saddle height

b16 b3n

quick one. Saddle height.
I take it this would be from the centre of the crank up?

Theory:2 The 109% method
A more robust method was developed by Hamley & Thomas in a 1967 paper. They experimented with different saddle heights and found that the ideal was achieved when the saddle was positioned at 109% of your inseam length when measuring from the pedal axle to the top of the seat height.

Your inseam measurement is basically the length from your crotch to the floor. To calculate this, face a wall and put a thick-ish book between your legs as if it were a saddle. Ensuring that you are standing straight with your heels on the floor, mark a line along the top of the book edge touching the wall.

The distance from the floor to the height of the mark is your inseam measurement. It’s best to measure it several times and take an average.

This has proved an extremely popular method and is recommended by many top-level coaches. Yet a recent study by Professor Pelever found that it was inferior to the Holmes method (see below) both in terms of power output and economy.


Confused on what to do. Just bored and fancy trying a new way out.

Cheers

sungod

tbh i wouldn't trust any method that is based on crude measurements to get the best set-up

imho best way is a dynamic bike fit by a professional

Pross

b16 b3n wrote:

quick one. Saddle height.
I take it this would be from the centre of the crank up?
Theory:2 The 109% method
A more robust method was developed by Hamley & Thomas in a 1967 paper. They experimented with different saddle heights and found that the ideal was achieved when the saddle was positioned at 109% of your inseam length when measuring from the pedal axle to the top of the seat height.

Your inseam measurement is basically the length from your crotch to the floor. To calculate this, face a wall and put a thick-ish book between your legs as if it were a saddle. Ensuring that you are standing straight with your heels on the floor, mark a line along the top of the book edge touching the wall.

The distance from the floor to the height of the mark is your inseam measurement. It’s best to measure it several times and take an average.

This has proved an extremely popular method and is recommended by many top-level coaches. Yet a recent study by Professor Pelever found that it was inferior to the Holmes method (see below) both in terms of power output and economy.


Confused on what to do. Just bored and fancy trying a new way out.

Cheers

Your own post goes on to say measured from the centre of the pedal axle which is also how I measure mine. Measuring from the centre of the crank wouldn't make allowance for any change in crank length.

Gary D

Pross wrote:

b16 b3n wrote:

quick one. Saddle height.
I take it this would be from the centre of the crank up?
Theory:2 The 109% method
A more robust method was developed by Hamley & Thomas in a 1967 paper. They experimented with different saddle heights and found that the ideal was achieved when the saddle was positioned at 109% of your inseam length when measuring from the pedal axle to the top of the seat height.

Your inseam measurement is basically the length from your crotch to the floor. To calculate this, face a wall and put a thick-ish book between your legs as if it were a saddle. Ensuring that you are standing straight with your heels on the floor, mark a line along the top of the book edge touching the wall.

The distance from the floor to the height of the mark is your inseam measurement. It’s best to measure it several times and take an average.

This has proved an extremely popular method and is recommended by many top-level coaches. Yet a recent study by Professor Pelever found that it was inferior to the Holmes method (see below) both in terms of power output and economy.


Confused on what to do. Just bored and fancy trying a new way out.

Cheers

Your own post goes on to say measured from the centre of the pedal axle which is also how I measure mine. Measuring from the centre of the crank wouldn't make allowance for any change in crank length.

...but even that doesn't take into account the type of shoe and pedal stack height.
Any method like this is crude to say the least as there are just too many variables. When a saddle height of +/- 5mm can make all the difference between comfort/efficiency or not, then the only way is get it set by someone that knows what they are doing.

Gary.

cougie

Cant say I've ever measured it - I go with what's comfortable.

Pseudonym

Gary D wrote:

When a saddle height of +/- 5mm can make all the difference between comfort/efficiency or not, then the only way is get it set by someone that knows what they are doing.

you mean someone who knows how to use a tape measure and an allen key...?

Monty Dog

Gary D wrote:

...but even that doesn't take into account the type of shoe and pedal stack height.
Any method like this is crude to say the least as there are just too many variables. When a saddle height of +/- 5mm can make all the difference between comfort/efficiency or not, then the only way is get it set by someone that knows what they are doing.

Gary.

I think you'll find the only evidence to support this has been produced by people keen to sell you their expensive methodologies and you'll probably find the tolerance-band is wider and the critical factor is training adaptation.

Evil Laugh

No it's just common sense. There are way too many factors disregarded in these formula methods. Seat setback, cleat position, pedalling technique, pedal stack etc etc. Anyone must realise a seat set by observation and feel of the individual is better than one set by some average based formula that ignores all other factors bar leg length. That's before we get into measurement error/confusions.

Also a seat that is a few mm too high can be problematic. If I put mine up 5mm my back will start getting pulled all over the place.

Zoomer37

Might just be lucky, but this basic method has always worked for me. Straight leg with crank arm in line with the seat tube, foot parallel to the ground. Bingo.

RDB66

Zoomers...You got big feet for such a skinny guy !! lol

b16 b3n

Morning all, Iv just measured up officially by a pro shop, and the floor up its 1m dead. Now do i measure from the centre of crank up?

Cleat Eastwood

i was told to stand by the bike and move the seat till its in line with the top of your thigh bone thing - from there on its small tweaks.

nickel

Zoomer37 wrote:

Might just be lucky, but this basic method has always worked for me. Straight leg with crank arm in line with the seat tube, foot parallel to the ground. Bingo.

I've always naturally pedalled with my heel slighlty higher than my toe though, so when I sit on a bike to adjust the saddle height thats how I position my leg.

velocanman

I actually use the 109% method and the Parallel Shoe method mentioned above as starting points when fitting someone. The Parallel Shoe method is a quick visual check to see where they are in relation to where they probably should be. If you are starting from scratch, either is a good method. I find that the 109% of inseam is pretty close but often will be lower than optimal for 20-25-degree knee bend.

Since a lot of saddle height depends on how much ankle flex you pedal with, a dynamic fitting is really best. I use a simple technique with my HD video camera, a trainer stand, and the open source software Kinovea. Check it out, it is really useful for this.

I cover some of this in my book Watch Your Line. I'm thinking about writing a short article on how I use of Kinovea for dynamic fit analysis. If you play around with it you will probably figure it out pretty easily.