Having the proper position not just saddle height, prevents "problems", maximizes efficiency, power production and comfort.

-Bandera

Haha, I had just come home from a ride, didn't bother taking them of.

It is well documented that any method that calculates saddle height as a percentage of inseam length is completely unreliable in setting the optimal knee bend, especially so with the LeMond/Guimard formula which doesn't take into account the crank length.

If the Guimard/LeMond system doesn't meet your requirements can you recommend one that does to the OP, or should he just continue to ignore the results he 1st got w/ the G/L system and randomly move his seat up & or down?

PS
Have you read pg. 128 regarding crankarm length in "The Second Step: Overall Height" from "Greg Lemond's Complete Book of Bicycling" ISBN 0-399-13229-5?

-Bandera

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 hasn't 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 currently trying the Steve Hogg method. I have already lowered the seat about 5mm. He is not a big fan of angles or formulas.

https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...ard-can-it-be/

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?

This is what I used to do, and I found that I kept moving the saddle lower and lower with time. At one point I decided to measure various angles and compare against standard recommendations as a sanity check, and discovered that my knee angle was way outside any recommended range. After that I raised the saddle a lot (around 2cm) and focused on keeping my legs loose in the initial period of adjustment. So far, there hasn't been any problems; I'm still at the lower range of recommendations, close to 35 degrees and there's no bouncing on higher caddences or pain in the back of the knee or Achilles tendon.


[MENTION=364258]veganpower[/MENTION], personally, I measured without shoes or cycling shorts. I use relatively thin chamois anyway, and wearing cycling shoes only adds the height of the heel pads, not the actual cleat stack. Using LeMond formula against this measurement, I get saddle height slightly lower than what I actually have at the moment.