PDA

View Full Version : What is the Golden Ratio?



RavennaNight
January 9th, 2009, 07:19 PM
I have seen it mentioned on the boards before. Is it the ideal length one's hair should be in respect to one's height? And how do you figure out what length that is? Sorry if it has been asked before, the search button is on the fritz.

cho_chang
January 9th, 2009, 07:24 PM
I read somewhere that short people should stick to moderately short/medium hair (ear to shoulder), average can rock basically any hair, and the tall look best with super short or super long hair. I don't know, personally I'm short and know long hair isn't flattering in terms of making me look taller, but I'm not gonna lie I have awesome hair (hey, I'm on a hair community aren't I? lol) and it would be a shame not to wear it long :P I really think it's personal preference

Akiko
January 9th, 2009, 07:31 PM
It's phi (about 1.62). It's the ratio that is considered visually pleasing. Lots of historic architectural designs are built to approximate this golden ratio, i.e., Greek temples. Also furniture drawers often are designed in the golden ratio. (Becomes smaller toward top.)

ETA: Hmmm. I am trying to find out a website that explains well. Maybe here (http://members.fortunecity.com/petemullard/mobaing.html)... You can visually kind of see. Ah, maybe it is too confusing...:o

Pierre
January 9th, 2009, 07:43 PM
1.618034 is close enough for moist porpoises ;)
1/1/2/3/5/8/13/21/34/55/89/144/233/610/987/...
For an interesting number, calculate 1/89. Then calculate 1/55 in octal (55 is 67 in octal). Then figure out the sum 1/1+1/2+2/4+3/8+5/16+8/32+13/64+...

Aisha25
January 9th, 2009, 08:20 PM
Its all non sense mumbo jumbo anyone can have any length they want doesnt matter height width whatever. If you want them long grow them theres no right length for anyone thats how I feel about it;)

Pierre
January 9th, 2009, 08:25 PM
Yep, anyone who says your hair has to be determined by that sequence of numbers is just fibbing :D

Aisha25
January 9th, 2009, 08:37 PM
Exactly:wink:

snowbear
January 9th, 2009, 09:00 PM
Yep, anyone who says your hair has to be determined by that sequence of numbers is just fibbing :D
Oh dear. :lol:

MsBubbles
January 9th, 2009, 10:21 PM
Hah! I went to look this up today and almost started the same thread. It's about 6 pages into the most aesthetically pleasing length thread (http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?t=15761&highlight=golden+ratio+calculator&page=5). However, somebody linked to this calculator (http://goldenratiocalculator.com/) and put in their height in inches to find their golden ratio. I did mine earlier and got an overall answer of "26", which when measured downwards from the top of my head (not from my front hairline like hair measurements on LHC) actually falls exactly at my elbows (waist?), and translates to about 31" in LHC-ese. Not that I'm gonna care particularly whether my hair is swingin' at my elbows or butt. I'll be so deliriously happy with my hair length by then...won't I?!:pray:

inspiral
January 9th, 2009, 11:41 PM
ahhh.... the golden ratio. very intriguing, if you don't know about it, i definately recommend researching sacred geometry. It's everywhere, it's found in our bodies already, it determines the length of our limbs, our bone structure. Look at your arm: if you compare the length of your hand to the length of your lower arm bone, it has a golden ratio, the same with the length of the lower arm bone to the upper arm bone. Its everywhere in nature, in all organic structure. On dragonflies, each little section of their tail is proportioned to the golden ratio. Its amazing, and it is also the basis and source of the golden mean (ratio) spiral.
Anyway, if you use that calculater that someone posted earlier, enter your heighth in inches, and it will divide your height into two numbers, either of which could be the hair length for you that would make a golden ratio. :D

Arctic_Mama
January 10th, 2009, 05:00 AM
Oooooh, it BETTER not be a recommendation for shorter women to wear short hair, I HATE short hair and I am 5'1" or so. I don't care if my hair looks like its swallowing me up, it's NOT going to stay above shoulder length where it poofs out into the head eating triangle of DOOM. No way, no how.

*ahem* Sorry, rant over ;)

That calculator places my hair at the 'ideal' length of about 28 inches in LHC inches and the longer side of the ratio at around 37 LHC inches.... No friggin way would I settle there! That's somewhere in the neighborhood of my goal for this year! I may look silly, but it's at least classic for me!

Fluke
January 10th, 2009, 06:54 AM
Umm... the smaller number is in no way said to be the ideal..? The point here are the two sections in proportion to each other, that makes the golden ratio.
In other words, none of the two numbers are more ideal than the other.

The golden ratio is also not considered to be any better than anything when it comes to hair length, it is simply known that the golden ratio is aestethically pleasing and just for fun people thought about measuring what the golden ratio of hair to body would be for them.

When looking at this in terms of hair length the way we measure it here you would have to add the inches from the top of your head to your front hairline to get "LHC inches".
I don't have anything to measure with here, but the calculator gave 41 as the longer length for my height in inches, so my longer golden ratio length would be 41 + the inches to the front hairline.
I'll try to find out where that length falls when I get home, but the higher number usually falls somewhere between tailbone and fingertips on most people, if I remember correctly.... Or I could be waaaaay off, that is known to happen :D

*ETA* Ok, plus the inches from the top of my head the longer length would be 48 inches, and that is about fingertip on me :)

mellie
January 10th, 2009, 07:00 AM
This is so interesting! I have always appreciated the Golden Mean in architecture - never thought to apply it to my hair, haha!!

My numbers are 24 and 38. I think 24 is too short, so I guess I'll have to strive for 38!!!

RavennaNight
January 10th, 2009, 09:25 AM
Oh wow I never would have thought there was so much detail and mathematical concepts involved in this. How interesting! Thanks everyone for your knowledge!

Saranne772
January 10th, 2009, 09:44 AM
It placed me at 39" which is about 47" LHC style- just about knees- my goal anyway!

RavennaNight
January 10th, 2009, 11:30 AM
The calculator told me my lengths are 26 & 43. Well, I passed 26, for silly reasons I like 37, 43 would be roughly another year after 37... It will grow to wherever it wants to, and hopefully will not stop before 37. :p

freznow
January 10th, 2009, 12:11 PM
Ravennanight, mellie I think you two forgot to adjust the numbers for LHC measurements. If you plug in your height (for me, 65") you get two numbers in respect to your height (for me, 40" and 25"). So this would be measured as 25 and 40 inches from the top of my head, not from my hairline. Typically, adding 6" or so adjusts that, so my GRLs are 46" and 31", which are about fingertip and waist. If your numbers are not about fingertip and waist, give or take a few inches, then your calculations are likely incorrect, or you're proportioned rather differently. (Here's (http://goldennumber.net/body.htm) a picture of the typical GRL points on a human's body.)

I'm planning on maintaining at fingertip for a while (well, I'm at thumb tip now, which is close), at least until my ends get in better condition. It's a nice place to stop, I really like it, though I'll probably go for knee at some point in my life, but this is a really nice length, IMO.

getoffmyskittle
January 10th, 2009, 12:22 PM
Here's my opinion:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v113/getoffmyskittle/Picture016.jpg

On a more helpful note, make sure that when you calculate, you measure from the top of your head down and not LHC-style from the hairline back.

freznow
January 10th, 2009, 01:28 PM
Here's my opinion:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v113/getoffmyskittle/Picture016.jpg

On a more helpful note, make sure that when you calculate, you measure from the top of your head down and not LHC-style from the hairline back.

Φφ

Oh yeah, score a thousand for having Greek set on my keyboard. :cheese: I love Greek!

mellie
January 10th, 2009, 01:36 PM
Oh, I see Freznow - then when it says 24, that means 30 in LHC? I could agree that would look very nice!

suicides_eve
January 10th, 2009, 02:12 PM
mine came up 25- 41. so that would put me about waist length which is kinda where i want to be at any way.. very neat toy to play with.

Elenna
January 10th, 2009, 02:58 PM
Yep, anyone who says your hair has to be determined by that sequence of numbers is just fibbing :D

Cute joke on Fibonacci numbers!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number

Fantak
January 10th, 2009, 03:22 PM
Oooh I've been trying to figure this out for the past couple of days! Thanks for the link MsBubbles
^.^

Hm I should actually use my height in heels since they seem to be permanently attached to my feet :D

ETA: 'barefoot' : 24-40
'with heels': 26-42

RavennaNight
January 10th, 2009, 03:30 PM
Aaah. I see. So in reality, 26 from the top of my head, would be longer in LHC measurements. So for me, its 26=waist, 43=classic.

Wouter
January 10th, 2009, 03:57 PM
It's phi (about 1.62). It's the ratio that is considered visually pleasing. Lots of historic architectural designs are built to approximate this golden ratio, i.e., Greek temples. Also furniture drawers often are designed in the golden ratio. (Becomes smaller toward top.)

ETA: Hmmm. I am trying to find out a website that explains well. Maybe here (http://members.fortunecity.com/petemullard/mobaing.html)... You can visually kind of see. Ah, maybe it is too confusing...:o

to qoute that site 'The math before the saw'

I hope you don't saw your hair up :p, that would leave some nasty split ends I reckon

tigerlily83
January 10th, 2009, 05:38 PM
for 61" inches (my height) it told me 23" (which is what I am getting very close to, by next month) and 38" which is around tailbone on me, which is my *new* goal. It was 35", but what's an extra few inches? :P

It is very interesting though. TB may be my new goal but I have a feeling I'd like to go longer if I could.

Tangles
January 10th, 2009, 05:53 PM
I got hip too... ideally I think I should maintain a bit above that because I have a long torso and don't want to demarcate torso from legs.

AprilElf
January 11th, 2009, 01:54 AM
Thanks for bringing this up RavennaNight. :) I'd been meaning to try and figure out my numbers for some time now, but kept forgetting, and then wasn't sure how I was supposed to figure it out. :rolleyes:

Now that I've got my head around it, I see that my numbers are 26 and 43.
Adjusted for LHC measurements (add 4", as best I can tell), that gives me 30"/waist and 47"/classic. (I'd estimated classic at 46" on me.) Very interesting.

Syren_Curls
July 29th, 2014, 10:47 PM
Reviving an old thread, just because it was fun and amusing ;-P

At 5'1", I would get 23 (29 in LHC) and 38 (44 in LHC)... that would put me at waist or fingertip. I'm currently past waist at near tailbone and wanted looooooonger... but I have never thought about fingertip... Hmmmmm, something to consider, perhaps? :-)

Sparklylady82
July 30th, 2014, 12:09 AM
the calculator link didn't work for me...

Marika
July 30th, 2014, 01:41 AM
Mine is waist and fingertip (in LHC). I guess I choose fingertip between these two! :D Not really. I just noticed with my measuring tape that fingertip length would be way too long and difficult for me. I guess tailbone length (with nice ends) would be a good goal somehere between these two... And I've had that before, so I know I can handle it.

irodaryne
July 30th, 2014, 01:53 AM
I tried the link and it didn't work for me.... :(

MINAKO
July 30th, 2014, 02:00 AM
http://www.miniwebtool.com/golden-section-calculator/?n1=182&n2=&n3=&n4=

Hers another one, just type your height in centimeters or inches into the first field and it gives you the two options where you hair apparently should hit to look best.
I personally think its BS, because there are much ore important factors to consider find an "ideal" when it comes to hair.

irodaryne
July 30th, 2014, 02:17 AM
http://www.miniwebtool.com/golden-section-calculator/?n1=182&n2=&n3=&n4=

Hers another one, just type your height in centimeters or inches into the first field and it gives you the two options where you hair apparently should hit to look best.
I personally think its BS, because there are much ore important factors to consider find an "ideal" when it comes to hair.
Oh don't get me wrong I think it's BS but it's still fun to do. :)

irodaryne
July 30th, 2014, 02:18 AM
About 39 and 24 inches which would be just approaching waist length and then almost fingertip length (I'm not quite familiar with all the LHC terms)

So.... almost my current goal and then about where I hope to try to eventually grow my hair to.

Larki
July 30th, 2014, 02:18 AM
http://www.miniwebtool.com/golden-section-calculator/?n1=182&n2=&n3=&n4=

Hers another one, just type your height in centimeters or inches into the first field and it gives you the two options where you hair apparently should hit to look best.
I personally think its BS, because there are much ore important factors to consider find an "ideal" when it comes to hair.

I ended up with 37.08" and 22.92". The second one is very close to my current length, but I like the sound of 37" better. I think that would be somewhere around mid-thigh for me.

MINAKO
July 30th, 2014, 02:29 AM
I ended up with 37.08" and 22.92". The second one is very close to my current length, but I like the sound of 37" better. I think that would be somewhere around mid-thigh for me.

This is different from LHC measurement since your actual height and thus "real" hair length is taken into consideration, so you go from the top of your head and not the front hairline as someone already ointes out before.
For me it was 44.5 and 27.5, so its pretty much waist or mid thig for anyone. And here i go and claim that whichever you'd prefer you'd likely find two inch more (or even much mre than that) better looking than what the actual number states. I really don't feel the theory is applicable here and have a hard time to get why this alone should result in the aesthetically most pleasing. There are so many different body shapes and hairtypes, what with all the other measurements other than height?

Freija
July 30th, 2014, 05:33 AM
I got 23.68" and 38.32". Adjusted to LHC measurements, that's ~30" and ~42". So, either dead on waist (maybe top of hip) or just below classic (maybe start of thigh-length). Not sure I'm going to go for the second one! I've never really thought about growing my hair past the I-can-sit-on-it length. : )

Shibe
July 30th, 2014, 08:41 PM
I got 23.68" and 38.32". Adjusted to LHC measurements, that's ~30" and ~42". So, either dead on waist (maybe top of hip) or just below classic (maybe start of thigh-length). Not sure I'm going to go for the second one! I've never really thought about growing my hair past the I-can-sit-on-it length. : )

We have the exact same numbers!.

38 sounds so much better than 23, and I'm about 29ish right now. I think 38 would be tbl for me, maybe even bc.

MINAKO
July 30th, 2014, 09:35 PM
We have the exact same numbers!.

38 sounds so much better than 23, and I'm about 29ish right now. I think 38 would be tbl for me, maybe even bc.

You have to add about 5-7 inches depending on the shape of your head to translate the numbers to LHC length.
Theres no way a golden ratio hits at tailbone. It is literally around waist or mid thigh for everyone, no matter wath height you are or body shape you have, there's just not that much room to make a big difference. Basically its 2/3!

SThr
July 30th, 2014, 09:51 PM
Oh cool, I figured mine out, and it's what my length goal already was! :D

SThr
July 30th, 2014, 10:00 PM
You have to add about 5-7 inches depending on the shape of your head to translate the numbers to LHC length.
Theres no way a golden ratio hits at tailbone. It is literally around waist or mid thigh for everyone, no matter wath height you are or body shape you have, there's just not that much room to make a big difference. Basically its 2/3!

I think Shibe forgot to adjust for the difference between height and LHC measuring, which is about 5".

MINAKO
July 30th, 2014, 10:22 PM
http://www.constructingtheuniverse.com/amen7.jpg

The first picture gives a good idea of what it looks like one way aroungd or the other. The second one is more specifically deviding it up onto other parts of the body. I still think it's something that you almost recognise in anything if you just want to look hard enough. Pseudoscience imho... it's just there, but no evidence that this is aesthetically the MOST appealing.
Grow your hair however long you want to. :flower:

MandyBeth
July 31st, 2014, 04:53 AM
~39 & ~24. I'm 5'2, but mostly leg height. 24" would be bra band area with LHC measuring, hips to butt crack if by individual hair I guess. 39" would be upper mid thigh in LHC, lower mid thigh in individual. Or there about. My hair doesn't get past my shoulders much however.

I will say with adorably evil minion, the longer length is where she likes her hair to look. It's really close to ankle length but is so curly it hides.

two_wheels
July 31st, 2014, 06:40 AM
I have to say I enjoyed Pierre's determined punning at the beginning of this thread, several years ago :lol:

I get 43:26 which in LHC measurement terms is 48:31. 31" is about waist on me which is my current goal.

However, speaking from my personal aesthetic point of view, it's more about the length of the hair vs. the width of the hair (when it's down), rather than the length of the hair vs. the length of the body. No?

Syren_Curls
July 31st, 2014, 10:13 PM
However, speaking from my personal aesthetic point of view, it's more about the length of the hair vs. the width of the hair (when it's down), rather than the length of the hair vs. the length of the body. No?

Hmmmm, interesting to think about. Mind if I ask you to say a bit more on that and help me flesh out what you mean?

MINAKO, thanks for finding a working link for the calculator. I will say that I agree with you on there being other factors to consider in looking for an 'ideal' length. I am having a hard time pinpointing them, though, other than the ones related to things like maintenance. What are some of the factors you think about or keep in mind??

darklyndsea
July 31st, 2014, 10:58 PM
Hmmmm, interesting to think about. Mind if I ask you to say a bit more on that and help me flesh out what you mean?

MINAKO, thanks for finding a working link for the calculator. I will say that I agree with you on there being other factors to consider in looking for an 'ideal' length. I am having a hard time pinpointing them, though, other than the ones related to things like maintenance. What are some of the factors you think about or keep in mind??

I think part of what she's saying is that thick hair, on the same height of person and at the same length as thinner hair, looks shorter, because the ratio of width to length is higher. You can't just look at the hair length to height ratio because hair thickness makes a difference in whether e.g. waist length looks long.

MINAKO
July 31st, 2014, 11:17 PM
Hmmmm, interesting to think about. Mind if I ask you to say a bit more on that and help me flesh out what you mean?

MINAKO, thanks for finding a working link for the calculator. I will say that I agree with you on there being other factors to consider in looking for an 'ideal' length. I am having a hard time pinpointing them, though, other than the ones related to things like maintenance. What are some of the factors you think about or keep in mind??

Thank you!
First of, i'd like to agree with two_wheels suggestion of length also relating to thickness.
I have pretty thick hair that would just look awfully poufyif not perfectly straightened, it very much like the look of straightened hair, but forget about wearing that all the time past APL. So i would rather be able to look neat AND tkae care of my hair at the same time in form of a beautiful protective bun (i love shiny and accurate head eaters!)
So although i think collar bone length did look amazing on me, i decided to stop chopping it off and discovered that i pretty much hated any lenght (including waist aka golden ratio 1.0) until i hit tailbone. It's just where it start to look flowy enough for me, taking out the thickness, without looking to heavy.
I'm about 6 feet tall and very slim, so one thing in addition i figured out was to let go of blunt hemlines to not drown in my hair, same thing would happen anywhere much longer than classic, instead of balancing the proportions it would swallow me. Hence i decided that i want a V shape that hits just a tiny little bit past classic with the longest layer (scaping fingetip), keeps legs looking long from the back and sort of barely covers the crotch when taken to the front (like a micro mini skirt, lol)
Let alone that i think i could not handle my hair at mid thigh or knee or beyond and would get terribly annoyed not to be able to wear it down, or sit on it or get tangled in something thats past where my arms can reach.
This preference of mine happens to be around the middle of my body height, but making a rule of thumb for other people out of this would be plain silly imo.

I can't say "don't grow your hair to golden ration legth because its wrong" because for some people it happens to suit their shape and their hair, but that would be the case without even considering that number. I think alot of that so calles ancient wisdon, especially when it comes to aesthetics is way overrated (i wouldnt really call paintings of a few selected ladies amongst a million other women an evidnce, they are most likely to be adjusted to look overall pleasing anyways, pretty much what photoshop does nowadays, the number of rapunzels might have been larger back in the days, but that doesn't prove anything along with that golden ratio, fibonacci numbers or likewise, it's just a spiral and the calculation hardly fits any of the pictures it actually claims to support the theory, lol)

PsychoLoverly
July 31st, 2014, 11:34 PM
Hmmmm well I did my measurements, I'm 5'3". That makes ~63 inches, and I got ~24in and ~38in. In LHC terms, I got ~30in and ~44in (I had to add 6in). Just measured where that would hit me, and I got one inch above waist and tailbone. I also had my dad help me..... so I'm pretty sure it's accurate.

ExpectoPatronum
August 1st, 2014, 12:12 PM
I'm about 5'6 - 5'7 depending on the day and my numbers are 25 and 41. Translating to LHC, the 25" puts me at about hip length and then...thigh? It's a couple inches past classic. Looks like my hair needs to be fairly long in order for it to be "aesthetically pleasing" ;)

two_wheels
August 1st, 2014, 12:20 PM
I think part of what she's saying is that thick hair, on the same height of person and at the same length as thinner hair, looks shorter, because the ratio of width to length is higher. You can't just look at the hair length to height ratio because hair thickness makes a difference in whether e.g. waist length looks long.

Yes that's what I mean, and Minako describes it well, too. I feel that if I grew my hair very long, it would look like a rectangle that was too long!

I also wonder whether that's why thick hair is especially idolised here, where we all try to grow long hair. Having a lot of width makes a lot of length seem more pleasing to my eye in terms of shape.

I'm not saying if you have thin hair it will look bad- by no means! LHC is all about going for your own aesthetic, I think. And I've seen plenty of counterexamples both ways, long sleek hair and short full hair, both looking fabulous.

kitana97
August 1st, 2014, 02:20 PM
I'm 5'9" and my numbers are 26 and 43, which on me (measuring from the crown of my head) is WSL and then around classic. And then measuring at the hairline is at BSL and a few inches past BCL which is where I am right now. By next year I hope to be at classic. And my goal is to grow until terminal - but I would probably like to maintain at mid thigh. *fingers crossed*

In the words of Lil' Wayne - long hair don't care :)

Syren_Curls
August 1st, 2014, 03:33 PM
Thank you guys for clarifying... that makes more sense to me now! I will agree, each individual head of hair plays a big factor in this whole equation (bad pun on my part!). I'm a curly and so the age-old question of to layer or not to layer is always at play. Layering will affect the shape of my hair as well as the perceived thickness as well as overall length. Many factors to take into account.

frejafjord
August 1st, 2014, 05:22 PM
Calculator didn't work for me either! I worked it out on a real calculator though (I think I did okay) and got 41 inches? It seems about right I suppose. I can't work out my shorter ideal length though. It seems generally for everyone it is waist and fingertips though.
This was my calculation:

67 (my height in inches) divided by 41 (trial and error length in inches) equals 1.63

If you can't get the calculator to work just keep switching my "trial and error length" number until the answer comes up as the golden ratio (roughly)

EDIT: I just tried using the calculator that MINAKO posted and it worked :) I got 41 and 26 (plus 5 on both for the LHC measurement). I wish I could go to 46 but my hair is so so tangly and split prone I don't know if it's possible without wearing it up constantly which I don't want to do. 31 is just about an inch shy of tail bone on me and I think that might actually be a great length for me. I could wear it out alot but it still be manageable (plus I can't sit on it :cool:)

I really like the idea of following this because I'm abit of a compulsive trimmer and this would give me a nice goal for when I can start microtrimming. Also can you imagine telling someone your hair is the golden ratio when they tell you it's "too long" :bigtongue:

two_wheels
August 1st, 2014, 05:32 PM
If you don't like trial and error:
Shorter length is your height divided by 2.618 (ish)
Longer length is your height multiplied by 0.618 (ish)
Then add 5" to adjust to LHC measuring.

Pure mathematicians will puke at this. I know, I used to be one. Sorry Pierre and Magda.

HairFaerie
August 1st, 2014, 05:35 PM
Can someone help me, please? Math is not my forte and I cannot get the calculator. I am 5'7. Do you need any other information? Thank you in advance! :)

PsychoLoverly
August 1st, 2014, 05:37 PM
HairFaerie Do you know how many inches from your hairline to the top of your head? That way I can translate it into LHC terms:D

frejafjord
August 1st, 2014, 05:40 PM
If you don't like trial and error:
Shorter length is your height divided by 2.618 (ish)
Longer length is your height multiplied by 0.618 (ish)
Then add 5" to adjust to LHC measuring.

Pure mathematicians will puke at this. I know, I used to be one. Sorry Pierre and Magda.


Thanks for the help! I should really be working it out properly (not using the calculator) cause if I can't do this I probably don't have a chance in hell at my degree :hmm: There's a reason I'm a geologist and not an engineer though :smile:


Can someone help me, please? Math is not my forte and I cannot get the calculator. I am 5'7. Do you need any other information? Thank you in advance! :)

Hey HairFaerie you are the same height as me so your calculations would be the same as mine :)

two_wheels
August 1st, 2014, 05:40 PM
Sure
5'7" = 67"
67 / 2.618 + 5 = 30.6"
67 * 0.618 + 5 = 46.4"

Measured LHC way, from front hairline to tips

two_wheels
August 1st, 2014, 05:41 PM
Hey HairFaerie you are the same height as me so your calculations would be the same as mine :)

Nothing wrong with a pragmatic answer that is faster!

PsychoLoverly
August 1st, 2014, 05:44 PM
Haha you guys are fast! dang! :D

queenovnight
August 1st, 2014, 05:57 PM
Hmm, interesting! I got 46-31 - I added the LHC 7. This might actually suit me quite well. - I say that because im currently in the 30's and this is when the 'hair compliments' started coming in. For me, 46 is scrapping knee, and I don't know how good that will look.. (it's a goal though) but hey, it's fun to calculate anyways XD Thanks to MINAKO for posting a link!

two_wheels
August 1st, 2014, 05:58 PM
Thanks for the help! I should really be working it out properly (not using the calculator) cause if I can't do this I probably don't have a chance in hell at my degree :hmm: There's a reason I'm a geologist and not an engineer though :smile:

It's ok!

The ratio of the long-length to the short-length is 1.618(ish):1
The sum of the long-length and the short-length should equal your height
Turn that into algebra and you're all set :)

truepeacenik
August 1st, 2014, 09:51 PM
Huh. I'm using Minkao's link, and I'm once inch away from the longer length, after LHC translation.
Folks have noted that the points are usually waist and mid thigh.

What would a third point be? Because I am not stopping.
Knee? Mid calf? What would the numbers be..

neko_kawaii
August 1st, 2014, 10:01 PM
According to that I'm right at my perfect long ratio. I disagree. Maybe with more taper that would be the case, but hooray for minimal taper at classic!

StellaKatherine
August 1st, 2014, 10:37 PM
I got 26 inches and 42 inches. So I guess when turned to LHC measurement my golden ration is about classical lenght on me, maybe little longer!!! YES!!!! :D

frejafjord
August 2nd, 2014, 01:53 AM
It's ok!

The ratio of the long-length to the short-length is 1.618(ish):1
The sum of the long-length and the short-length should equal your height
Turn that into algebra and you're all set :)

Thank you! This is much easier for me to understand :)

HairFaerie
August 2nd, 2014, 07:07 AM
Thank you everyone that helped me! :)

curiouskitty
January 20th, 2015, 02:25 PM
According to the golden ratio, my 'ideal' hair length is 23" (I'm 5'1/2" tall), which puts me at just about waist length (where I wanna be!). 9 more inches to go! :D

zmirina
July 1st, 2019, 08:14 AM
It ends up being hip or fingertip length for me! Hip/tailbone is where i want to be, FT is just too much