Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!
Moderator: robbosmans
-
Ramjm_2000
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:26 pm
- Location: US of A
by Ramjm_2000 on Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:59 pm
etownfwd wrote:170 tall, 75 inseam. 44.1 ratio.
At least I THINK I did it right... You'd think that someone who deals with numbers for their job might be able to do simple addition and subtraction!
Now, does that give me long legs or a long torso?
-efwd
I think you mean 2.26
-
toyota
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: spin class
by toyota on Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:05 pm
Height: 169.5 cm
Cycling inseam: 77.6 cm
BB to saddle top: 67.6 (I sit a little low on the bike)
Last edited by
toyota on Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
MikeM
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 7:16 pm
- Location: Leeds, UK
by MikeM on Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:07 pm
Height: 185cm
Inseam: 96cm
(BB to saddle: 84.7cm)
Definitely long legged...
"Life without passion is empty" - Eddy Merckx
So that explains the hours on a bike...
-
Mr.Gib
- Posts: 5548
- Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: eh?
by Mr.Gib on Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:24 pm
MikeM wrote:Height: 185cm
Inseam: 96cm
(BB to saddle: 84.7cm)
Definitely long legged...
I must see a photo - those are some long legs. Most guys your height have inseams around 90-91 cm.
I am 183 tall/87 inseam - a touch on the short side.
-
occor
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:22 am
- Location: LA, CA
by occor on Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:02 pm
yourdaguy wrote:Short for sure, my ration is 45.7. Actually, my upper legs are normal, my lower leggs are short.
I'm somewhat the same way... my ratio of inseam to height is 46.5 while my upper leg to lower leg ratio 1.175. The average upper leg to lower leg ratio is 1.11. If my lower legs were 3cm longer my inseam would be 83.5 and my upper leg to lower leg ratio would be 1.11 while my height would be 176 which would make my ratio of inseam to height 47.4.
IMO height to inseam ratio isn't a very usefull metric regarding cycling physique because the height of the head and neck from person to person is variable and doesn't figure into bike fit.
-
MikeM
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 7:16 pm
- Location: Leeds, UK
by MikeM on Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:08 pm
Mr.Gib wrote:MikeM wrote:Height: 185cm
Inseam: 96cm
(BB to saddle: 84.7cm)
Definitely long legged...
I must see a photo - those are some long legs. Most guys your height have inseams around 90-91 cm.
I am 183 tall/87 inseam - a touch on the short side.
I've inheritted a spinal condition where my spline curves in the wrong axis (at the base and between the shoulder blades). If you go by the classic greek proportions (typically height = armspan) then I should be around 193cm, much more normal.
Makes it a real arse getting a bike that fits!
"Life without passion is empty" - Eddy Merckx
So that explains the hours on a bike...
-
Rue
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:10 am
- Location: Mesa, Az
-
Contact:
by Rue on Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:42 pm
I'm 165 tall
Have a 78 inseam
and a 68.5 saddle height.
ruesports.com
We can build, repair and paint almost anything carbon!
-
frd
- Posts: 1429
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 8:45 pm
by frd on Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:58 pm
184/91
As most I always thought to have long legs
Looks quite normal in fact (0.495)
Maybe it could be interesting to compare arm length...
-
Irish
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:57 pm
- Location: Ireland
by Irish on Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:56 am
193cm tall 93cm inseam, Don't think ratio of your legs to torso,or lenght of your legs in general makes much difference to your ability on a bike. The main factor is ratio of thigh to shin(longer thigh to shorter shin = advantage).