Dynamic vs. Static Bike Fit

It's been a long time since I've written. It's like I have cob webs in the brain and in the typing fingers. So much has happened over the last 8 months. We moved to Colorado Springs and consequently, I had to close Gulf Coast Cycle Fit in Mobile. At this point, I'm unsure where the path leads here in the Springs. I don't know if a new era will begin or if cycle fit is over. At this point, I have a feeling that it is just dormant. If it re-emerges, we will somehow have to fit it into our lives differently. As much as I enjoyed it, it took up too much of our family time.

Here are my latest thoughts on bike fit. They are spurred on by a conversation I had last week with a 40 year old, very successful amateur triathlete. I say "successful" based on the number of placings he mentioned. (I had just finished tweaking a fit on a longstanding client at a local bike shop while I was back in Mobile.) At present, this guy is an injured athlete and it appears that his injuries are related to a recent change in bike fit. He's been fit twice on a high tech system that is relatively new on the market.

Here are the stats: 5'8", probably 140lbs, 32" inseam.
He has 20 years of riding experience on 170mm cranks and within the last 2 years, he changed to 175's based on the recommendations of the new fit system. In fact, the second fit was done because he was having pain and they confirmed that he was in the correct position albeit pain producing.

DOES ANYONE SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS??????? IS ANYTHING SCREAMING OUT TO YOU??

Now, dynamic vs static. Like two religions within a belief system...
Dynamic bike fit has come along with the advancement of technology, while static fit has been around a while. I like what the triathlete said, "I didn't want to go to someone who just used plumb bobs". My response, "But you were fit using new technology and now you are injured". It took him a while to wrap his hands around that one.

One the other hand, static bike fit has some serious limitations. I completely agree that a static system cannot account for the events that occur in a dynamic process. However, static has the means to set boundary based on tangible, reliable measurements where dynamic fails. This is successful because static can create a fit without the influence of counter productive movement patterns. It's GIGO(Garbage in, garbage out).

Now, before you think I'm all about static fit and we should go back to the stone age, stop and listen. I look at it this way, a musical score is just ink on paper(static). It's nothing special in the absence of musicians. Music is the dynamic reflection of the musical score. While something might look good on paper, it might sound horrible once played out loud. Conversely, musicians who play their instrument without a collaborative score are just noise makers. The two must work hand in glove. Such is my thought on bike fit.

This discussion is not about one vs the other. It's about a process of gaining knowledge. Just because we have progressed to calculus, that doesn't mean that we can throw away addition and subtraction. We have to be able to use both systems to solve problems.

In the end, I'm dealing with a broken heart. There's a successful athlete out there, now injured. Instead of helping this athlete, the new technology validated itself and the athlete walks away with continued pain. Please tell me that we have not forgotten who we are trying to help. Isn't the athlete the one we are trying to serve? Who is going to solve his problem? Please tell me that this athlete didn't write a check for this. Someone need to write him a check!