Road Cycling - Saddle height and the TdF

I've set up my bike, with clipless pedals, so that the saddle is high enough to allow SLIGHTLY bent knees at the downstrokes. However, watching the wonderful Tour de France on OLN, I've noticed that saddles are set really low, and that the riders' legs are quite bent at the downstrokes. Their toes can also touch the ground while they're on the saddle. I can't extend my legs to the ground while seating on my saddle. Does a lower saddle allow a higher cadence and thus more efficiency? How high is your saddle? Do you have to get off your saddle at a stop?

One of the most debated and debatable areas in all of cycling: saddle height.

Received wisdom goes along with knees slightly bent when at the bottom of the pedal stroke. Refinement of that wisdom has even come up with a formula sometimes stated to three decimal places for calculating seat height, which is just laughable if you have any understanding of (1) science, (2) physiology, (3) statistics, (4) cycling.

If I'm not mistaken, Eddie Merckxx was noted for having his saddle way low. There's at least one other more recent champion who did likewise, and I saw a photo of him (he's Irish, but I can't think of his name) that showed clearly how low he sat.

I don't have to get out of the saddle on either my road bike or mountain bike at stops, but I come close to toppling sometimes on the MTB. And have done so. I based my seat height on one of the widely publicized formulas.

Now I'm thinking about lowering my seats because I've been getting some knee pain at the bottom of the kneecap, and I think that can mean too high a position. I will probably lower each seat (for they're adjusted exactly the same on each bike) by between 1/8 and 1/4 inch. You're supposed to only adjust a millimeter or two at a time but I'm an impulsive and impatient person and this is my way.

If the knee pain stops or transfers to the top of the kneecap, I'll know I've either improved things or gone too far in lowering.

In the past, when I've had the position "just right," I had no knee pain at all. But I had a three-year layoff, my body has changed, I'm three years older, and in short there are variables to consider. What was right then, may be wrong now.

So stay tuned.

P. S. I predict this will be one of the more interesting threads! :)

cdc28p, I have my seat height adjusted so that my knees are just barely bent at the bottom of the stroke, and for me, this works. Another important adjustment is the fore and aft position of the saddle. As Jon has said, it can sometimes take a bit of work to get everything just right, but when you get it, your knees will thank you for it!

And, remember when you are watching the TdF, you are watching highly trained athletes, who spend more time standing and pedalling than they do in the saddle! For the rest of us, we can generate more power more efficiently with the saddle up in the air!

Enjoy!!

Originally posted by JonR
. . . There's at least one other more recent champion who did likewise, and I saw a photo of him (he's Irish, but I can't think of his name) that showed clearly how low he sat.


JonR, I believe you are thinking of Sean Kelly. There are a few photos I remember seeing where he is scrunched over his handlebars like his top tube is too short, as well.

Like cdc28p and nebill I have my seat height set with the slight bend (using the approximate method of unclipppping and putting my heel on the pedal and then adjusting the seat height so my leg is straight at the bottom of the stroke; when I clip back in this translates to the slight bend). With my seat this height I can stay on the saddle only if I go on tippy-tippy-toe at a stop, which is more strain than I think worthwhile, so I usually slide off the saddle and stand flat-footed.

Originally posted by nebill
And, remember when you are watching the TdF, you are watching highly trained athletes, who spend more time standing and pedalling than they do in the saddle.
I read somewhere, though, that Merckxx rarely stood up. I guess he was so strong he didn't have to bother.

Originally posted by UncaStuart


JonR, I believe you are thinking of Sean Kelly.
Thanks, UncaStuart, that's right. :)

This gets into the area of bike fit, and there are soooo many tiny variables, that it's difficult to point to one thing (e.g. saddle height) in isolation. Still....

Add me to the leg-almost-straight club. The saddle goes as high as I can get it without causing my butt to rock when I'm spinning fast. (Which for me is probably in the 120 rpm range, and I usually pedal in the 90-100 rpm range.) If you raise your saddle too much, your knee will just begin to "lock-out" at the bottom of your stroke. That'll slow you down and roughen your ride for sure. Riding with a lower saddle, I find that takes more effort, and I start getting knee pain.

I think that riders that tend to spin faster tend to prefer a slightly lower saddle. Riders that pedal slower (e.g. Lemond) tend to like a higher saddle.

My advice is to start slowly adjusting. Up, down, whatever. Ride for several days, then tweak it up/down whatever. Adjust in small increments, like 1/8 inch, and don't change anything else (shoes, cleat position, h-bars). Eventually, you'll start homing in on your sweet-spot. After you find it, you'll sense if it's off even a 1/16th of an inch.

roadbuzz

I think you will find Lemond had his seat LOW and BACK :D have a look at old video footage or photos.


cheers!

I want to apologize for misspelling Eddy Merckx's name. Granted it's not the easiest name.... I was out riding yesterday and suddenly wondered, "Why two x's?" Come to find, out, because there's only one, that's why! :blush:

On his own Book of Cycling, Lemond says that he actually raised his saddle a lot when he turned a Pro, in Europe. He actually siad that is proven by some doctors that the ideal height would be 96% of your leg length, measured from the top of the femur bone. He said that this height will allow the best oxygen consumption by the legs.

I noticed the same thing about the TDF riders saddle height.I think saddle hieght is another example of how cycling is such a personal/cusomized sport. I like my legs to only have a tad of a bend in them at the bottom of my down stroke.I can't stand for my seat to be any lower, when it is I get an uncomfortable burn in my thighs and I feel weaker. The only time I lower my seat is on my MTB when I am going to work on jumping(something I have a problem with).

Saddle to pedal distance is not directly related to saddle to ground distance.
That is controlled by the height of your bottom bracket from the ground. Most MTBs and hybrids have a high bottom bracket, so your toes will be further from the ground. With smaller riders the problem is worse, since bikes are often made "smaller" by raising the bottom brakcet !!!
You need a high bottom bracket for clearance over logs, for hard cornering in tight town circuit racing, and if you are big and use longer than average cranks. Coversely, if you are small, you should use shorter cranks, and can obtain the same cornering clearance with a lower BB height.

So many variables--so little time...

Guys,

Remember that the TdF riders have several bikes to select from and each one is set up differently depending on the terrain, weather, etc.

Ron

Smash....that was my jaw hitting the floor. You are very right RonH

Wow, neat info on bike seat height. JonR and others are right on when they point out that the correct seat height is the one that suites the individual rider best.

I remember David Williams in second grade. He outgrew the position of his banana seat on his Schwinn Stingray before his dad adjusted it. He would peddle like mad with his knees almost thumping his chest with every stroke. Still, nobody could catch him.

One well-known rule of thumb for saddle height adjustment that you could try is:

Measure the distance from the floor to your crotch along the inside of your leg. Multiply that number by 1.09. This number is considered by many to be the correct distance from the top of the peddle (in the down stroke position) to the top of the saddle. As Nebill points out, you then have to experiment with the front/back position of the saddle. Try it and see how it goes.

The front-back position can be hard to adjust. On neither of my bikes will the saddle go back far enough for the "ideal" position of the kneecap (right above the pedal axle, if I remember correctly). This could mean too small a frame, yet otherwise the bikes seem just the right size for me. Or (more likely) it means the saddles I've happened to use (and which I like otherwise) just don't have long enough rails for adjusting right.

JohnR
Moving up a size won't affect the for-aft position of your saddle. It will just mean less exposed seatpost.
You can do move the saddle back by getting a frame with a slacker seat-tube angle, or, more cheaply, by getting a seatpost with greater lay-back.

I think my lower legs are much longer in proportion to my femur, than John Doe. I could never get my saddle forward enough with a standard seatpost, so I changed to one with a in-line clamp.


These days, you rarely need to go for custom angles in a frame. Most oddities can be sorted with components.

Look do a neat seatpost with variable layback. Heavy, expensive, and very useful.

Originally posted by cyc
roadbuzz
I think you will find Lemond had his seat LOW and BACK :D

Good call... Greg did/does advocate slack tube angles and the seat slid back (i.e. knee 1-2 cm behind the pedal axle).

On a related note, there's something in a recent issue of Bicycling about how seat position affects which leg muscles tend to be used. I think it says the knee-behind-pedal tends to recruit the muscles on the back of the legs (biceps femoris??) more.

fore/aft position is determined : with your foot clipped in and the pedal in the horizontal position toward the front wheel,run a plumb line 1" back from the front of the knee to the centre of the pedal axle, this should line up, if it dose'nt,move the saddle on it's rails....:thumbup:

Michael W is quite right about the Bottom bracket height being variable. It is generally accepted that the correct saddle height is when the "extended" leg is just stretched whilst sitting on the saddle) with the heel (of a cycling shoe) resting on the pedal at bottom dead centre. As Michael rightly says a high bottom bracket will affect the distance from saddle to ground. I almost fell into this trap when I was riding one of my classic cycle collection (A "Bates" (of London) recently. Forgot it had a higher than normal BB height and just saved myself from toppling in time.....

Lemond says: inseam *.883 from saddle top to the middle of the bottom bracket.

I tried it, and it works. I had high speed and increased endurance right away.

Any bike I have is now immediately set up with the tape measure, and left alone.

I used to be a "it varies, it depends on the individual" person. No more. It doesn't vary, it doesn't depend. .883.

Try it for seven rides.

0.883 *inseam from BB to saddle top:
What precision of measurement are you talking. +- ?mm
How does that take account of
crank length
saddle compressability
shoe sole thickness
cleat thickness
pedal thickness

Originally posted by MichaelW
0.883 *inseam from BB to saddle top:
What precision of measurement are you talking. +- ?mm
How does that take account of
crank length
saddle compressability
shoe sole thickness
cleat thickness
pedal thickness

I don't know how much one might deviate from .883 and still enjoy more or less all of the benefits of the Lemond saddle height. Obviously if your saddle is set at .885 or .881 or something there should be no measurable difference.

Since I started with the Lemond method, my own saddle height has been as much as 1/8" from .883, which is something like .004 of my inseam length. I didn't notice or measure any difference with this deviation.

As to the other items you ask about, look, the formula makes a claim about the ideal distance between the bottom of your butt and the center of the bottom bracket. It doesn't say, for example, that you must have cranks of a certain length. So, no, the formula doesn't purport to solve all of your riding problems. But the Lemond method worked to better my riding immediately. I have slightly longer than normal cranks (125mm) and I use Time pedals with Specialized mtb shoes. There's nothing special about these choices. So I think that the formula would benefit anyone whose choice of crank length, pedals, and compressibility of shoes(?) is within the standard range for these things.

Lemond does say that you ought to subtract 3mm from the result of .883*inseam, to provide some further information.

I recommend that you try the method. If you try to get as close as you can to Lemond's suggested height you'll be able to give it a fair test, even if you guess about the amount you sink into a saddle or whatever.

Lemond's height feels like a nice compromise between hard pushing down the front and full-circle pedaling. It also helps you bring your knees in very close to the bike. This is another benefit Lemond claims for his saddle height.

Whether it really helps with the wind, I don't know. I do know that I rode a personal best time in less than ideal conditions immediately over an 18 mile loop near home when I switched.

As I said, I used to dismiss rigid recommendations. After trying the method, though, I'll stick with it.

You know, there are cyclists all over the place with their own favourite ideas. OK Lemond is well known BUT it is usually the Mechanics who sort things out. Best thing is to get a comfortable position which suits you and get on with the important thing which is actually RIDING the bike. There was a common saying in the UK a few years ago -- "It's all in the mind"
..........and most of it is!!!

David Hicks (who still thinks that Fausto Coppi was the BEST and look how low he sat!)

Originally posted by fausto
You know, there are cyclists all over the place with their own favourite ideas. OK Lemond is well known BUT it is usually the Mechanics who sort things out.

There are some who will be suspicious of any kind of official or received or researched opinion. If you're that sort, and prefer a kind of trial and error method, knock yourself out.

For the purposes of clarification, though, the measurement Lemond recommends is based on measurements of power production and from data in the wind tunnel. Cyril Guimard and Lemond did the research on saddle height sometime in the 80's.

There is also a study by Wilson, I think, or two guys called Hamley and Thomson, I don't remember which off of the top of my head. The result of this study is that power is maximized when a saddle is 1.09*inseam from the top of the pedal when the pedal is parallel to the seat tube and down low. Variation of just a few percent of this amount made for significant loss of power and/or endurance.

For most people, with typical crank length and pedals, the Lemond method and the 1.09 method will yield saddle heights that are nearly the same.

So, there is the evidence for researched saddle heights. Evidence is not certainty but it's not meaningless either.

I must assume that you have seen the words "Junior Member" under my name - as it is yours. In my case it is rather out of date! I have been riding now for just over 50 years. I have raced - been a Club Champion - and toured extensively. I venture to suggest that I have perhaps ridden just a few more miles than you! Do what you want -- I really don t mind. Just trying to add an opinion. Oh, by the by, apart from being a rider I have also run a succesful cycle business and have a collection of over 50 lightweight cycles - all restored and ridden regularly.

A' revoir David

I'm looking at cdc28p's original post in this thread. There's another explanation for the apparent low saddle height of some, if not all, TdF riders.

Most amateurs adjust saddle height on a stationary bike. When they go on training rides or race, there's very little feedback from fellow riders. The mental picture amateurs have of their leg extension at bottom dead center is what they saw and felt on the stationary bike: "leg almost fully extended."

Pros also adjust saddle height on a stationary bike. But they are videotaped as they crank at high rpms and at around 300 watts of output. Looking at one of those "power and speed" videos, it becomes immediately apparent that the "almost straight at bottom dead center" position now looks more like a very low saddle position.

You can see this yourself. Videotape your stationary position (VCR at exactly 90 degrees to the bike and at top-tube height) for about 10 seconds with the crank that faces the VCR in line with seat tube. Keep the VCR rolling and start cranking up the rpms and the power. At about 100 rpm and 250 watts, you'l be amazed how "low" your position will look when you watch the tape.

I think Guimard et Hinault caught on to this huge difference between stationary and power-generating positions sometime in the early 80's.

J

I would think (due to several courses in vehicle dynamics, aerodynamic, and the like) that a low seat would be best for mountain stages, where there would be:
1)long out-of-saddle climbs, followed by
2)very fast descents.
This would provide a lower center of gravity.
On the other hand, the bikes used for the time trial sections invariably had a very high saddle, with very low bars (special bars for time trials). This provides the best aerodynamics.

Originally posted by fausto
I must assume that you have seen the words "Junior Member" under my name - as it is yours. In my case it is rather out of date! I have been riding now for just over 50 years. I have raced - been a Club Champion - and toured extensively. I venture to suggest that I have perhaps ridden just a few more miles than you! Do what you want -- I really don t mind. Just trying to add an opinion. Oh, by the by, apart from being a rider I have also run a succesful cycle business and have a collection of over 50 lightweight cycles - all restored and ridden regularly.

A' revoir David

Fausto, I hope you won't take my remarks in the wrong light. It wasn't my intention to cast aspersion on your credentials. I didn't make anything one way or the other out of your posting history. It's good to see we've got an experienced rider like yourself around.

What I was trying to do was clear up a misapprehension that your remark might have suggested. Lemond's suggestion is more than just a guess based on his own riding, or one more guy's opinion. Guimard and Lemond actually have something like real evidence for the recommendation. In addition, as I was saying, there is another substantial study on power and saddle height the results of which are close to the Lemond recommendations. Many here might not realize either of these things, so I thought it was worth pointing out in light of your comment.

I'm willing to take recorded research very seriously when it comes to cycling. An opinion based on long experience is obviously worth considering as well, particularly in an area where matters are not settled. So, if you have any specific reason for thinking that the Lemond recommendations are incomplete in some way, please tell us. I would be interested to hear. As it is, though, there is respectable, if incomplete, body of evidence to support something like the Lemond recommendations. That's what I thought worth point out. Cheers.

The point that I was trying to make is that one should not worry about fractions of centimetres. The important thing to do is to get out there and RIDE THE BICYCLE. It is the most magic form of transport known to man bar none. Enjoy sliding gently through the quiet lanes - come upon wild life before they know you are there. See glorious sunsets. Marvel at wonderful sunrises. Battle against Gale Force winds Enjoy the Elements All these things teach one the truth of Nature. No other form of transport can such wonders.

Ride in Competition - Win if you Can BUT remember that racing is only part of the great game of Cycling There is so much more