Comparison of two static methods of saddle height adjustment for cyclists of different morphologies

Millour, Geoffrey; Duc, Sebastien; Puel, F.; Bertucci, William

doi:10.1080/14763141.2018.1556324

Cited by 10 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, we can suggest that riders used greater plantarflexion in dynamic conditions to improve pedal force effectiveness. In addition, the large difference between KA measured during Static BDC and Dynamic BDC in the child population could be related to the difficulty of adopting lower limb kinematics similar to that used during the pedalling movement due to their poor cycling experience, as reported by Millour et al [19]. Therefore, dynamic measurement seems more ecological by being representative of usual practice condition [10], [11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…During the tests, participants used their personal road bike or mountain bike (according to their specialities) with a seat tube angle between 72 and 75°, their cycling shoes and their clipless pedals in order to reproduce usual practice conditions. Saddle height was computed with the Hamley method (equal to 109% of IL minus crank arm length) for children with IL lower than 0.80 m and with the Genzling method (equal to 85% of IL) for adults with IL greater than 0.80 m [19]. Prior to the experiment, the inseam length (IL) of each participant was measured with a ML Size ® device (Morphologics, Saint-Malo, France, Fig.…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, saddle height impacts cycling performance and particularly physiological parameters [9]- [14] and crank power output production [20]. Finally, a proper saddle height is essential for the bike handling [12], the comfort [19]- [28] and the perception of fatigue and pain while cycling [25]. However, there is some controversy between the proposed methods to adjust the saddle height [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Genzling method suggests multiplying the IL by 88.5% [13] and the Hamley method by 109% minus crank arm length [14] to optimise power output production. Recently, Millour, Duc, Puel, and Bertucci [19] advised using the Genzling ______________________________ method for long IL (>0.88 m), the Hamley method for short IL (<0.80 m) and one or the other for people with an inseam length between 0.80 m and 0.88 m in order to optimise the joint angles and the comfort. On the other hand, kinematic methods based on knee angle (KA: angle between the thigh and the leg; 0° corresponds to full knee extension) have been developed for assessing the optimal saddle height to prevent injuries and to increase performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of static and dynamic methods based on knee kinematics to determine optimal saddle height in cycling

Millour¹,

Duc²,

Puel³

et al. 2019

Acta Bioeng Biomech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bike-fitting methods based on knee kinematics have been proposed to determine optimal saddle height. The Holmes method recommends that knee angle be between 25° and 35° when the pedal is at bottom dead centre in static. Other authors advocate knee angle of 30-40° during maximum knee extension while pedalling. Although knee angle would be 5-10° greater at bottom dead centre during pedalling, no study has reported reference values in this condition. The purpose of this study was to compare these three methodologies on knee, hip, and ankle angles and to develop new dynamic reference range at bottom dead centre. Methods: Twenty-six cyclists volunteered for this experiment and performed a pedalling test on their personal road or mountain bike. Knee, hip, and ankle angles were assessed by two-dimensional video analysis. Results: Dynamic knee angle was 8° significantly greater than static knee angle when the pedal was at bottom dead centre. Moreover, dynamic knee angle with the pedal at bottom dead centre was 3° significantly greater than dynamic knee angle during maximum knee extension. The chosen methodology also significantly impacted hip and ankle angles under most conditions. Conclusions: The results allow us to suggest a new range of 33-43° when the pedal is at bottom dead centre during pedalling. Thus, this study defines clearly the different ranges to determine optimal saddle height in cycling according to the condition of measurement. These findings are important for researchers and bike-fitting professionals to avoid saddle height adjustment errors that can affect cyclists' health and performance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of static and dynamic methods based on knee kinematics to determine optimal saddle height in cycling

Millour¹,

Duc²,

Puel³

et al. 2019

Acta Bioeng Biomech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants reported their perceived comfort on a subjective scale ranging from 0 (very high discomfort) to 10 (very high comfort) [27] during each training session separating the experimental tests, as well as during the submaximal and supra-maximal tests. They also reported their rating of perceived exertion (RPE) on the Borg scale from 6 to 20 [28] during the submaximal tests, sprints, and Wingate tests.…”

Section: Materials and Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of asymmetric crank arm lengths on performance-related variables in cyclists with an anatomical lower limb length discrepancy

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of using asymmetric crank arms in cyclists affected by an inequality in lower limb length. Three male cyclists with a lower limb length difference of 28, 14, and 10 mm performed three experimental test sessions separated by 5 days, which were conducted using three different crank arm length conditions (170 mm for the long lower limb and 170, 165, and 160 mm for the short lower limb). Each test session included one 8-min pedalling exercise at 60% of maximal power output, two 10-s sprints, and one 30-s Wingate test. Power output was assessed during the supra-maximal exercises; while, physiological (heart rate, oxygen consumption, gross efficiency, and cycling economy) and biomechanical (hip, knee and ankle 2D kinematics) variables were measured during the submaximal exercises. Perceived exertion and perceived comfort were evaluated during all pedalling exercises. The results showed that the shortening of the crank length for the short lower limb (160 and 165 vs. 170 mm) reduced the knee and ankle extension and the hip and knee range of motion. In addition, the maximal power output and the perceived comfort were improved, while the perceived exertion was reduced. Therefore, the use of asymmetric crank arms during cycling could compensate for lower limb length discrepancy by modifying joint kinematics and by improving performance and perceived comfort.

show abstract

Anthropometrics, flexibility and training history as determinants for bicycle configuration

Holliday

Swart

2021

Sports Medicine and Health Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of two static methods of saddle height adjustment for cyclists of different morphologies

Cited by 10 publications

References 30 publications

Comparison of static and dynamic methods based on knee kinematics to determine optimal saddle height in cycling

Comparison of static and dynamic methods based on knee kinematics to determine optimal saddle height in cycling

Effect of asymmetric crank arm lengths on performance-related variables in cyclists with an anatomical lower limb length discrepancy

Anthropometrics, flexibility and training history as determinants for bicycle configuration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About