Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Fitting Your Bike Are you confused about how you should fit a bike to your particular body dimensions? Have you been reading, found the terms Merxx or French Fit, and don’t know what you need? Every style of riding is different- in how you fit the bike to you, and the sizing of the bike itself. It’s more than just measuring your height, reach and inseam. With the help of Bike Fitting, you’ll be able to find the right fit for your frame size, style of riding, and your particular dimensions. Here ya’ go…..the location for everything fit related.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-29-14, 08:52 PM   #1
The B
(retired from forum)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 163
Quest for flat back.... saddle height and crank length

Howdy

I've got stubby little legs with a 31" inseam. I'm pretty borderline for 170 or 172.5, have been using a 172.5, and I've recently been wondering if I couldn't improve cadence and efficiency by dropping to a 170mm crank. Then, on a long bomb down mountain roads last night, it also occurred to me that this would have the side (and even more pronounced/beneficial) effect of giving me another 2.5mm of saddle height and thigh clearance to get tilted even farther forward more comfortably...

Sound reasoning, no? Any reason I shouldn't expect to be able to flatten out a little better after shortening my stroke diameter a full 5mm??

Thanks

-B

Last edited by The B; 06-30-14 at 10:41 PM. Reason: fixed my cm/mm problem
The B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-14, 11:12 PM   #2
Leisesturm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 2,153
I'm not following your math or your reasoning. FWIW I am 5'10 and my inseam is around 33". I have 165mm pedals on one of my bikes. Most of them have 170 but a couple have 175. None have 172.5. If you get from that that I don't think that there is a magic crank length for a given inseam you would be right. Nor do I think the average person could tell the difference between a 170 and a 175 crank. But lets say it is true. How does the 2.5mm difference in crank length result in a 25mm reduction in seat height?

H
Leisesturm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-14, 11:17 PM   #3
The B
(retired from forum)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
I'm not following your math or your reasoning. FWIW I am 5'10 and my inseam is around 33". I have 165mm pedals on one of my bikes. Most of them have 170 but a couple have 175. None have 172.5. If you get from that that I don't think that there is a magic crank length for a given inseam you would be right. Nor do I think the average person could tell the difference between a 170 and a 175 crank. But lets say it is true. How does the 2.5mm difference in crank length result in a 25mm reduction in seat height?

H
Not reduction- increase.

But you're right- my numbers are retardedly off. Obviously mixed up my CMs and my MMs in a spot or two.

But what I'd get is a 2.5mm INCREASE in saddle height, if I wanted it (not 25mm), and a 5mm overall decrease in pedal stroke diameter.
The B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-14, 11:24 PM   #4
The B
(retired from forum)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 163
I don't know what 5mm comes out to by the time you get out to the shoulders, but if it's an extra inch, it's an extra inch in the right direction.
The B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-14, 11:42 PM   #5
CharlyAlfaRomeo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by The B View Post
I don't know what 5mm comes out to by the time you get out to the shoulders, but if it's an extra inch, it's an extra inch in the right direction.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. What shoulders? And where do you get an inch from?

Flattening your back has to do with core strength, flexibility and whether you can comfortably roll your pelvis forward on your saddle, 2.5 mm of added saddle height won't make a lick of difference in this regard.

If you have a hard time spinning 172.5 mm cranks a 170 isn't much of a change, maybe try a 165.
CharlyAlfaRomeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-14, 02:12 AM   #6
jyl
Senior Member
 
jyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland OR
Bikes: 61 Bianchi Specialissima 71 Peugeot G50 7? P'geot PX10 74 Raleigh GranSport 75 P'geot UO8 78? Raleigh Team Pro 82 P'geot PSV 86 P'geot PX 91 Bridgestone MB0 92 B'stone XO1 97 Rans VRex 92 Cannondale R1000 94 B'stone MB5 97 Vitus 997
Posts: 6,911
If your thighs are hitting your belly or ribs, and that is preventing you from getting your back more horizontal, you might also try moving your saddle forward, raising your saddle, or losing some girth around the midsection.
jyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-14, 11:18 AM   #7
Ditka86
Junior Member
 
Ditka86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Bikes:
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by The B View Post
Not reduction- increase.

But you're right- my numbers are retardedly off. Obviously mixed up my CMs and my MMs in a spot or two.

But what I'd get is a 2.5mm INCREASE in saddle height, if I wanted it (not 25mm), and a 5mm overall decrease in pedal stroke diameter.
I think you get a decrease in saddle height (not that I think 2.5mm decrease/increase would be noticeable) by using a longer crank. Your pedal would be 2.5mm lower at the bottom of the stroke than where it is now so you would need to lower the seat, granted it is also 2.5mm higher at the top of the stroke. I don't know of anyone who sets their seat based off of where the pedal is at the top of the rotation though.

EDIT: My bad, I need to learn to read, yes a shorter crank would theoretically need a seat raise.

Last edited by Ditka86; 06-30-14 at 07:12 PM. Reason: I was stupid
Ditka86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-14, 01:45 PM   #8
Leisesturm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 2,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ditka86 View Post
I think you get a decrease in saddle height (not that I think 2.5mm decrease/increase would be noticeable) by using a longer crank. Your pedal would be 2.5mm lower at the bottom of the stroke than where it is now so you would need to lower the seat, granted it is also 2.5mm higher at the top of the stroke. I don't know of anyone who sets their seat based off of where the pedal is at the top of the rotation though.
This. Its what I was saying earlier. Because the pedal circle shrinks away from you the saddle must be lowered to meet it. But 2.5mm is not a perceptible difference. I don't even think 5mm is. A couple of degrees difference in the pointing of the toes makes much more difference.

H
Leisesturm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-14, 02:00 PM   #9
CharlyAlfaRomeo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 619
He's talking about going to a SHORTER crank so he could raise his saddle because at the bottom of the stroke the pedal will be 2.5 mm higher.

It still won't make any noticeable difference.
CharlyAlfaRomeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-14, 08:48 PM   #10
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Posts: 10,993
I'm the same way: short legs and my thighs hit my ribs when I'm down. Manufacturers don't offer enough choice in crank lengths.

Here's a crank length calculator:
Optimum Bicycle Crank Length Calculator
Carbonfiberboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-14, 09:29 PM   #11
chaadster
Thread Killer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Bikes:
Posts: 7,454
I think the OP's reasoning is sound, but also agree that an extra 2.5mm at the top of the stroke is probably going to be undetectable, although it won't hurt anything, either.
chaadster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-14, 07:00 PM   #12
The B
(retired from forum)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
I'm the same way: short legs and my thighs hit my ribs when I'm down. Manufacturers don't offer enough choice in crank lengths.

Here's a crank length calculator:
Optimum Bicycle Crank Length Calculator
According to that thing, I need 163mm cranks.... It's been a while since I've investigated methods, but I don't think any I've used have ever put me at that short.

I will need to investigate this... coming down to a 165 or 160 would obviously have even greater effect on angle relief
The B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-14, 07:26 PM   #13
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by The B View Post
According to that thing, I need 163mm cranks.... It's been a while since I've investigated methods, but I don't think any I've used have ever put me at that short.

I will need to investigate this... coming down to a 165 or 160 would obviously have even greater effect on angle relief
165's are fairly easy to find.
Carbonfiberboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-14, 08:16 PM   #14
Road Fan
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Bikes:
Posts: 12,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by The B View Post
Howdy

I've got stubby little legs with a 31" inseam. I'm pretty borderline for 170 or 172.5, have been using a 172.5, and I've recently been wondering if I couldn't improve cadence and efficiency by dropping to a 170mm crank. Then, on a long bomb down mountain roads last night, it also occurred to me that this would have the side (and even more pronounced/beneficial) effect of giving me another 2.5mm of saddle height and thigh clearance to get tilted even farther forward more comfortably...

Sound reasoning, no? Any reason I shouldn't expect to be able to flatten out a little better after shortening my stroke diameter a full 5mm??

Thanks

-B
My inseam is 81.5 cm, about 32, and I just switched back from 172.5 to 170. Feels like home, and I can spin well, again.

I think a flat back is based on good stretch-out, strong core, and body balanced over the BB, with the saddle height not too high. With all that, you can find the comfortable bar height. But if it doesn't feel natural it's not likely to be right.
Road Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:18 PM.