109% method...What am I doing wrong?
#1
Member
Thread Starter
109% method...What am I doing wrong?
I've been riding for years and have used the 'heel pedal backwards' method to measure saddle height. I recently realized that I wasn't able to engage my hamstrings effectively so I raised my height about 2-3mm and felt more efficient. Also a slight knee soreness disappeared. I have no hip movement (reaching) and have a slight knee bend at the bottom of the pedal stroke.
I decided to try the 109% method. Wearing cycling socks and cycling shorts I measured my inseam (book in crotch to floor) at 74.5cm (3 times to be sure).
74.5x1.09=81.205cm. Measured from the pedal axle (pedal in-line with seat tube/furthest point from seat) to the top of the seat at center of seat post saddle attachment and found that 81.2 cm was 8 cm below where my seat is currently. I understand that any method is a starting point, but I expected maybe 1 or 2cm, not 8cm.
Did I do something wrong? Since the 109% method goes from the pedal axle to the seat, crank size is essentially irrelevant. The 8cm difference was consistent with my road, touring, ss/fixie and hybrid.
BTW...I'm 5' 10", 210 lbs. and wear pants with a 29" inseam.
I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.
I decided to try the 109% method. Wearing cycling socks and cycling shorts I measured my inseam (book in crotch to floor) at 74.5cm (3 times to be sure).
74.5x1.09=81.205cm. Measured from the pedal axle (pedal in-line with seat tube/furthest point from seat) to the top of the seat at center of seat post saddle attachment and found that 81.2 cm was 8 cm below where my seat is currently. I understand that any method is a starting point, but I expected maybe 1 or 2cm, not 8cm.
Did I do something wrong? Since the 109% method goes from the pedal axle to the seat, crank size is essentially irrelevant. The 8cm difference was consistent with my road, touring, ss/fixie and hybrid.
BTW...I'm 5' 10", 210 lbs. and wear pants with a 29" inseam.
I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bristol, R. I.
Posts: 4,340
Bikes: Specialized Secteur, old Peugeot
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 663 Post(s)
Liked 496 Times
in
299 Posts
Something is off somewhere. Where does the 1 X 1.09 come from? So far as I know, Lemond's formula is .883 X crotch heigth, then add the crank length for the heigth from the pedal. The length of the foot enters into it also because a long foot effectively adds to leg length. So after the .883 measurement, the saddle may need to go up or down a cm or so and if you pedal toe down, that also adds to effective leg length. In any case just a bit of adjustment after the measurement and initial saddle heigth should be all that is needed. https://forums.roadbikereview.com/ge...it-183302.html
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
109% is from the pedal.
From the center of the axle to top of saddle is Lemond Method, .883 of the inseam (not 1.09 inseam).
From the center of the axle to top of saddle is Lemond Method, .883 of the inseam (not 1.09 inseam).
#4
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,810
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6100 Post(s)
Liked 4,732 Times
in
3,262 Posts
It's also your inside leg length from snug in the crotch to floor. Not your pants inseam. As well formulas work well when your body is within the criteria of the person that came up with them. However they almost always leave someone out.
#5
Member
Thread Starter
I truly appreciate that people give advice to fellow cyclists on this forum but it is frustrating when some contributors don't fully read the OP's message/request for information.
Where does the 1 X 1.09 come from? So far as I know, Lemond's formula is .883 X crotch heigth, then add the crank length for the heigth from the pedal.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU READ 1 x 1.09. IT SAYS 74.5 x1.09. 109% FORMULA AND .883 METHOD ARE TWO DIFFERENT METHODS.
109% is from the pedal. From the center of the axle...
I MEASURED FROM THE PEDAL AXLE, NOT THE CRANK AXLE.
It's also your inside leg length from snug in the crotch to floor. Not your pants inseam.
I DID USE THE BOOK IN THE CROTCH MEASUREMENT, NOT MY PANTS INSEAM.
Where does the 1 X 1.09 come from? So far as I know, Lemond's formula is .883 X crotch heigth, then add the crank length for the heigth from the pedal.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU READ 1 x 1.09. IT SAYS 74.5 x1.09. 109% FORMULA AND .883 METHOD ARE TWO DIFFERENT METHODS.
109% is from the pedal. From the center of the axle...
I MEASURED FROM THE PEDAL AXLE, NOT THE CRANK AXLE.
It's also your inside leg length from snug in the crotch to floor. Not your pants inseam.
I DID USE THE BOOK IN THE CROTCH MEASUREMENT, NOT MY PANTS INSEAM.
#6
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,810
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6100 Post(s)
Liked 4,732 Times
in
3,262 Posts
There is no question mark at the end of any of your sentences with 1 X 1.09 in the original OP. I've never heard of that method, nor do I take much stock in any method for fitting that involves crunching numbers. For me it's a visual along with trial and error.
No matter where you measure to or from, you will still have to do minor adjustments. It's how your bodies pieces parts feel that matter, not what a number says.
No matter where you measure to or from, you will still have to do minor adjustments. It's how your bodies pieces parts feel that matter, not what a number says.
#7
Member
Thread Starter
There is no question mark at the end of any of your sentences with 1 X 1.09 in the original OP. I've never heard of that method, nor do I take much stock in any method for fitting that involves crunching numbers. For me it's a visual along with trial and error.
No matter where you measure to or from, you will still have to do minor adjustments. It's how your bodies pieces parts feel that matter, not what a number says.
No matter where you measure to or from, you will still have to do minor adjustments. It's how your bodies pieces parts feel that matter, not what a number says.
You've never heard of that method but you know where the measurements are taken???
ADMINISTRATORS...PLEASE KILL THIS THREAD...IT'S NOT WORTH IT.
THANK YOU.
#8
Full Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Gatineau, Quebec
Posts: 293
Bikes: Lynskey GR270
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked 69 Times
in
49 Posts
With 1300+ posts, I'd think you'd know by now to not ask questions on bike forums if you don't want answers that are not to your liking... People don't read, get used to it!
A formula is a starting point. Nobody is made the same way, and what feels good to someone might not to someone else.
A formula is a starting point. Nobody is made the same way, and what feels good to someone might not to someone else.
Last edited by ChinookTx; 06-23-19 at 04:21 PM.
#9
Banned.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Southeast
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I've been riding for years and have used the 'heel pedal backwards' method to measure saddle height. I recently realized that I wasn't able to engage my hamstrings effectively so I raised my height about 2-3mm and felt more efficient. Also a slight knee soreness disappeared. I have no hip movement (reaching) and have a slight knee bend at the bottom of the pedal stroke.
I decided to try the 109% method. Wearing cycling socks and cycling shorts I measured my inseam (book in crotch to floor) at 74.5cm (3 times to be sure).
74.5x1.09=81.205cm. Measured from the pedal axle (pedal in-line with seat tube/furthest point from seat) to the top of the seat at center of seat post saddle attachment and found that 81.2 cm was 8 cm below where my seat is currently. I understand that any method is a starting point, but I expected maybe 1 or 2cm, not 8cm.
Did I do something wrong? Since the 109% method goes from the pedal axle to the seat, crank size is essentially irrelevant. The 8cm difference was consistent with my road, touring, ss/fixie and hybrid.
BTW...I'm 5' 10", 210 lbs. and wear pants with a 29" inseam.
I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.
I decided to try the 109% method. Wearing cycling socks and cycling shorts I measured my inseam (book in crotch to floor) at 74.5cm (3 times to be sure).
74.5x1.09=81.205cm. Measured from the pedal axle (pedal in-line with seat tube/furthest point from seat) to the top of the seat at center of seat post saddle attachment and found that 81.2 cm was 8 cm below where my seat is currently. I understand that any method is a starting point, but I expected maybe 1 or 2cm, not 8cm.
Did I do something wrong? Since the 109% method goes from the pedal axle to the seat, crank size is essentially irrelevant. The 8cm difference was consistent with my road, touring, ss/fixie and hybrid.
BTW...I'm 5' 10", 210 lbs. and wear pants with a 29" inseam.
I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.
#10
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,625
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3868 Post(s)
Liked 2,560 Times
in
1,574 Posts
Maybe not. I set my bikes up by feel and the few times that I have attempted to measure the BB to saddle distance or any of that, the numbers never jibed with any formula. So I promptly went back to not worrying about it.
Likes For ThermionicScott:
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Brentwood WLA
Posts: 326
Bikes: 50/34, 11-40, 11 Speed
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked 73 Times
in
52 Posts
I have for experimental purposes used every type of formula (including the 1.09 you mention) that I've run across. For me, they produce widely different seat heights all of them resulting in a shorter seat height than my pro fit. (I'm not suggesting you or anyone else needs a pro fit.)
Good luck with what you seek.
Good luck with what you seek.
#12
Member
Thread Starter
With 1300+ posts, I'd think you'd know by now to not ask questions on bike forums if you don't want answers that are not to your liking... People don't read, get used to it!
A formula is a starting point. Nobody is made the same way, and what feels good to someone might not to someone else.
A formula is a starting point. Nobody is made the same way, and what feels good to someone might not to someone else.
#13
Member
Thread Starter
Not worrying about it makes perfect sense.
#14
Member
Thread Starter
I've used both the Lemmond .883 and the 109% method and in my case they are really close 80 cm inseam x109=87.2. 80cm x .883=70.64. I ride 172.5 cranks so the difference is only .64 and after subtracting the .3 they recommend for clipless pedals the numbers are even closer. Just wondering what your saddle height from center of bottom bracket is currently. The difference could just be that you are a toe pointer when you pedal.
I am not a toe pointer, my feet are pretty flat through the stroke.
#15
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,810
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6100 Post(s)
Liked 4,732 Times
in
3,262 Posts
So please chill, your OP is not without plenty of statements that can be taken more than one way. And there is no direct question ask IMO.
It's not my wish to offend you, but you keep calling me out. Ignore me if I'm not helpful.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
I've used both the Lemmond .883 and the 109% method and in my case they are really close 80 cm inseam x109=87.2. 80cm x .883=70.64. I ride 172.5 cranks so the difference is only .64 and after subtracting the .3 they recommend for clipless pedals the numbers are even closer. Just wondering what your saddle height from center of bottom bracket is currently. The difference could just be that you are a toe pointer when you pedal.
I don't know what OP's problem is, as he's obviously measuring something incorrectly or misapplying the formula, and then barking at people pointing out where his error might be.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,063
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1019 Post(s)
Liked 1,249 Times
in
722 Posts
I've been riding for years and have used the 'heel pedal backwards' method to measure saddle height. I recently realized that I wasn't able to engage my hamstrings effectively so I raised my height about 2-3mm and felt more efficient. Also a slight knee soreness disappeared. I have no hip movement (reaching) and have a slight knee bend at the bottom of the pedal stroke.
I decided to try the 109% method. Wearing cycling socks and cycling shorts I measured my inseam (book in crotch to floor) at 74.5cm (3 times to be sure).
74.5x1.09=81.205cm. Measured from the pedal axle (pedal in-line with seat tube/furthest point from seat) to the top of the seat at center of seat post saddle attachment and found that 81.2 cm was 8 cm below where my seat is currently. I understand that any method is a starting point, but I expected maybe 1 or 2cm, not 8cm.
Did I do something wrong? Since the 109% method goes from the pedal axle to the seat, crank size is essentially irrelevant. The 8cm difference was consistent with my road, touring, ss/fixie and hybrid.
BTW...I'm 5' 10", 210 lbs. and wear pants with a 29" inseam.
I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.
I decided to try the 109% method. Wearing cycling socks and cycling shorts I measured my inseam (book in crotch to floor) at 74.5cm (3 times to be sure).
74.5x1.09=81.205cm. Measured from the pedal axle (pedal in-line with seat tube/furthest point from seat) to the top of the seat at center of seat post saddle attachment and found that 81.2 cm was 8 cm below where my seat is currently. I understand that any method is a starting point, but I expected maybe 1 or 2cm, not 8cm.
Did I do something wrong? Since the 109% method goes from the pedal axle to the seat, crank size is essentially irrelevant. The 8cm difference was consistent with my road, touring, ss/fixie and hybrid.
BTW...I'm 5' 10", 210 lbs. and wear pants with a 29" inseam.
I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.