MIN 

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Clarify? Also, I am somewhat of a stats guru, by trade.

R900

Height 184.3 cm
Inseam 89.2 cm
Ratios 2.07 or 0.48

I ride a 60 Trek, with about 81 cm seat height and a 120 mm stem

tdl123321

Might I pose another question.. Are short legs(relative to overall height) a disadvantage. It would seem a relatively long torso would be more weight for the shorter legs to push around.

Chad's Colnago

72 inches tall
33 inch inseam from crotch to floor.

Turboem1

72.25" tall
32.2" inseam

44.5%

bruce19

Someone here has to know something about Fibronacci's Golden Number, no? I just know it exists. 1.68 ratio or something like that. Anybody?

MIN 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruce19

Someone here has to know something about Fibronacci's Golden Number, no? I just know it exists. 1.68 ratio or something like that. Anybody?

The golden ratio in the human body
It may be surprising to know that the golden ratio can be found in the human body. Your hands contain three bones in each finger (you may notice this more by bending them). The ratio of the longest bone compared to the middle bone and the ratio of the middle bone compared to the smaller bone are both close to 1.618. (The Fibonnacci ratio.)

Another place you will find the golden ratio is your height. Measure how tall you are and compare this to the distance between your feet and navel. Their ratio is close to 1.618. Your face may also contain the golden ratio. What is the ratio of the width of your mouth compared to the width of the bottom of your nose?
Some people think that the closer certain ratios in your body are to the golden ratio, the more attractive you appear.

However, the golder ratio addresses the "aesthetic" imperative - it would be a stretch to say a person with a golden ratio proportion is stronger than another without said proportion.

MIN 

This is the essence of my original question. However, no one knows what the average male inseam-to-height ratio is, so relative comparisons are meaningless at this point.

Proximo

height: 71"
riding inseam: 33"

46.5%

biker7

I just wanted to confirm you are clueless as many statisticians are...lol. You can crunch indices and distribution skewness all you want, but it always comes down to the application of the relationships that matter which most statisticians can't fathom. And hence your question. Your statement above without addressing the substance of my response confirms it.
George

tdl123321

I am 5'10" and where a 30 inch length jean size. I have also wondered if there was a frame designed for short leg cyclist like ourselves. Looks like the answer isn't going to come in this thread though.

biker7

...and therefore so is your question.
George

bruce19

FWIW, jean inseam and your inseam are two different things.

MIN 

I'm trying to address you response but I have no idea what you were tying to say. Don't take it as slander, you just were not clear to me.

You state: "inseam length (independent of height) still dominates for the vast bell curve of cyclists out there." Bell curve of what and how does inseam length dominate?

bluedaisy

I've spent way too much time thinking about how useless and annoying this mental ************ exercise is. Worse than carbon v. steel, spoke counts and saddle preferences combined. I compute a 99.9997% probability that the only way you'll know it fits is if you ride it!

Time to bring in the clowns, dial it up to 400 watts and get the hell outta here :

MIN 

^^^ Post Of The Year!!!!!!

biker7

Sorry but the tone of your entire thread was troll like...lol.
I really can't help you if you don't understand my initial response. Don't feel alone, many don't understand bicycle fit as it takes quite a bit of study. Your question is simply esoteric or not particularly relevant to bicycle fit, that's all. Studying the relationship of any two traits of human anatomy to surmise a correlation to fit is simplistic. Not unlike the belief that top tube length is most important or virtual seat post dominates when it comes to fit. These are conventions of convenience. They all matter as fit is a puzzle with many relationships between anatomy and bicycle geometry…some competing. A better study for example would be the ratio of thorax height to cycling inseam as neck and head height are pretty irrelevant. Or study foot length to saddle height as they clearly relate...or femur length to KOPS relative to inseam and CG on the bicycle for optimal 55/45 weight distribution for the best fit. If you take a deep enough dive, you will find that studies that include two variables are meaningless.

I will leave you with a simple example.
Cigarette smoking has been deemed to be beneficial. Under times of high stress, studies have proved that ingesting the amount of Nicotine in a single cigarette has a calming affect on a vast majority of the population. The study concludes therefore that everybody should light up when having a difficult day.
As a sidebar, which wasn't part of the study...
It was determined later in a separate study that long term cigarette smoking will promote premature death.
George

superslomo

75" height, 36" cycling inseam. 48%.

MIN 

With all due respect, inseam-to-height ratio is not that far-fetched of a metric to consider in determining the overall shape of a rider's body. I will concede however that inseam-to-thorax height might be a better metric (as it discounts the length of the neck and head). Ultimately, both are proxy variables in determining the overall "leginess" of a rider.

Per the Cannondale website:
Your inseam to height ratio, the length of your arms, the size of hands, the size of your torso etc. all factor into determining the correct fit of a bike. As a result, Cannondale highly suggests that you not rely on fit charts, but instead seek professional guidance and recommendations from an experienced bicycle shop.

biker7

To my point, if you noticed, inseam to height ratio is only one metric in an array of variables mentioned by Cannondale required to appropriately size a bicycle to a rider's body. This metric is no more or less significant then other factors. There are about 10 salient variables that say a fit calculator algorithm contains to crunch a ball park fit. You can take the quotient of whatever you want say, leg to arm length ratio if you want but it is only esoteric data and nothing more. Cannondale used that term to distinguish where a rider derive's his or her height.
George

eippo1

Wow, never realized how long my torso is.
Overall: 73"
Inseam: 31"

42%

No wonder why I like compact geometry.

THEKXIL

177cm tall
96.5cm inseam
55%

Dean V

I am guessing a bit here but am fairly sure I am correct in saying that taller people have longer legs than shorter people.
i.e the average inseam/height ratio of people that are 5'8" would be less than it is for people that are 6'4".
So a meaningful "average" would need to account for height.

datlas 

Zombie thread alert!

ofajen

Indeed! Anyway, if you approximate body height at 7.5 heads and leg length at 3.5 heads, you would expect the distribution to center around 46% which I think is a reasonable estimate. If it were a couple percent lower, I wouldn’t be surprised.

I’m at about 49% and toward the long leg end of the distribution.

Otto