22camels wrote:interesting numbers reohn2.
You are right that my saddle is 80mm higher than yours even though my inseam is only 15mm longer. My BB to saddle-top distance parallel to ST should be 777mm according to Lemond, but I have it 43mm longer than that - highest I can get away with without rocking hips etc. - it feels fine (I have size 46 feet). Yours should be 764mm by Lemond, but you say you have it 34mm lower than that at 730mm. Net that's a difference of 77mm just due to me being above Lemond, and you being below. Add that to the 15mm difference that you would expect based on our different inseams, and you get 92mm, which is spot on (820 - 730 = 90).......
22 camels
....You may be missing a couple of things here. R2's saddle is further back, this moves the saddle away from the pedals just as raising it does.
Lemond was world class. I imagine his fit system is designed to get elite athletes into a racing tuck. Even though they have no beer belly to get in the way, they need the saddle forward in order to get low over the bars, if you can pedal hard enough the reaction supports your torso. If you are young, fit, and injury-free with good biomechanics (no tight hamstrings, no joint problems) then you can pedal smoothly through the bottom even with a high saddle. For a recreational cyclist, everything pivots back around the BB.....saddle back and down, bars back and up. Much more weight on the saddle, athletes put their weight on the pedal!
In my view the right saddle height for a recreational cyclist is where you need to slide back a bit on the saddle if you need to get maximum push for a while to crest a rise without changing down, or whatever.....you can watch the climbers in the tour doing just that. Having the saddle a bit lower than the athletes' maximum power height gives a bit of slack for those days that aren't quite your best day.