You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I'm interested in any input from bike fitters or from anyone's experience, mainly from a road / gravel / XC POV, RE how saddle heights can vary based on increasing/decreasing flexibility (hamstrings/hip flexors etc), the fitting methods used for bike fit and also how it varies with crank length?
For anyone who might have more specific experience or input, or FWIW if others are looking at this area for lower back or hip tension, my background -
I have a few bikes and they all vary in use, also vary a bit in crank length and saddle heights. I've been fairly slack when it comes to stretching and 12+ years of long distances (12-25 hrs a week, regular centuries up to 300-600km audaxes etc), desk work with probable odd posture, and being well into middle age all added up to give me some lower back and RHS hip/groin tensions. Stretching a little every day has relieved a lot of this and it's influenced my bike fit.
I recently re-measured my inside leg and looked at my saddle heights. I'd previously used the Lemond method, which is suggested to give a number that's about 5mm too high for modern pedals and shoes. I was on 175mm cranks on all bikes back then (~88.5cm IL).
I'd measured my IL about 10mm too short a long time ago and had fixed that number in mind, but also used the Lemond number un-adjusted partly as I'd moved to 170 and 172.5mm cranks. So I was probably in the right area give or take a few mm.
Since working on flexibility (physio said I have high resting muscle tension, and short hamstrings prob weren't helping either) I thought my saddle might be worth looking at also. I measured my IL more accurately at 9mm longer than before so I got a Lemond method saddle height 8mm higher.
The 1.09 method that's often quoted gives me a much higher saddle height, about 7cm higher again. Feels way off to me even with 170mm cranks, yet I'm finding gradual adjustments past where I was feel ok. I've adjusted my Lemond method number to account for crank lengths, ie I use the number it gives as if it's for 175s so I've raised the saddle another 5mm for the bikes that use 170s. (Still with me? Ha.. )
All in all I'm up to 17mm higher saddle to BB compared to where I spent most of the last 10 years and it feels fine. I believe we're adaptable to bike sizing if we get past muscle memory but that's from someone who plays around with fit and geometry happily rather than someone who understands the longer-term physical impacts of bike fit.
I've honestly begun to think saddle height really isn't as important as we all think it is, I seem to have a 20mm window where I barely even notice and tend to sit at the lower end of that, especially based on the Road Cycling Academy vids with Neil (Stander?) which were quite informative.
Saddle fore and aft seems much more critical (and yes, I realise that basic trigonometry would suggest therefore saddle height was also) so I just make sure saddle nose - BB centre is the same when I adjust up and down.
If it's too high I notice it at the top/back of my calf as I think this is where the hamstring tendon connects, same as if I were to suddenly drop the bars 40mm or try to do an entire ride in the drops, so I guess that's where your flexibility comes in.
Again, in my experience, low back and hip pain is more of a hip angle thing which seems more affected by saddle fore-aft. I read somewhere, and it rings true for me, that the drop from bars to saddle is typically accommodated by your upper body and arms, to the point where you feel it behind your shoulders if too low.
I still believe all my right hand side hip pain/discomfort is driven by a weak or inactive glute medius/glute max, and before I can properly work them I need to rebuild strength so am doing lots of isometrics e.g. wall push, glute bridge holds etc.
If you fit shorter cranks, you'll need to raise your saddle by the same amount to keep the same distance from the saddle to the pedal.
Again, in my experience, low back and hip pain is more of a hip angle thing which seems more affected by saddle fore-aft.
Agree. I am finding 172.5 cranks increase that angle over the 165 I used to use (saddle lower and knee coming up higher for 172.5 versus 165) and am getting some hip joint pain that I have never had before.
Again, in my experience, low back and hip pain is more of a hip angle thing which seems more affected by saddle fore-aft.
Yes agreed - a long time ago I got climbing-related lower back tension and an almost-inline post made it all a lot better, about a degree steeper effective STA. Of course I carried on without addressing the root cause as adapting bike was easier than adapting body...!
I tend to be happier on a slightly steeper STA generally anyway and find it more likely that I balance out on an average road bike with saddles fwd rather than back, for my proportions. My gravel bike is on a much steeper STA for other reasons and that works fine too.
Maybe saddle height is like bar position - when your C of G is right via saddle fore-aft adjustment, a lot of things matter less.
Hi James,
If pocket allows may I suggest speaking to Cyclefit and getting a fit. Pretty sure they will be alternatives to the LeMond method. Probably the longest standing in recent times bike fitters in the UK and they will actually look at your body moving and its range of movement. I had a fit by Jules back in like err...2008? when Serotta were a thing and before he took all he learned from me and went to adjust Fabian's saddle height....
Dan
I tend to be happier on a slightly steeper STA generally anyway and find it more likely that I balance out on an average road bike with saddles fwd rather than back, for my proportions. My gravel bike is on a much steeper STA for other reasons and that works fine too.
Yeah... I got carried away with taking weight off hands and arms by sliding saddles back, then fitted 20mm setback posts and shorter stems, then realised my low back was much happier sliding things forwards again! Now have lots of saddles slid forward in setback posts 😣😣
About the fore-aft point.. I wonder what it is in pedal to saddle dimensions that causes hip pain since Keith Bontrager's article about KOPS is a good dismissal of saddle to pedal relationships in that plane - you're pedalling around a point and gravity isn't the main thing so the angle over the BB isn't critical to pedalling. I think it's about leg extension or how open it all is in the power stroke.
I got carried away with taking weight off hands and arms by sliding saddles back
Same here when I had hand nerve damage after a big ride 10 yrs back. I learned about how comfy a bike could be as well as how bad a road/gravel bike is when you don't have any nose weight! These days I think I need to adapt to the bike as much as the bike has to fit to me (if I want to be comfy as well as the bike handling well), but that gets complicated to solve.
@mugsys_m8 it's a good call. I got Phil Burt's 'Bike Fit' book recently and need to get into it. I'll probably be back here in a few weeks with some nugget from the book about all this.. I use the Lemond calc as it's about as good and consistent a method as I've found as a starting point but I know better fitters don't use calculations. Tony Corke's a fitter I was impressed by and I think a visit might be a good thing.
Too low is always better than too high. Over extension is injury generating. I prefer the 0.883 times inside leg and not worry about crank length too much. I’m a 33” inseam measure with book against a wall, and that puts me at about 74 cm BB to top of saddle. For TT I go down to 72 cm for aeros. Position over BB is more important than height and I like to be well-balanced. I ride 165 to 175 cranks and barely notice any difference. Saddle position over BB is, however, identical 6cm setback nose to BB. This is irrespective of seat tube angle. Too steep and you’ll need a setback seatpost, too slack and inline is fine. Perhaps it is the setback and height that gives you issues. Try 0.883x inseam for BB to saddle top, stop worrying about crank length, and see where that puts you.
Try 0.883x inseam for BB to saddle top, stop worrying about crank length, and see where that puts you.
That's basically where I am now. My 1st post probably wasn't clear, I expect I've been too low in the past despite using that same method, due to not measuring IL accurately a long time ago (underestimated it) and sticking with the approx same saddle height number since. It's only getting flexibility back and looking at it all again inc an accurate IL measurement that's resulted in the higher saddle that feels ok. Still, only talking about 20mm range or less in total.
I understand why a TT bike has a steep STA or how steeper might help with a lower front end, but I'm not sure why consistent setback is important. I adjust my saddle fore-aft so that I feel well balanced over the bike, it's related to my weight distribution between the wheels. On a road or gravel bike this tends to put my c of g a bit in front of the BB. Never measured setback though.
I like to be in the same position over the BB because cycling is an exercise in repetition. And repetition in the wrong way leads to injury. So track, cross, road all have the same position. TT is forwards to rotate a lower front. Handling is about wheelbase, head angle, centre of gravity and reach and bar drop. Those can vary by bike. Position over BB does not for me.
Track, road and CX are fairly close in fit / layout so setback can be the same, makes sense. These days I ride a road bike, sort-of-gravel-experiment drop bar bike and a Jones MTB mostly, they're all quite different in terms of front-rear centre balance and bars so it wouldn't work as well to have my C of G or setback the same. Back to Keith Bontrager's article and about pedalling around a point so the relative angle to the point isn't critical?
I found I got the tension/ache on long rides or rides with a lot of climbing effort at some point whichever bike I rode. Though one bike might have caused it initially, none of the bikes or fits are new to me in the last 5 years and I have periods where I'll ride one of the bikes 95% of the time for 4-6 weeks, or I might skip one of them for that sort of period, with no change to the discomfort. So I looked at what was common to all the bikes I rode - pedals and shoes, saddle height, saddles at the time, etc. That's why I went back to checking IL and saddle height which alongside a gradual gain in flexibility it seems to be helping, though correlation doesn't necessarily mean cause.
Reading it this am, Phil Burt's book mentions hamstring flexibility and the impact of tight hamstrings (me) on the hips and saddle height, in that more flexibility there does allow a higher saddle / greater knee extension angle.