Originally Posted by
Fiery
For myself, I go by the knee angle for general adjustment and tune by feel from there, and I can see the OP is doing so as well. I aim for the 145-155 range (or 25-35 from fully extended), but am not averse to going higher or lower if I notice problems.
I did not read pg. 128 of "Greg Lemond's Complete Book of Bicycling", nor have I seen anyone mention adjusting height with regards to crank arm length in any formal way when
LeMond/Guimard formula is discussed. It seems that this part has become a part of common wisdom when it comes to setting saddle height using said formula. And, again, even if someone does adjust for crank arm length per instructions from LeMond's book (or uses another formula which takes it automatically into account, such as the 109% one), any and all formulas that calculate saddle height as a percentage of inseam length will still be unreliable in setting the optimal knee bend angle, and knee bend angle seems to be considered as the most important measurement by most current fitters. I do not think that angle measurement is be-all-end-all when it comes to saddle height, but if one is able to measure knee angle, one should believe this measurement more than any calculation by inseam length.
More on knee angle vs. inseam length: Saddle Height and Power | CyclingAnalysis.com
I'm with you on this one, going after knee angle and feel is the way to do it. If I set my seat height after either the Lemond or 109% method I would probably end up too high with a knee angle of 20-25 degrees. Right now my knee angle is around 34 degrees which I find to be good. It seems like very few cyclists actually have a 25 degree knee angle, seems like most people, including the pros ha a knee angle of around 30-35 degrees. BTW, when you measure your inseam do you measure with your bike shorts on or with out? I assume you should not wear cycling shoes, am I correct?