Lemond book seat ht ?

[John Roden]

Hi - I was bored the otehr night and calculated my seat height using the
formula in the greg lemond book, inseam*.883 and found that my seat was
about an inch high. so i just lowered it a whole inch and went for a
ride. I felt like i was riding in a bucket. I was wondering if anyone
had ideas on this formula. Don't write to tell me how stupid i am to
lower my seat so much in one chunk, I don't really care, I was more
interested in peoploe experince with this "rule of thumb"

Thanks in advance, John Roden

[John Roden]

Eric P. Salathe, Jr. wrote:
> You wouldn't be so bored if you spent more time riding!

Thanks for wit/wisdon & training advice... John Roden

[Jeff Matson]

In article <32ADD6...@frontiernet.net>,

I think his formula is good, but only if you follow all of his other fit
pointers, too. You need to sit well back on the bike for his seat height to
be valid -- slide the saddle all the way back like he does.

JSM

[Eric P. Salathe, Jr.]

John Roden wrote:
> I was bored the other night and calculated my seat height using the

> formula in the greg lemond book, inseam*.883 and found that my seat was
> about an inch high. so i just lowered it a whole inch and went for a
> ride. I felt like i was riding in a bucket.

Just because Greg Lemond won the Tour de France and wanders around in corn
fields where people are shooting guns is no reason to assume he knows how
high you want your saddle (to 3 significant figures, no less). You wouldn't
be so bored if you spent more time riding! (OK, his formula comes out a bit
too low for me too, but the other rule-of-thumb is close, so go figure.)
--
,
Eric P. Salathe, Jr. sal...@atmos.washington.edu
Seattle, Washington, USA

[M Dolenga]

In article <32ADD6...@frontiernet.net>, ro...@frontiernet.net wrote:

> Hi - I was bored the otehr night and calculated my seat height using the

> formula in the greg lemond book, inseam*.883 and found that my seat was
> about an inch high. so i just lowered it a whole inch and went for a

> ride. I felt like i was riding in a bucket. I was wondering if anyone
> had ideas on this formula.

The rule doesn't work for me, and I suspect the same is true for most
people over 6 feet. Perhaps it only works for someone Lemond's size? If
I use the formula, my seat is about 2 cm lower than I like to ride. Some
of that may be because, as Jobst correctly points out, the crank length is
also a factor.

To another person who wrote that the Lemond formula calls for a relaxed
seat angle, I would agree to some extent, but the formula still has me on
too small a bike even though I prefer my seat as far back as possible
(these days, I won't ride anything >72 degrees).

Mike

[Jobst Brandt]

John Roden writes:

> Hi - I was bored the other night and calculated my seat height using the
> formula in the Greg Lemond book, inseam*.883 and found that my seat was
> about an inch high. So I just lowered it a whole inch and went for a
> ride. I felt like I was riding in a bucket. I was wondering if anyone

> had ideas on this formula.

The whole seat height computation thing is a pile of BS, especially if
the crank length isn't included in the parameters. The whole thing
boils down to how straight you want your leg to be at the bottom of
the stroke, and that depends on how you prefer to angle your foot.
Some people walk in a tip toe manner and others walk with a long
stride. These differences are similar to leg extension preferences on
the bicycle. No formula fits all, or even a few.

Ride what feels comfortable. Deep knee bends are what ruin knees for
many people. Pedaling a bicycle is like climbing stairs two steps at
a time. Stairs have a 6 inch rise, cranks are more than 6.5 inches
each and that makes a 13 inch rise. Most humans don't do that well
unless they've been doing it since youth. Spinning doesn't help
because ultimately you must climb a hill and torque WILL go up. The
idea is to ride as high as comfortable so that you are not doing
squats. When following a rider, swiveling hips is a sign of saddle
too high, too low is what the rider feels. Usually if the saddle
feels better pointing up, it is too low. The best for a beginner is
to have someone who has an eye for proper position set the height.

Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>

[Garry Lee]

Anybody who ever took the trouble to look at him racing would conclude
that his position was weird, much like Phil Anderson's.
Forget Lemond (He was a Brilliant Cyclist, one of my favourites).
For classical position take as your example Stephen Roche or Pedro
Delgado or Big Mig.

[Simon Gray]

For those who must have formulae, I give you these. It should only be
used as a starting point, but it seems to work better than the Lemond
formula.

Place the crank arm in line with the seat tube and pointing down. The
distance from the pedalling surface (inside of shoe) to saddle should be
1.09xinside leg (crotch to floor).

It is easier to measure from the top
surface of the pedal to the saddle, so call this roughly
1.1xinside leg.

If you want a centre of bottom bracket to saddle position, subtract the
length of your cranks. Ideally these should be about 20% of your inside
leg. This gives a

bottom bracket to saddle distance = 0.9xinside leg.

This is in agreement with the consensus that Lemond's formula gives a
setting that is about an inch too low for an average rider.

Simon.

[Tim McNamara]

If you read *all* of the LeMond formula, you'll note there is also
allowances made for crank length, distance from sole of shoe to center of
pedal axle, thickness of shoe, etc.

The bike is somewhat adjustable and the body is somewhat adaptable. As
others have pointed out, ride what's *comfortable.* For me, the 109%
method just happens to coincide with the .885 factor in Hinault's book and
is quite comfortable up to 100 miles or so. So I use that position (BTW,
I'm 6'4" or 1.96 meters, with slightly short legs for my height). But
jeez, look at photos of Sean Kelly. He sat low, forward and upright but
this didn't stop him from winning 35+ pro races a year and racing upwards
of 160 races a year. (his position did in fact change over the years; by
the end of his career, Kelly sat much higher and had greater reach to the
bars than in the early and middle stages of his career- at least it
appears this way from looking at the photographs)

As far as I know, Kelly never suffered from knee or back problems or
tendinitis. Contrast this to Hinault, LeMond, Guimard (who refined and
popularized the "modern" high-and-stretched position in vogue today),
Fondriest, Plankaert... all guys with the modern position who have paid a
price in terms of repetitive stress injuries and possibly shortened
careers (at least in terms of being competitive at the top levels).

If I had to err, I'd err on the side of the saddle being a litle lower,
the saddle a bit forward and the bars a bit higher. BTW, dropping your
saddle an inch and going for a ride doesn't tell you anything about which
position is better for you. It just gives you a lesson in the contrast
effect. Even a 5mm change in saddle height has felt peculiar to me on my
bikes.

Tim

--
Just a box of rain, I don't know who put it there.
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare.

-Robert Hunter

[Garry Lee]

Sean Kelly learnt to race on a frame which was "too small" for him and he
became very used to it and this explains the apparently cramped position
which he favoured for most of his career.

[Garry Lee]

JB wrote

The whole seat height computation thing is a pile of BS, especially if
the crank length isn't included in the parameters. The whole thing
boils down to how straight you want your leg to be at the bottom of
the stroke, and that depends on how you prefer to angle your foot.
Some people walk in a tip toe manner and others walk with a long
stride. These differences are similar to leg extension preferences on
the bicycle. No formula fits all, or even a few.

I agree that no formula fits all but cannot agree with "even a few."

The seat height of the vast majority of experienced comfortable cyclists
on drop bar bikes is within a very narrow predictable range.
The pedal down leg straight foot parallel to ground sitting square on
saddle will have most cyclists 0-10mm off the pedal. Many of the cyclists
with heights higher than this will complain of backache, sore backside.
There are those with unusual anatomy, gaits etc. who are an exception.

[Eric Harvey]

Simon Gray (gr...@amoco.saclay.cea.fr) wrote:
: For those who must have formulae, I give you these. It should only be

I don't really like to say that any single saddle formula is wrong, but
using 1.09xinseam for the distance from the sole of the shoe to the
saddle is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. This will give a position that is way,
way too high. For instance, on me: 88.9 cm inseam x 1.09 = 96.9 cm. I
use 175 mm cranks so 96.9-17.5=79.4 cm. This is about where I set my
saddle now from the centre of the BB. But, my foot surface doesn't
coincide with the pedal axle, that's for sure. My foot, using
Sidi shoes/Look pedals, is about 3.4 cm above the center of pedal
spindle. So, using the above method, my saddle height would be
79.4+3.4=82.8 cm. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. I wouldn't be able to reach the
pedals at the bottom of my stroke at this height as I probably wouldn't
be able to rock my hips enough.

Perhaps something is lost in the translation here (the original poster is
from France) but this is way, way too high. I have seen 1.09xinseam used
for the distance from the centre of the pedal spindle to the seat, with
the crank in line with the seat tube and my numbers work OK for this.
But even this proves to high for some and Dr. Garry Lee's back cringes
every time he sees this number.

I tend to agree with Tim McNamara. Lots of pros who ride the classically
high position (is it that classic?) are the guys with herniated disks,
tendinitis, etc. And from my own experience, a high saddle has given me
a pinched sciatic nerve, ankle tendinitis, and hip soreness. Each person
has a distinctly different body in terms of limb length, muscle
structure, flexibility, etc, etc. I have even noticed that adding
musclular strength to my legs via gym work makes it hard for me to ride a
saddle height as high as I used to before strength training, even though
my flexibility is pretty good.

Look at pictures and video footage of the pros and you will find they
don't ride as high as we think. Look at Lance in 1996. Or Jalabert. Or
Tchmil. And look at the upper body, they aren't hunched over - the bars
are higher relative to the seat. They acheive their flat backs by riding
long top tubes. As an extreme example, Boardman's road machine is 54.5
cm seat tube, 59 cm top tube!! (as reported by Cycle Sport).

The best piece of advice gleaned from Lemond's book is something like
"Don't become too consumed with you saddle height and use it as a
crutch. If you are within 1 cm of what is ideal you will be OK."

Eric.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Harvey email: eha...@med.phys.ualberta.ca
Dept. of Medical Physics phone: (403)432-8618
Cross Cancer Institute fax: (403)432-8615
11560 University Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 1Z2

[Simon Gray]

In article <59capk$m...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> eha...@med.phys.ualberta.ca (Eric Harvey) writes:
>Simon Gray (gr...@amoco.saclay.cea.fr) wrote:
[snip desciption of 1.09 formula]

>
>I don't really like to say that any single saddle formula is wrong, but
>using 1.09xinseam for the distance from the sole of the shoe to the
>saddle is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

[snip - I hope not too much]
Point taken. I apologise if I have misrepresented or misapplied this
formula, which has been widely reproduced in the UK cycling press
(usually quoted as the "110% rule"), and will accept the correction.

I tried to make the point that any formula for setting up a bike should
only be a starting point, and the position should be varied until something
comfortable is found. Too high and the hips tend to swing, giving long term
back problems and too low can give knee problems.

Simon.

[Thomas H. Kunich]

In article <597fc8$e...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com>,
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:

>The whole seat height computation thing is a pile of BS, especially if
>the crank length isn't included in the parameters. The whole thing
>boils down to how straight you want your leg to be at the bottom of
>the stroke, and that depends on how you prefer to angle your foot.
>Some people walk in a tip toe manner and others walk with a long
>stride. These differences are similar to leg extension preferences on
>the bicycle. No formula fits all, or even a few.

This ought to be emblazoned in the FAQ with large framing and capitol
letter. Also the human body can adjust to practically anything given
enough time.

>Ride what feels comfortable. Deep knee bends are what ruin knees for
>many people. Pedaling a bicycle is like climbing stairs two steps at
>a time. Stairs have a 6 inch rise, cranks are more than 6.5 inches
>each and that makes a 13 inch rise. Most humans don't do that well
>unless they've been doing it since youth. Spinning doesn't help
>because ultimately you must climb a hill and torque WILL go up. The
>idea is to ride as high as comfortable so that you are not doing
>squats. When following a rider, swiveling hips is a sign of saddle
>too high, too low is what the rider feels. Usually if the saddle
>feels better pointing up, it is too low. The best for a beginner is
>to have someone who has an eye for proper position set the height.

Seat height adjustment formulas ARE A STARTING POINT. It happens that
I set my seat height a little low. If I set it any higher I get pains
behind the knee so I leave it a tad low.

I have my daughters seat set a tad high and every time she rides with
the local experts they tell her that her seat is set too low. Uh, maybe
they ought to go to the nationals and see how they finish before giving
advice -- and in several cases READJUSTING SOMEONE ELSE'S SADDLE HEIGHT!

[Thomas H. Kunich]

In article <59arp1$7jv$2...@nuacht.iol.ie>, Garry Lee <gl...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>The seat height of the vast majority of experienced comfortable cyclists
>on drop bar bikes is within a very narrow predictable range.

While I agree with you Gary, the "narrow" range is significant -- like
3 cm's! I ride with my seat low by about 1 cm from the 12 degree knee
extended angle while a friend of mine with legs 1" shorter than mine
rides 2 cm higher! I can't argue with his position since he commonly
does 10,000 feet of climbing in a 100 mile ride in less than 6 hours.
And he is in his 50's.

So, while this range is technically "narrow" it is significant.

[Garry Lee]

What makes a saddle height incorrect is
1. That there is significant power loss (Usually too low)
2. That it causes knee back or backside problems, (low , high and high).
Other than that if you've no problem, it's not an issue.

[Eric Harvey]

Simon Gray (gr...@amoco.saclay.cea.fr) wrote:

: Point taken. I apologise if I have misrepresented or misapplied this

: formula, which has been widely reproduced in the UK cycling press
: (usually quoted as the "110% rule"), and will accept the correction.

: I tried to make the point that any formula for setting up a bike should
: only be a starting point, and the position should be varied until something
: comfortable is found. Too high and the hips tend to swing, giving long term
: back problems and too low can give knee problems.

I wasn't trying to be too emphatic. I just fear for those who might take
some advice on here as verbatim and end up trying to ride a saddle height
that is way too high.

FWIW, the 1.09 x inseam formula is also a good starting point, if the
distance is measured from centre of the pedal hole in the crank along the
seat tube to the top of the saddle, with the crank in-line with the seat
tube (measuring from the crank arm at the bottom of course).

[Eric Harvey]

Garry Lee (gl...@iol.ie) wrote:
: What makes a saddle height incorrect is

: 1. That there is significant power loss (Usually too low)
: 2. That it causes knee back or backside problems, (low , high and high).
: Other than that if you've no problem, it's not an issue.

And I'll add to the possible complications from riding too high - lateral
problems with the hip/thigh/knee (iliotibial tract) and potential for
injury to the Achilles tendon (if the foot points down too much and the
shoe irritates the tendon).

It's a delicate balance, isn't it....

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

In <59djhv$o...@news.cea.fr> gr...@amoco.saclay.cea.fr (Simon Gray)
writes:

>
>In article <59capk$m...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>
eha...@med.phys.ualberta.ca (Eric Harvey) writes:
>>Simon Gray (gr...@amoco.saclay.cea.fr) wrote:
>[snip desciption of 1.09 formula]
>>
>>I don't really like to say that any single saddle formula is wrong,
but
>>using 1.09xinseam for the distance from the sole of the shoe to the
>>saddle is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
>[snip - I hope not too much]

>Point taken. I apologise if I have misrepresented or misapplied this

^^^^^

>formula, which has been widely reproduced in the UK cycling press
>(usually quoted as the "110% rule"), and will accept the correction.

It's very noble of you to accept this correction. I'm kind of in shock
that you even write "if" in the above sentence.

>I tried to make the point that any formula for setting up a bike
should
>only be a starting point, and the position should be varied until
something
>comfortable is found.

So you post something that is not even in the ball park, with a caveat
that it is a just a "starting point"?

It seems to me the best response to Harvey's critique would be "Sorry.
I made a mistake, the 110% is seat to pedal" and leave it at that.
Then your old post would be fine.

JT

[tbg...@aol.com]

In article <59capk$m...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, eha...@med.phys.ualberta.ca
(Eric Harvey) writes:

> I have seen 1.09xinseam used
>for the distance from the centre of the pedal spindle to the seat, with
>the crank in line with the seat tube and my numbers work OK for this.
>But even this proves to high for some and Dr. Garry Lee's back cringes
>every time he sees this number.

My back cringes too, I spent three weeks in bed and 12 weeks off the bike
because I had my saddle too high. It's been a year and a half and I still
have some minor sciatic irritation. I do have an underlying problem, so
those of you that have normal lumbar disks can probably get away with a
high saddle, but if you or a friend notice your hips are rocking as you
ride . . . beware!

Even though I can still stir my sciatic up with a very hard ride, easier
riding helps! I've riden 5,000 miles this year . . . the .883 number
works for me.

Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>

[Liv2padl]

Greg L had particularly long femurs and thus his formula worked for his
riding style with a fairly large seat setback. i agree that any formula
is at best, only a starting point. mine is to have my heels just touch
the top of the pedal if i have them in the 12/6 position with my legs just
hanging straight down -- but it should be noted that the shoes one wears
are an important factor, as cleat depth (assuming cleats) varies more than
one might think depending on the thickness of the sole. this works for me
but for others, who knows. dan