METHOD · EDITORIAL FRAMEWORK
Whoever asks for a quote receives two figures and no way of telling what separates them. This is a five-level scale for describing the scope of a fitting service or a laboratory, with seven dimensions and their weights in plain view, so anyone can redo the arithmetic against the service they are evaluating.
ONE Bike Fit Service & Laboratory Capability Framework
Editorial statement
It is an educational tool developed by ONE SPORT SCIENCE to explain differences in scope between services and assessment setups. It does not constitute a professional certification, does not replace the standards of external bodies and does not classify people. Professional levels for those who fit bicycles are defined by organisations such as the IBFI; this scale describes something else: what a process does, not who signs it.
The ranges are preliminary. They are published so they can be discussed and corrected, not as a closed method.
Five levels
Each level contains the previous one and adds a layer. Moving up does not mean measuring more things: it means what is measured gets read together and checked afterwards.
Level 1
0 to 20 points
Object: Compatibility between the person and the frame.
Typical capabilities: App or size chart, basic body measurements, simple video, trainer, laser, stack and reach.
Result: Size, range of compatible bikes and a starting configuration.
Does not imply: A functional assessment of the rider, or clinical and sporting interpretation of the case.
Level 2
21 to 40 points
Object: The interaction between the rider and their bike.
Typical capabilities: Fitting software, video, structured measurement, saddle, cockpit and cleat work, brief functional screening and documentation.
Result: A reproducible, ordered adjustment with a record of what moved.
Does not imply: A full prior body assessment, or a later verification under protocol.
Level 3
41 to 60 points
Object: An adjustment grounded in movement rather than static position.
Typical capabilities: Two or three-dimensional motion capture, structured physical assessment, measurement during the pedal stroke and repeatable protocols.
Result: An intervention supported by how the body responds while producing power.
Does not imply: An integral biomechanical assessment, if history taking, functional measurement or later verification are missing.
Level 4
61 to 80 points
Object: The cyclist first, and their interaction with the bike second.
Typical capabilities: Structured history taking, postural assessment, strength, joint range, anthropometry, motion capture, dynamic adjustment and joint reading of all of it.
Result: An integrated biomechanical assessment of the rider and the bike.
Does not imply: Necessarily a longitudinal follow-up or an in-house data analysis layer.
Level 5
81 to 100 points
Object: Body, bike, performance and data inside one decision system.
Typical capabilities: Everything from the previous level, plus data integration, modelling, in-house software, traceability and an explicit link to training.
Result: Assessment, interpretation, intervention, verification and follow-up over time.
Does not imply: A guarantee of outcome. It describes scope and method, not clinical effectiveness.
How it is scored
Holding a doctorate, buying a robot or using artificial intelligence do not by themselves place a service at a level. What is measured here is actual capability, which is why assessing the rider and the training of whoever interprets it weigh as much as the rest combined.
| Dimension | What it measures | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Professional training and competence | What the assessor can interpret: a base in exercise science, biomechanics, health or adjacent fields, plus cycling-specific experience. | 20 |
| History taking and rider assessment | How much is known about the body and the context before the bike is touched: history, injuries, load, posture, mobility and strength. | 20 |
| Instrumentation and measurement quality | Which instruments exist, under what protocol they are used, and whether a measurement can be repeated months later and compared. | 15 |
| Biomechanical and functional interpretation | Whether the data are read together and against the case, or whether each device produces a number nobody relates to the rest. | 15 |
| Intervention on the bike | How the configuration is changed: one variable at a time or several at once, under load or at a standstill, with explicit reasoning or by habit. | 10 |
| Data, analysis and traceability | Whether the starting coordinates, the changes and their reasons are recorded so another professional could read them back. | 10 |
| Verification and follow-up | Whether the change is checked afterwards against the expected effect, and what happens when it does not appear. | 10 |
| Total | Sum of the seven dimensions. | 100 |
The per-level ranges sit above, on each level card. They are preliminary and need validating against real cases before being presented as a closed method, so they read better as a scale for conversation than as a grade.
What it is actually for
What is measured on my body before the bike is touched, and with which instrument?
Who interprets those measurements, and with what training?
Is the change tested while I pedal under load, or only at a standstill?
Is there a later check, under the same protocol, against the starting measurement?
All four can be answered in writing before booking. They separate more than price does.
Diagnosis One reads your history, your data and your goal, and says which depth applies. Sometimes the answer is that a short adjustment is enough.
Frequently asked questions
No. It is an educational tool developed by ONE to explain differences in scope between services and assessment setups. It accredits nobody, does not replace the standards of external bodies and is not for sale. Professional bike fitter levels are defined by organisations such as the IBFI, and this framework does not overlap with them: it describes processes and laboratories, not people.
That is not published, and there is a reason. A scale written this recently is not yet validated: its ranges are preliminary and its criteria need testing against real cases before a score means anything. Publishing our own number on the same day as the rule would turn the framework into advertising. What is described, service by service, is what each ONE process measures and what it does not.
No, at least not as a ranking. Scoring third parties would require a transparent method, verifiable data on each service and their consent to publish it, and without all three it would be an opinion dressed as a measurement. The framework exists so that a rider can evaluate what is being offered to them, with the questions in hand.
No. A rider with no symptoms who simply wants their saddle height back after changing saddles does not need a laboratory: they need a short, well-executed adjustment. The level describes depth, not quality, and paying for depth your case does not call for is as inefficient as falling short when it does.
Because a device measures something even when nobody knows what to do with the number. In an earlier version of this scale instrumentation weighed more and produced an uncomfortable result: a service with plenty of equipment and thin history taking outscored one with a full assessment and modest equipment. Under the current weights, the four dimensions that depend on a person rather than a machine — training, rider assessment, interpretation and verification — account for 65 of the 100 points.
