Optimum Cycling Position

[Jdsk]

: - )

Jonathan

[De Sisti]

There's a bike fitter on YouTube who claims that 90% of his clients have their seat too high (buy say 15mm) and that by dropping it stress on the quads and knees is reduced, blood flow in the saddle regions is improved and you can ride in more comfort.
This does seem to then require lots of other tweaks though looking at his videos.

From my experience, dropping the saddle (too) low increases stress on the knees and doesn't
engaged the quads enough.

[st599_uk]

I think he was saying the same, but that most over compensate in the opposite direction.

[mumbojumbo]

I think the notion of an optimum is questionable .The best for a racer will differ from that used by a tourer, an urban rider and someone battery driven where little exertion is needed. .I understood the drop bars meant that several variants were possible on the same bike..

[Ontherivet77]

I think the various formulas for inseam length are problematic not because they are incorrect but because just getting a consistent inseam measurement using the methods described online (ie book between the legs and up against a wall) is prone to inaccurate readings. At least it was in my case. Phil Burt says it is a good starting point but doesn't take account of general flexibility and foot length. Also, the Lemond method is aimed primarily at racing cyclists not someone off to the shops.

[mattsccm]

Just thinking about this whilst having a post grass mowing ice cream.
Surely optimum is optimum? Personal opinion has no involvement. Optimum must mean the most efficient position for maximum use of power.
Of course most of us, including me, screw that by incorperating so many personal requirements be they compensating for a knackered back or the desire to look at the view or wear sandles. We all chose sub optimum in some things I bet.

[gxaustin]

However Hilary Stone, the writer of the Cycling Plus Special Report preferred somewhere between 1.05 and 1.09 x inside leg measurement.

Are you sure? Is that inside leg down to the floor? If I applied that formula I wouldn't be able to reach the pedal.

[Ontherivet77]

However Hilary Stone, the writer of the Cycling Plus Special Report preferred somewhere between 1.05 and 1.09 x inside leg measurement.

Are you sure? Is that inside leg down to the floor? If I applied that formula I wouldn't be able to reach the pedal.

I think the 109% measure includes the crank length, so you would minus the crank length for your c-c measurement.

[CyberKnight]

indeed
.885 is to centre of the crank whereas 1.09 it the the pedal

[bjlabuk]

Sorry for any confusion. The article says:

"Hinault and Genzling recommend that the saddle height from the centre of the bottom bracket to the top of the saddle is 0.885 x inside leg measurment.

But I have never felt this to be particularly satisfactory. It doesn't take account of crank lengths or the different pedal systems which have different foot to spindle distances.

The much quoted Loughborough study recommended 109% of your inside leg length for the saddle height from pedal spindle to top of saddle.

Personally I have found somewhere between 1.05 and 1.09 x inside leg length is right for most riders.

A good starting place is to put the heels of your feet (with shoes) on to the pedals and at full extension (when the crank lines up with the the seat tube) your leg still has a very slight bend. Saddle height needs particularly careful experimentation."

"Inside leg measurement (rider in riding gear but without shoes): Stand with your feet about 22.5cm apart and with your heels against a wall. Get your helper to place one edge of the LP (or a book will do!)* against the wall between your legs and slide it up the wall until the edge comes into contact with your crotch. Continue moving the LP up until it just becomes uncomfortable. Have the LP held in place and move away from the wall. Mark the uppermost point of the LP on the wall and then measure the vertical distance to the floor".

I don't know where the '22.5cm apart' comes from as there is no mention in the article of 'stance width', which I mentioned in an earlier post. So I would suggest maybe measuring your natural 'stance width' and using that instead of what 'appears' to be an arbitrary 22.5cm. But I am certainly not an expert! The point of my OP was to learn if there had been any significant alterations in positioning since this article first appeared.

regards.

*Edited - originally I stated LP referred to a 'Large Protractor' - until I was kindly corrected by PT1029. See following posts.

[gxaustin]

Now I understand.
In my case the multiplier would be about halfway between those extremes.
In Hinault's case my ratio is 0.893.

[PT1029]

Get your helper to place one edge of the LP (Large Protractor - but a book will do!) against the wall between your legs

LP?
When I first read the Loughborough 1.09 X inside leg measurement (pedal - saddle), an LP would have been a long playing record (better for the job than a protractor).

For readers not of certain vintage, a LP is a plastic/polymer analogue information (music) storage device, easily corrupted by direct heat, dust and scratches!

[iandusud]

Some observations: I have noticed in recent years (as opposed to the 80s!) that pro riders appear to my eye to have move bend in the leg at the bottom of the pedal stroke (Chris Froome is seems a particular example of this). My personal experience is that of the various methods mentioned (0.885 and 1.09) that my knees prefer a higher rather than lower setting. The above may suggest that a lower setting produced more power?

[bjlabuk]

LP?
When I first read the Loughborough 1.09 X inside leg measurement (pedal - saddle), an LP would have been a long playing record (better for the job than a protractor).

For readers not of certain vintage, a LP is a plastic/polymer analogue information (music) storage device, easily corrupted by direct heat, dust and scratches!

LOL, you are right ! The article starts off by listing "What you need". Both an 'LP record' and 'Large Protractor' are listed. My mistake!

However, it is not the actual LP 'record' that is used of course, but the LP record 'cover' (again for those not of a certain vintage, the 'cover' is the cardboard protection that the record fits into and protects it from the aforementioned dust and scratches. It is square in shape, usually had some amazing picture on the front and all the lyrics written on the back). Definitely more suitable for placing against the wall than an oversize protractor ! But as I said a book will do!

PS don't mention 'sleeves'.

[bjlabuk]

I actually wrote to (okay emailed) CyclingPlus magazine on 9th July asking them if there had been any update to their 1995 Special Report, and if so could they tell me the Issue Number? To date I have not received a reply.

I should maybe scan my copy so I have a digital copy I can share.

EDIT: I have scanned the report, as a pdf file, 7mb. Don't know whether I can upload it here?