Pro Heights/Saddle Heights - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 36 of 36
  1. #26
    coaster
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,051
    Quote Originally Posted by OldZaskar View Post
    Why do they ride bikes/frames that would typically be considered small?

    If they're riding those sizes - relative their height/leg length - and at the top of the sport... maybe we're riding bikes that are too big?
    It's cuz frames are made with too long head tubes these days. I've always riden the same length top tubes but my new (very racy) frame is gonna require me to use one of those Woodman 3mm headset covers while previous bikes had normal Chris King headsets and sometimes a spacer. After building my new bike last night I was wondering if I should have downsized and used a longer stem than I've been liking for the last 18 years.

  2. #27
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by velodog View Post
    It seems that with the giant saddle to bar drop that is increasingly the norm, the deep drop "Belgium" style bars have gone the way of the dinosaur.

    Once upon a time cyclists who rode with less drop could sit more upright on the tops\hoods while still managing to get low and aero with the deeper bars, but now it seems everyone is low on the tops\hoods and spending less time in the drops. And when in the drops the transition isn't as great as it was when we were seeing more handlebars with deeper drop.
    Good observation; I never looked at it this way.

    Personally, I don't think pro riders "size down". I still think they're using typical "2/3 of inseam" formulas for frame sizing. What I see is sloping top tubes giving the bike the appearance of being smaller, and pros slamming stems because all the other pros are slamming stems, not because it's a fit issue. Aero is overrated, even for racing. The ability to comfortably hold your head up and view the road for hours on end trumps the claims of "more aero" any day.

    The saddle to bar drops on pro bikes are so extreme today that riders spend even more time on the brake hoods. Why not just raise the bars so the drops can become more useful?

  3. #28
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    What makes you think I'd think they are unique? I just wanted to know cuz it might give a better idea of femur length than their height does. I just measured my saddle height for the first time and I'm curious which pros have a similar body type to mine. With a saddle that has some cushion and flex it's 85cm. With another saddle that is very firm it's 84.
    I use 175mm cranks with Shimano pedals and shoes but I was hoping these things would be constant enough to be able to compare.
    No. And I can't imagine femur length actually being relevant to performance in any meaningful way.

    If your femurs are disproportionately long you'll have a much tougher time getting low in the front as well unless you resort to very short crank arms or move your seat very far forward. You knees would hit your chest when you get low, otherwise.

  4. #29
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter P. View Post
    Good observation; I never looked at it this way.

    Personally, I don't think pro riders "size down". I still think they're using typical "2/3 of inseam" formulas for frame sizing. What I see is sloping top tubes giving the bike the appearance of being smaller, and pros slamming stems because all the other pros are slamming stems, not because it's a fit issue. Aero is overrated, even for racing. The ability to comfortably hold your head up and view the road for hours on end trumps the claims of "more aero" any day.

    The saddle to bar drops on pro bikes are so extreme today that riders spend even more time on the brake hoods. Why not just raise the bars so the drops can become more useful?
    Sprints and out of the saddle efforts in the drops can necessitate the drops being lower. In addition, as has been mentioned, for most people it is more aerodynamic to be on the hoods with forearms parallel to the ground.

    You could raise your bars to achieve the same effect in the drops, but then you're back to the drops being too high for sprinting (not a factor for a lot of people, but for classics guys it could be).

    Some make it work regardless, others might favor one position over another.

  5. #30
    wim
    wim is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,460
    Quote Originally Posted by pedalbiker View Post
    No. And I can't imagine femur length actually being relevant to performance in any meaningful way.
    The correct assumption is that you can exert more force (Newtons) with a longer lever than a shorter one. But to make a bicycle go fast, you need to generate power (Watts), with force only being one player in this. So your statement is a valid objection.

    Just as an aside: When looking at force transmission (again, not power) on a bicycle, you will see that it occurs through a series of five connected levers (femur, crank, chainwheel radius, cog radius, wheel radius. Some say that the foot is also a lever in this force transmission chain, but there are those who will tell you that it does not contribute to forward propulsion.
    Last edited by wim; 03-05-2016 at 06:47 AM.

  6. #31
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,033
    I wish I could find my Hinault book because I thought about the femur length too. seems like it was 1.18. Merckx, Hinault, Moser, and Lemond were all about the same.

  7. #32
    wim
    wim is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,460
    Quote Originally Posted by steelbikerider View Post
    I wish I could find my Hinault book
    I knew exactly where mine was, so here you are, from page 64:

    " The cyclist's lever, the femur, can be longer or shorter relative to the tibia in different people.

    The norm in the ratio of the thigh to the lower leg (as we defined them) is an average of 1.11 in men....A clearly larger ratio between these segments of the leg has been observed in several great champions such as Fausto Coppi (1.18), Eddy Merckx (1.16) and Bernard Hinault (1.20) whom we dare mention here in the third person. Climbing abilities are improved...."

    This is from an early edition of the book; there were some changes made in later editions, I think. Good old Hinault, "dare mention here" in his own book, ever so humble.....:-)

  8. #33
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: The Moontrane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    606
    Quote Originally Posted by wim View Post
    I knew exactly where mine was, so here you are, from page 64:

    " The cyclist's lever, the femur, can be longer or shorter relative to the tibia in different people.

    The norm in the ratio of the thigh to the lower leg (as we defined them) is an average of 1.11 in men....A clearly larger ratio between these segments of the leg has been observed in several great champions such as Fausto Coppi (1.18), Eddy Merckx (1.16) and Bernard Hinault (1.20) whom we dare mention here in the third person. Climbing abilities are improved...."

    This is from an early edition of the book; there were some changes made in later editions, I think. Good old Hinault, "dare mention here" in his own book, ever so humble.....:-)
    Yes, but on the next page are 7 pictures totally unrelated to the OP's question, which is why I shouldn't have posted.

    Fine paper stock for that book, right?
    Ballan, we have a problem.

  9. #34
    wim
    wim is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,460
    Quote Originally Posted by The Moontrane View Post
    Yes, but on the next page are 7 pictures totally unrelated to the OP's question, which is why I shouldn't have posted.

    Fine paper stock for that book, right?
    Apparently, there was no money to pay a book designer or a better translator. And for those who don't have the book: those 7 pictures are all images of Hinault's hands in various places on his handlebars. The caption under one of them again dares mentioning Hinault in the third person so we know whose hands we're seeing here.

    But really, the book has some very good information in spite of the goofy design and wooden English. And you have to keep in mind that it came out long before the internet and served a real need. Much of cycling literature around that time consisted of repackaged pre-World War II lore.
    Last edited by wim; 03-06-2016 at 03:31 AM.

  10. #35
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by pittcanna View Post
    They might ride bikes that are too "small" for them on a casual ride, but when there in a race that bike might be right for them.

    Smaller bike you can get more aero
    Smaller bike weighs less
    Smaller bikes tend to be more responsive
    The guys in the pro ranks typically suffer when there racing to maintain that aero advantage
    But pro's are a different breed than the many consumers, who often have long torso with short legs (not pro like) so that calls for a far less seat post extension to get a good bike fit. Many would have rounded backs and cramped, with more stress on spine trying to get a smaller frame and ride with a seat extension of the said pro's . So better off you stick with a more conventional method in bike sizing, Just remmeber you want the proper handlebar reach when in drops, but WITHOUT a massive stem size that hurts the bike handling so you ride in a wavy path, really self defeating in efficiency eh?

  11. #36
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    61

    seat height

    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    What makes you think I'd think they are unique? I just wanted to know cuz it might give a better idea of femur length than their height does. I just measured my saddle height for the first time and I'm curious which pros have a similar body type to mine. With a saddle that has some cushion and flex it's 85cm. With another saddle that is very firm it's 84.
    I use 175mm cranks with Shimano pedals and shoes but I was hoping these things would be constant enough to be able to compare.
    as an experienced road cyclist, I get the idea you have cranks 1 size longer than average, and that 1cm seat height variation is alot even with 2 different seats, Maybe you might want to try 172.5 if you pedal squares or bounce in saddle? Height is critical too for ideal comfort and spin,so get it to ideal setting, also the setback is often overlooked in that critical knee over pedal setting, I should have a bike fit camp

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Arlington Heights, IL
    By saf-t in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-29-2010, 07:04 AM
  2. Headset heights
    By tonkabaydog in forum Bikes, Frames and Forks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-28-2010, 12:50 PM
  3. Saddle heights, saddle changes and setback
    By merlinluvr in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2010, 09:40 AM
  4. Different Saddle Heights w/ Different cranks?
    By LouD-Reno in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-07-2007, 04:01 PM
  5. list of saddle heights
    By jsmst32 in forum Bikes, Frames and Forks
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-25-2007, 06:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.