Micheal Ra wrote:
>>
>
> What exactly is this "comprehensive bike fit analysis"? When I bought the Chilliwack from AW about
> 11 months ago they just looked at me and said that I'd need the biggest frame (56cm), which they
> didn't have prepared at that time. They had the bike prepared when I returned a couple of days
> later. I tried the bike out; it was comfortable and so I bought it. Since then I've raised the
> saddle quite a lot and it's become even more comfortable.
>
> Mr. Chilliwack
In my case, I worked out from leg length what frame size I'd need. Shop stuck me on bike when I went
to collect, and said yes, it was fine.
I found out later, once I twigged all was NOT fine at all, that the top tube was too long (my bike
is one of the smaller frame sizes available) and I was far too stretched out on it. Four stems
later, it's much improved - but still a compromise over the dimensions the frame *should* be. For
me, it led to problems with knees hitting -ahem- various parts of my anatomy occasionally, feeling
the bars far too far away, fingers not able to wrap around the levers properly, bars being too low,
inability to steer (since bars already out of reach moved FURTHER away on one side), saddle being as
far forward as possible to reduce reach, which led to incorrect knee/leg position for pedalling,
weight distribution on the bike was utterly up the creek, etc etc etc.
I suspect people in the middle of the size ranges probably CAN get on a bike and adapt to them,
unless they have body proportions out of the average relationships - but unless you've ridden a bike
like that before, you often have no idea if you have long arms/short legs, or vice versa, or long
arms and legs but short trunk...
If I ever get another bike, I'm getting a frame fitted to me, and then built up with components from
there. Unless I get a 'bent before I wear this bike out
Velvet
