A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Does .883 (BB to seat) = 1.09 (pedal to seat)?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 14th 04, 10:38 PM
Paul Kossa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 14th 04, 11:06 PM
Eric S. Sande
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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__________
  #4  
Old March 14th 04, 11:32 PM
Arthur Harris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 15th 04, 12:37 PM
Per Elmsäter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 15th 04, 06:55 PM
Peter Cole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 16th 04, 02:46 AM
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.