All in all, a rather bland article in Wired.com about “traditional” bike fit versus modern bike fit (by which I and the article mean biomechanically, sensor-driven, FIST-style fitting).
I post on it because it highlights that what might look and feel like science might not really be science at all; and what might look and feel like nonsense might have more value than the thing that looks like science. Then again, maybe not. Nobody knows. You’ll notice that the “elite riders” are still more or less using the old methods. They’re the elites. If the new methods were better, my guess is that they’d be using them. They are, after all, the ones with the incentive to go as fast as possible.
My thoughts on the science of fit have always been: whether the biomechanics of the new methods are correct or not is largely irrelevant. If you dial in the correct fit that might increase your power output or decrease your energy expenditure or increase your comfort while you’re in that position. But as soon as you move, you’re not fit anymore. And how often do you ride without moving? For me, on a very flat, very straight stretch, I can make it 5 minutes at the absolute most before something gives. So I maintain that the millimeters of which these guys in the article speak are irrelevant.