Lee Hurd wrote:
> The Burke formula for 175's seems to reccommend a much higher seating
> position than the Lemond formula you were using for the 175's so the devil
> in me still wonders if you could have reined in your ankle and knee motion
> by raising the seat way over the Lemond mark despite the fact that it would
> go against conventional wisdom. My main grudge with formulas is that they
> sometimes form a psychological barrier against testing these things out, but
> if what you chose works good, it is good. I guess my idea of a good formula
> is one that helps a rider ride well with the equipment they've got as well
> as the the equipment they ought to have (to paraphrase Rumsfeld) 
.
I tried lots of things with the 175's. From super low to very high
(felt that way at least), like recommended from the fit calculator at
competitivecyclist.com. I tried so high I couln't reach the pedals, and
eveything in between.
I agree about the psychological limitations of folmulas. That is why I
eventually gave up and just moved the seat around blindly. Out on rides
I even had a riding buddy make changes while I wasn't looking to try to
avoid bias. Sometimes he only told me he moved it! That is why I was
all th emore surprised when I "discovered" the 109% fit. I actually
didn't know about the 109% formula until once I had found a saddle
height I liked, I tried googling around to see if it had any basis of
any kind, when I found:
http://www.asep.org/jeponline/issue/Doc/Feb2005/PevelerSaddle.pdf
I think my problem was I didn't have enough knee motion, so higher
wouldn't have helped there.
Speaking "riding the ride with the bike you've got" my buddy who helped
with the seat height rides a super-heavy department-store hybrid that
is way to big for him, that he borrowed from somebody. He punishes me.
Joseph
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Lee Hurd wrote:
> >> Me if you look back at the figures I posted earlier. Interesting.
> >>
> >> Did the longer cranks solve the catch in your pedal stroke by the way?
> >
> > Yes, the stumbling, catching sensation is gone. I think that feeling
> > had something to do with the range of knee flexion (or whatever it is
> > called) as related to degrees of crank rotation during the power
> > stroke.
> >
> > Seems several folks fall comfortably into the 109%, 20.8%, kops range.
> >
> > Joseph
> >
