It does make a bigger difference with the road bike than the mountain bike because of the more dynamic riding style. he didn't have a set of rigid formula and fit the rider to it, a lot was done with rider feedback. After the session he writes a report for you than includes all the measurements so you can replace or replicate the fit on another bike. It also shows the before and after angles and in my case, the knee tracking which was more linear after the fitting.
He also takes into account, rider style, purpose and personal flexibility. For example, if you're pretty stoff and road to work at plodding pace, you don't need the same setup as a super flexible high output triathalete.
Perhaps a chunk of this is trail and error with paying people and learning as you go. However, if nothing else, having someone there to operate the camera and run the software was worth it.
I use the heel on the pedal with a straight leg set up method. However, what i didn't know is that my left leg is shorter (I always used the right to set things up) but also, because I'm really flexible, I was rocking my hips and using my ankles a lot more than I realised. I actually ended up dropping the saddle 28mm!!!!!!!!! I know, that sounds a hell of a lot. I thought it might be a little high but I found that staggering.
As for those wanting scientific backup, yeah, it would be better with a five year study behind it and double blind testing, however, I still reckon something with accurage measurements and some common sense/experience is better than nothing. Even with what you read (like the book by Andy Purit) my saddle was still too high because I only ever checked it statically. As for my knee track, there's no way I could check that myself. There's no science to prove that a vertical line for the knee track is better than a wide oval but it makes sense and it feels better. It's also a lot quicker than added or removing shims based on trail and error with a bit of added knee pain.
It's not perfect, but I think it was really useful and well worth the money (considering what we tend to spend on the bike anyway). Maybe others might find it useful, hence my post. I'm not connected to the guy and I'm getting nothing from this (other than he might stay in business when I might want another bike checked or some such). I see it fitting in the same box as coaching making you a better rider than spangly bits.
As for the crank length issue, it's really checking that longer cranks don't close the knee up too much at the top of the stroke. I'd be fine on 170. However, it's good to know that 175 is unlikely to upset my knees by closing my legs up too much.
@ stevomcd
