jambon

Hi ,

I have trouble getting bikes setup comfortable for me .

The thing is I am 6,2 but I have strange proportions . I am all legs but have a short torso , arm length is average .

Going by pubic bone height x 0.883 or pbh - 10 I have a recommended saddle height of 82cm which is pretty high.

Although though this is my recomended efficient pedaling height and it feels powerful I feel unstable with my saddle at that height and can't corner sharp and I feel nervous in city traffic. It also means that I have to use riser stems and the top position on the steerer to get the bars somewhere comfortable .it's like my centre of gravity is up very high..

Mountain biking is no problem as I have a dropper and only use my efficient position for long climbs.

If my saddle height was just an inch lower on my road and city bike I would be a lot more comfortable and confident on the bike .

I am wondering if I took my saddle down an inch from optimum to trade off efficiency for comfort would my legs eventually adjust to the slightly less effective pedalling position , how correct are the formulas out there for saddle height ? Is there scope for leeway of an inch or so each way with a chance for the body to adapt ? Any thoughts welcomed

DrIsotope

The outside of my kneecaps let me know when my saddle is 1/8" too low. An inch? I wouldn't be able to walk the next day.

BTW, also 6'2", and my BB to saddle is 87cm. Ride with the saddle at the height that is physically comfortable, whatever that might be. If your knees don't complain about 77cm, ride like that. I wouldn't make it five miles.

Kontact 

Your body generally doesn't "get used to" being strained, it gets damaged.

02Giant 

Your legs could be okay. As the DR mentioned, your knees may complain.

jambon

I have tried this heel on the pedal in 6 o clock position method also . The confusing thing is that both for the 82 znd 72 position my legs is straight with heel on pedal, but at 82 my heel barely contacts the pedal

Also I'm wondering about pedaling style , if I could pedal heel down as opposed to toe down then maybe I could pull off the lower saddle height

I4YM

I am going through your scenerio except I have no worries when cornering. I raised my saddle 1.5cm on one cycle (60cm top tube)
and .5cm on another(59cm top tube) above .883 inseam measurement. Found I want my hips behind my feet in the pull up (7-11 o'clock) position. Another difference was in the crank arms: 60cm cycle arms are 167.5 the 59cm cycle at 170. This set up is much easier to produce an even circle with relatively no pressure on the bars.

McBTC

You can go with the heel method... the calculated measurement isn't as good in your case-- the reason it is off is because it is not correctly taking into account the length of your femur in comparison to total length. That said, you may have a more challenging time getting your knees behind the pedal spindle (which is another method of bike fitting that many use as a starting point) because your thigh bone is relatively longer but that is handled by a combination of setback seat posts, shorter stems and bikes with shorter top tubes and a more relaxed seat tube angle. Based on what you said you'd really be scratching your head if you ever wanted to try going to shorter cranks as you'd then need to raise the seat by the amount of the shorter crank-- you really feel perched in the cockpit then but... you get used to it.

CliffordK

I never measure anything. I can get my seat adjusted just about right, then do fine tuning from there.

What length of cranks are you using? Is it the same across bikes?

If the average person is using 170mm to 175mm cranks, then it is quite possible that the taller riders would benefit from 180mm cranks, or even longer ones. 180 cranks are generally available, but you may have to hunt for them.

Interloc Racing Design (IRD) makes some super long cranksets (beyond the 180mm) at affordable prices.

As @McBTC mentioned, shorter cranks means a higher seat, longer cranks means a lower seat position.

One of your limits for seat position and crank length is where your legs impact the gut when in a low racing position. If you're tall and slender, you have a lot more options than if you're carrying a pretty large spare tire with you.

phughes

Don't worry about a formula. Also, try the same heel test with the pedal slightly forward of the 6 o'clock position so the crank arm is in line with the seat tube, that is where the length is actually the longest. I have written a few times here regarding my struggle with perineal pain, along with hip pain and back tightness, and quad soreness. It all came down to seat height. Going by the formula, and advice from fitters, my seat was simply too high. I used Steve Hogg's methods and ideas regarding seat height and now it is lower than the commonly recommended height, based on formula, but I am now stronger on the bike, and have no pain, anywhere. So my advice is to let your body tell you what is right. If your heel is having trouble making contact withe the pedal at the seat height the formula came up with, then guess what? the formula is wrong. Also consider the fact some of the formulas have you measure the seat height from the bottom bracket spindle, which fails to take into account the crank length.

This is the second time I posted these today, but read these. https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...ard-can-it-be/

https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...d-can-it-be-2/

Carbonfiberboy 

Yes, your legs will get used to pedaling with a lower than optimum saddle height. The problem is that you'll be weaker with a too-low saddle height. The reason for pedaling with an optimal saddle height is really that it's the most efficient - most forward motion for the least effort. Another issue is that one is more likely to have patella problems with a low saddle because of the extra pressure on it caused by more leg bend.

Ignore the formula. A weird thing is that you feel unstable with the saddle 1" higher. If that's really your correct heel-on-pedal saddle height, there's no reason it should feel at all odd. A 1" difference in butt height off ground is tiny. Maybe what's happening is that with the saddle too high, you can't put any weight in the down pedal while sitting on the saddle. That would feel weird. You should be able to lift yourself very slightly out of the saddle with one leg straight or at least unweight your butt. Maybe you're measuring heel-on-pedal with the bike stopped. Do it moving. Unclip one foot and pedal very slowly with the one heel on the pedal, making sure you aren't rocking your pelvis. Don't reach for it. Just have your leg go totally straight when the crank is aligned with the seat tube, heel still slightly in contact with the pedal. Toe-down pedalers usually like a little space between heel and pedal, maybe 4mm.

Kontact 

You shouldn't fix perineal pain with seat height. You need a more anatomic saddle.

Pedal to heel is generally too low by all the biomedical testing done, resulting in more than ideal knee bend. You won't find anyone leaving a fitter or sport medicine office with their seat that low unless they have some other issue.


The OP is suffering from a confidence and balance problem, lowering the saddle height for that doesn't make any sense.

phughes

LOL No, but you sometimes fix fit issues by lowering the seat, which is what I did. More power, no perineal pain, no more hip pain, no more back pain. Huh, sounds like it worked. And, by seat is lower than the magic formula. With it raised as high as the magic formula dictates, I drop on one side, no my legs are not different lengths, I've been measured, I get hip pain, back pain, do not pedal efficiently through the stroke, I get quad soreness after a ride that makes walking up stairs difficult. Now, after getting the seat height correct, lower than the magic formula, all those issues are gone, I pedal efficiently through the entire stroke, I have more power on hills, I have zero pain, and after a 30-50 mile ride, my legs feel fine, and I have zero quad soreness. Sorry, formulas do not work for every case. By buying an "anatomical" saddle, you may very well be masking an issue that will do damage elsewhere. Sorry, but a one size fits all formula does not exist, and my seat is not, "that low." My seat is exactly where it needs to be to fit me perfectly. And you are very correct, many fitters send people off with seats that are too high.

I also did not tell the OP to keep their seat 1 inch low, I told them to read the articles I posted, and follow those directions for setting seat height. That works much better than a formula, and if done correctly, will match the seat height to YOUR most efficient seat height, not some mythical ideal.

And yes, if the only issue is a feeling of instability, it may not just be the saddle height, but it could be, or it could be another fit issue. A result of a proper fit, is stability on the bike, if you do not feel stable, the fit is most likely wrong.

Kontact 

The heel method is a "formula" based on your inseam length - you're measuring your inseam directly with your saddle, straight leg and flat foot, just like you would with other methods. So please don't mistake one method based on leg length with another - they all use the same basic measure and apply math to it. You can take the number and multiply it by 1.09, .883 + crank or 1 (heel method).

By all means, use the right seat height for your body, but please understand that most people's bodies benefit from keeping the knee within 25-35° to prevent tendinitis of the patella. The heel method tends to put people at or more than 35°, which is why so many people mention the other "magic" formulas which function in a similar way but take more tension off the knee.

phughes

I didn't suggest he use the heel method, I suggested he read the articles and use that method.

There is nothing wrong with measuring, but a formula based on leg length alone will not work for everyone, especially if the method used by the formula measures seat height from the BB spindle.

Kontact 

The .883 BB spindle method produces pretty similar results to the 1.09 method:
76cm x 1.09 = 82.84
80cm x 1.09 = 87.2
85cm x 1.09 = 92.65

76cm x .883 + 17cm = 84.11
80cm x .883 + 17cm = 87.64
85cm x .883 + 17cm = 92.05

They get even closer if you use proportional crank sizes.


I thought you were dismissing formulas in favor of the heel method here:

phughes

Nope, simply pointing out the fact that the six o'clock position isn't really the point at which your leg is extended the most. And once again, there is nothing wrong with measuring, which that is, but a formula, based on a measurement, doesn't take a a person's individual fitness, flexibility, into account, or whether they drop their toe or not, in fact, the majority of people I see who have their seat height by formula, tend to point their toe at the bottom of the stroke, out of necessity, because their seat is too high.

Anyway, I've said what I'm going to say. There is no, one size fits all formula, and in my opinion, after being into bikes for over 40 years, and watching the changes, that the advent of the anatomical seat, came about as seat heights raised, along with injuries, and discomfort.

Kontact 

The problem with this discussion is that the OP is not someone with 40 years of riding experience, and using the Hogg method is not going to produce reliable results with someone largely unfamiliar with how riding up a hill feels. Hogg's method would be a great way of refining a formula set saddle height after you've been riding a few weeks.

I'm also been riding for over 40 years, and when I first started working in shops 38 years ago we were setting saddles at the same heights that you mention as both 'too high' and recent. I've had my saddle "too high" for 42 years.

phughes

Okay, awesome. Of course the Lemond method didn't come into being until the 80's.

Once again, as you cannot seem to understand, there is nothing wrong with measuring, and using a formula to get an idea, but the formula was created around an average of elite cyclists, not the ordinary person. Many advocate a lower number of 1.05 to 1.07. Of course a very good way to get it right, is to pay attention to your body, and how well you can pedal throughout the entire stroke, as described in the articles I linked, oh, and listening to your body when you feel less than stable on a bike. If you are not solidly planted on the bike because of, oh, perhaps a too high seat, then you will not feel stable.

Anyway, formulas are great, as a starting point, but that is it, since they are based on averages. It is the individual on the bike that is important, and actually, the heel method can work just as well as a starting point without having to get out that tape measure, then you can fine tune it by actually paying attention to how you are pedaling.

I'm very happy I stopped listening to the expert fitters like you who continually put my seat too high, causing me great pain, which would have done permanent damage to my hip and more. In other words, listen to the person you are working with a bit more, and put down your measuring devices if the person is having an issue after you measured and got everything "perfect" according to the formula.

Have a good night.

Kontact 

My bad, I got my numbers wrong - I started riding seriously 30+ years ago and started in shops 28 years go.


There are all different ways of setting saddle height, and my main point was that 1.00 is generally too low, and that's the heels method. You prefer 1.05? Great, much better. That will put you squarely in the good knee bend range.


I am not a fitter - I worked with one for years. He is an excelllent fitter and didn't use home methods like formulas. More importantly, he wouldn't send anyone home who wasn't feeling good, because listening is the main thing a fitter does before, during and after a fit. So I don't understand why you are both quoting Steve Hogg and throwing fitters under the bus.


This thread is about getting someone newer set up to ride their bike, and that isn't necessarily best served by making their seat too low or suggesting trying to digest Steve Hogg fitting philosophy articles.

Lazyass

Set your saddle to what feels right and use the various formulas as only a starting point. I've had mine 2cm, almost an inch, lower than what it's "supposed" to be for years. It takes pressure off the sitbones and makes me feel more like I'm sitting in the bike instead of on top of it. Just that 2cm is a night and day difference in sensation. It's just more comfortable and comfort is the most important thing. If you get it too low your knees will let you know.

McBTC

No formula makes sense if it puts the seat too high-- it should be as high as possible for maximum performance but not even a single cm higher than it should be or you will forever be dealing with hamstring problems... which, is why the heel method makes a lot more sense.

phughes

Wow, you have incredibly poor reading comprehension skills. No, I do not prefer 1.05, and I said nothing about 1.00, nothing. I said the OP should read the two articles and try that approach. You also seem to assume the OP is a newer bicyclist, when it appears the OP has more than one bike already. Also, you seem to be suggesting the OP use the exact same method of determining seat height that is causing the OP issues, instead of coming up with a realistic solution for the problem he or she is having. IN other words, you are so bogged down in your "knowledge," that you fail to see the problem, and therefore cannot offer a solution other than a formula you know, one that was derived using an average based on elite cyclists, not the average cyclist. Now, you go on to assume they are a newbie, which would also, by your thought process, be someone who is not an elite cyclist, therefore the formula would come up with a seat height that is most likely, bit not definitely, too high.

Now, back to reality. The OP has an issue with seat height, the height derived by the formula is uncomfortable for them. Following the ideas in the articles by Steve Hogg, will help the OP get a seat height that is comfortable, and gives good efficiency throughout the entire pedal stroke. It will very possibly come up with a seat height higher than what it is right now, and most likely lover than the height the formula arrives at. In fact, most of the suggestions the OP is getting from others also say to disregard the formula as a hard set rule, and use it as a starting point, then adjust to what works best for him or her.

In other words, stop arguing that the formula is the only answer, when it is not, and when that it how the OP arrived with a seat height that does not work for them. I will stop now, since this has turned into basically every thread you post on, a back and forth with you asserting your superior bicycle knowledge. I know some things about bicycling, and know the formulas too, but over the years I have tried to learn from others, and have learned a lot from Hogg that changed my mind about what works. Hey, I have learned a lot on this forum, and continue to do so every day.

Kontact 

You don't seem to understand what I'm arguing or what the OP's problem is:

"Although though this is my recomended efficient pedaling height and it feels powerful I feel unstable with my saddle at that height and can't corner sharp and I feel nervous in city traffic. It also means that I have to use riser stems and the top position on the steerer to get the bars somewhere comfortable .it's like my centre of gravity is up very high."

The OP does not have a seat height problem that comes from leg or saddle comfort, but unhappiness with being up high on a bike. Similar to folks that are unhappy riding bikes where they can't put their feet on the ground when seated.

You are free to disagree, but I don't think the solution to a stability and handling confidence problem is to be found sacrificing the ergonomics that protect your knees. To me, that is little different than solving a reach problem by raising the saddle nose until it presses on the perineum.

Saddle height is primarily an effort to create an efficient and knee friendly body position, not to make the bike feel different overall or even to make up for the poor saddle ergonomics.

The main problem with the Steve Hogg method you're pushing is that the OP already said that he feels very uncomfortable on his bike overall when using an otherwise comfortable saddle height that he already uses on his MTB. So I don't know why you'd expect his saddle height to change greatly by the Hogg method or to not be influenced by the confidence problem the OP has already stated.


This thread shouldn't even be about saddle heights, because the OP's problem isn't caused by saddle height but concerns about handling and stability. Lowering the saddle is a panacea for those issues, but what we really ought to be discussing is what is wrong with the way the OP's bike handles that makes him feel so unsafe cornering. I don't know about you, but my bikes don't become unstable feeling no matter how high my butt is from the pedals, and I suspect that the OP's combination of height and short torso length have more to do with his unhappiness cornering than leg extension.

Ultimately, the OP ought to be on a bike that is kind to his knees and feels stable, and that likely has a lot more to do with reach, weight distribution and frame geometry than 2cm of saddle height.

phughes

Kontact 

Really? That's twice you're reply has been insulting.

If the OP had posted this exact same topic about his handling issues without suggesting solving them with a lower saddle, would we even be discussing his saddle height?
Nope.