from a cool discussion about machine vs eyeball fitting.
the thread lives here.

>I've noticed that fiters that work with a computer tend to provide
>you with measurements and then tell you that you must adapt to
>the new position. On the other hand, builders that mostly fit you
>without the aid of a computer, tend to build a bicycle where you'll
>feel comfortable from the get go, except if he/she notices something
>that you may be doing which is flat wrong. Question: Which would
>you prefer? Question: Who creates the all-knowing computer fit
>programs? As always, thank you for reading, and thank you for
>your comments.
fitters might be in a more dominant role if they could look
past the fit part of the equation and also speak to how the
bicycle will/might work once you're atop. fit is only part
of the equation. it has to be part of a larger equation atmo.
your fit (contact points) only works superbly if it is properly
placed above and between the wheels, and if all the
dimensions of the frame overlap with its intended use.

ps -the that 70s show rocks.
>Er, what if you don't qualify as an athlete, atmo...?
>What's there for the Wild Turkey and Four Roses types...?
>Maybe I should be asking Bostondrunk, shouldn't I...?
>Hey, thank you for your thoughtful responses. And I
>apologize for initially writing "fiter" instead of "fitter".
>Uhhh... Oh well, thank you...
ya' see - that's the thing.
on a message board on which high end bicycles are discussed,
fitting usually pertains to what you'd assimilate for road riding
or even for racing. otoh, if you're talking about fitting for a mtb,
or a comfort bike, or even a normal road bike on which you have
absolutely no illusions of using for - well, for going fast enough
to need a heart monitor or 'puter - that's another story. i don't
think it's easy to have a discussion on how-to wrt fitting unless
we know what we are fitting to what atmo.

tell me ya' feel me catulle-issimo atmo.
>note: the next post to which i reply lives here
>and is too long to paste!!!!!!!!

the issue is not "do you assimilate their position or their frame
geometry", it's "does a fitter design the fit or does he design the
frame?" at least ithink that is what catulle is getting at. atmo
most fitters don't understand all the nuances of what happens
to the general layout of the bicycle, its characteristics, how it
handles (etc), once the contact points are established. and to
cite grant and mebbe obtuse too (hopefully i am not not putting
words in their mouths), some fitters don't even get fit because it
is an ever-evolving thing. what works when your static on a
bicycle one hour may not work that (or as) well once you've
gone out on the finished product and gotten fitter, more flexible,

and are pushing it all with a sidewind atmo. so - euro trends aside,
mebbe consider that a frame be designed by someone who makes
them and - if need be - have a fitter tell you where your saddle should
be and leave it at that. personally, and i hate using terms like that
since it's all first person text anyway, i never understood why folks
that spend so much time riding to begin with are second guessing
themselves anyway atmo!
>...He was saying, I think, that the Euro-pro geometry that has
>evolved over the years (although it has changed quite a bit
>between, say, the '60s and '90s if I'm not mistaken - I'm listening
>to DBRK on this one) is the best almost universally for anyone
>who rides for more than an hour or two at a time.

it's not productive to have a fit thread when there is no such thing
as a baseline client. but as i said earlier, one assumes (i do, at least)
that on a message board on which cost-no-object bicycles are the
raison d'etre (that's french forreason d'etre), most folks wanna look
like like a pro when atop a bicycle; the shades, the tan lines, the assos,
the lycra booties...
well, again to side with obtuse, grant, and atmo atmo, it's that
the position has to be client specific, but the general layout of
those stage-race type bicycles is the best thing for most folks atmo.
someone asked circa what era. atmo the only clear answer is the era
prior to the americanization of the industry, that one before product
designers convinced european icons with decades of insight to tweak
their frames for the north american cat 3 and comfort market. when
that change fully permeated the industry, most bicycles had to be
re-thunk before a rider could possibly assimilate a rational position.
fast forward - get a fitter that understands all this, not simply one
schooled in laser beams and bar graphs. bicycle design (and history)
is part of the equation.
>Well, I got Stevep on the side I agree with and obtuse,
>richie-issimo, and Saab on the other and these guys are
>ALL due a great deal of respect. So, perhaps I should let it
>go, but what fun would that be, so I'll try it from a slightly
>different perspective.

i'm not on the other side.
we agree - let a fitter fit, assuming you trust him and all that.
but muzzle him once he tries to also design your frame unless
he makes them too atmo. fit and frame design are separate issues
atmo and i thought that was catulle's point.