All:
Colin & De Rosa, as well as Arnie Baker have it the closest to fitting
probably 95% of riders, which is the way I have been setting saddle height
for decades.
That gets one within about 5 % or so of dialed in.
The others are the exceptions that take a little trickier fitting and
diagnosis.
>From my experience all those other formulas are way off for being definitive
because of too many individual factors.
I have found that those numbers may have worked for the person touting them,
but didn't work for the overhelming majority.
Everytime a super rider comes along everyone wants to copy that position
because it must be the big secret only to find out it screws them up and
they go back to what's correct for their anatomy.
The approximate 30 % guideline allows for individual and personalized
finessing and dialing in by being very close, indeed.
Ted Ernst
Palos Verdes Estates
CA USA
> 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