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

ABSTRACT

Methods based on inseam length (IL) for saddle height adjustment in cycling are frequently employed. However, these methods were designed for medium-sized people. The aim of this study was to evaluate knee angle during pedalling by 2D video analysis and perceived comfort using a subjective scale under three saddle height conditions: (1) self-selected saddle height, (2) Genzling method (0.885 × IL) and (3) Hamley method (1.09 × IL minus crank arm length). Twenty-six cyclists of heterogeneous morphology were recruited. Three groups were determined based on IL: Short (IL < 0.8 m), Medium (0.8 m < IL< 0.88 m) and Long (IL > 0.88 m). The results showed that Medium and Long IL groups usually rode with saddle heights allowing knee angles consistent with those previously shown to prevent injuries (30°–40°). However, Short IL group, who were all children, self-selected a too low saddle height (knee angle was too large). Genzling and Hamley methods gave identical results for Medium IL group, permitting knee angles in the range of 30°–40°. However, both methods caused important differences between Short and Long IL groups. Hamley method was more suitable for short ILs, while Genzling method was more suitable for long ILs.

KEYWORDS:

• Inseam length
• knee angle
• health
• performance
• comfort

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Morphologics Company, particularly Michel Le Goallec and William Le Goallec, for their involvement in this study. In addition, the authors thank Frederyck Dutent for his help in writing the article in English.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.