Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Fitting Your Bike
Reload this Page >

109% method...What am I doing wrong?

Notices
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.

109% method...What am I doing wrong?

Old 06-22-19, 10:38 PM
  #1  
MAK
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,399

Bikes: Yes, I have bikes.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 5 Posts
109% method...What am I doing wrong?

I've been riding for years and have used the 'heel pedal backwards' method to measure saddle height. I recently realized that I wasn't able to engage my hamstrings effectively so I raised my height about 2-3mm and felt more efficient. Also a slight knee soreness disappeared. I have no hip movement (reaching) and have a slight knee bend at the bottom of the pedal stroke.

I decided to try the 109% method. Wearing cycling socks and cycling shorts I measured my inseam (book in crotch to floor) at 74.5cm (3 times to be sure).
74.5x1.09=81.205cm. Measured from the pedal axle (pedal in-line with seat tube/furthest point from seat) to the top of the seat at center of seat post saddle attachment and found that 81.2 cm was 8 cm below where my seat is currently. I understand that any method is a starting point, but I expected maybe 1 or 2cm, not 8cm.

Did I do something wrong? Since the 109% method goes from the pedal axle to the seat, crank size is essentially irrelevant. The 8cm difference was consistent with my road, touring, ss/fixie and hybrid.

BTW...I'm 5' 10", 210 lbs. and wear pants with a 29" inseam.

I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.
MAK is offline  
Old 06-23-19, 07:10 AM
  #2  
berner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bristol, R. I.
Posts: 3,572

Bikes: Specialized Secteur, old Peugeot

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 345 Post(s)
Liked 69 Times in 56 Posts
Something is off somewhere. Where does the 1 X 1.09 come from? So far as I know, Lemond's formula is .883 X crotch heigth, then add the crank length for the heigth from the pedal. The length of the foot enters into it also because a long foot effectively adds to leg length. So after the .883 measurement, the saddle may need to go up or down a cm or so and if you pedal toe down, that also adds to effective leg length. In any case just a bit of adjustment after the measurement and initial saddle heigth should be all that is needed. https://forums.roadbikereview.com/ge...it-183302.html
berner is offline  
Old 06-23-19, 07:22 AM
  #3  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 14,671

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked 100 Times in 65 Posts
109% is from the pedal.

From the center of the axle to top of saddle is Lemond Method, .883 of the inseam (not 1.09 inseam).
wphamilton is offline  
Old 06-23-19, 01:55 PM
  #4  
Iride01
Senior Member
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 2,332

Bikes: '91 Schwinn Paramount '78 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 880 Post(s)
Liked 32 Times in 28 Posts
It's also your inside leg length from snug in the crotch to floor. Not your pants inseam. As well formulas work well when your body is within the criteria of the person that came up with them. However they almost always leave someone out.
Iride01 is offline  
Old 06-23-19, 02:39 PM
  #5  
MAK
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,399

Bikes: Yes, I have bikes.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 5 Posts
I truly appreciate that people give advice to fellow cyclists on this forum but it is frustrating when some contributors don't fully read the OP's message/request for information.

Where does the 1 X 1.09 come from? So far as I know, Lemond's formula is .883 X crotch heigth, then add the crank length for the heigth from the pedal.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU READ 1 x 1.09. IT SAYS 74.5 x1.09. 109% FORMULA AND .883 METHOD ARE TWO DIFFERENT METHODS.

109% is from the pedal. From the center of the axle...
I MEASURED FROM THE PEDAL AXLE, NOT THE CRANK AXLE.

It's also your inside leg length from snug in the crotch to floor. Not your pants inseam.
I DID USE THE BOOK IN THE CROTCH MEASUREMENT, NOT MY PANTS INSEAM.
MAK is offline  
Old 06-23-19, 02:53 PM
  #6  
Iride01
Senior Member
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 2,332

Bikes: '91 Schwinn Paramount '78 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 880 Post(s)
Liked 32 Times in 28 Posts
There is no question mark at the end of any of your sentences with 1 X 1.09 in the original OP. I've never heard of that method, nor do I take much stock in any method for fitting that involves crunching numbers. For me it's a visual along with trial and error.

No matter where you measure to or from, you will still have to do minor adjustments. It's how your bodies pieces parts feel that matter, not what a number says.
Iride01 is offline  
Old 06-23-19, 03:38 PM
  #7  
MAK
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,399

Bikes: Yes, I have bikes.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Iride01 View Post
There is no question mark at the end of any of your sentences with 1 X 1.09 in the original OP. I've never heard of that method, nor do I take much stock in any method for fitting that involves crunching numbers. For me it's a visual along with trial and error.

No matter where you measure to or from, you will still have to do minor adjustments. It's how your bodies pieces parts feel that matter, not what a number says.
Question marks where???

You've never heard of that method but you know where the measurements are taken???

ADMINISTRATORS...PLEASE KILL THIS THREAD...IT'S NOT WORTH IT.

THANK YOU.
MAK is offline  
Old 06-23-19, 04:01 PM
  #8  
ChinookTx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Gatineau, Quebec
Posts: 263

Bikes: Kona Rove Ti., Motobecane Whipshot Ti

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked 48 Times in 35 Posts
With 1300+ posts, I'd think you'd know by now to not ask questions on bike forums if you don't want answers that are not to your liking... People don't read, get used to it!

A formula is a starting point. Nobody is made the same way, and what feels good to someone might not to someone else.

Last edited by ChinookTx; 06-23-19 at 04:21 PM.
ChinookTx is offline  
Old 06-23-19, 05:14 PM
  #9  
tjk23 
Senior Member
 
tjk23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Southeast
Posts: 346
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MAK View Post
I've been riding for years and have used the 'heel pedal backwards' method to measure saddle height. I recently realized that I wasn't able to engage my hamstrings effectively so I raised my height about 2-3mm and felt more efficient. Also a slight knee soreness disappeared. I have no hip movement (reaching) and have a slight knee bend at the bottom of the pedal stroke.

I decided to try the 109% method. Wearing cycling socks and cycling shorts I measured my inseam (book in crotch to floor) at 74.5cm (3 times to be sure).
74.5x1.09=81.205cm. Measured from the pedal axle (pedal in-line with seat tube/furthest point from seat) to the top of the seat at center of seat post saddle attachment and found that 81.2 cm was 8 cm below where my seat is currently. I understand that any method is a starting point, but I expected maybe 1 or 2cm, not 8cm.

Did I do something wrong? Since the 109% method goes from the pedal axle to the seat, crank size is essentially irrelevant. The 8cm difference was consistent with my road, touring, ss/fixie and hybrid.

BTW...I'm 5' 10", 210 lbs. and wear pants with a 29" inseam.

I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.
I've used both the Lemmond .883 and the 109% method and in my case they are really close 80 cm inseam x109=87.2. 80cm x .883=70.64. I ride 172.5 cranks so the difference is only .64 and after subtracting the .3 they recommend for clipless pedals the numbers are even closer. Just wondering what your saddle height from center of bottom bracket is currently. The difference could just be that you are a toe pointer when you pedal.
tjk23 is offline  
Old 06-23-19, 05:14 PM
  #10  
ThermionicScott 
hungry
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 19,051

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers)

Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2302 Post(s)
Liked 263 Times in 198 Posts
Originally Posted by MAK View Post
Did I do something wrong?
Maybe not. I set my bikes up by feel and the few times that I have attempted to measure the BB to saddle distance or any of that, the numbers never jibed with any formula. So I promptly went back to not worrying about it.
__________________
Originally Posted by chandltp View Post
There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
RUSA #7498
ThermionicScott is offline  
Likes For ThermionicScott:
Old 06-23-19, 05:26 PM
  #11  
BengalCat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Brentwood WLA
Posts: 152

Bikes: 50/34, 11-40, 11 Speed

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 15 Posts
I have for experimental purposes used every type of formula (including the 1.09 you mention) that I've run across. For me, they produce widely different seat heights all of them resulting in a shorter seat height than my pro fit. (I'm not suggesting you or anyone else needs a pro fit.)

Good luck with what you seek.
BengalCat is offline  
Old 06-23-19, 08:11 PM
  #12  
MAK
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,399

Bikes: Yes, I have bikes.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by ChinookTx View Post
With 1300+ posts, I'd think you'd know by now to not ask questions on bike forums if you don't want answers that are not to your liking... People don't read, get used to it!

A formula is a starting point. Nobody is made the same way, and what feels good to someone might not to someone else.
I agree. It just seemed that a difference of +/- 8cm was way off.
MAK is offline  
Old 06-23-19, 08:12 PM
  #13  
MAK
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,399

Bikes: Yes, I have bikes.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by ThermionicScott View Post
Maybe not. I set my bikes up by feel and the few times that I have attempted to measure the BB to saddle distance or any of that, the numbers never jibed with any formula. So I promptly went back to not worrying about it.
Not worrying about it makes perfect sense.
MAK is offline  
Old 06-23-19, 08:21 PM
  #14  
MAK
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,399

Bikes: Yes, I have bikes.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by tjk23 View Post
I've used both the Lemmond .883 and the 109% method and in my case they are really close 80 cm inseam x109=87.2. 80cm x .883=70.64. I ride 172.5 cranks so the difference is only .64 and after subtracting the .3 they recommend for clipless pedals the numbers are even closer. Just wondering what your saddle height from center of bottom bracket is currently. The difference could just be that you are a toe pointer when you pedal.
The 109% method has me at 81.2cm but my saddle height currently is 89.5cm. I haven't tried the .883 method.
I am not a toe pointer, my feet are pretty flat through the stroke.
MAK is offline  
Old 06-24-19, 08:49 AM
  #15  
Iride01
Senior Member
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 2,332

Bikes: '91 Schwinn Paramount '78 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 880 Post(s)
Liked 32 Times in 28 Posts
Originally Posted by MAK View Post
You've never heard of that method but you know where the measurements are taken???
Well in your OP you stated that your pants inseam was 29". While I don't recall ever hearing of the 109% method. I certainly don't think any useful measurement for cycling fit will be based on pant size. However many are based on the length of your leg.

So please chill, your OP is not without plenty of statements that can be taken more than one way. And there is no direct question ask IMO.

It's not my wish to offend you, but you keep calling me out. Ignore me if I'm not helpful.
Iride01 is offline  
Old 06-24-19, 09:51 AM
  #16  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 14,671

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked 100 Times in 65 Posts
Originally Posted by tjk23 View Post
I've used both the Lemmond .883 and the 109% method and in my case they are really close 80 cm inseam x109=87.2. 80cm x .883=70.64. I ride 172.5 cranks so the difference is only .64 and after subtracting the .3 they recommend for clipless pedals the numbers are even closer. Just wondering what your saddle height from center of bottom bracket is currently. The difference could just be that you are a toe pointer when you pedal.
They always will be, because the two are mathematically the same with your 172.5 crank when your inseam is 32.4 inches. Which is a cycling inseam that's close to OP's "29 inch" pants inseam.

I don't know what OP's problem is, as he's obviously measuring something incorrectly or misapplying the formula, and then barking at people pointing out where his error might be.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 06-24-19, 01:11 PM
  #17  
phughes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,210
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked 36 Times in 28 Posts
Originally Posted by MAK View Post
I've been riding for years and have used the 'heel pedal backwards' method to measure saddle height. I recently realized that I wasn't able to engage my hamstrings effectively so I raised my height about 2-3mm and felt more efficient. Also a slight knee soreness disappeared. I have no hip movement (reaching) and have a slight knee bend at the bottom of the pedal stroke.

I decided to try the 109% method. Wearing cycling socks and cycling shorts I measured my inseam (book in crotch to floor) at 74.5cm (3 times to be sure).
74.5x1.09=81.205cm. Measured from the pedal axle (pedal in-line with seat tube/furthest point from seat) to the top of the seat at center of seat post saddle attachment and found that 81.2 cm was 8 cm below where my seat is currently. I understand that any method is a starting point, but I expected maybe 1 or 2cm, not 8cm.

Did I do something wrong? Since the 109% method goes from the pedal axle to the seat, crank size is essentially irrelevant. The 8cm difference was consistent with my road, touring, ss/fixie and hybrid.

BTW...I'm 5' 10", 210 lbs. and wear pants with a 29" inseam.

I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.
My thoughts are, don't get hung up on numbers and calculations. They may be a starting point, but they are not a great way to fine tune saddle height, or any other part of bike fit. For seat height, take a look at this: https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...ard-can-it-be/
phughes is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ArmChairRider
Fitting Your Bike
9
07-07-16 08:11 PM
wiselydone
Road Cycling
1
06-06-13 09:46 AM
Saephan215
Road Cycling
20
03-04-12 01:37 PM
m4rx12
Singlespeed & Fixed Gear
1
04-04-11 10:08 PM
lil'hobo
Road Cycling
4
07-21-10 11:20 AM

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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.