Competition Road Racing Bicycle Size/ Proportions Analysis

By: Edward C. Zimmermann <edz@bsn.com>


Purpose
This program attempts to assist in the determination of ones optimal road bicycle position.
Focus
Empirical models for general competitive road racing using a UCI compliant double diamond frame. Criterium, cross, mountain, track and other disciplines (and positions such as the Position American popular in triathlon) have different requirements and models.
Disclaimer
Sound like rocket science? Fortunately, rocket science has a sounder basis.
Basis Systeme netzwerk (BSn) makes no representation or warranty, express or implied with respect to this publication or the programs or information described in this publication. In no event shall BSn, it employees or contractors be liable for specific, indirect, or consequential damages.

Trademarks other than those owned by BSn used throughout this manual belong to the owners and are used here in a purely editorial fashion.


I. Physical Measurements

Crude Averages Based upon 86.5 cm inseam:
MeasureValue
EInseamcm
OOutseamcm
KHeightcm (6'0.4")
KgWeightkg (174 lbs)
wShoulder Widthcm
fShoe size (pt)pt
bExtended Arm Lengthcm.
BArm Length (Wall to fist)cm.
AForearm length (elbow to fist)cm.
TUpperbody lengthcm.
JLower leg ("tibia length surrogate", measured ground to knee) lengthcm.
CUpper leg ("femur length surrogate", measured knee to buttocks) lengthcm.
®Framebuilder

II. Material Selection

Road Bicycle (6.6 cm hanger drop, 270 mm. "bottom bracket height")
ModelFrame Height (c-c)
Cycling Science55.3-56.2 cm
Merlin57.1 (c-t) 55.6 (c-c)
"Abfahren/VSF" variant (Table)82.0-82.3 cm (standover) 56-60 cm. (c-t) [typ. ~56 cm. (56.0) c-c, ETRO 622 tires]
Height based(min)55.1 - 59.0(max) (56.2 average) cm.
Gary Klein's (Height based table)59 cm. (c-t), ~57 (c-c)

    A simple rule is thumb: The frame height (c-c) is the length J. Attributed in Hinault's book to Merckx's mechanic, this model is both easy to measure and seems to produce reasonable values for frame height: although the frame height is generally given as proportional to the measure of inseam (E) or, the more difficult to (correctly) measure "trochantric height", outseam (O), a longer, resp. shorter femur relative to tibia, viz. the ratio "C/J", implies that the seat should be more pushed back, resp. raised, from the normative base position. While the femur length also contributes to saddle height, in series frame production, the larger the frame, the more laid back the seat tube and the more one can push the saddle back behind the bottom bracket. The longer the femur w.r.t. the length of the tibia, the flatter the seat-tube angle that is appropriate. Also the longer the cranks (dependent upon femur length), the less the required saddle height (above the bottom bracket) whence the smaller the requirements on frame height.
In numerous, particularly older treatments, one often discusses the standover height. The only relevance of standover is that a minimum of 2 cm or so is advised.
The inseam based approach can for the exceptionally long femured lead to slightly oversized frames--- With some series frames this might be required to get a flat enough seat-tube to correctly position the saddle. On the other hand, a longer torso, and in particular longer forearms, requires a longer stem and/or top-tube just as shorter forearms will require a shorter stem and/or top-tube--- a longer torso and shorter arms might also require a larger frame (or longer stem quill or extended steer-tube) to narrow the difference between the seat and handlebar height, while longer forearms wrt. torso requires a longer stem and shorter top-tube. In this light, it probably makes sense to fit the length of the seat-tube to the tibia, the seat-tube angle to the ratio of femur/tibia, the top-tube to the length of the torso and the stem to the forearms-- and to increase quill, resp. head-tube length, with smaller upper-arms. Since the length of the top-tube for a specific reach increases with more slack seat-tubes, when between values (within 5 mm) a good starting point is to fit to seat-tube angle and the top-tube rather than height: round up with long forearms, feet and tibia, resp. to round down with shorter forearms and longer femur. The larger frame (1 cm. increments) affords, generally, approx. a 5 mm longer top-tube than the shorter. Since seats can, generally, be pushed forward, despite the slacker seat tube of the larger frame it will still afford a reasonable fit for the cyclists with longer torsos and shorter femurs. Larger arms, esp. upper arms, allow for a larger difference between seat and stem height affording the possibility of a smaller frame--- and longer forearms are better suited to longer stems and shorter top-tubes. Substantially longer torso and arms will require a frame designed with a longer top-tube.
Condition and style should not be ignored. Women cyclists, despite morphology, tend to prefer shorter top-tubes and often slightly larger frames to afford a more upright position or a tendency to bend more at the waist than pelvis.

Summary: To increase rigidity, reduce weight and afford a lower Cw the trend is to select the smallest possible frame that affords a proper seat position, reach (top-tube length and handlebar-seat rise) and response (stem-length). A slightly smaller frame, in general, can be compensated by other parameters such as stem and seat post length variations but a larger frame (less stability, more weight, poorer aerodynamics of the rider/bicycle unit), in particular a too long top-tube (less control) leaves much to be desired. The main constraint on seat-post height selection (as alias for frame-height) is the length of the stem quill. The use of a positive stem instead of a "7"-stem, as was common practice for mountain bikes, can afford more height-- a technique followed by some of the road products of Klein and Giant-- at the cost of traditional aesthetics. Cyclist with morphologies substantially variant from the norm (some women and a very small percentage of men) will need to seek the advise of an experienced custom framebuilder.


A Few Series Frames (Examples)
Frame BuilderHeight (c-c)Top-Tube length (c-c)Seat Tube Angle
Cinelli550 mm550 mm73.0 °
Cinelli560 mm560 mm73.0 °
Colnago555 mm553 mm73.0 °
Colnago565 mm561 mm73.0 °
DeKerf555 mm570 mm74.0 °
DeKerf575 mm585 mm74.0 °
DeRosa550 mm550 mm73.5 °
DeRosa560 mm560 mm73.0 °
Fondriest550 mm560 mm73.0 °
Fondriest560 mm565 mm72.5 °
Habanero Ti545 mm560 mm73.5 °
Habanero Ti565 mm570 mm73.5 °
Independant Fabrications550 mm560 mm73.0 °
Independant Fabrications560 mm570 mm72.5 °
LeMond550 mm565 mm73.0 °
LeMond570 mm575 mm72.5 °
Litespeed Classic555 mm565 mm73.0 °
Litespeed Classic575 mm575 mm73.0 °
Litespeed Ultimate555 mm565 mm73.0 °
Litespeed Ultimate565 mm570 mm73.0 °
Merckx550 mm555 mm73.0 °
Merckx560 mm560 mm72.9 °
Merlin555 mm565 mm73.0 °
Merlin565 mm571 mm73.0 °
Marinoni550 mm555 mm74.0 °
Marinoni560 mm560 mm74.0 °
Richey540 mm540 mm73.5 °
Richey560 mm560 mm73.5 °
Serotta550 mm555 mm73.0 °
Serotta560 mm560 mm73.0 °
Torelli540 mm545 mm74.5 °
Torelli560 mm560 mm74.0 °
The above builders [ed: submit complete data for inclusion in this list to edz@bsn.com] and the frame sizes shown are for the basis of comparison. The builders were selected as representative of popular frame kits that each illustrate a different philosophy and perception of their average "customer". (Overly) Simplified:
  • Merckx's (so-called century geometry) formula is very slack seat tube angles and shorter top tubes. Like "the cannibal" himself the design is for longer legged cyclists with proportionally longer femurs. The design shows a preference (from Merckx's Pavé days) for longer stems to increase stability.
  • Series Colnago's are designed for very similar cyclists to those of Merckx. They share with Merckx the preference for longer stems.
  • Merlin by Tom Kellog appear to be modeled upon similar limb proportions with a balanced view somewhere between Merckx and Colnago. Although a U.S. builder they are not tuned to longer torsoed Americans-- a realm handled by Tom Kellog's custom operation.
  • Tom Ritchey's frames seem to assume a mid-atlantic cyclist morphology-- somewhere between Turin and Palo Alto.
  • The Serotta geometry is towards slack seat-tube angles and longer top-tubes. The geometry seems appropriate for longer torsoed Americans (the L geometry) who like to push the saddle back.
  • LeMond's philosophy is: Very relaxed seat-tube angles and long top-tubes. They are appropriate to anyone with morphologies similar to the 3-time Tour winner: Long arms, average to slightly longer torso and proportionally shorter tibia. Litespeed builds their popular Ti frames with dimensions very similar to Serotta but c-t instead of c-c.
  • Independent Fabrications comes with a mountain bike heritage (founded by ex-Fat City employees) and an independent concept: Really long top-tubes, slack seat-tube angles and a high bottom-bracket are the ingredients. Not quite sure about the intent, but the design seems to want one to select substantially smaller frames with >73o stems (and long cranks).
  • Torelli's geometry preference seems to be even more optimized for the U.S. market and tuned to their model of average American limb proportions.

One should select, in general, on the basis of power, stability, ergonomics (comfort) and use.

Crank Length

Typically cranks are 170, 172.5, 175.0, 177.5 or 180 mm in length. The "standard" crank length is 170 mm for road and 175 mm for mountain bikes. Despite vast differences in femur and inseam/outseam length among professional cyclists, most professional cyclists traditionally select cranks in the range of 170 to 175 mm--- and at most between 2.5 and 5.0mm longer in mountain and time-trial stages.

ModelLength (G)G/CCirc/E
C-proportional177.50 (177.3) mm.28.4 (1.3) %1.288
LE (1.0250×E+86)174.6 mm28.0%1.269
LE (1.4300×C+86)175.2 mm28.1%1.273
Kirby Palm (2.16×E)186.8 mm29.9%1.357
Palm derivate (2.99×C)186.8 mm29.9%1.357
Ed(mund) Burke (Height based table)172.5 mm27.6%1.253
Burke derived (inseam based)172.5 mm27.6%1.253
Roger Marquis (Height based table)172.5 mm27.6%1.253
MarquisE derivate (inseam based)172.5 mm27.6%1.253
MarquisC derivate (C based)172.5 mm27.6%1.253
U.S. OTC (~K/2 + 82.5)175.0 (174.5) mm28.0%1.271
OTCE variant (1.06*E + 82.5) 175.0 (174.2) mm27.9%1.265
OTCC variant (1.47*C + 82.5) 175.0 (174.2) mm27.9%1.266
Hinault (Conventional)175.00 mm28.0%1.271
ConventionalC175.00 mm28.0%1.271
Hinault's 2nd table (Competition)177.50 mm28.4%1.290
CompetitionC177.50 mm28.4%1.290

The selection of crank length is theme that more resembles religion than bio-mechanics. While it is commonly accepted that too long cranks can create undue stress on the knee the issue of optimum length is little, if not at all, understood. Although the "170mm cranks fits-all" viewpoint, dominant though the 50s and into the 60s, is no longer widely accepted, what little empirical research has been conducted has delivered inconclusive and often contradictory results: Some leading to very short (130 mm) and others to very long cranks.

  1. Gonzalez and Hull, for instance, found in their Journal of Biomechanics articles that for a rider of average anthropometry the cost function global minimum occurred with 140mm cranks and also stipulated a qualitative anthropometic correlation: Tall people at longer crank arm length and lower cadences than short people.
  2. Proportional models have been suggested by some, viewing crank length from the perspective of total angle of movement. The problem with these first order models (magic formulas such as 28.4% of C, 20.5% of E, 10% of K or the Palm factor) is that they don't consider the distribution of force during a stroke, muscle usage, bio-mechanical stride preferences and, especially, the knee stress at the top of the stoke just when power is applied. While some of these models might seem reasonable they all lead to exaggerated crank lengths for the longed limed.
  3. While longer cranks increase leverage (see gearing tables ), cycling is not simply the maximal application of force. Efficient cycling and the selection of crank length is based upon other factors, most importantly the personal ability of the rider to maintain a smooth circular (repeating pattern of limb segment motion and force application) pedaling action at an optimal cadence. An increase of 2.5mm in crank length increases the distance of limb segment motion traveled in a cycle by 15.7 mm (5 mm increased step), whence a reduction in cadence. While increased length increases, through its larger range of movement, hip and knee joint excursion, it also reduces the mechanical pressure (or Effective Force) applied within a stroke (constant torque). According to Marsh in Cycling Science Summer 1996, What Determines The Optimal Cadence a goal to reduce average pedal force per revolution also seems to account, via the linkage between cadence and muscle fiber recruitment, for higher cadence preferences. So by inference both shorter cranks and higher rpms and longer cranks with cadences near maximal gross efficiency efficiency seem both, although mutually exclusive, to be warranted--- explaining the often contradictory results of some tests.
  4. The focus of competitive road cycling is on sustained, prolonged and changing rather than maximal (anaerobic) power. While longer cranks reduce force, they, on the other hand, reduce cadence and can tend to increase pounding over a fluid stroke and thus deteriorate biomechanical efficiency over the range of activities. Quick changes in speed typical of strategic cycling are also more difficult with long cranks. In this light, crank length depends upon not just skeletal length but a complex combination of personal (genetic) muscle fiber traits, (more trainable aerobic) condition and application.
  5. Since a long distant tourist tends to have lower cadence preferences (60 RPM) and higher effective gearing (weight load), the longer cranks appear beneficial from the the perspective of effective force--- substantiated by preference revelation in the general trend of equipping these bicycles with longer cranks. [ed: Oval, biopace® and MaxiSport® chainrings seem to support the use of long crank arm lengths.]. For road racing it is less clear cut. For time-trials and mountain stages is it not uncommon to adopt longer cranks (Indurian, for example used 180 mm cranks in time trials instead of his 175 mm).
  6. The effective crank length is a factor, however, not just of the measured crank length but of the length of the foot segment. The longer the length of the foot from heel to ball, the longer the effective length and also (commonly) the higher the saddle. With size 44.0pt feet, the factor on saddle height is typ. approx. 3.3 cm.--- a single larger or smaller size (in pt.) contributing about 1 mm of difference. The impact of foot length, however, depends upon stoke style and the position of the foot during a stroke. This is often linked to, and dictated, by other position characteristics. The horizontal saddle position determines the stroke force distribution within a cycle. Cyclists with longer femurs tend to push the saddle back and this too increases the effective crank length--- and given the general correlation between foot and femur lengths, the same crank arm length is effectively longer (at relevant point of force application) for larger cyclists. A longer crank often means pushing the saddle forward, reducing the effective length.
  7. While a larger rider, in particular one with longer femurs, will envitably be better suited to a longer crank, an increase in crank length on road bikes also increases the total movement of the knee to chest on a rider with an absolutely smaller relative frame. This might increase the tendency to "ankle".
  8. Since the seat height is not limited by the high but by the low stroke (leg extension, upper/lower leg angle) a longer crank requires a lower seat position. On the other hand, to decrease the range of femur motion one wants to raise the saddle. One is constrained here by geometry.
  9. In Article 49, the paragraph on Technical Specifications, of the UCI regulations the height of the "bottom bracket" is limited to the range of 24 cm minimum and 30 cm maximum. Since this article does not contain a morphological clause it represents absolute limits. Using ultra-long cranks and the maximum allowed 30 cm BB height one would have insufficient pedal clearance to do much other than navigate a straight smooth course. Even if the UCI where to allow for a morphological clause and permit higher bottom brackets, the bicycle would provide inferior handling (high bottom bracket, short stem).
  10. Empirical testing is complicated by the time needed to adjust to a crank length. Even a "magical" optimal crank will, if different from ones current length, will require some time for the establishment of a new position. The body will require some time to adapt to the change in muscle use, and the brain will need adjust to a new set of experiences and controls for the determination and selection of cadence. This hystersis apriori precludes any possibility for a simple laboratory test.
  11. One should also not under-estimate the impact of imagery: cyclists told that they have longer, resp. shorter, cranks often adopt lower, resp. higher, cadences.

    From a pragmatic perspective, and in line with "shared experience", the longest cranks (175.0 to 177.5) that one can maintain a fluid "round" stroke is postulated as optimal. The assumption is that if different lengths (from these) made sense then over the history of cycling one would envitably have witnessed them.

III. Position Data

Seat Height (Hs)
The maximal seat height is proportional E, resp. O, and J. It is measured to the surface where the "sit bones" rest.
ModelHeightComments
Amsterdam/Gregor/Rugg (1.090×E)
[Pedal to Seat Model]
94.3 cm.pedal to seat
76.5 cm.mid bottom-bracket to seat
New Amsterdam (104-106% of E)89.9-91.7pedal to seat
French (0.883×E)93.6 cm.pedal to seat
76.4 cm.mid bottom-bracket to seat
French Variant76.1 cmmid bottom-bracket to seat
Hügi (0.885×E)93.8 cm.pedal to seat
Hu=76.6 cm.mid bottom-bracket to seat
Mark Minting (1.0568×E)91.4 cmPedal to seat
Typical Mass (175.0 mm cranks, 12 mm shoe sole and 15 mm pedal height)
The models based on factors to determine the pedal to seat, except explicitly the Minting model, have been found to assume a specific length of crank. There are many other models. Some are based upon sprinting backwards with ones heals (and then raising the seat between 5 and 15 mm.), and others upon static joint angles (so-called Goniometer Method). In later method, popular in Triathlon, one is seated on the saddle, foot in the pedal at 6 o'clock position and the saddle is raised/lowered to form an angle of around 30o in the knees. Both these paradigms seems to be based on Voodoo but produce reasonable starting measures that are, perhaps, no worse than the anthropometric measures above.
All these methods tend to produce a range of values within a few cm. of one another. Foot size, technique and other factors also contribute to differences in personal saddle height. Higher, resp. lower, seat positions tend also to contribute a tendency to pedal toe-down (Pedaling with the balls, e.g. Hinault), resp. heel-down (e.g. Merckx), and in some cases "to ankle": dropping ones heels at the top of the stroke [ed: one should lower the seat and try to adopt a flatter more heeled foot position]. On the other hand, the seat height depends also upon the (preferred) pedaling style and horizontal position. A style with lowered heels will also require a lower seat height.
Start with the lowest acceptable height and slowly raise the saddle, over a longer period, in increments of 5 mm. to try to find the optimal height.
Note: Its better to be 1 cm sub-optimal than to set the seat-post too high. While the former can at most marginally reduce performance, the latter can be unhealthful.

IV. Other Position Data

Saddle Tilt
Most saddles should be installed to have the seating surface level. Traditional tensioned (kern) leather saddles such as the Brooks, by contrast, should be positioned (by design) so that rear portion is very slightly higher than the neck and nose.
Tilting the nose of the saddle down places more weight on the "sit bones " while raising the nose shifts more weight to the perineal region.
MeasureValue
Seat Position
Seat-tip behind bottom bracket(R) = 7-9 (7.1 - 8.1) cm.
Seat-tip to handlebars(S) = 56 - 60 [57.1] (56.4 - 57.4) cm.(typ.)
Saddle projection6.2 cm. [p=13.3 cm, f=7.1 cm, t56.4= 634.8 mm]
The view is that the saddle should be positioned "up and back". The longer the tibia and foot (measured to ball), the higher the saddle and the longer the femur, the more it should be "pushed back". First position the height and then the horizontal position. One should use a plumb line dropped from the tip of the saddle to measure the position, as specified above, behind the bottom bracket. As a simple check, with average morphology, one can drop a plumb line from the knee-cap and it should be on or behind the pedal axis.
Stem Requirements (length/quill)
Stem-seat proj.(S-L) = <53 mm. [560 mm. top-tube 72.9o frame]
Stem length (l)116 - 140 mm (top-tube model)
100 - 130 mm. (seat height Model)
120 mm. (Neutral)
Handlebar under Seat(D) = 8-9cm (10.9 height).
Dmax = 10.5
Aerobar-pads under Seat(Daero) = 12.5 ±1.5 cm
The above fit guidelines have assumed the average upper-body mass of European elite cyclists. Many cyclists (esp. Americans) tend to have (not to mention those that lift weights) more weight in their upper-body and should tend towards slightly longer top-tubes and shorter stems than those recommended here.
Alongside the above models there are several other popular methods for the determination of stem length from the basis of a correctly adjusted saddle position:
  1. The Cubit Method: With the elbow against the tip of the saddle one selects a stem so that the finger-tips extend (at least) to the middle of the extension.
  2. The Eyeballing the Hub Method: With the hands on the hoods the stem is selected so that the handlebar obscures a view of the front hub axle.
  3. The Knee Touch Method: With the hands in the drops and the elbow at a 45o angle, the knees should nearly brush (or overlap) the elbows at the top of the stoke.
  4. The Nose Plumb Method: With the hands in the drops, the stem is selected so that a plumb bob dropped from the nose would fall around 2-3 cm. behind the handlebars
[ed: Of these methods, the Cubit method seems to be the most popular in Europe while the Eyeballing method (perhaps due to LeMond) has many fans in the US. All these methods have significant problems and have been listed only for editorial completeness.]
The stem length and height are not just related to the build of the rider and geometry of the bicycle but to condition, training and other individual factors. They also depend upon the form, reach and drop of the handlebar. Nitto #185, Cinelli #64 and #66 have, for instance, drops of, resp., 140mm, 145mm and 156mm and reaches of, resp., 87mm, 80mm and 87 mm. The requirements on stem length for a given position "on the hoods" or "in the drops" between a Cinelli #64, #66, Nitto #185, Modolo Q-Even, ITM Italia Pro or a 3TTT Merckx can vary by as much as ½ to 1 cm! [ed: So much for the folklore of "eyeballing the hub" even with average morphology]. Deep drops (e.g. the Cinelli #66) are, in general, for larger cyclists and, in particular, those with relatively longer upper-arms and/or shorter torsos. [ed: Some models specify the drop, by contrast, on the basis of the handwidth: that the hand should be at least as wide as the H(see below)-60, e.g. >9 cm. for deep and < 7-9 cm for medium.].
A Few Common Handlebars
Measured C-CVendor
FormModelsDrop (H)Reach (r)
3TTTANAPrima 220, Forma, Forma SL, Podium150 mm.75 mm.
TDFPrima 220, Competizone135 mm.80 mm.
MEXPrima 220, Competizone145 mm.95 mm.
GIMCompetizone, Supercompetizone155 mm.90 mm.
TDMXGrand Prix137 mm.75 mm.
CinelliContact145 mm.85 mm.
Eubios150 mm.75 mm.
Eubios Diet145 mm.65 mm.
#64Top Ergo 64, Giro d'italia145 mm.80 mm.
#65Criterium148 mm.80 mm.
#66Top Ergo 66, Campione del mondo156 mm.87 mm.
#67Piste162 mm.81 mm.

If ones arms hurt on longer rides it can well be that the stem is too long. If the neck and shoulders or wrists hurt, then the culprit could be a too short a stem [ed: Or a saddle tilted nose-down placing too much weight on ones hands]. In general, the stem should be no lower than the above (Handlebar under Seat) value. A lower stem will do little to improve aerodynamics. Holding the handlebar in the drops with elbows bent at 110° ones back should be nearly flat. If ones legs make chest contact then the stem is way too low.
Traditional (hot) forged Italian stems (e.g. Cinelli) have cone expansion and 135mm quills. The, increasingly popular, TIG-welded stems (CrMo and Ti) tend to use wedges and have 125mm (or shorter) quills. The maximum height is determined by where the head-set threads are located. This is determined by the bicycle fork and not the markings on the stem. The MAX HEIGHT markings are a guide and are primarily provided for product liability and CSPC requirements. The expansion or top-of-wedge, to prevent severe damage, must be below the threads.
Up untill a few years ago the wedge was a hallmark of low cost, sub-standard, stems since they are easier to make and are production tolerant. Over the last few years the wedge has advanced in status and is used even in the expensive Ti and nearly all CrMo stems. The problem with cone stems is that they require, in comparison to wedge designs, more attention to assembly. The cone expansion not only requires more torque (to keep the stem from twisting), but over-tightening can bulge the steer tube. The wedge design, although less prone to incorrect assembly and easier to adjust (cones often need a little wack with a rubber hammer), can present to the steer tube added stress at the top of the wedge, a full 30mm from the bottom of the quill--- whence offer less height and an additional potential source of steer tube damage. Since the trend in the bicycle industry is towards reducing assembly costs (witness the rapid acceptance of Ahead-Set® and cartridge throw-away bottom brackets) the expansion cone design is destined to join the ranks of the tin lugs [[ed: The microfusion lugs introduced in the 60s helped reduce cost at the expense of beauty, higher weight and less strength through inferior stress propagation.]
Handlebar Position
The handlebar position is a matter of taste. While it does not generally relate to power it does effect upper body support, leverage for hard efforts, and respiratory limitations while riding. A general rule of thumb is to position the bars to have their ends pointing at the mounting bolt for the rear brake. The wrist should be able to maintain a relaxed grip on the drops.
Brake Lever Location
The neutral placement for the brake levers is achieved with the brake lever tips in line with the bottom of the handlebar drops. Shimano STI levers seem best from the middle position of the bars, while Campagnolo's Ergopower levers tend to get mounted slightly higher near the top curves of the bar. As long as you can safely reach and operate the brakes from both normal hand positions, strive for the lowest profile that is comfortable. If your stem has the proper extension, and your levers are properly placed, your upper body/back should lean forward at a 45o angle when you're on the hoods. When you move to the drops, your back should be nearly flat, with your upper arms vertical, and the elbows bent at 110°.
Fore/Aft Cleat Position
Athough some vendors, such as Time with their TBT system, have special devices and markings on their shoes these are not required and are easily duplicated with chalk, shoes and pedal.

While standing erect in your cycling shoes, place a chalk mark on the shoe over the inner ball of each foot. Place the shoe into the pedal with the cleat loosened enough to allow easy fore and aft movement. Position the mark so that it is directly over the pedal spindle. This is the neutral position, best for the majority of riders. There remains a degree of adjustability from this point based upon racing distance, foot size, and riding style. If you have exceptionally long feet or toes for your size, resp. smaller, you may find moving the shoe forward, resp. backwards, of the axle more secure and comfortable.


Average Men's inseams:
Metric Measure (cm.):
[72], [72½], [73], [73½], [74], [74½], [75], [75½], [76], [76½], [77], [77½], [78], [78½], [79], [79½], [80], [80½], [81], [81½], [82], [82½], [83], [83½], [84], [84½], [85], [85½], [86], [86½], [87], [87½], [88], [88½], [89], [89½], [90], [90½], [91], [91½], [92], [92½], [93], [93½], [94], [94½], [95], [95½], [96], [96½],
English Measure (in.):
[28], [28¼][28½][28¾], [29], [29¼][29½][29¾], [30], [30¼][30½][30¾], [31], [31¼][31½][31¾], [32], [32¼][32½][32¾], [33], [33¼][33½][33¾], [34], [34¼][34½][34¾], [35], [35¼][35½][35¾], [36], [36¼][36½][36¾], [37], [37¼][37½][37¾],


References:

  1. Bontrager, K. (?]The Myth of KOPS: An Alternative Method of Bike Fit
  2. Cavanagh, P. R. and Sanderson, D. J. (1986). The biomechanics of cycling: Studies of the pedaling mechanics of elite pursuit riders. Science of Cycling. Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign IL.
  3. Hinault, B and Genzling, C. (1986), Cyclisme sur Route, Editions Robert Laffont, Paris
  4. Hull, M. L. and Gonzalez, H. (1988) Bi-variate optimization of pedaling rate and crank arm length in cycling. 21:839-849.
  5. Hull, M. L. and Gonzalez, H. (1989) Multivariable optimization of cycling biomechanics. J. Biomech. 22: 1151-1161
  6. Gregor, R.J. and S.G. Rugg, (1986) In: Burke, E.R. (ed.) Science of Cycling, Chapter 4. Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign, Ill.
  7. Hull, M. L., Gonzalez, H., and Redfield, R. (1988). Optimization of pedaling rate in cycling using a muscle stress-based objective function. Int. J. Sport Biomech. 4, 1-21.
  8. Klein, G. (?], Fits Myths (Web publication)
  9. Koide, E. A. (1995), Buyer's Guide: Select The proper frame for you, Cycling Science Winter '95
  10. Marsh, A. P. (1996), What Determines The Optimal Cadence? , Cycling Science Summer '96
  11. Redfield, R. and Hull, M. L. (1986). On the relation between joint moments and pedalling rates at constant power in bicycling. J. Biomech. 19: 317-329.
  12. United States Cycling Federation (USCF), Cycling College Handout, 1993


Powered By BSnBSn Cycling Resources are provided as a public service of The Internet Business Unit (IBU) of BSn
Copyright © 1991-1998 Edward C. Zimmermann. All Rights Reserved.