Is Your Bike Fit a Victim of the Sunk Cost Fallacy?

How the Sunk Cost Fallacy Could be Holding Back Your Bike Fit

The psychology of humans can be both fascinating and oftentimes, perplexing. One of the most interesting aspects of the human psyche is the concept of the Sunk-Cost Fallacy, or as my Grandad would probably put it (in his often incomprehensible Yorkshire accent), “floggin’ a dead ‘orse!”

The whole premise of the Sunk-Cost Fallacy is the idea that we are reluctant to abandon an idea or strategy, for fear of it being a waste of precious resources.

Often, when there has been a significant investment of time and/or money into something, even if it is clear that there is a better path or strategy to take, the human brain will continue to pursue the same path, usually out of a fear of reconciling with this loss. This is a phenomenon often associated with making financial decisions or investments, but it also seeps into other areas of our lives, and one’s relationship with cycling is by no means immune to this either.

Allow me to provide an example, one which we see time and time again in the bike fit studio, of how the Sunk-Cost Fallacy can potentially hold a rider back from not only progressing towards their goals, but also keeping them in pain, which is usually the reason riders seek out our help in the first place.

The Parable of the “Data Driven Cyclist “

A rider comes to see us for a bike fit, and one of the main reasons for booking in is that they’re in pain and worried that they won’t perform as well as they hope to in their upcoming sportive.

For the sake of this tale, this rider is experiencing the following discomforts when riding:

Lower back issues, saddle sores, resulting in inconsistent training, time off the bike, and a mounting physiotherapy bill.

A familiar story. They’ve invested in a coach, and a shiny new power crank to help guide their training to get the best out of themselves on the day, yet things still aren’t going to plan…

After some initial on-bike observations, we discover that the movement of this rider and their ability to get into a good posture on the bike is compromised somehow, thus limiting how much force they can apply through the pedals, as well as causing compensatory strategies in how this force is being produced by the body.

They are riding with a flexed spine (rounded like they are hunched), leaning towards one side of the bike and are lacking pelvic symmetry and stability on the saddle. What’s interesting however is that when their movement is assessed off the bike, they function very well, being able to make all of the good shapes for riding bikes; decent squat mechanics, a good hip hinge, good control and stability through various single leg movements… So, what is going on?

Why can they move well away from the bike, but not well on the bike?

There are usually one or two things in particular that help unlock a rider’s movement (and as a result, ability to produce and translate force through the bike, as well as make the position more sustainable), we just need to find what these things are. It can be a bike adjustment, component change, or even a postural cue, and it’s slightly different for everyone. By going through our bike fit process, the goal is to explore and educate to achieve improved movement.

After testing each parameter on the bike; cleat positioning, saddle height, handlebar stack and reach, saddle for/aft etc with only small improvements in posture and movement, a change in crank length is proposed.

After shortening the length of the crank by 10mm (adjusting the rest of the position accordingly, and with some postural cuing, the rider was now better able to extend through the spine, activate the musculature through the core and posterior chain, and was sit more symmetrically on the saddle (which incidentally, has not changed), with less pelvic rock.

What’s more, both cadence and power output increased for the same effort. It seems like this was the change that this particular rider needed! By reducing the amount of flexion a the top of the pedal stroke, and thus the need for the body to compensate by finding sub-optimal ways of dealing with this movement challenge, this rider was able to find a better posture on the bike and recruit parts of the body for the function that they are intended to perform.

(Now, before I get called out on it, this is not an advert for shorter cranks [that article lives HERE], it is merely an example of a change that can often help unlock a rider’s movement. Sometimes it makes no difference whatsoever and can even sometimes make things worse.)

Great! We’ve moved the needle forward for this rider – tea and medals all round!

But, how does this relate back to the Sunk-Cost Fallacy I hear you cry? It’s the subsequent conversation that makes it relevant.

The Root of the Problem is…

Once the fit is complete and measurements have been taken from the fitting rig, the big change for this particular rider was a shorter crank length. A 10mm shorter crank length. Easy!

The rider however has a look of concern on their face…

“But I’ve already spent £xxxx.xx on this new crankset with an in-built power meter… so I’m not going to make the change”.

Even after going through the process of testing every variable, with a clear and tangible outcome that making a change to the crank length will highly likely improve this rider’s experience on the bike and help them towards achieving their goals (and ironically, likely seeing better power numbers on their Strava profile), they are reluctant to make this change for fear of loss on a previous investment.

This, dear readers, is the Sunk-Cost Fallacy in action…

What To Do Now…

I will caveat this with the understanding that cycling is an expensive sport, and it isn’t getting any cheaper. Changing things about our bike position through different componentry, kit (don’t’ get me started on cycling shoes) or even in some cases, the entire bike, can require significant additional financial investment on top of what we’ve already put into our cycling.

We must however take an objective view when posed with these decisions, viewing these costs as a fee to pay for our continued or enhanced enjoyment of our sport, as opposed to a fine for making a prior decision.

I hope that this hypothetical (and yet also very common) tale demonstrates how our irrational fear of loss can sometimes inhibit our path towards making progress, and continuing us down the path of failure and misery.

I hope that next time you’re faced with such a decision, try and see beyond your immediate emotional reaction… (which is normal, all decisions start as emotional ones…)

Once you have taken a deep breathe, look at it your situation through a clearer lens of objectivity and rationality…

This will allow you to make better choices for yourself, even if there is a price to be paid…

Because a better final result is what you are really after… no?

PS. if you do need to change your power meter cranks… don’t forget you can always sell your current power meter and use the funds towards your new one… the loss is never as bad as it first appears… and your body and performance will thank you 😉