Cycling Training · Public discussion

Knee over the pedal axle?

Started by zaskar · · Last activity · 7 posts · 2,711 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Training
Published
7 February 2005
Last activity
17 February 2005
Original author
zaskar
Posts
7
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,711
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–7 of 7
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Any truth to this? i read a few others that said similar thing.the plumb line to me does no make much since either. if your knees are not over the pedal axle would this cause knee problems?

    Most fitting "systems" specify that some part of your knee be directly over the pedal axle at some alignment of the crank, usually with the pedal forward and the crank horizontal. This is pure nonsense. Imagine two riders, almost identical, but one rider's knees are 1 inch lower than the other's. In other words, the thigh bones of one rider are 1 inch longer than the other, and his lower legs are 1 inch shorter. Everthing else about these two riders is identical, including overall height, torso length, arm length and weight. If you position the saddle such that the knee is directly over the pedal axle, the rider with the shorter thighs must have his saddle a little under 1 inch further forward of the other rider. It would be exactly 1 inch if his thigh was horizontal at that pedal position, which it isn't likely to be.

    But with the saddle positioned forward, the rider with shorter thighs now has more weight that must be supported by his arms, all because of this arbitrary rule about having your knee over the pedal axle. This makes no sense. What matters is your weight distribution fore and aft, and that's determined by the fore-aft position of the saddle relative to the cranks.

    This seems like this way makes more sense and more accurate.

    After you've determined your saddle height, it's time to position your saddle "fore and aft." You'll notice your saddle has rails beneath it which allow you to position it more forward or rearward. Pruitt again reminds us this fit system is a good starting point, and not a hard and fast rule to position your saddle. Generally speaking, you want the front of your kneecap to fall above the end of the crank arm when it's in the three and nine o'clock position. Sound like Latin?

    Take it slow: position your cranks so they rest at three and nine o'clock; that is, they're parallel with the ground. Pruitt says, "I prefer a straight edge, like a meter stick. Take the meter stick straight up from the end of the crankarm (not the pedal, but the rounded point where the crank ends) and it should come to the front of the knee cap (of the front leg), not behind it, not below it." There are a variety of methods of determining your saddle fore-aft, so if you know of a way that works for you, stick with it. Pruitt's is one of the easiest methods I know of, so try his way if you haven't done this before.

  2. Another variable to consider is: does your foot have to be parallel to the ground as well?

    Try moving your heel up and down from parallel and watch the kneecap move back and forth relative to the pedal spindle or end of the crank arm.

    davef

  3. zaskar said:

    If you position the saddle such that the knee is directly over the pedal axle, the rider with the shorter thighs must have his saddle a little under 1 inch further forward of the other rider. It would be exactly 1 inch if his thigh was horizontal at that pedal position, which it isn't likely to be.

    But with the saddle positioned forward, the rider with shorter thighs now has more weight that must be supported by his arms, all because of this arbitrary rule about having your knee over the pedal axle. This makes no sense. What matters is your weight distribution fore and aft, and that's determined by the fore-aft position of the saddle relative to the cranks.

    You're miscalculating and forgetting a couple of things here.

    First of all, if you keep the handlebars in the same position, and you move your saddle forward, you will have *less* weight supported by your arms. The reason is that relative to your saddle, your centre of gravity will move towards the saddle because you will be riding in a more upright position. I.e. as you move your saddle forward, you will finally be sitting with your back straight and have no weight supported by your arms.

    Secondly, you do not use saddle fore-aft position to determine your weight distribution. You do this by adjusting your stem. In your example, an increase in stem length of 1 inch would solve your weight distribution problem.

    _______
    Aaberg

  4. The weight on your hands and seat fore-aft position is one of those counter intuitive relations. As you move the seat back you actually reduce weight on your hands. The original post came from this very good fit advice page:

    http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm

    We all should remember that each generalized fit scheme is a base position to start with only and is in no way to be taken as exact science. Everyone is different and will have to make trial and error changes until the fit is right. What is important is to understand what you are trading off when you choose to go one way or another with change in position.

  5. anyone familiar with Steve Hoggs contributions to this question on www.cyclingnews.com?

    Its worth just generally having a look at the archives of the 'fitness Q&A' section anyway, but here are two articles, the 1st one outlines the basic principles, the second is a little argument..

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2004/letters08-09#Knee

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2004/letters08-16#over

  6. I used the KOPS as my starting point and from there made quite a number of trial-and-error to finally get my position perfect on the bike.

  7. I used the Greg LeMond method regarding the lineup of the front of my knee cap and pedal axle (plumb line). The front of my knee cap is slightly 'behind' the axle by a few milimeters in order to have a bit of 'leverage' while climbing (I live in the Solvang area where Lance and the Discovery team have had winter camps). I live among the coastal hills year round. My knee has a slight bend in it at the 6 o'clock position.

    Last fall I had the balls of my foot way over the axle of my pedal by 1.5". I developed tendonitis that did not go away for about 5 months. I have been off my back for too long now. I have recently went from a 90 mm MTB stem to an 80 mm stem. The shorter stem combined with a more normal rotation and position of my knee with the LeMond formula has given new life to my knee. The combination of the stem and new position has me more 'balanced' on the bike. I feel I have added many more years of quality riding for myself. With my heel pointing down at the six o'clock position, my pedal stroke reminds me of scraping mud off my shoe on a curb. It really is more efficient.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.