Saddle height

[yostumpy]

My riding position has evolved over a long time, and I'm comfy, now I've just done the inside leg thing, against a wall with a book, and measured 930 in cycling shoes. If I x this by 1.07. I get a suggested saddle height of 995 from pedal spindle. Just measured my bike and it's actually only 965 ! Should I raise it 30mm ! And then start trying different stems etc, or just leave well alone. It used to be a lot higher, then I read some obscure method of setting height by some well known TDF rider or yore. I altered it, lower and further back, and it was better, felt weird at first, seemed like I was on a child's bike. That was prob 7/8 years ago. I'm 187cm btw. I just can't imagine riding it with the saddle 30mm higher. I'm confused??

[pwa]

Stick with what you have. These theoretical methods of establishing a position are a starting point for people who don't already have a position that works for them, but if you have got to something that feels right you would be throwing away something tried and tested in favour of something that may not suit you.

[yostumpy]

Just re measured in socks only = 900 x 1.07 = 963mm. I have 965. So do you measure barefoot or in cycling shoes?

[cyclop]

Rather than measure anything,a method in common use is,whilst sitting on the saddle and with either pedal at its furthest point from the saddle(usually crank in line with seat tube),if you can then place your heel on the relevant pedal with the leg straight then your saddle is near enough right.This will then allow a slightly bent leg when the correct foot position is adopted i.e.ball of foot on pedal.This has always worked for me.
In addition,once you,ve worked out this position and are happy with it ,simply measure pedal spindle at the point it is furthest from the saddle to the top of saddle,in my case 35".This can be applied to every bike you have(full suspension mtb aside)

[amediasatex]

If I x this by 1.07. I get a suggested saddle height of 995

And if you times it by some other number someone else recommends you'll get a different height.

Any fitting system that rigidly adheres to fixed ratios or numbers needs treating with a very big pinch of salt. There are many (conflicting) systems that all claim to be right. To be fair a lot of them will get you a good starting point, and will have some broad correlation with 'the average human', but they should be treated as such, a starting point from which to adjust to fit the individual and their particular anatomy and riding style.

I'd caution making changes, especially big ones if you are currently comfortable. Unless you have particular issues that you want to resolve or improve then there's probably little to be gained from changing simply because one formula says you should. Not to mention that you've probably adapted to your current position now so any big change will feel wrong even if it might give some improvement in power etc.

If on the other hand you are experiencing discomfort or an obvious lack of power or some other aspect to your performance on the bike that you think needs sorting then I'd suggest doing a bit more reading and research first to help inform any changes. The problem with a lot of fitters is that they will all disagree on some point somewhere, so it's hard to recommend one over another...

[yostumpy]

Yes, lack of power , or oomph! When a hill appears, anything of any significance has me out of the saddle

[alexnharvey]

Why not raise it five millimetres and see how you like it?

[Mick F]

Exactly.
Have a play with it, and see how you get on. You can always put it back where it was before and move it up and down.


................. unless you have an issue we hear about on here many times.
Frozen seat posts.

[yostumpy]

haha! play with it! up and down! believe me, the clamp bolt is almost worn out, ditto the twin bolt adjuster on the post. I always come back to its original position. I used to do quite a few 200km Audax rides, with a higher seat, but just the thought of doing 200 km now, makes my legs ache. maybe I ride on my own too much, too much time to think. On another forum, a chap of the same height as me, said in a post that his seat was 88cm from his BB. Whether it was from top of casing or c/c its still MUCH higher than mine. I couldn't even get on it if my seat was that high. Heel on the pedal thing, yes its right, but if I raise the saddle and move it forward its still right! .

[531colin]

Just re measured in socks only = 900 x 1.07 = 963mm. I have 965. So do you measure barefoot or in cycling shoes?

Where does the 1.07 number come from, please?
Lemond says measure inside leg in bare feet, multiply by 0.88 and that gives you the distance from BB axle to the bum-bone dent in your saddle, (ie.NOT straight up the seat tube)
Lemond's "formula" gives a higher saddle than I ride, but thats maybe unsurprising as he was a world class racing cyclist and I'm a septugenerian.
Maybe if I were to shove my saddle forward so that I would ride toe-down at the bottom, move my cleats forward, and rotate my pelvis forward, I might just get within touching distance of Lemond's prescribed saddle height. Couldn't ride like that for more than an hour, though.
Maybe all I have to do is raise my saddle, and I'll fly up the hills .....or maybe not.

[Samuel D]

We’ve been through this before with 531colin, Gattonero, Natural Ankling, and others. Summary of the muddle here. It appears we all prefer different saddle heights, even after taking into account our differences of leg length – as measured with a big book against a wall or similar.

I’ve come to suspect there’s a difference between leg length as measured in that way and functional or effective length when pedalling. Something doesn’t quite add up. I need a reasonably low saddle for smooth and comfortable pedalling. I’ve tried a high saddle and there were no benefits for me but several downsides.

On this topic, I finally have some video of me riding. I’m in blue and show up around 3:30. I’m pedalling quite gently, even when pretty aero around 5:00. The road was particularly rough with potholes everywhere, often not seen in the video. I wasn’t conscious of being filmed (or I would have tidied up a few lazy things!). When my right hand goes down it’s to change gears (down-tube shifters).

Any observations from the cognoscenti?

In that video, my saddle is a little over the 73 cm I claimed in the other thread. I can measure it if anyone wants. I had to swap saddles after my Brooks broke.

[pwa]

Two people can have the same leg length but have differing upper/lower leg lengths. If you have longer femurs you will tend to want your saddle further back, and that might change the whole dynamic. And foot length varies. A long foot with toes pointing down will require a higher saddle than a short foot with toes pointing down. There has to be more to it than just some crude formula based on overall leg length.

[yostumpy]

1.07....hmmm.......IIRC it came from a book , called 'Adventure Cycling' written in the 70's by Tim Hughes. It suggests the lower 1.07 height as slightly more suitable for Rough Stuff, this of course was when folks did proper Rough Stuff on touring bikes, with a saddlebag.

[Samuel D]

What does the book say should be 1.07 × your inseam? Top of saddle in line with seat tube? Sit-bone area of saddle? Down to the centre of the pedal spindle, platform of pedal, something else? Crank in-line with seat tube, straight down, some other orientation?

Whatever the answers, the result is subject to differences in saddle construction, saddle set-back, pedal stack height, shoe height, etc.

In other words, I’m with amediasatex on this one.

[yostumpy]

OK OK!! enough already I'll leave it where it is and go and hibernate. Just one of those things you think about, that you shouldn't think about. a bit like that old saying ''If it ain't broke........wheres that spanner'