# lemond fit question for saddle height



## RyanM (Jul 15, 2008)

If my inseam is 85 what should my ideal saddle height be using the lemond fit forumla?

i got the inseam # from a fit I had last year so assuming its in cm? (not sure)

thanks for any help for this newbie


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

I doubt it is in inches or mm....


http://www.cyclemetrics.com/Pages/Docs/6-BikeFitting/LemondSystem/inseamtable.htm

Ignore the road frame size recommendation on that table... modern frames have longer top tubes and more seat post.


----------



## RyanM (Jul 15, 2008)

thanks


----------



## KensBikes (Feb 6, 2005)

multiply by 1.09, 927 mm above the pedal axis with pedal at bottom.

Add the crank length back in to get the measured saddle height above BB.

Actual LeMond multiplier is 0.883, I think. 0.883* 85 cm is 751 mm.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Lemond/Guimard/Hinault is .883 or .885 (depending on whose version) times the inseam measurement in sock feet with a measuring point jammed into your crotch. It assumes traditional pedals with 10mm thick shoe soles. Adjustments need to be made for both pedal height and shoe thickness, and NO adjustment for crank length.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

FWIW - using formula to come with with a seat position (height and setback) is a dangerous approach, IMHO. i got myself injured several times trying out different formulas (including this one here) about 5 years ago which took many months to recover from. which is to say, IMO, there is no formula for an optimal seat position, every rider is individual, go by what feels good and does not cause discomfort/injury. search fitness section of www.cyclingnews.com for answers by Steve Hogg re seat position. there will be good general guidelines and no formulas. 

here is recent example:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/cyclingnews-fitness-q-and-a-december-24-2009


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

The LeMond/Hinault formula worked great for me. Improved power, nice spin, no injuries.

*shrug*

Over time, I did adjust it slightly, raising my saddle maybe 3mm. Pretty darn close for a simple formula.

I also have atypically long thighs compared to my inseam length, so I was very impressed at how close it came, considering I don't have 'normal' leg proportions.
.


----------



## The Green Hour (Jul 15, 2008)

Formulas can be good starting points. That said, doing all the number crunching is more time consuming than getting on the bike and setting it up yourself. If you are looking to size yourself on an unknown bike, they can be close enough to get you started.

I don't use any formula. What has worked for me was getting on the bike and making adjustments. I simply extend my leg at the bottom of the pedal stroke with heel down and set the height there. When clipped in I have a very slight bend at the knee with no rocking on the saddle. It has worked for me regardless of what saddle or pedal I use.

Just be aware that any type of shoe, saddle or pedal replacement will need some readjusting...and a few mm's can make a big difference.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

The Green Hour said:


> Formulas can be good starting points. That said, doing all the number crunching is more time consuming than getting on the bike and setting it up yourself. If you are looking to size yourself on an unknown bike, they can be close enough to get you started.
> 
> I don't use any formula. What has worked for me was getting on the bike and making adjustments. I simply extend my leg at the bottom of the pedal stroke with heel down and set the height there. When clipped in I have a very slight bend at the knee with no rocking on the saddle. It has worked for me regardless of what saddle or pedal I use.
> 
> Just be aware that any type of shoe, saddle or pedal replacement will need some readjusting...and a few mm's can make a big difference.


+1. While I think LeMond's approach has some merit, there's no substitute for 'just doing', because there are variables/ idiosyncrasies that aren't known. That given,_ a good starting point_ is (IMO) a pretty accurate description, similar to discussing KOPS.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

The Green Hour said:


> Formulas can be good starting points. That said, doing all the number crunching is more time consuming than getting on the bike and setting it up yourself.


Eh? Simply multiplying inseam by .883 isn't 'zactly what I'd call 'time-consuming number-crunching'. Takes about ten seconds on a calculator, right?/









But your 'starting point' point is well-taken. One should tweak position (carefully) in search of better fit/performance (well, I did anyway), rather than taking any formula as 'the hand of God'.

That said, LeMond/Hinault has been a very good formula/starting pt for lots of ppl.
.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> One should tweak position (carefully) in search of better fit/performance (as I did), rather than taking any formula as 'the hand of God'.
> 
> .


yeah, for certain. Especially with saddle height because no formula is going to take into account people wear different shoes causing slightly different reaches. Not to mention cleat position, the saddles themself all have different padding squishing down and set back, or not, on the post. Come to think of it I probably wouldn't even bother using a formula as a starting point for saddle height but no harm in doing so either. But tweak away from there. The factors I mentioned might not sound big enough to matter but I've found with saddle height that slightest difference one way or another really does.


----------



## G-Live (Apr 20, 2004)

How is the saddle height measured with this formula? Center of BB to Top of saddle along the seatpost angle? or to the saddles "sweet spot"? This formula is getting me close but not sure where to measure it to..

edit...how much additional adjustment and direction for cleats mounted 15mm or so more rearward than normal?

Thanks
G


----------



## The Green Hour (Jul 15, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> Eh? Simply multiplying inseam by .883 isn't 'zactly what I'd call 'time-consuming number-crunching'. Takes about ten seconds on a calculator, right?/
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Correct.

My point is how to properly measure inseam. Does it take two people?? Can you do it yourself? Where do you take it from? As a beginner people stress over simple things they hear or read. By the time all that is done you could be around the block making small adjustments...

My take is a lot of beginners try to fit themselves into formulas because they think it is the "right" thing to do, rather than learning how to feel what is right for themselves. We all have been there and found out for ourselves.:thumbsup:


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

acid_rider said:


> FWIW - using formula to come with with a seat position (height and setback) is a dangerous approach, IMHO. i got myself injured several times trying out different formulas (including this one here) about 5 years ago which took many months to recover from. which is to say, IMO, there is no formula for an optimal seat position, every rider is individual, go by what feels good and does not cause discomfort/injury. search fitness section of www.cyclingnews.com for answers by Steve Hogg re seat position. there will be good general guidelines and no formulas.
> 
> here is recent example:
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/cyclingnews-fitness-q-and-a-december-24-2009


Changing ones position dramatically is how many people come unstuck. The body does not react well to sharp changes of any sort, be they temperature, pressure or bike fit. 

That said, this particular formula was used by Hinault, Fignon, Lemond, Mottet and practically every Renault, La Vie Claire, Toshiba and Z rider with no problems. 

If a large difference is shown up, then one should edge towards it over a period of time to allow the muscles, tendons & ligaments time to adjust.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

ultimobici said:


> That said, this particular formula was used by Hinault, Fignon, Lemond, Mottet and practically every Renault, La Vie Claire, Toshiba and Z rider with no problems.


Minor add-on to that: in his book, Lemond states that this formula "was determined with the standard Campagnolo racing pedals and medium-thickness cycling shoes." Because the pedals he refers to are the classic old clip-and-strap pedals used at the time, and cycling shoes have changed a lot since then, many people recommend to subtract 3 mm from the saddle height recommended by the Lemond formula if you use clipless pedals. Not a big deal—somewhere else in his book, Lemond says that if you're within one centimeter of your calculated saddle height, you'll be fine.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

these formulas fail badly because the cleat position can vary (shoe sizes, toe lenghts, etc) , the pedal platform thickness and the shoe sole thickness varies (by much more than 3mm) and also some people will pedal heels down style (under high load) and others with more toes down like ballet dancers and still others pedal with feet relatively horizontal, this all can easily change the seat height optimal position by ~10mm in either way. The formula may get you to the nearest 10mm of your seat height optimum but in cycling terms 10mm off is a very large error margin. There is no substitute for feeling the power and control at the bottom of the pedal stroke. Also seat height will change with seat setback and most seat height measuring techniques do not take setback into account. Every 10mm seat setback is about 3mm height difference. All of which is to say that friends do not let friends position seats by formulas 8^)


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

acid_rider said:


> The formula may get you to the nearest 10mm of your seat height optimum but in cycling terms 10mm off is a very large error margin.


It's even more complicated than that: it's never really been established that there is such a thing as a seat height optimum. Many riders and coaches believe that a few millimeter up or down have a significant effect on power output, but that belief is based more on perception than hard science. And since saddle height in almost all instances is a compromise between force generation, sustainability of racing cadences and rider comfort, a "seat height optimum" is really no more than the height that works sort of OK most of the time.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Eddy B, and I won't try to spell his last name, the Polish born cyclist who coached Alexi Grewal to Olympic road race victory in 1984, wrote in his encylopedic, "Bicycle Road Racing," that some interested parties took measurements of elite racers, and experimented with fine saddle height adjustments. They discovered as they raised the saddles, power increased, understandably, as the stroke got longer. But at 96% of leg length, presumably measured from the hip joint, power dropped off very quickly.

So there's another figure to bandy about. I think it pretty much agrees with the LeMond formula, saddle height = .883 x inseam. Hinault says saddle height is measured from the center of the crank spindle to the lowest part of the top of the saddle, which isn't necessarily in line with the seat post.

The "Fit Kit" many bike shops have used over the years has an angle stick in it, used to measure the angle of the thigh with lower leg at the bottom of the pedal stroke. It recommends 30 degrees.

At least twice, I've read accounts of coaches opening up training camps for amateur racers, having to lower many of their saddles. A few years ago. one coach said well over half the riders had their saddles too high. They had all raised them bit by bit, feeling the increase in power, and went slightly over the edge of the power curve. They were reaching and rocking their hips.

I'll second those who say formulas can't be set in stone. Also from the evidence above, and lots of anecdotal evidence I've come across over the years, my own experience as well as many others I've ridden with, it's better to err on the low side. A slightly too low saddle is almost as good as the optimum height. But a tiny bit too high, and efficiency drops off rapidly. The backs of the knees can quickly injure, not to mention pressure on the crotch. It's also difficult to balance on the sit bones at the back of the saddle and cantilever the upper body forward without putting alot of weight on your hands.

If you can't pedal at 100 or 120 rpm without rocking your hips, the saddle is too high. That's the acid test.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

The Green Hour said:


> My point is how to properly measure inseam. Does it take two people?? Can you do it yourself? Where do you take it from?


 Two people would be easiest, but I've done it solo. All it took was a pencil, tape measure, hardcover book, and about five minutes. Honestly GH, it just ain't that hard. 

IIRC, LeMond's book even gives you instructions, if you're worried about messing up. :wink5:
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Eddy B, and I won't try to spell his last name, the Polish born cyclist who coached Alexi Grewal to Olympic road race victory in 1984, wrote in his encylopedic, "Bicycle Road Racing," that some interested parties took measurements of elite racers, and experimented with fine saddle height adjustments. They discovered as they raised the saddles, power increased, understandably, as the stroke got longer. But at 96% of leg length, presumably measured from the hip joint, power dropped off very quickly.
> 
> So there's another figure to bandy about. I think it pretty much agrees with the LeMond formula, saddle height = .883 x inseam.


No, actually the Eddy B formula is pretty different from LeMond/Hinault, advocating a considerably lower saddle height. It's also been largely discredited.

The problem was the testing methodology Eddy B used. Apparently, the riders he used for the tests only rode at the tested heights for a short time each day. In between tests, they rode at their normal, pre-test saddle heights, which were usually lower (remember, this was back in the '70s or '80s, forget which). 

Result? Their bodies never got a chance to adapt to higher saddle heights. It turned out that even Eddy B's tests showed that higher saddle heights than 96% of leg length produced greater power. It was the *oxygen usage* became less efficient at those higher saddle heights, so he mistakenly concluded that there was no point to anything higher than 96% of leg length.

But the thing is, given a few weeks of exclusively using those higher saddle heights, your body adapts, and you then get optimal power PLUS optimal oxygen use. 

That's sort of the whole point of the LeMond/Hinault/Guimard formula. 




> _At least twice, I've read accounts of coaches opening up training camps for amateur racers, having to lower many of their saddles. A few years ago. one coach said well over half the riders had their saddles too high. They had all raised them bit by bit, feeling the increase in power, and went slightly over the edge of the power curve. They were reaching and rocking their hips._


Right there, you see the influence of the LeMond/Hinault formula. Back in 'teh old days', most riders set their saddles too _low_, rather than too high. 

What you have now are ppl trying to one-up LeMond/Hinault, figuring that if a high saddle height is good, even higher must be better. 

They take it too far, and end up being inefficient, and even injured. 




> _If you can't pedal at 100 or 120 rpm without rocking your hips, the saddle is too high. That's the acid test._


 I think that's exactly right, assuming the rider doesn't have other x-factors at work, like poor flexibility, uneven leg lengths, tight hamstrings, etc. 
.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Yeah, forget about 96%!*



SystemShock said:


> No, actually the Eddy B formula is pretty different from LeMond/Hinault, advocating a considerably lower saddle height. It's also been largely discredited.
> 
> The problem was the testing methodology Eddy B used. Apparently, the riders he used for the tests only rode at the tested heights for a short time each day. In between tests, they rode at their normal, pre-test saddle heights, which were usually lower (remember, this was back in the '70s or '80s, forget which).
> 
> ...


You state well the changing perceptions back when Guimard was raising Hinault's and LeMond's saddles back in the 80s. Now I can't figure out where Eddy B got his leg length measurement, crotch or hip? With mine, if its hip, my saddle height comes out to 34 1/2 inches. The LeMond figure, which has been right-on for me for 25+ years is 28 1/4". 0.883 of leg length to crotch is 88.3 %, which also doesn't agree with Eddy's 96 %. He must have been measuring from a shorter point. 

He was still right about the efficiency curve rapidly falling off above an optimum saddle height, although it turns out to be a little higher than he figured. It also takes a little practice to learn how to pedal fast, even with an optimum saddle height, so like all things pertaining to the human anatomy and musculature, one must ease into a new position, listen the the body, and fine tune when the messages start coming through. :thumbsup:


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Fredrico said:


> Now I can't figure out where Eddy B got his leg length measurement, crotch or hip?


Eddy B. defined leg length from the hip. More specifically, it's the dimension from the outermost point of the greater trochanter (which is a point not easy to find) to the floor. The problem you may be having with your numbers is that Eddy B. defined saddle height as _pedal spindle_-to-top of saddle. To get your _bottom bracket_-to-saddle top height, just subtract your crank length from Eddie B.'s 96%-of -leg-length saddle height. If you measured correctly, you'll see that Eddy B. and Lemond are not that far apart.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Thanks again, Wim!*



wim said:


> Eddy B. defined leg length from the hip. More specifically, it's the dimension from the outermost point of the greater trochanter (which is a point not easy to find) to the floor. The problem you may be having with your numbers is that Eddy B. defined saddle height as _pedal spindle_-to-top of saddle. To get your _bottom bracket_-to-saddle top height, just subtract your crank length from Eddie B.'s 96%-of -leg-length saddle height. If you measured correctly, you'll see that Eddy B. and Lemond are not that far apart.


I loaned the book to a club mate many years ago and never got it back. Yeah, saddle to pedal spindle. Now I remember penciling it down in that book with a diagram.

Both systems get the same results with me. Just measured my saddle to pedal spindle. It's 34.5", exactly 96% of hip joint to floor in bare feet. The saddle is also 28.25" away from the crank spindle, which is what the LeMond formula suggests. They agree completely, just as I originally thought. :biggrin5:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> I loaned the book to a club mate many years ago and never got it back. Yeah, saddle to pedal spindle. Now I remember penciling it down in that book with a diagram.
> 
> Both systems get the same results with me. Just measured my saddle to pedal spindle. It's 34.5", exactly 96% of hip joint to floor in bare feet. The saddle is also 28.25" away from the crank spindle, which is what the LeMond formula suggests.
> 
> *They agree completely, just as I originally thought.* :biggrin5:


Possibly for you, but not generally. 

LeMond made a big point about this in his book, that the Guimard/LeMond formula usually resulted in a higher saddle height than the commonly-advocated-at-the-time Eddy B formula.

His book in general is a very good read, I recommend checking it out sometime, even though the chapter on equipment is very dated.
.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> LeMond made a big point about this in his book, that the Guimard/LeMond formula usually resulted in a higher saddle height than the commonly-advocated-at-the-time Eddy B formula.


He certainly did, and my remark about Eddie B. and Lemond not being "far apart" shoud have indicated that Eddie B.'s height generally will be lower than Lemond's.

Where things can get a little skewed with both methods is establishing a precise point of measure. One method depends on crotch pressure perception, the other on hunting around for an exact point on the greater trochanter. It's easy to come to the conclusion that both methods yield the same height if these points of measure were just a bit off.

Agree with the take on the book. The chapters on fit are excellent, and so are the chapters on training. Of course, there were no power meters on people's bikes when the book was written, so don't look for wattages.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

wim said:


> He certainly did, and my remark about Eddie B. and Lemond not being "far apart" shoud have indicated that Eddie B.'s height generally will be lower than Lemond's.
> 
> Where things can get a little skewed with both methods is establishing a precise point of measure. One method depends on crotch pressure perception, the other on hunting around for an exact point on the greater trochanter. It's easy to come to the conclusion that both methods yield the same height if these points of measure were just a bit off.
> 
> Agree with the take on the book. The chapters on fit are excellent, and so are the chapters on training. Of course, there were no power meters on people's bikes when the book was written, so don't look for wattages.


 Well said. 

I just wish LeMond would update the book to reflect modern equipment and new wrinkles in training (such as the power meter, as you mention). Everything else in it is golden.

It and the Hinault book (co-written with Claude Genzling) belong in everyone's cycling library. They've certainly had a *big* influence on fit and training.
.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

wim said:


> He certainly did, and my remark about Eddie B. and Lemond not being "far apart" shoud have indicated that Eddie B.'s height generally will be lower than Lemond's.
> 
> Where things can get a little skewed with both methods is establishing a precise point of measure. One method depends on crotch pressure perception, the other on hunting around for an exact point on the greater trochanter. It's easy to come to the conclusion that both methods yield the same height if these points of measure were just a bit off.
> 
> Agree with the take on the book. The chapters on fit are excellent, and so are the chapters on training. Of course, there were no power meters on people's bikes when the book was written, so don't look for wattages.


We don't need no damn power meters.  http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=184876 

If Eddy B's calculations err slightly on the low side, wouldn't it be safe to assume they would be as legitimate as the Guimard formula, if both are starting points? The center of the thigh bone where it rotates in the hip bone isn't any harder to find than the horizontal line that touches the two sit bones. In my case, they produced the same numbers, leading me to believe either one could be used with confidence, or one could be used to confirm the other.

Never read the LeMond book, though. The Hinault/Genzling book guided me to my current fit, which has lasted comfortably over 20 years. :thumbsup:

Hope everyone has a Happy New Year! :9:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> If Eddy B's calculations err slightly on the low side, wouldn't it be safe to assume they would be as legitimate as the Guimard formula, if both are starting points?


 ATMO, no, because the assumptions and testing methodology that went into making the Eddy B formula ended up being mistaken/incorrect. As per post #20.

I guess it could be a good starting point formula for someone terrified of setting their saddle too high. But time seems to have passed it by.

Oh, and Happy New Year to you as well! :yesnod:
.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Who ya gonna believe?*



SystemShock said:


> ATMO, no, because the assumptions and testing methodology that went into making the Eddy B formula ended up being mistaken/incorrect. As per post #20.
> 
> I guess it could be a good starting point formula for someone terrified of setting their saddle too high. But time seems to have passed it by.


I just don't think you can write off Eddy's findings like that, just because he's been "discredited" by a new generation of cycling coaches, with their own opinions, prejudices, imperfect methodologies, and the like. Good science is based on empirical evidence.

I'll conceed that the Guimard formula, which originally was .885, 2 digits larger, no big deal , might be more accurate, as it's somewhat easier to accurately measure sitbones to floor rather than hip joint to floor. My empirical evidence, nonetheless, stunningly shows there's absolutely no difference between the results of the two formulas, despite Eddy's faulty methodology. His oxygen uptake results may have been skewed by the possibility many racers were starting the tests on saddles set too low to start with

Oh well.  Allow us "discredited" old farts to drop off the back, relegated to the dust bin of history. It's your world. I'm just hanging around for a little while longer. Go with what you can believe in. :thumbsup:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Oh well.  Allow us "discredited" old farts to drop off the back, relegated to the dust bin of history. It's your world. I'm just hanging around for a little while longer. Go with what you can believe in. :thumbsup:


Well, if you think about it Fred, the Guimard formula is itself a relic, originating in the '80s (maybe even late '70s). Despite its popularity, it's still quite 'old school'.

So you can claim it for your own, and the whipper-snappers will be none the wiser. :wink5:
.


----------



## The Green Hour (Jul 15, 2008)

I'm wondering how outdated all this can actually be. Was there some major evolutionary change in the human anatomy over the last 20 years that I missed that would make these measurements obsolete? 

As long as the bike (frame) is in it's current form, these formulas (as broad as they may be) should hold true today as they did 20 years ago. 

All the data being collected by today's technology could be another argument for another day though...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

The Green Hour said:


> I'm wondering how outdated all this can actually be. Was there some major evolutionary change in the human anatomy over the last 20 years that I missed that would make these measurements obsolete?
> 
> As long as the bike (frame) is in it's current form, these formulas (as broad as they may be) should hold true today as they did 20 years ago.
> 
> All the data being collected by today's technology could be another argument for another day though...


No one said the Guimard formula was obsolete. It works very well, IMO. 

We just said it was old. 'Cuz it is. :wink5:
.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Broad?*



The Green Hour said:


> As long as the bike (frame) is in it's current form, these formulas (as broad as they may be) should hold true today as they did 20 years ago.
> 
> All the data being collected by today's technology could be another argument for another day though...


Hey, man, we'll argue down to the millimeter!

One thing I've noticed since I started this madness in '79, already pushing middle age: people have gotten bigger, but bikes haven't. They've gotten smaller, with sloping top tubes and wheel bases so short, toe overlap is the rule where it was the rare exception back then.

As long as the bike companies keep products slightly deficient in one way or another, they have a captive market. :frown2: But that's a couple of different threads.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Well, alright.*



SystemShock said:


> Well, if you think about it Fred, the Guimard formula is itself a relic, originating in the '80s (maybe even late '70s). Despite its popularity, it's still quite 'old school'.
> 
> So you can claim it for your own, and the whipper-snappers will be none the wiser. :wink5:
> .


:biggrin5: But I like to be different. "Cussed," as my Uncle Russell used to say, between plugs of chaw.


----------



## The Green Hour (Jul 15, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Hey, man, we'll argue down to the millimeter!
> 
> One thing I've noticed since I started this madness in '79, already pushing middle age: people have gotten bigger, but bikes haven't. They've gotten smaller, with sloping top tubes and wheel bases so short, toe overlap is the rule where it was the rare exception back then.
> 
> As long as the bike companies keep products slightly deficient in one way or another, they have a captive market. :frown2: But that's a couple of different threads.


So true...
If you look at footage from that era, the bikes have less seatpost showing compared to today's bikes.

Regardless, the "correct" leg extension shouldn't change on either era of frame.:thumbsup:


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Some thoughts.*



The Green Hour said:


> I'm wondering how outdated all this can actually be. Was there some major evolutionary change in the human anatomy over the last 20 years that I missed that would make these measurements obsolete?


There's really nothing outdated about any of this. This is so mainly because there are no long-term studies looking at a large number of different riders (untrained beginners to seasoned pros) riding different types of events (touring, road racing, track). There are only study results and formulas that might to apply to some riders at some time in some type of event. We're still waiting for the definitive study that will "outdate" all the old stuff. 

The only thing that's clear is that adaptation (as pointed out by SystemShock in post # 20) changes the outcome of an experiment significantly. What this means is that riders who adapted their body to a _reasonable_ saddle height will almost always be in a better position than riders who change saddle height often when they get seduced by the latest "findings" or the "expertise" of some coach. Look at a pack of pros: saddle height ranges from very low to very high, with each one of the riders almost certainly riding in the belief that they are riding at the "correct" saddle height.

There's also an element of monkey see-monkey do in this. When Lemond started to win the Tour, saddle heights suddenly went up a lot in both the pro and the amateur ranks. They've generally come back down since then.


----------



## gthcarolina (Feb 14, 2005)

*How about heel-to-peddle?*

Sitting on the saddle, your heel with leg extended should just brush the top of the peddle? No?


----------



## gthcarolina (Feb 14, 2005)

*Um, pedal.*

P-E-D-A-L

I'm really not that much of a moron, honest.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Sure.*



gthcarolina said:


> Sitting on the saddle, your heel with leg extended should just brush the top of the peddle? No?


If you're in a hurry, that's a quick and dirty way to do it. IME, it'll put you a little low in the saddle. But riding a little low induces much less risk of injury, than having the saddle a tiny bit too high, a point that should be stressed when addressing the issue of optimum saddle height. :shocked:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Exactly!*



wim said:


> There's really nothing outdated about any of this. This is so mainly because there are no long-term studies looking at a large number of different riders (untrained beginners to seasoned pros) riding different types of events (touring, road racing, track). There are only study results and formulas that might to apply to some riders at some time in some type of event. We're still waiting for the definitive study that will "outdate" all the old stuff.
> 
> The only thing that's clear is that adaptation (as pointed out by SystemShock in post # 20) changes the outcome of an experiment significantly. What this means is that riders who adapted their body to a _reasonable_ saddle height will almost always be in a better position than riders who change saddle height often when they get seduced by the latest "findings" or the "expertise" of some coach. Look at a pack of pros: saddle height ranges from very low to very high, with each one of the riders almost certainly riding in the belief that they are riding at the "correct" saddle height.
> 
> There's also an element of monkey see-monkey do in this. When Lemond started to win the Tour, saddle heights suddenly went up a lot in both the pro and the amateur ranks. They've generally come back down since then.


Words to the wise. Thanks for putting this issue in perspective. :thumbsup:


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

Couple questions, if you old timers don't mind if I interrupt your reveries for a minute :thumbsup: :

(1) who the heck is this Guimard guy?  and 

(2) I'm not so worried about figuring out my optimal seat hieght once I've got my bike set up and ready to play with, but let's say I am in the market for a seatpost for a bike I'm building, and let's say I want the shortest post that will safely accomodate my eventual seat height needs based on the frame geometry of the build. It seems to me this formula ought to help with that, too. But it's always the little details that trip me up when it comes to math-type stuff, so if the professors would take a look, I'd be grateful. Let us say I am dealing with an inseam of 80cm, and a frame with a c-t seat tube length of 52cm (and crankarms of 17.2cm, but I don't think that matters here). The Lemond inseam-multiplier says I should have a 70.64cm seat height over BB center point (it is the BB and not the pedal pivot, right?). If so, that means I need to figure roughly 17cm of exposed seat post (i.e., 70.64 - 52 = 17.36cm).

So, I'm considering a 27.2 Thompson Masterpiece, a post which requires 6.35cm minimum insertion depth. I then add 17.36cm to that required m.i.d for a 23.75cm length requirement. I was all set to buy a 240mm Thompson post before reading this thread, but it seems that would put me right on the edge of my Lemond tolerance, and may result in a too short post if Lemond's formula puts me slightly below optimal. But before I buy the longer 330mm seatpost (and perhaps cut it down a little for WW purposes  ), am I missing something here?

Thanks!


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

worst_shot_ever said:


> Couple questions, if you old timers don't mind if I interrupt your reveries for a minute :thumbsup: :
> 
> (1) who the heck is this Guimard guy?  and
> 
> ...


If you're on a 52 c-t with 80cm inseam, why on earth are you running 172.5 cranks? Or have you got disproportionately long femurs?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

worst_shot_ever said:


> Couple questions...


Cyril Guimard was the coach of Renault and then La Vie Claire teams. His champions were Hinault and LeMond, among others. He "revolutionized" bike fit by raising saddles and extending reach. His ideas are incorporated in Hinault's book, co written with Claude Genzling, "Road Racing, Technique and Training." Guimard's saddle height philosophy stuck, but his ideas about being stretched out with longer reach remains somewhat controversial.

Hey, Ultimobici, you're right. 170s would be much easier to spin with an 80 cm. inseam.

Oh, worst shot, guess I'd get the longer seat post and cut it off. :shocked: OTOH, LeMond's formula is going to get you pretty high, actually. But why have minimum insertion on the seat post, even if it is a Thompson? I know, weight. But a longer insertion's going to make a stiffer seat column. It'll give you firmer support when going hard.


----------



## George M (Sep 25, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Cyril Guimard was the coach of Renault and then La Vie Claire teams. His champions were Hinault and LeMond, among others. He "revolutionized" bike fit by raising saddles and extending reach. His ideas are incorporated in Hinault's book, co written with Claude Genzling, "Road Racing, Technique and Training." Guimard's saddle height philosophy stuck, but his ideas about being stretched out with longer reach remains somewhat controversial.
> 
> Hey, Ultimobici, you're right. 170s would be much easier to spin with an 80 cm. inseam.
> 
> Oh, worst shot, guess I'd get the longer seat post and cut it off. :shocked: OTOH, LeMond's formula is going to get you pretty high, actually. But why have minimum insertion on the seat post, even if it is a Thompson? I know, weight. But a longer insertion's going to make a stiffer seat column. It'll give you firmer support when going hard.



I just ordered the book. Rather than read the whole post again. Did you guys use the formula in the book and were they pretty much right on, thanks.
ps, did you know a new book is $62, WOW


----------



## George M (Sep 25, 2008)

George M said:


> I just ordered the book. Rather than read the whole post again. Did you guys use the formula in the book and were they pretty much right on, thanks.
> ps, did you know a new book is $62, WOW



Thanks anyhow I read it again. It sounds like it's worth a try. Although I feel pretty good where I'm at. Just looking for all the power I can get.:thumbsup:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Hang on to that book!*



George M said:


> I just ordered the book. Rather than read the whole post again. Did you guys use the formula in the book and were they pretty much right on, thanks.
> ps, did you know a new book is $62, WOW


Genzling mainly I'd say, approaches cycling with typical French intellectual zest and eloquence. A good read. It set me up not only for a comfortable fit, but also a style of riding that's held up nicely over the years.

For me and most of my buddies past and present, the formula is right on. You might want to take measurements a few times to be sure they're accurate. And calculate from the lowest point on top of the saddle, which is not necessarily in line with the seat post. Ease into it from your current position. It's all in the book. :thumbsup:


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> If you're on a 52 c-t with 80cm inseam, why on earth are you running 172.5 cranks? Or have you got disproportionately long femurs?


Fair question -- I suppose the answer is I've only ever used 172s, and I've always been a fast cadence rider notwithstanding. Nonetheless, I actually was looking for a set of 170s for this build, but found a Record 10 Ultra Torque crankset in 172.5 for a ridiculous price, and just couldn't pass it up. I figured if I see a good deal on a 170 crankset somewhere, I can always switch it up and sell these for more than I paid. :idea: That said, many dispute that 2.5mm to the radius of the circle really makes much difference, so I wasn't too concerned. Maybe I should be?

I have no idea how proportionate or not my femur length is. I'm curious though. Anyone know how you measure and how long they're supposed to be relative to other measurements?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

worst_shot_ever said:


> I have no idea how proportionate or not my femur length is. I'm curious though. Anyone know how you measure and how long they're supposed to be relative to other measurements?


Slightly edited from Genzling/Hinault _Road Racing: Technique and Training_:

Thigh *C*: rider on a stool shoved against a wall, back straight and pelvis flat against the wall. Lower legs vertical. Straight edge against both kneecaps. Measure distance from straight edge against wall.

Lower Leg *J*: Same position as for C. No shoes. Straight edge on top of knees in front of the beginning of the thigh muscles. With lower legs vertical, measure distance from straight edge to ground.

Statistical norm for men C/J = 1.11
Statistical norm for women C/J = 1.14
Fausto Coppi C/J = 1.18
Eddy Merckx C/J = 1.16
Berhard Hinault C/J = 1.20
Francesco Moser C/J = 1.10

Except for Moser, several great champions of that era appear to have longer-than-normal femurs. Hinault/Genzling recommend that you try setting the saddle back further [than their recommended numbers] if your C/J is well above 1.11.

Keep in mind that Hinault and Genzling state repeatedly that all their fit numbers (saddle height, reach, and so on) are starting points subject to rider modification. In their words: "The number proposes, the rider disposes."


----------



## George M (Sep 25, 2008)

wim said:


> Slightly edited from Genzling/Hinault _Road Racing: Technique and Training_:
> 
> Thigh *C*: rider on a stool shoved against a wall, back straight and pelvis flat against the wall. Lower legs vertical. Straight edge against both kneecaps. Measure distance from straight edge against wall.
> 
> ...



I measured mine that way and came up with 26". I don't know what/ or how the formula 1.11 is used


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

George M said:


> I measured mine that way and came up with 26". I don't know what/ or how the formula 1.11 is used


*C* = length of thigh 
*J* = length of lower leg
Ratio of thigh to lower leg = thigh _divided by_ lower leg = C/J

Example: thigh C = 57 cm; lower leg J = 52 cm
Ratio C/J = 57/52 = 1.09 = *1.1* rounded off.

You can do this in inches, but it's better to use the metric system when discussing the _Hinault/Genzling _book which uses the metric system throughout. You don't use the ratio in a calculation—it's only a number (not a formula) with which to compare the physiology of one rider against the physiology of other riders.


----------



## George M (Sep 25, 2008)

wim said:


> *C* = length of thigh
> *J* = length of lower leg
> Ratio of thigh to lower leg = thigh _divided by_ lower leg = C/J
> 
> ...



Thanks for the reply wim. I tried the Lemond method and it seems real low to me. He says I should be 77.2625 with a 87.5 inseam and I have my saddle at 78.5. It feels a lot better to me, but I'll be anxiously waiting for the book. Thanks again and sorry for the hijack Ryan, but I thought we all could learn something from this thread. Which is very good, by the way.:thumbsup:


----------



## George M (Sep 25, 2008)

George M said:


> Thanks for the reply wim. I tried the Lemond method and it seems real low to me. He says I should be 77.2625 with a 87.5 inseam and I have my saddle at 78.5. It feels a lot better to me, but I'll be anxiously waiting for the book. Thanks again and sorry for the hijack Ryan, but I thought we all could learn something from this thread. Which is very good, by the way.:thumbsup:



Wow, I just looked at my metric ruler and I have my saddle set 3 cm higher than the Lemond method.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Put this into perspective.*



George M said:


> I tried the Lemond method and it seems real low to me. He says I should be 77.2625 with a 87.5 inseam and I have my saddle at 78.5.


Well, inseam in cm _minus_ 10 cm (in your case, 87.5 cm - 10 cm = 77.5 cm) has always been a useful starting point for many riders long before there was a Lemond formula. It's also where a lot of riders finally wind up after fiddling with their saddles for years. While it may feel "real low" to you, you're only about one centimeter (3/8") off your old position.

Keep in mind that the body experiences a bit of a shock when making changes and sends you all sorts of odd messages. Only after adaptation has had a chance to work (at least 4 weeks of riding at the new saddle height) can you judge wether or not that change may be a good one—be that by feel, stop watch or power meter.

For what it's worth, I now see many (especially beginning) riders who, in my view, have their saddle way too high. Twenty years ago, beginners generally rode much too low. Interesting how things change.

Lastly, I would round off the numbers to keep things simple. A dimension like 77.2625 cm looks scientific and all, but one space after the decimal point is more than enough accuracy for a human body fit dimension. Now rebuilding car engines—that's another matter altogether...


----------



## George M (Sep 25, 2008)

wim said:


> Well, inseam in cm _minus_ 10 cm (in your case, 87.5 cm - 10 cm = 77.5 cm) has always been a useful starting point for many riders long before there was a Lemond formula. It's also where a lot of riders finally wind up after fiddling with their saddles for years. While it may feel "real low" to you, you're only one about centimeter (3/8") off your old position.
> 
> Keep in mind that the body experiences a bit of a shock when making changes and sends you all sorts of odd messages. Only after adaptation has had a chance to work (at least 4 weeks of riding at the new saddle height) can you judge wether or not that change may be a good one—be that by feel, stop watch or power meter.
> 
> ...



Thanks again wim, I'll give it a try at 77.5 and see what happens.


----------



## George M (Sep 25, 2008)

I found out where I screwed up. I just took another inseam measurement and my inseam isn't 87.5 it's 88.5. So I'm pretty much right where I'm suppose to be. Maybe drop the saddle a few mm. Thanks for the help everybody.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

George M said:


> I found out where I screwed up. I just took another inseam measurement and my inseam isn't 87.5 it's 88.5. So I'm pretty much right where I'm suppose to be. Maybe drop the saddle a few mm. Thanks for the help everybody.


That is the BIG thing with any formula... garbage in, garbage out.

If you mis-meaure yourself, then you're going to set your saddle height wrong, and end up inefficient, maybe even injured.

It's always best to take multiple measurements of things like inseam, and if all the results aren't tightly-clustered, you best figure out why exactly that is.

Also too, if during this process you find you also have to change your saddle's fore-aft position, that too will impact saddle height. Generally, for every 1 cm further back on the rails that you slide your saddle from your previous position, your saddle height goes up .5 cm. So you'd have to lower your saddle then to get the right saddle height.

Conversely, if you slide your saddle forward, then your saddle height will become lower, and you'll have to raise it. 
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

George M said:


> I just ordered the [Hinault/Genzling] book. Rather than read the whole post again. Did you guys use the formula in the book and were they pretty much right on, thanks.


I used that book (and LeMond's) to set my saddle height, and it was very close to spot-on. The book also made me aware of the fact that I had extremely long thighs for my leg length, and that I had to set my saddle further back. This also helped me improve my power and get a smoother spin. So, win-win there.

The thing that was less helpful in the Hinault book was the table that showed ranges for things like upper body reach and how far below the saddle my stem should be. I have an unusually-proportioned upper body (very long torso, with long forearms), so the number ranges there (which are heavily skewed towards a pure racer position anyway) weren't so good for me. I ended up setting my reach by riding with an adjustable-length fit stem for a short time, which got me into a good ballpark.



> _ps, did you know a new [Hinault/Genzling] book is $62, WOW _


Geez, what ass-clowns are asking that much? There are several copies available used on Amazon for 12-15 bucks. 
.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

George M said:


> I just ordered the book. Rather than read the whole post again. Did you guys use the formula in the book and were they pretty much right on, thanks.
> ps, did you know a new book is $62, WOW


$62?? Try contacting Dick Mansfield at Vitesse Press. He is the original publisher and charges $15!!


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

worst_shot_ever said:


> So, I'm considering a 27.2 Thompson Masterpiece, a post which requires 6.35cm minimum insertion depth. I then add 17.36cm to that required m.i.d for a 23.75cm length requirement. I was all set to buy a 240mm Thompson post before reading this thread, but it seems that would put me right on the edge of my Lemond tolerance, and may result in a too short post if Lemond's formula puts me slightly below optimal. But before I buy the longer 330mm seatpost (and perhaps cut it down a little for WW purposes  ), am I missing something here?


Yes, you are missing something here - a saddle!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*You da man, Ukbloke!*



ukbloke said:


> Yes, you are missing something here - a saddle!


How could we miss that? :mad2: The saddle itself, not to mention the seat clamp, are going to account for about 3 inches of saddle height. Not as quick as I used to be. Happens every winter..


----------



## George M (Sep 25, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> I used that book (and LeMond's) to set my saddle height, and it was very close to spot-on. The book also made me aware of the fact that I had extremely long thighs for my leg length, and that I had to set my saddle further back. This also helped me improve my power and get a smoother spin. So, win-win there.
> 
> The thing that was less helpful in the Hinault book was the table that showed ranges for things like upper body reach and how far below the saddle my stem should be. I have an unusually-proportioned upper body (very long torso, with long forearms), so the number ranges there (which are heavily skewed towards a pure racer position anyway) weren't so good for me. I ended up setting my reach by riding with an adjustable-length fit stem for a short time, which got me into a good ballpark.
> 
> ...



I did order a used book for $15. There were some on the web for sale for over $300.
I got my different measurement and went to Competitive Cyclist and with the new measurement, I was right on with my bike the way it is. I went from a Eddy fit to the Competitive fit. I really don't care what they call it, it feels good. I still think the book is going to be a good read. I should pick up something from it, that will help. Thanks again guys, I've been playing with this for a few years now and I think I'm finally got it..:thumbsup:


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> How could we miss that? :mad2: The saddle itself, not to mention the seat clamp, are going to account for about 3 inches of saddle height. Not as quick as I used to be. Happens every winter..


To be precise, the clamp is already included in the seat-post length. The missing component is from the rails of the saddle to the top of the saddle.


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

ukbloke said:


> Yes, you are missing something here - a saddle!


Doh! Just call me Michael Bolton.



> I always do that. I always mess up some mundane detail.
> Well, this is not a mundane detail, Michael!


Edit: Or maybe I like my bikes like Mr. Garrison likes his alternative cars:









Uh, no.


----------



## Nimitz (Jul 8, 2004)

I hate to bump this thread but it was filled with great info and I had a few questions.

my cycling inseam is 86.5cm

using the "lemond formula" that would put me at 76.3cm now is this 76.3 cm to the bottom of the saddle, top of the saddle, etc. obviously that is a very large difference

I'm almost 99.99% sure my saddle is way to high currently at 80 cm measuring from center BB to the bottom of the saddle.

another question is the C/J length that was brought up...I must have insanely short femurs I came up with a ratio of 1.065 my saddle setback is pretty far as it is I think I would benefit from moving that forward as well?

here are all my "measurements"

Gender M
Inseam 34.0875 in
Trunk 28.00 in
Forearm 14.0875 in
Arm 28.375 in
Thigh 24.543 in
Lower Leg 23.0375 in
Sternal Notch 62.75 in
Total Body Height 76.0125 in

hope you guys more knowledgeable can help...I'm ordering the book :thumbsup: 

Chad


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Nimitz said:


> Using the "lemond formula" that would put me at 76.3cm now is this 76.3 cm to the bottom of the saddle, top of the saddle, etc. obviously that is a very large difference


*Top* of the saddle to the center of the bottom bracket, generally measured parallel to the seat tube as seen from the side and from the front of the bike. It's out of the photo, but the "0" mark of my improvised saddle height gauge (set at 72.5 cm here) is at the center of the bottom bracket (crank bolt). FWIW, many people do well with a saddle height of inseam _minus_ 10 cm, so that's a simple little formula to see if someone is even in the ballpark.


----------



## Nimitz (Jul 8, 2004)

wim said:


> *Top* of the saddle to the center of the bottom bracket, generally measured parallel to the seat tube. You can't see it, but the "0" mark of my improvised saddle height gauge (set at 72.5 cm here) is at the center of the bottom bracket (crank bolt). FWIW, many people do well with a saddle height of inseam _minus_ 10 cm, so that's a simple little formula to see if someone is even in the ballpark.


thanks...mine is currently set at 82.9 cm from the center of bottom bracket parallel to the seat tube top of saddle that would mean I'm almost 6.5cm inches HIGH? holy hell...

nice gauge btw!

Chad


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Nimitz said:


> I'm almost 6.5cm inches HIGH? holy hell...


Relax, you're only 82.9 cm - 76.3 cm = 6.6 *cm* (about 2 1/2 inches) high. But in the world of competitive cycling, that would still be lot. First thing, check your inseam with the book-crammed-into-crotch method and see if it's accurate (my guess is it's not). Bu if it is accurate, and you want to lower your saddle to the Lemond height, go in small increments separated by several days of riding. If you would drop your saddle by 6.6 cm in one fell swoop and go for a ride, you'd feel like Groucho Marx duck-walking through deep beach sand and probably just give up on the re-education of your legs. 

But also keep in mind that all these formulas are just proposals. Nothing wrong with sitting a bit higher or lower than the formula says you should.


----------



## Nimitz (Jul 8, 2004)

wim said:


> Relax, you're only 82.9 cm - 76.3 cm = 6.6 *cm* (about 2 1/2 inches) high. But in the world of competitive cycling, that would still be lot. First thing, check your inseam with the book-crammed-into-crotch method and see if it's accurate. If it is and you want to lower your saddle to the Lemond height, go in small increments separated by a few days of riding. If you would drop your saddle by 6.6 cm in one fell swoop and go for a ride, you'd feel like Groucho Marx duck-walking through deep beach sand and probably just give up on the re-education of your legs.
> 
> But also keep in mind that all these formulas are just proposals. Nothing wrong with sitting a bit higher or lower than the formula says you should.


yes I know..but 2.5 inches is big chance no matter pro/amateur w/e I'll try lowering it a bit over the next week soon as I can figure out my stuck seat post:mad2: 

thanks:thumbsup: 

Chad


----------



## George M (Sep 25, 2008)

Nimitz said:


> I hate to bump this thread but it was filled with great info and I had a few questions.
> 
> my cycling inseam is 86.5cm
> 
> ...



My inseam is 87.5 cm or 34.5" and I have my saddle set at 78 cm. Yes you are way to high. I'm surprised you don't have a chaffing problem. Good luck with the fit.:thumbsup:


----------



## PunkOi (Jul 4, 2009)

I can`t understand one thing this formula inseam x 0.883 for what lenght of cranks is? my cranks are 170mm and my inseam is 760 my saddle height must be 671.08 to is this formula work on every cranks ?


----------



## pixelfr33k (Aug 2, 2013)

I'm new to cycling, so if I'm making a huge blunder here then please forgive me. But this makes absolutely no sense to me. My inseam is 76 cm, .883 of this is 67 cm. if I add 18 cm for my crank arm I am at a length of 85 cm from the bottom of my saddle to the down stroke. This leaves me unable to reach the down stroke. How can this possible be correct?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

pixelfr33k said:


> I'm new to cycling, so if I'm making a huge blunder here then please forgive me. But this makes absolutely no sense to me. My inseam is 76 cm, .883 of this is 67 cm. if I add 18 cm for my crank arm I am at a length of 85 cm from the bottom of my saddle to the down stroke. This leaves me unable to reach the down stroke. How can this possible be correct?


You were on the right track till you added 18cm for crank arm length.

With an inseam of 76cm's, multiply that by .883 and you should get ~671mm's for starting point for saddle height. That's measured from center of BB to top of saddle - following the seat tube/ post for accuracy.

Adjust from there _in small increments_ as needed.


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

pixelfr33k said:


> I'm new to cycling, so if I'm making a huge blunder here then please forgive me. But this makes absolutely no sense to me. My inseam is 76 cm, .883 of this is 67 cm. if I add 18 cm for my crank arm I am at a length of 85 cm from the bottom of my saddle to the down stroke. This leaves me unable to reach the down stroke. How can this possible be correct?


You have 180mm cranks?


----------



## pixelfr33k (Aug 2, 2013)

That's exactly what I'm saying. If I put my saddle at .883 x my inseam of 76 cm from the center of the bottom bracket, that puts it at 67 cm. My crank arm is 18 cm so that means the distance between the bottom of my saddle and down stroke is 85 cm, meaning I cant reach the down stroke from the saddle.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

pixelfr33k said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying. If I put my saddle at .883 x my inseam of 76 cm from the center of the bottom bracket, that puts it at 67 cm. My crank arm is 18 cm so that means the distance between the bottom of my saddle and down stroke is 85 cm, meaning I cant reach the down stroke from the saddle.


Then you may have measured your cycling inseam wrong:
How Do I Set My Bike Saddle Height?


----------



## pixelfr33k (Aug 2, 2013)

brianmcg said:


> You have 180mm cranks?


Correction 17.5 cm on the cranks.


----------



## pixelfr33k (Aug 2, 2013)

I went with the 1.09 method and it definitely feels a LOT better.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

Your foot articulates at the ankle as you pedal.


----------



## pixelfr33k (Aug 2, 2013)

I understand that but saddle thickness and crank length in this case was giving me a ration of 1.18. That is WAY too much. The 1.09 method works a lot better, atleast for me.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

pixelfr33k said:


> I understand that but saddle thickness and crank length in this case was giving me a ration of 1.18. That is WAY too much. The 1.09 method works a lot better, atleast for me.


Saddle thickness would be accounted for when measuring to TOP of saddle. But yes, as was mentioned in the article, crankarm length enters into the equation.

Also mentioned in posts above, because of variables (pedal stack height, being one) 'just doing' (ball parking initial saddle height, tweaking by feel from there) is sometimes better than following formulas/ calculations.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

George M said:


> Wow, I just looked at my metric ruler and I have my saddle set 3 cm higher than the Lemond method.


That should be almost impossible, and/or it shows that perhaps you didn't measure your inseam quite correctly, as per the LeMond book.

There's other commentary in the LeMond book where he says something to the effect that the ideal position puts you at almost 99 percent of your leg length (as opposed to the 96 percent that the 'Eddie B' method, which was popular in LeMond's day, would put you at).

Given that, I'm not sure how, accurately measured, you could be 3cm above the LeMond/Guimard forumula's recommendation. Your legs are not 300cm long (I hope  ).


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

pixelfr33k said:


> I understand that but saddle thickness and crank length in this case was giving me a ration of 1.18. That is WAY too much. The 1.09 method works a lot better, atleast for me.


The disparity with the 0.883 method is in part because your 175mm cranks are atypically long compared to your leg length, and the formula doesn't consider crank length at all. It is normal to lower saddle height when increasing crank length.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

ukbloke said:


> the formula doesn't consider crank length at all. It is normal to lower saddle height when increasing crank length.


It's interesting to note that Lemond in his book states that his formula assumes 170 mm cranks, but that it also works for other crank lengths. That's not really logical, but his editors must have missed that.

He also goes on to say that one should never change saddle height when changing crank lengths because that would, in effect, nullify the effect of the crank length change. I know that conventional wisdom says to change saddle height by the amount of the crank length change and that most people do exactly that.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

It's funny how this method has been appropriated as "The LeMond Method". Wonder how Cyrille Guimard, Claude Genzling & Bernard Hinault feel about that!


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

ultimobici said:


> It's funny how this method has been appropriated as "The LeMond Method". Wonder how Cyrille Guimard, Claude Genzling & Bernard Hinault feel about that!


In fairness to Lemond, in his book, he credits Cyrille Guimard with the development of the formula (inseam x 0.883). But there's no mention of Genzling or Hinault.

People also forget that the formula was developed when riders did not use clipless pedals. In his book, Lemond says, quote: "If you ride with the new strapless pedal systems (like the Look pedal), the value for overall height will be three millimeters less." Some people will tell you that this difference should be much larger, primarily because of the very different shoes we wear nowadays.

Another funny thing is that Lemond puts forth this super-accurate .883 number, but then says "Remember, when you're within a centimeter of your overall height measurement, you'll be fine." So much for three places after the decimal point....


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

wim said:


> Another funny thing is that Lemond puts forth this super-accurate .883 number, but then says "Remember, when you're within a centimeter of your overall height measurement, you'll be fine." So much for three places after the decimal point....


That 'super accurate' number is likely dead in the middle of the 'acceptable range' they're shooting for, so that inaccuracies in, say, how a rider measured their inseam, varying shoe sole thicknesses, varying pedal stack heights, etc. would be less likely to knock them out of said range. 

I don't think they ever intended the third-decimal place to be 'the Hand of God' but it makes sense to do it that way, i.e. to the millimeter, because then inaccuracies are less likely to knock you out of range.

It's also interesting to note that the number cited in the Hinault/Genzling book is very slightly different, i.e .885. With that one, if you rounded off to .88 or .89, then you'd technically be 5mm off from the word go, and *_then*_ the inaccuracies come into play on top of that...


----------

