|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Does .883 (BB to seat) = 1.09 (pedal to seat)?
I had my saddle height set using the inseam X .883 = BB to seat
formula. I heard of using your inseam X 1.09 to get the seat height as measured from the top (?) of the pedal to the seat. Upon doing the measurements and calculations, I discovered that in order to set the height based on the 1.09 theory, I would have to raise the seat by somethhing like 3 CENTIMETERS! (Yes, I mean CM, and not MM.) Is there supposed to be this much of a difference between these 2 formulas, or am I measuring something wrongly? I measure from the middle of the BB to the middle of the seat for the .883 method. For the 1.09, I measured from the "top" (the center platform) of my Look clipless pedals to the same spot on the saddle. Am I supposed to measure it some other way? (The only way I could get the 1.09 way to match .883 is if I measured the former to the top of the rear end of the saddle.) If there is supposed to be that much of a difference, does anyone know if either is more "accurate" than the other? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Does .883 (BB to seat) = 1.09 (pedal to seat)?
If there is supposed to be that much of a difference, does anyone know
if either is more "accurate" than the other? It's not an exact science, everybody is different. I generally use 1.09 as an approximation, that could mean a 1 to 2 cm adjustment either way depending on the pedals, the bike, the shoes, etc. I find it's easier to just ride the bike and dial it in over time, you'll know what feels best after a certain number of miles. Mostly you'll find that you're riding too low, run it up until your hips start to rock in a sprint and then bring it back down by about a cm, that's an approximation. -- _______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------ in.edu__________ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Does .883 (BB to seat) = 1.09 (pedal to seat)?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Does .883 (BB to seat) = 1.09 (pedal to seat)?
"Paul Kossa" wrote:
I had my saddle height set using the inseam X .883 = BB to seat formula. I heard of using your inseam X 1.09 to get the seat height as measured from the top (?) of the pedal to the seat. Upon doing the measurements and calculations, I discovered that in order to set the height based on the 1.09 theory, I would have to raise the seat by somethhing like 3 CENTIMETERS! All these formulas are just to get you in the ballpark, although in your case, one of them is obviously outside the ballpark. The 1.09 number goes way back to the days of toe clips and nail-on cleats. Differences in pedals and shoes can account for a lot of variation. This method usually gives you a higher seat than LeMonds X .833 formula. The .883 formula doesn't even take crank length into account, and tends to give a lower height Best advice is to raise the seat in small increments until your hips just begin to rock when you pedal. Then lower it a few mm. After that, you can tweak a mm or two to see what works for you. You probably will end up somewhere between what the two formulas suggest. Obviously, just sliding forward or back on the saddle changes you effective saddle height a bit. So I wouldn't get too crazy about this. Art Harris |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Does .883 (BB to seat) = 1.09 (pedal to seat)?
Arthur Harris wrote:
Best advice is to raise the seat in small increments until your hips just begin to rock when you pedal. Then lower it a few mm. After that, you can tweak a mm or two to see what works for you. You probably will end up somewhere between what the two formulas suggest. Probably the only way to get it perfect. .. If I'm in a hurry, like maybe setting myself up on a spinning cycle. I'll raise the saddle until I can barely not pedal with my heels on the pedals. When I slide the balls of my feet down on the pedal this'll give me just the extra reach that is needed.. -- Perre You have to be smarter than a robot to reply. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Does .883 (BB to seat) = 1.09 (pedal to seat)?
"Arthur Harris" wrote
Best advice is to raise the seat in small increments until your hips just begin to rock when you pedal. Then lower it a few mm. After that, you can tweak a mm or two to see what works for you. This is the only reliable method I've found. Obviously, just sliding forward or back on the saddle changes you effective saddle height a bit. So I wouldn't get too crazy about this. True. I think of it as (given the amount of moving around on the saddle) finding the sort of "average" position your butt wants to be & putting the saddle there. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Does .883 (BB to seat) = 1.09 (pedal to seat)?
Use the 1.09. Depending on crank length and frame size the relationship of
..883 doesn't work all that well. Though mine comes out almost exactly the same. "Paul Kossa" wrote in message om... I had my saddle height set using the inseam X .883 = BB to seat formula. I heard of using your inseam X 1.09 to get the seat height as measured from the top (?) of the pedal to the seat. Upon doing the measurements and calculations, I discovered that in order to set the height based on the 1.09 theory, I would have to raise the seat by somethhing like 3 CENTIMETERS! (Yes, I mean CM, and not MM.) Is there supposed to be this much of a difference between these 2 formulas, or am I measuring something wrongly? I measure from the middle of the BB to the middle of the seat for the .883 method. For the 1.09, I measured from the "top" (the center platform) of my Look clipless pedals to the same spot on the saddle. Am I supposed to measure it some other way? (The only way I could get the 1.09 way to match .883 is if I measured the former to the top of the rear end of the saddle.) If there is supposed to be that much of a difference, does anyone know if either is more "accurate" than the other? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|