so if a rider shows up without a bike and asks you to calculate his seat height based on 96% of his greater trochanteric height, what would you measure (step-by-step) on this bare-footed individual?
how would you then generate the seat height no. based on the measurements?
and what instruction would you give to him for him to set up his seat height on his bike to the correct height with the numbers you have given him? (this is assuming you cannot watch him pedal on his bike)
thanks.
Are you using 96% on TT bikes, as well as road?
I do on mine (although I do measure to a slightly different point on the saddle to account for the fact that I sit further forward on it).
so if a rider shows up without a bike and asks you to calculate his seat height based on 96% of his greater trochanteric height
I’d tell 'em to get lost, as I don’t offer my services as a bike fitter. 
, what would you measure (step-by-step) on this bare-footed individual?
how would you then generate the seat height no. based on the measurements?
and what instruction would you give to him for him to set up his seat height on his bike to the correct height with the numbers you have given him? (this is assuming you cannot watch him pedal on his bike)
Step 1: put on your cycling shoes.
Step 2: measure from the ground up to your greater trochanter.
Step 3: take the desired percentage of this number.
Step 4: subtract the length of the crank arm.
Step 5: set your saddle height as measured from the center of the b.b. to the lowest point on the saddle to this value.
Step 6: adjust as desired/necessary.
(If step 6 sounds too ‘unscientific’, consider this: for me, optimal saddle height based on, e.g., the approach of Price and Donne actually represents a range nearly 4 cm wide.)
"greater trochanter to the ground when standing erect in cycling shoes. "
In realistic terms I’d think this method is easily open to inaccuracy due to the difficulty of palpating an accurate greater trochanter head on many people. The only way to be 100% accurate would be to take full limb lenght x-rays, which is quite impractical.
okay 5W/hr isn’t worth sweating over. I’m getting about the same on my CT
ric - have you tried the taxc or conti trainer tires?
On my CT, the tire/roller interface hits stabiliy in ~5minutes (as evidenced by a calbration number that is +/-0.01)
as an added bonus, these tires seem to last a long time - as I mentioned in my blog - I have 40+ hours on a set and I could concievably return them as new. Not so with old road tires…
The only real drawback that I see is my old “am I fit yet” gauge is gone now… I used to know the winter training was going when I had a flat on the trainer…
g
"greater trochanter to the ground when standing erect in cycling shoes. "
In realistic terms I’d think this method is easily open to inaccuracy due to the difficulty of palpating an accurate greater trochanter head on many people.
Yeah, but I think the greater trochanter is easier to palpate and measure to than the other bony protuberances that have been used (i.e., the symphysis pubis and the ishcial tuberiosity). Besides, I don’t think that tremendous accuracy is all that important, i.e., as I see it the point of performing such measurements is just to assure that your saddle height falls w/in a reasonable range (which many here do not). After that, it should be “set it and forget it*”.
*Recognizing, of course, that you should keep a record of the measurement, and mark your saddle height on your bike using, e.g., a piece of tape.
mountain bike or road shoes or does it matter?
If you’re emulating Price and Donne, whatever you intend to ride in.
(BTW, the reason that saddle height has been on my mind is because of those new Specialized shoes, which caused me to revisit - but ultimately, not change - my saddle height).
Raising your saddle from 96% to 104% reduces efficiency by about 1% in absolute terms, i.e., for a given VO2 (and RER) your power would be ~5% lower.
Note that having a saddle that is too high is worse than having one that is too low, i.e., the relationship is not symmetrical around the minima.
More like 5% change in oxygen consumption here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
Raising your saddle from 96% to 104% reduces efficiency by about 1% in absolute terms, i.e., for a given VO2 (and RER) your power would be ~5% lower.
Note that having a saddle that is too high is worse than having one that is too low, i.e., the relationship is not symmetrical around the minima.
More like 5% change in oxygen consumption here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...search&DB=pubmed
Lab testing is typically conducted with power as the independent variable and VO2 as the dependent variable. I was presenting the converse situation, i.e., with power as the dependent variable (which, in this case, it probably would be).
Ah, right, confirmatory reports - I hadn’t read your post closely enough, nor thought enough about how VO2 and efficiency relate.
Andy, jersey and hat do not a “kit” make…you need the shorts as well. Tell Hunter to get on it!
You’re right about the “technical fabric” caps, I’ve got a Sugoi team Clif Bar hat that is way better than any of my old cotton caps.