The 1.09 factor Sloane quoted is repeated in many places, and seems to have been supported in several studies. I've seen it in Sloane, *Zinn's Cycling Primer*, and in *Road Racing* by Hinault and Genzling. These three, and perhaps their primary sources differ: Sloan illustrates saddle top to pedal top but his text says saddle top to pedal spindle, Lennard Zinn says saddle top to pedal spindle axis, and not sure right now how Hinault puts it. Several other authors have fudge factors or allowances to add based on shoe type or sole thickness. All authors say the rider may find the need to alter the saddle position after attempting to use this scientific starting point.
Sloane cites the Vaughn study, Hinault cites several others, and in several of his books Ed Burke cites still other studies. If we want a CR on-topic fitting, we need to study these in the originals, right?
The most recent (but perhaps off-topic) guidance I've seen is in Arnie Baker's Ebook, *Bike Fitting* (3rd Edition). He recommends to set the saddle height and fore/aft position so the knee angle at stroke bottom is around 30 degrees. The exact value is a matter of some experience and judgement. Also he has a recommendation about knee/pedal position, but I don't want to start a KOPS thread. It takes a goniometer, anatomical knowledge, a way of marking anatomical landmarks on the cyclist, and a good assistant (not your cat) to do this measurement. But the good thing about it is that if you are tested when fully warmed up, it cuts through all the details of foot position, shoe type and cleat position. However, if you change shoe type or cleat position, you have to go back to the wizard and get measured again.
Whenever I start a new set-up I start with 1.09 and KOPS, then adjust further based on road experience. I always end up moving the saddle down and back from there, and tilting it nose down just a touch to set butt et cetera pressure distribution. I can't imagine a picky pro from the past not doing some similar tweaking.
Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Steve Whitting <ciocc_cat@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Most of those formulas have some basis in reality and are a good starting
> point, but consideration of shoe/cleat/pedal type and make of saddle can
> affect saddle height/frame size. When I set up my 56 cm Ciocc, I used the
> recommendations in my 1979 edition of "The Custom Bicycle Book" by Michael
> Kolin and Denise de la Rosa as a starting point and then fine-tuned based on
> my own experience/preferences. I'm a hair shy of 5'11" tall, btw.
>
> Steve Whitting
> Prairieville, Louisiana USA
> http://ciocc-cat.angelfire.com/
>
> --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Hon Lee <lejosun@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> From: Hon Lee <lejosun@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: [CR] Sloan's 1.09 measurement
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 7:20 PM
>
>
> Sloan's recommended setting for seat top to pedal top at lowest point of a
> pedalling stroke at 1.09 times one's inseam was indeed akin to gospel in the
> early '70's when I was a mech in northern California. Sloan based this
> calculation on proper ankling technique and supported this sum using a study
> that measured energy output for various adjustments of this seat-pedal
> distance for a fixed crank length. The 1.09 adjustment had the highest
> energy output. As John Strizek pointed out, there are a number of other
> variables, such as the bb height, that will significantly affect the bike's
> "fit." At 5-4 with boring proportions, my favorite rides were a 52 cm.
> Mondia Special off the rack cyclocross and a 54 cm. Cinelli GC from Spence
> Wolfe set up with that 1.09 configuration, both 1971.
>
> Hon Lee
> Stockton, California where being number 1 on Forbes.com misery index is
> dynastic
> USA