Seat height
wilkies80
Posts: 67
Just been reading the latest edition of C+ where they discuss seat height and the different methods of finding this out. I tried the 109% method and it produced 33.2". This is above my seat height at the minute , so i tried the lemond method (88.3%) which produced a 7" difference. At the moment I use the heel method, but this is described as" the most wrong method" (C+ Feb 08 ). Should I take an ave. or keep with the heel method an hope it's right ?
0
Comments

I also do the 109% method and find it the most comfortable ride out of all of them.. I would say use whatever is most comfortable  a 7" difference seems a bit drastic0

There must be a typing error here, 7" seems very unlikely.
Hypocrisy is only a bad thing in other people.0 

Hi can anyone explain how to do the 109 seat height again i have lost the misplaced the magazine with this article in, and i was going to try it.
Thanks Janice0 
According to C+ stand facing a wall/door with a thick (ish) book between your thighs as if it's a saddle.Stand with your feet together and your back as straight as possible.Mark a line where the book touches the wall/door and measure the distance and multiply by 109%. This distance is from the pedal axle to the seat height. Hope this helps..0

wilkies80 wrote:Just been reading the latest edition of C+ where they discuss seat height and the different methods of finding this out. I tried the 109% method and it produced 33.2". This is above my seat height at the minute , so i tried the lemond method (88.3%) which produced a 7" difference. At the moment I use the heel method, but this is described as" the most wrong method" (C+ Feb 08 ). Should I take an ave. or keep with the heel method an hope it's right ?
Doesn't the 109% method include the length of the cranks i.e. the resulting measurement is taken from the top of the saddle to the top of the pedal surface at it's lowest point, whereas the 88.3% method is from the centre of the bottom bracket to the top of the saddle so the difference between the 2 measurements is the length of your cranks. I've worked out your case to be 77.47 (30.5in in cms) x 109% = 84.44 so if you ride 170mm cranks you deduct 17cm giving you a bottom bracket to top of saddle measurement of 67.44.'Hello to Jason Isaacs'0 

I got it from here:
http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/saddleheight.html
but it would make sense that it's not the calculations it's where you measure it from because 109% of your inside leg measurement is always going to be more that 88.3% of your inside leg measurement. So when your measuring your bike you check the 109% formula from the pedal axle to the top of the saddle and the 88.3% method from the bottom bracket to the top of the saddle the difference is effectively the distance from the bottom bracket to the pedal i.e. the crank length. I've not personally checked the difference between the two calculations on my bike but I will be doing so to see how much of a difference there is.'Hello to Jason Isaacs'0 
According to the 109% method, my saddle height is way too high.
Inside leg 820mm
109% 894mm
Current saddle height 930mm :shock:
Maybe I didn't measure my inside leg property? Not sure how that's possible though.
My current saddle height is what I'm most comfortable with. Any higher or lower, I find that I tire more quickly.0 
109% from the centre of the pedal axle to the top of the saddle with the crank in line with the seat tube and the measure taken along theline of the seat tube. IMO this is the maximum height. I don't know of anyone who has had their saddle height higher than this.
In my experience the most efficient and most comfortable position is approx 107% of your inside leg measurement. You need to make sure that the book is very tightly wedged up against your crotch (as though you are sitting on the saddle) when you take the measurement without shoes on your feet.
If you ride low profile pedals (e.g. Look Keo or Shimano Durace) then you need to lower your seat a fraction to take this into account (see guidleines that come with pedals).
If your saddle is too high then you will be overly using your calf muscles and this might them a bit sore.
The 107% is a compromise between maximum power and maximum endurance.0 
All of these methods only give a starting point. Do you ride with toes down or heels down. This can make at least 50mm difference. I still use the heel on pedal method as it gets as near as any and is much simpler. You still have to fine tune anyway. Another method is to raise the saddle until the pelvis just starts to rock on the saddle. Then move it down until there is no movement. It works as well as any. You should have the saddle as high as is comfortable without rocking. Too low is worse for the knees and does not give as much power.
An alternative way to measure inside leg is to measure your height sitting on the floor and also standing and subtract the first from the last. The difference is your leg length to the sit bones which is what you are using. You will need help to do this acurately.0 

Mike Willcox wrote:If you ride low profile pedals (e.g. Look Keo or Shimano Durace) then you need to lower your seat a fraction to take this into account (see guidleines that come with pedals).
I think a good guide to fit is after a solid ride, you should feel tired all over but no one part of your body (e.g. calves or quads) should be excessively more sore/tired/crampy than another. If that's not the case, then fit may be an issue to look at and perhaps seek professional assistance with if you can't work it out.0 
For me the LeMond method & the .883 gave almost identicat saddle hights so I went for the middle of the two ...0

I tried the 109% method and found it was too low by about 4cm from what I had been using. I gave it a go and found the strain on my knees too much, so I split the difference and raised my seat by 2cm and now its fine.Norfolk, who nicked all the hills?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3013/243 ... 8d.jpg?v=0
http://img362.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... 076tl5.jpg
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/3407 ... e001af.jpg0 
I originally used the heel method to setup my saddle. I just tried measuring using a book as described above and the heel method turns out to be 108%. I guess they're both much of a muchness.
:?0 
I've tried the 109% method and it makes my seat height 2.5cm lower than I currently ride. Does it make a difference whether you have your shoes on or off as it doesn't state this anywhere, or am I just being thick!0


I used the heel method as a starting point, then made minor adjustments during rides.0

According to this:
http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2007/ ... eight.html
It is calculated as follows:
Inside leg x 109%  Crank length = Saddle height.
Which makes sense.
For me this is 812.8mm x 109%  170mm = 716
Anyone who has simply multiplied their inside leg length by 109% and neglected to subtract crank length is certainly going to end up with a saddle height that is too high. You are setting your saddle higher than your inside leg measurement meaning that you have to straighten your leg, point your toes down and really rock your hips to reach. Maybe no one has done this and I just read this incorrectly.
I have always used the .883 method, which doesn't require you to subtract crank length.
For me this is 812.8 x 0.883 = 717mm. (I go for 72cm).I'm only concerned with looking concerned0 
Hmm well using this gave me a saddle height of 740mm. Mine is currently set at 690mm.
When stationary can you guys/gals reach the floor when remaining seated or do you have to stand??0 
on the road wrote:I used the heel method as a starting point, then made minor adjustments during rides.
That sounds tricky. I take it you stop to makr the adjustments!0 
Yes of course0