|Fit Kit System vs. Serotta Fit... Opinions Pleeze||Kristin|
Mar 7, 2001 6:40 AM
|ET - thanks for the message. I'm starting a new post since your message is off the page now. I liked the way posts floated to the top when there was a new response in the old forum.
Okay, since the chance is slim that I'll come to understanding bike geometry before the mecury reaches 70, I've decided (per your advice) to get fit pre-purchase.
I located two dealers who do this. One does Serotta and the other Fit Kit System (http://www.bikefitkit.com). The Fit Kit guy has been using the oak box since its birth and was certified in Boston. He was also personally recommended to me by two people. The Serotta guy is also certified and seems extremely knowledgeable. So my question is which system is better to use and why?
Eeks... I fear a visit from Captain Alphabet.
|Sort topics by....Latest Response||MeDotOrg|
Mar 7, 2001 7:07 AM
|"liked the way posts floated to the top when there was a new response in the old forum."
Can't help you with the fit kit question (I'm interested in the responses myself) but you CAN sort topics by latest response by clicking on the "Latest Response" link on the "Sort Topics By..." header.
|Thanks :) I noticed that...||Kristin|
Mar 7, 2001 7:17 AM
|...but each time you come to the board, you have to click "sort by lastest response". I was unsure if anyone else was doing that, and thus, worried that no one would read my response to ET.
alas, change is hard...
|I've had them both||ET|
Mar 7, 2001 7:38 AM
|The Fit Kit guy messed up because he measured my inseam loosely (I was wearing my weekday pants) rather than tightly, and seemed unsure which way was correct when I questioned him about it.
The Serotta size cycle is an everything-continuously-adjustable stationary bike which zones in on your ideal riding measurments after several hours being on it (so you get to loosen up and simulate as if on a long ride). It's more real-life rather than table lookup, and will get you real close. (Make sure to use only an authorized Serotta size cycle technician, i.e. one who has taken the course. Check the Serotta website on the state by state listing to see if your Serotta fitter is authorized.) Some claim the size cycle tends to fit you slightly long on the top tube because the cycle is anchored and so you don't have to balance. This may be true, but it should get you within .5 cm. One warning note: if you go the Serotta size cycle route, select your pedal system (e.g. Look, Speedplay, clips/straps) before the test and wear them to it, because changing alters all the numbers a bit.
No test can be perfect, and you riding needs might change slightly with time, age, injury, etc. Between the two I recommend the Serotta size cycle fitting. But it's not mandatory (although a lot of people, even on this board, have beend real sorry later with mistaken purchases), and you don't have to be a certified mathematician to avoid the test. On a budget of $1100, $100 for a test is a lot. Based on your initial fit description, my gues is you need a steep seat tube angle (e.g. 74) and a top tube something like 52, but I'm just guessing. Again, if you avoid the fitting, just try out a few bikes, see which put you close to the middle of the rails for the given seat post setback, and that's your seat tube angle (available in the company's catalog or on the web). Then see if the standover is right; if so, note the frame size (but make sure you understand the c-t sizing games; post here if you have questions about this). Then take it for a ride to see how the reach feels and make note of the top tube and stem. When you hit it, you're done!
|re: Fit Kit System vs. Serotta Fit... Opinions Pleeze||Chris Jones|
Mar 7, 2001 8:30 AM
|There's a few people on this board that have posted a link to a very thorough java based fit program on the web. I actually liked its numbers better than my Serotta-certified fit. Get someone to help, take the numbers carefully and it works very well, or at least as well as anything else does.
|re: Anyone know the URL for this Java fit program? (nm)||MichaelC|
Mar 7, 2001 2:03 PM
|Here it is...||Chris Jones|
Mar 7, 2001 2:48 PM
|Is it just me, or do they always come out way low?||ET|
Mar 8, 2001 6:04 AM
|Instead of filling out the complicated form, if you page down to the Average Values and click on an appropriate entry, it will produce average output based on the selection, including your suggested frame size. Well, when I click, for example, on my inseam (84), even the height output produced comes real close to my own (just over 5' 10"), so it should produce a close fit, and yet it recommends the pithy size 53.9 c-c. My bike is a 57 c-c; the Serotta size cycle came up with that as well. How many people around my height/inseam would choose a 54 c-c?|
|I noticed the same thing||MichaelC|
Mar 8, 2001 6:18 AM
|I'm about the same height and inseam, and 54 c-c seems pretty darn small. I rode a 53 c-c about six months ago and it felt pretty darn wrong. Maybe with a really, really long stem :)|
|Yeah, but...||Chris Jones|
Mar 8, 2001 7:23 AM
|Once you get through the entire thing it will give you sizes from several different fitting systems. You get a full range of numbers to play with. |
For something that's as opiniated as bike fit I think its as useful than the bike shop fit-session I had. On the other hand I do know enough now that I'm pretty sure what I need without the computer program.
|I got the ranges too, and they're all still very low||ET|
Mar 8, 2001 8:23 AM
|For brevity I gave just one number, but the ranges from different systems were indeed given without filling out the long form. Here were the complete stats (I'm giving only the c-c figures, because c-t sometimes has its own definition problems):
Cycling Science: 53.8-54.6
Gary Klein: 55 c-c
With the exception of the last, which is at least getting somewhat closer, The others are all around 54. It's just too low. Some formulas (e.g. Colorado Cyclist's) lose accuracy as the rider gets taller. Maybe this one is more accurate for shorter folks. Anyone shorter tried it?
I'm a reasonable man. I'm willing to listen as to why someone of my dimensions should be on a 56 instead of a 57. But a 54? No way!
|You may be right||Chris Jones|
Mar 8, 2001 11:07 AM
|Klein is C-T. |
It wasn't so far off for myself that I'd be offended about it, but I like a relatively smaller frame than you do. It appearantly doesn't work for everyone.
Mar 7, 2001 2:44 PM
|I don't know anything about the fitkit system, however...
I just got a new Serotta (stock 55cm frame). My LBS used the Serotta size-cycle-thing to fit me on the bike. The end result is awesome. I have 200+ miles in the last 9 days and I'm really happy with fit.
The fitting experience was really easy and it gave me confidence that I would be comfortable on my new ride.
Bicycle fitting is a science, but it's not an exact science (flame invitation). My advice is to go to a shop where you like the people. Both fit systems should work.
|Bioracer is another option.||Highgear|
Mar 7, 2001 3:32 PM
|I have read about this system in a few English cycling magazines and it looks very promising. My opinion of the Fitkit is that it's not very reliable for proper fit other than cleat adjustments. You really need a trained eye to look at your pedaling style (heel up or level) to dial you in on the saddle hight. The Sizecycle and the Bioracer fitting system will do that. Go to this link ,click on English and then click "Where to fit" to see if any shops are near by. http://www.bioracer.nl|| |