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

Quoted message said:

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"------------------ __________306.350.357.38-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden]__________

In article
<[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

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?

Measuring BB to seat doesn't take into account the length of
your crank arms, nor the stack height of your pedals.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return
address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

Paul Kossa said:

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

Arthur Harris said:

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.

"Arthur Harris" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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?