm ~178cm tall, ~82.5cm cycling inseam, ~64cm arms.

My "58cm" framed Cube has 388mm reach and 610mm stack. Top tube 57.5cm. Full geo on https://www.cube.eu/uk/products/road-ra ... hred-2016/

Very roughly...
Saddle is ~5cm behind BB, BB to saddle top ~72.5cm (recently tweaked to get ~30 degree knee bend relative to hips and ankle at pedal dead centre with my heel higher than the ball of my foot as normal when I pedal)
~54cm from saddle nose tip to middle of bar tops
~4.5cm of spacers including conical under stem (I usually have stem ~1.5/2cm lower, experimenting)
110mm 6 degree default stem

Given you have ~5cm more torso and ~5mm longer legs than I, you possibly want your saddle a touch higher and further back and a few more cm from saddle nose to the bars through a combination of frame and/or stem.

JSexton23

NitrousOxide wrote:

I'm struggling to find my old CC bike fit calculator results from several years before the internet data security rule change (last year?).

I'm ~178cm tall, ~82.5cm cycling inseam, ~64cm arms.

My "58cm" framed Cube has 388mm reach and 610mm stack. Top tube 57.5cm. Full geo on https://www.cube.eu/uk/products/road-ra ... hred-2016/

Very roughly...
Saddle is ~5cm behind BB, BB to saddle top ~72.5cm (recently tweaked to get ~30 degree knee bend relative to hips and ankle at pedal dead centre with my heel higher than the ball of my foot as normal when I pedal)
~54cm from saddle nose tip to middle of bar tops
~4.5cm of spacers including conical under stem (I usually have stem ~1.5/2cm lower, experimenting)
110mm 6 degree default stem

Given you have ~5cm more torso and ~5mm longer legs than I, you possibly want your saddle a touch higher and further back and a few more cm from saddle nose to the bars through a combination of frame and/or stem.

Great info! Thank you. I currently have my saddle 73cm from center of bb to saddle top, and all the way pushed back on the rails. I can only get like 50cm distance from saddle nose to handle bars. I’m using a 25mm setback seatpost. I feel like I should be further back to help with my weight distribution. I should add that I’m 185lbs. so not terribly unfit.

Ben6899

JSexton23 wrote:

hands off the handlebars... I always slide forward, speed up my cadence, and fall back onto my hands no matter where my saddle is at.

What's your core strength like?

JSexton23

Ben6899 wrote:

JSexton23 wrote:

hands off the handlebars... I always slide forward, speed up my cadence, and fall back onto my hands no matter where my saddle is at.

What's your core strength like?

I’m no Adonis but I do kettle bell work outs. I’m trying to increase my flexibility but I don’t feel weak.

webboo

You say in your first post that on a short ride these problems occur. Is this still the case because if it is then I suspect it’s not the bike. As I suspect that most of the experienced riders on here could ride a bike several sizes too big or too small on a short ride with out any problems.

JSexton23

[/img]

Webboo wrote:

You say in your first post that on a short ride these problems occur. Is this still the case because if it is then I suspect it’s not the bike. As I suspect that most of the experienced riders on here could ride a bike several sizes too big or too small on a short ride with out any problems.

Yes, this occurs short ride or long. I feel lots of weight in my hands almost as soon as I get seated on the saddle. After about 5 miles or so I get tightness between my shoulders, and I have to keep moving my hands into different positions from beginning to end if a ride.

webboo

Can you post a picture as I could go for a short ride on my five year old grandsons bike without experiencing what you are describing.

webboo

JSexton23 wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

JSexton23 wrote:

hands off the handlebars... I always slide forward, speed up my cadence, and fall back onto my hands no matter where my saddle is at.

What's your core strength like?

I’m no Adonis but I do kettle bell work outs. I’m trying to increase my flexibility but I don’t feel weak.

Have you always done these. Could it be possible these are the issue.

cougie

Kettle bell isn't the best for core strength.

As has been said - a side on photo of you on the bike - or several of them would be preferable.

JSexton23

I'm in the process of getting a picture and a video uploaded. Is there a trick to this?

Can somebody upload these for me? I do not have permission and I do not have my images uploaded to the web. Thank you

pilot_pete

Just upload your photos to a free web photo hosting site (just google those words) and and copy and paste the relevant links into a post here.

PP

pilot_pete

Your frame sounds too big to me. I’m a fraction shorter than you with the same inseam and I ride a 55cm TT.

PP

JSexton23

Pilot Pete wrote:

Your frame sounds too big to me. I’m a fraction shorter than you with the same inseam and I ride a 55cm TT.

This might be the case. I am going to try to get a fit in the next couple of weeks to confirm this before buying a third frame.

I think my frame might work for some people, but where I think it fails for me is the reach is 394mm and the seat tube angle is 73.5 degrees. My thinking, and please tell me if I am looking at this wrong, is to go to a frame that has a shorter reach. Even if the top tube is longer than my current frame, as long as the reach is shorter I think this will help due to the fact that I can get my weight behind the bottom bracket a little further than I can currently. The problem now is the reach is a tad long and I cannot get my weight back any further to counter my upper body and therefore my hands to bear the weight. Is that right? ie; a 58cm frame with a reach of 381mm and a 73 degree sta might fit better than my current 56cm frame with a reach of 394mm and sta of 73.5 degrees. Am I missing something?

And to those hinting at core strength, I do not feel this is an issue. And yes, you can get a core workout with kettle bells and lots of burpees.

pilot_pete

Stack and reach of any frame are the comparable figures. You need to find out what your optimum reach is and buy a frame that allows you to get close to this reach with a sensible length stem (i.e. not an 80cm, and probably not a 140mm either!)

The fact you cannot get your weight back far enough on your current set up means that the frame reach is too large. Why? Because you can get your weight back far enough with a correctly adjusted saddle position, it’s just at that position you can’t comfortably reach the bars even with a short stem.

You can either try different size bikes to get an idea of what is comfortable, and take a note of the reach or get measured on a jig. The beauty of the second approach is the fitter can get you an very comfortable position, take measurements and advise which frame sizes in various models will allow you to replicate that position with a suitable bar/ stem combination.

Don’t forget, not only can stem length adjust reach to the tops of the bars, but the depth and reach of individual bar designs affect reach to the hoods and drop.

The main thing is to get a correctly sized frame and then ensure you get appropriate components to allow you to get into your optimal position. Frames from different manufacturers have different geometries - so the quoted ‘size’, such as 58 may be meaningless as another manufacturer with a frame exactly the same physical size may call it something else, like 54! I kid you not. This is the problem when it comes to comparing brands. Also remember that a frame the same size may be completely different, such as one might be very racy with a short head tube facilitating a much lower body position, and the other may be much taller with a longer head tube facilitating a more upright seated position without a huge stack of stem spacers. Horses for courses...

PP

cycleclinic

Calculators got you into to this problem. Use your current frame.

First get the saddle level. Then set the saddle height correctly. A rough BB to top of saddle distance is 83*0.883. that may need fine tuning though.

Now sit on the bike and pedal the saddle fore and aft gets set so you bum is at the back of the saddle when pedalling. There should be no sliding forward.

Now work out what stack is required to get your back angle where your comfortable. Your stem length is picked so when your on the tops, hoods and drops, your back is straight. I don't mean ruler straight but there should be no obvious hunch or shoulders pushing back. Your neck line should be in line with your back too.

Bar orientation is important too. With modern bars the top area should be flat. Most shifter on most modern bars give the flat area.

You have to do the fit in this order. All the other posts have elements of what I have described but not the process. You don't need to buy a new frame yet.


Now after that is done then you can see if the frame is too big or small. You will have contact point measurements. They make more sense on the right frame size. The 56cm frame is probably not far off.

Buying a new frame before you have your contact point measurements set is foolish. Do it the right way round please.

cycleclinic

The reason why I say get the contact point measurements sorted before buying a new frame is my bike collection. I am comfortable on all of them. I have a preferred frame size on the top tube length and other dimensions I prefer but I have a number of bikes outside of that. My ideal is a 58x58cm or 59cm square frame or its equivalent. I have bikes though that differ from that 58x60, 58x55cm, 57x57xcm, 63x61cm and you what they all fit fine. Angles, stack, stem and bar differences make these differing frames fit. The point is frame size is important but you can make a frame fit it just might not be ideal.

All of my bikes are fine to ride for long periods. So I think you can get the frame you have to work well enough. Then see if the for can be improved by a new frame
Pilot Pete is right about one thing. Ignore the stated size you have to look at the geometry. If your like me you look at the key points of the geometry and just know what stem is required to make it for well. Of you can't do that run it by some one who can. They need to see you on your fitted bike though, I would need too. The list of measurements you gave are fine but we don't know if they have been measured properly and I certainly can't look at measurements and see you on a bike. I would need to see you on a home and go through my for process and bingo you would be comfortable. I don't do fits anymore on case your thinking.

JSexton23

thecycleclinic wrote:

Calculators got you into to this problem. Use your current frame.

First get the saddle level. Then set the saddle height correctly. A rough BB to top of saddle distance is 83*0.883. that may need fine tuning though.

Now sit on the bike and pedal the saddle fore and aft gets set so you bum is at the back of the saddle when pedalling. There should be no sliding forward.

That’s part of the problem. I can find a saddle position where I don’t slide forward. I’ve had the saddle everywhere on the rails and up and down the seat post.

I have a very long steer tube and I can get my bars to within 49cm of the handlebars and put the farther away. Nothing changes the sliding forward.

wongataa

The tilt of the saddle will affect how much you slide forward/aft. When adjusting the saddle to the correct position you should be ignoring the handlebars. They are irrelevant for setting the saddle position correctly.

webboo

JSexton23 wrote:

Pilot Pete wrote:

And to those hinting at core strength, I do not feel this is an issue. And yes, you can get a core workout with kettle bells and lots of burpees.

It might be build core strength but not cycling specific core strength.
When not riding my bike I rock climb and I train on a 45 degree overhanging board, which is great for my rock climbing core strength but is actually counter productive for cycling in that it tightens up a lot muscles. Which can lead to lower back issues on the bike.

imposter2.0

You can get a brilliant bike-specific core workout simply by riding a bike...

StillGoing

Pilot Pete wrote:

The main thing is to get a correctly sized frame and then ensure you get appropriate components to allow you to get into your optimal position. Frames from different manufacturers have different geometries - so the quoted ‘size’, such as 58 may be meaningless as another manufacturer with a frame exactly the same physical size may call it something else, like 54! I kid you not. This is the problem when it comes to comparing brands. Also remember that a frame the same size may be completely different, such as one might be very racy with a short head tube facilitating a much lower body position, and the other may be much taller with a longer head tube facilitating a more upright seated position without a huge stack of stem spacers. Horses for courses...

PP

Frame size differs even within brands and models. My two road bikes I sized down to XS, effectively a 48cm seat tube and 51cm relative top tube. One I have to use an 80mm stem to get the saddle tip to hood measurement right and the other a 120mm stem. My fit measurements are all recorded from a session with Mike at Bike Dynamics and transferred to each bike.

JSexton23

wongataa wrote:

The tilt of the saddle will affect how much you slide forward/aft. When adjusting the saddle to the correct position you should be ignoring the handlebars. They are irrelevant for setting the saddle position correctly.

I most certainly have tried every possible degree of saddle tilt up and down, without regard to handlebars. I didn't mention the handlebars in my post about sliding forward because of that very reason.

Imposter wrote:

You can get a brilliant bike-specific core workout simply by riding a bike...

Brilliant! I'm trying hard. I just get so uncomfortable so early in a ride that I haven't been able to break the 12-15 mile barrier. Perhaps that is considered short rides to most of you experienced riders, but for me it's been a challenge due to comfort, not fitness. I can run 5 miles no issues. On a bike, my legs feel fine, I'm not winded or gassed, just in discomfort.

Webboo wrote:

JSexton23 wrote:

Pilot Pete wrote:

And to those hinting at core strength, I do not feel this is an issue. And yes, you can get a core workout with kettle bells and lots of burpees.

It might be build core strength but not cycling specific core strength.
When not riding my bike I rock climb and I train on a 45 degree overhanging board, which is great for my rock climbing core strength but is actually counter productive for cycling in that it tightens up a lot muscles. Which can lead to lower back issues on the bike.

Good points here. I have been having lots of lower back pain in my life in general. That's why I mentioned my working on flexibility. I feel like that is the greatest factor in my athleticism right now.

webboo

Given that you are in discomfort within 12 miles, I’m struggling with the idea it’s the bike. On Sunday I rode the Addlestone trail at Dalby Forrest with my daughter and grandson. She has just got a mountain bike 2 weeks ago not having been on bike for at least 3 years, my grandson age 5 only learnt to ride without stabilisers in May. This trail is 8 miles of gravel and stoney trails, despite this nobody had any issues with their hands or other upper body parts. My grandson has his bike set so he can put his feet on the floor when sat in the saddle, so no where near the correct position. My daughter rode several parts with just one hand on the bars as she had to carry a small dog under one arm as he couldn’t keep up.
I rode it on my winter road bike which was a bit bone shakey but again no issues re hands etc.
So this why I can’t understand why are in such discomfort after such a short time riding.
My grandson did complain that his legs were out of breath at the end

JSexton23

Webboo wrote:

Given that you are in discomfort within 12 miles, I’m struggling with the idea it’s the bike. On Sunday I rode the Addlestone trail at Dalby Forrest with my daughter and grandson. She has just got a mountain bike 2 weeks ago not having been on bike for at least 3 years, my grandson age 5 only learnt to ride without stabilisers in May. This trail is 8 miles of gravel and stoney trails, despite this nobody had any issues with their hands or other upper body parts. My grandson has his bike set so he can put his feet on the floor when sat in the saddle, so no where near the correct position. My daughter rode several parts with just one hand on the bars as she had to carry a small dog under one arm as he couldn’t keep up.
I rode it on my winter road bike which was a bit bone shakey but again no issues re hands etc.
So this why I can’t understand why are in such discomfort after such a short time riding.
My grandson did complain that his legs were out of breath at the end

Then why am I having such discomfort? On two different bike frames, over 2 years of this experience?