# saddle height revisited



## boon (Dec 14, 2005)

from day 1 of cycling, which really hasn't been all that long (11 months), i used the " heel on pedal" method to determine the "correct" saddle height. haven't had any problems with that approach.

yesterday, a friend lent me a book, "Bicycle Road Racing - Complete Program for Training and Competition" by Edward Borysevicz (1985, 9th printing 1990). In that book, he does not advocate the "heel on pedal" method. He uses the Hodges study, which showed that a saddle height that is 96% of leg length (there is a procedure to measure this, which I won't go into) results in the most efficient oxygen consumption. When the saddle is adjusted to that height, there should be about 5 to 8mm gap between the heel and pedal (pedal at bottom of stroke). When the forefoot is on the pedal (i.e. clipped in), there should be a slight heel rise. (Borysevicz suggests that touring cyclist don't really need to have such extreme saddle height due to the long distances they ride, which could cause injury to the knee.)

After reading this, i reflected back on the various photos from cyclingnews.com taken at various tour races such as TdF, Giro etc and noticed that the pro tour riders are pretty much set up that way.

What I am wonder is: wouldn't such an extreme set up cause problems with the IT band, Achilles tendon and the knee? or will conditioning allow the body to adapt? if this method will make me more efficient in energy consumption, then fantastic but i'd rather not do so at the expenses of injury. Any thoughts?

boon


----------



## steel515 (Sep 6, 2004)

this is a good question. In my opinion just use whatever is comfortable for you.
In the greg lemond book, he recommends raising saddle gradually, I would raise it very gradually. Once when I rode a saddle height based on a formula (there are many) I pulled my calf muscle.


----------



## janix (Mar 24, 2006)

is it similar to this?

The range was from 94.5 to 96.5 percent of trochantric leg length (determined
by measurements from the top of the femur at the hip socket, passing
through the knee, to the lowest edge of the foot).


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Eddy B*



boon said:


> from day 1 of cycling, which really hasn't been all that long (11 months), i used the " heel on pedal" method to determine the "correct" saddle height. haven't had any problems with that approach.
> 
> yesterday, a friend lent me a book, "Bicycle Road Racing - Complete Program for Training and Competition" by Edward Borysevicz (1985, 9th printing 1990). In that book, he does not advocate the "heel on pedal" method. He uses the Hodges study, which showed that a saddle height that is 96% of leg length (there is a procedure to measure this, which I won't go into) results in the most efficient oxygen consumption. When the saddle is adjusted to that height, there should be about 5 to 8mm gap between the heel and pedal (pedal at bottom of stroke). When the forefoot is on the pedal (i.e. clipped in), there should be a slight heel rise. (Borysevicz suggests that touring cyclist don't really need to have such extreme saddle height due to the long distances they ride, which could cause injury to the knee.)
> 
> ...


Eddy B is the man. That's all I have to say about that.


----------



## boon (Dec 14, 2005)

janix said:


> is it similar to this?
> 
> The range was from 94.5 to 96.5 percent of trochantric leg length (determined
> by measurements from the top of the femur at the hip socket, passing
> through the knee, to the lowest edge of the foot).


plus the thickness of the sole of the shoe at the cleat and thickness of the pedal (from the centre of axle).

boon


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*the is one formula for setting the saddle position*

this formula goes like this: there is no formula.

saddle height and fore/aft position is intensely personal even if two people have the same body dimensions down to last millimetre.

i used the Le Mond formula and ended up pulling my calf muscle the same way as steel515 did. Never again will I try a formula based approach for such a complex issue.

there are too many variables, the rule of thumb is to have saddle as high (but no higher) that you still feel the full power down the bottom of the pedal stroke when you are riding up a moderate hill in a hard-ish gear (~80rpm) or into good dose of fresh head wind. In other words power down the bottom of the stroke when you are pushing reasonably hard (75%+ of max). And after a hard ride there should be no localised pain anywhere. Should be just tiredness evenly spread across all of your muscle groups.

the advice that helped me with saddle position (up/down, fore/aft, level) and cleat position was by Steve Hogg in cyclingnews.com Q&A Fitness section. Andy Pruitt latest book was also quite a good read.

You might be a heel dropper like Eddy Merckx was or a toe-dipper, there goes 20-30mm saddle height difference in one hit. Shoe size? Shoe sole thickness? Cleat position more rear-ward? Pedal type (Keo? SPD-SL? etc), thickness of your chamois, fore/aft position where every 10mm fore/aft makes a 3mm saddle height difference, saddle type/shape surface, seat-tube angle, Etc.

Good luck. Let your own body tell you your saddle height.


----------



## boon (Dec 14, 2005)

acid_rider said:


> [...]
> 
> i used the Le Mond formula and ended up pulling my calf muscle the same way as steel515 did. Never again will I try a formula based approach for such a complex issue.
> 
> [...]


out of interest, what is the LeMond formula? i would have thought that it would be similar to the Hodges test, since this was what Borysevicz used to adjust LeMond's saddle height.

boon


----------



## smokey422 (Feb 22, 2004)

I agree with Acid Rider, there is no formula. I have a lot of DVDs of pro cycling races and I have slowmo-ed several of them, watching the rider's pedal stroke and how much bend they get in their leg. Lance Armstrong has a fair amount of bend in his leg (I'd guess 30 degrees or so at the bottom of the stroke) while Paolo Bettini doesn't have much at all. The others are all as varied. In my own case, I have to run my saddle a little lower than I used to due to a bad back problem which flairs up if my saddle is too high. I'm in about the same position as Lance (wish I could ride 1/10th as well!).

The Lemond formula is inseam length X .883. To measure your inseam, put on a pair of riding shorts and socks (no shoes), get a book or record album, stand against a wall and pull hard with the book or album, trying to simulate the pressure of the saddle in your crotch. Mark the top edge and measure.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

I use Eddie Bs method - in fact he fit me aboout 3 years ago and it did not cause me any of the issues you are concerned about - in fact he rasied my saddle pretty quickly over the course of a few days (like 2 inchs - yeah my saddle was that much too low) and I did not have issues but my saddle was way too low to start with. Caution is the best way to go when making chages and mark where everything was so you can return to that point.



boon said:


> from day 1 of cycling, which really hasn't been all that long (11 months), i used the " heel on pedal" method to determine the "correct" saddle height. haven't had any problems with that approach.
> 
> yesterday, a friend lent me a book, "Bicycle Road Racing - Complete Program for Training and Competition" by Edward Borysevicz (1985, 9th printing 1990). In that book, he does not advocate the "heel on pedal" method. He uses the Hodges study, which showed that a saddle height that is 96% of leg length (there is a procedure to measure this, which I won't go into) results in the most efficient oxygen consumption. When the saddle is adjusted to that height, there should be about 5 to 8mm gap between the heel and pedal (pedal at bottom of stroke). When the forefoot is on the pedal (i.e. clipped in), there should be a slight heel rise. (Borysevicz suggests that touring cyclist don't really need to have such extreme saddle height due to the long distances they ride, which could cause injury to the knee.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Speedy (Oct 30, 2005)

My first bike fitter used all sorts of measuring tools, which resulted in a IT Band injury from the saddle being too high.

My current fit was done by a well respected fitter. He uses no measuring tools, only his eyes. When I got home I measured the saddle height, and it was within 2mm of the Lemond method.


----------



## Reynolds531 (Nov 8, 2002)

*Some Acedemic studies*

1. This study shows that the four common formulas give inconsistent results. 
http://www.asep.org/jeponline/issue/Doc/Feb2005/PevelerSaddle.pdf

Peveler W, Bishop P, Smith J, Richardson M, Whitehorn E. Comparing Methods For Setting Saddle Height In Trained Cyclists. JEPonline 2005;8(1):51-55. Multiple methods exist for determining the optimal seat height for cycling. Prior research suggests that setting saddle height at 109% of inseam may be optimum when examining economy. A knee angle of between 25-35° has been recommended to help prevent overuse injuries. The purpose of this study was two-fold: 1) To compare the Greg LeMond method to the heel toe method and the Hamley method (109% of inseam). 2) To determine if The Hamely method, the Greg LeMond method and the heel toe method produced results that fall between the recommended angles of 25-35°. Nineteen (male (N=14) females (N=5)) cyclists were measured for inseam leg length (cm from the floor to ischium) and multiplied by 1.09 for the Hamley method and 0.883 for the LeMond method. Knee angle was measured for all three methods using a goniometer. There was no significant difference between the Hamley and the LeMond method (p=0.917). The heel toe method was significantly lower than the Hamley method (p=0.004). The heel toe method (70% accuracy) seemed to fall into the 25-35° range more often than the LeMond (65% accuracy). To ensure that the knee angle falls within a 25-35° knee angle it is recommended to use the Holmes method. 



2. This study concludes that lower saddle height is more efficient.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=957931&dopt=Abstract

The effect of saddle height upon oxygen consumption during bicycle ergometer work was measured. Five subjects were tested on a continuous work protocol from 50 watts to 200 watts in 25 watt increments at experimental saddle heights of 100%, 103%, 106%, 109%, and 112% of inside leg length measured from the ischium to the floor. Data were recorded on Vo2, Vco2, VE, and heart rate. It was found that Vo2 progressively increased as saddle height increased; the highest Vo2 occurred at the highest experimental setting of 112%; the most effective saddle positions in the experiment as measured by lowest Vo2 per unit of work were 100% and 103%; and there was no significant difference between the VO2 AT 100% AND 103%. It was concluded that in light of our data and earlier data showing power output to be maximized at 104% (by our measurement method), the saddle height of choice should be approximately 103% to 104% of leg length. A convenient and objective method for setting seat height is presented.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*The saddle height formula of many names ...*



smokey422 said:


> IThe Lemond formula is inseam length X .883.


This formula is from Lemond's book, but it also appeared in Hinault's book a few years earlier. In both cases, the original source is Claude Genzling, who did research on racers at the 1978 Tour de France. This formula is also sometimes called the "Hinault Formula", the "Hinault/Genzling Formula", or, probably most appropriately the "Genzling Formual".


----------



## boon (Dec 14, 2005)

without taking Eddy B's method to the extreme, i decided to raise my saddle by +1cm (and fore/aft adjustment to compensate for the increased height) and went for a ride. the increased height felt good. i felt that i was able to squeeze a bit more speed without feeling like i'm pushing myself too much and the increased height did not affect my cadence (100rpm). i also felt that i was able to power up the hills without a bit less effort. perhaps it was all psychosomatic...who knows........

at the previous saddle height, i was pretty much a heel-down person and one problem i normally encounter is the tongue of the shoe biting into my instep (changing brand of shoes did not make any difference - so it's probably a technique problem). anyway, the +1cm height meant that i was a bit less heel down and i noticed that the tongue of the shoe was no longer biting into my instep. however, after the short ride (37km), my hamstring felt a bit tight (stretching help fix that). i guess that's to be expected for such a sudden increase in saddle height and hopefully my body will adapt to the new saddle height.

after that ride, i checked out the Peveler study and interestingly enough, the increase in saddle height of +1cm made the saddle height in line with Hamley's method of inseam length x 1.09 (the heel on pedal method equates to inseam length x 1.07). i think i'll stick with that for now.

thanks for the info and links.

boon


----------



## Speedy (Oct 30, 2005)

Be careful with toe down if you’re a climber.

If my toe is slightly down, I’m ok on the flats, but when I start climbing, I tend to sit back on my saddle, and push my heels down. That extra lengthening of my leg caused excessive pulling on my hamstring - which led to my IT Band injury.


----------



## andrello (Oct 6, 2004)

boon said:


> When the saddle is adjusted to that height, there should be about 5 to 8mm gap between the heel and pedal (pedal at bottom of stroke).
> boon


5-8mm is about the difference in height you can find between various shoe/cleat combinations. Any method that does not account for the shape and height of the shoe/cleat setup is going to be inconsistent. Basically, you can use any rule as a starting point, but to get it right you have to always be tweaking.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

The Carmichael way seems to be the most acurate considering all the variables with shoes, cleats, pedals, crank length and body distribution.

He says to take an adjustable protractor ( goniometer ) and measure your knee angle when your leg is at dead bottom center. This is when the crank is parallel with the seat tube and your foot is farthest from your body. This knee angle should be between 25-35 degrees with a good
starting point at about 32 degrees. 

I have found this makes perfect sense. 

--Matthew


----------



## Clark (Aug 10, 2004)

Your saying that knee angle should be at 25-35 degree when at the bottom of your pedal stroke. That can not be right. Your knee should should be slightly bent at that point.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

Clark said:


> Your saying that knee angle should be at 25-35 degree when at the bottom of your pedal stroke. That can not be right. Your knee should should be slightly bent at that point.


Yeah, it makes sense... Think of it this way: a 0-degree bend means a straight line.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

*Carmichael's Leg extention way*



Clark said:


> Your saying that knee angle should be at 25-35 degree when at the bottom of your pedal stroke. That can not be right. Your knee should should be slightly bent at that point.


Actually if you think about it, it makes perfect sense.

Your knee joint ( femer and tib/fib ) connection will be slightly bent at bottom dead center. This angle is between 25-35 degrees when you measure your leg bend at the knee. This way, you can change whatever on your bike and adjust to maintain this bend. More flexible riders can go closer to 25 degrees. Myself, I like to go about 30 degrees. Depends on your body. Too high a saddle and you get pain behind the knee or at the IT band. To low a saddle and you get pain in front or around the knee cap area,

A great reference to this is Carmichael's book " The Ultimate ride ". It is available at any barnes and noble or Borders books and sells for $15. It is a big help.

Matt


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

the 25-25 degree angle thing makes sens for sure. But overall, try and get around this range and you should be fine. But hey,, if a guy has a problem and needs to o say like 37degrees or so for a bad back or whatever, then by all means as comfort is still the most important thing. You think pros would sacrifice comfort for function? I doubt they can ride 6 hours or so not feeling comfortable. So, that said, go with what works. 


As for fore/aft position, it's supposed to be adjusted to ensure the knee is over the spindle am I right?


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

*Yes...very true about comfort*



uzziefly said:


> the 25-25 degree angle thing makes sens for sure. But overall, try and get around this range and you should be fine. But hey,, if a guy has a problem and needs to o say like 37degrees or so for a bad back or whatever, then by all means as comfort is still the most important thing. You think pros would sacrifice comfort for function? I doubt they can ride 6 hours or so not feeling comfortable. So, that said, go with what works.
> 
> 
> As for fore/aft position, it's supposed to be adjusted to ensure the knee is over the spindle am I right?



Yes....true true. Bike fit is always part art and part science. Tom Boonan rides with his saddle 2 cm too low...and he loves it. Some riders are too high.....and love it too.

Knee over pedal spindle ( KOPS ) is more a starting point rather that an exact science. I perfer to plumb at 1cm behind the spindle for better climbing and comfort since I am not a sprinter. I found Keith Bontrager's article " The Myth of KOPS " to be very knowledgeable. You can search for it on Google.

Select these starting points. Then tweak one thing only at a time to find what works best for your body...prevent injury...ride comfortable...be efficient.... That's cool.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

KOPS... In fact, I don't really bother so much about it that I'm not sure my exact position. But, hey, I'm comfortable... Any wrong in that? Nope sir ree...

I'll like to see that article by Keith Bontrager. I might tweak my position a little to make it more efficient but if it ain't comfortable, then screw it.. 

Nice signature quote by the way. I remember that now.... So what are you on?


----------



## roubaixowner (Sep 22, 2006)

I really do not want to take over and make this a new thread. But i recently bought a road bike. Roubaix Comp Ultegra, Dura ace mix for $1699, i just could not pass that deal. Here in Utah i have done a lot ot MTB but want to start training for "LOTOJA" next year, a 206 mile race from Logan to Jackson Hole. I need some advise for saddle height etc. for long distance rides, is it different that what has been stated already? Thanks


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

the dirty little secret about dogmatic bike fit is that, within some bounds of reason, you can get used to an awful lot, in a a much wider range than a quick read of some of the authorities would make you think. Most of the authorities, most of the responsible ones, issue this caveat and allow leeway, but the way that the numbers to the third decimal place get bandied around, you wouldn't think so.
whether you are doing distance or speed or whatever, you likely should have consistency, because that's what you'll get used to. I would say that there is an exception to this rule for reach and maybe to some extent fore-aft position. On a touring bike, you likely are going to want a different balance on the bike, largely because if you are not hammering, with opposing forces of pedaling offsetting the weight on your pressure points, the bike feels different. How that plays out exactly likely remains up to you.


----------



## boon (Dec 14, 2005)

roubaixowner said:


> I really do not want to take over and make this a new thread. But i recently bought a road bike. Roubaix Comp Ultegra, Dura ace mix for $1699, i just could not pass that deal. Here in Utah i have done a lot ot MTB but want to start training for "LOTOJA" next year, a 206 mile race from Logan to Jackson Hole. I need some advise for saddle height etc. for long distance rides, is it different that what has been stated already? Thanks


it depends on who you talk to. The book i referred to by Eddy B suggests that the saddle height should be slight lower for long distance rides to decrease the stress on your knees. he also said that in stage races, most riders tend to lower their saddle height for the tail end stages. whether or not this is still true today, i don't know (it's not exactly a new book). what you may ultimately have to do is to experiment and see what works best.

boon


----------



## kurt01 (Sep 21, 2006)

*My answer to your question on seat height*

Boon,

Probably true in your evaluation of a Pro rider. But unless your riding at that level with their conditioning I would stick to the standard 30 degree angle of leg/thigh while clipped into your pedals. I just raised my seat as I just bought a new seat post and had a pro evaluate my bike positioning.I raised my seat approx 1 inch and my power stroke increased substantially.Hope that helps...


boon said:


> from day 1 of cycling, which really hasn't been all that long (11 months), i used the " heel on pedal" method to determine the "correct" saddle height. haven't had any problems with that approach.
> 
> yesterday, a friend lent me a book, "Bicycle Road Racing - Complete Program for Training and Competition" by Edward Borysevicz (1985, 9th printing 1990). In that book, he does not advocate the "heel on pedal" method. He uses the Hodges study, which showed that a saddle height that is 96% of leg length (there is a procedure to measure this, which I won't go into) results in the most efficient oxygen consumption. When the saddle is adjusted to that height, there should be about 5 to 8mm gap between the heel and pedal (pedal at bottom of stroke). When the forefoot is on the pedal (i.e. clipped in), there should be a slight heel rise. (Borysevicz suggests that touring cyclist don't really need to have such extreme saddle height due to the long distances they ride, which could cause injury to the knee.)
> 
> ...


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

I ride with a saddle height that gives me about 20-25degrees in knee bend at the bottom stroke. I'm comfortable.. So once again, comfort and 'formula'.. just find a balance.


----------



## merlinluvr (Feb 6, 2010)

acid_rider said:


> this formula goes like this: there is no formula.
> 
> saddle height and fore/aft position is intensely personal even if two people have the same body dimensions down to last millimetre.
> 
> ...


There is no question on that I agree. I'm a 34"/86.4cm inseam and ride with 9cm of setback and a 768mm saddle height. I have a buddy who is slightly shorter who rides ~ 790mm height. I'm a heel dropper and he is a toe pointer....worth a few cm's!


----------



## BryanSayer (Sep 22, 2009)

The problem with choosing "what's comfortable" is that cycling is a repetitive activity, particularly on the knees. So that which might seem comfortable, may turn out to be causing a problem that you don't know until damage is done. It's why I gave up cycling many years ago, and just came back to it for a variety of reasons. But pedals with float made it possible for me.

That said, I'm still trying to find the right position.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

formulas ignore individual variability. 
flexibility of the hamstrings, glutes and back is one obvious example. 

use any formula as a ballpark starting point. use your own experience from there.

I've been a roadie since the 80s, and I still make minor tweaks to my position every few months. just yesterday, a long ride pointed out to me that my saddle was a smidge too far back. so I stopped mid ride and moved it. 

your body is not a fixed and unchanging environment.


----------

