TIBIA LENGTH
A "mini investigation" was conducted to determine a function
of a tibia length to femur length ratio. This and the Femur length
ratio help describe the "legginess" of the subject.a quality especially desirable in femdroids. A synopsis of this bit of research
follows:
[1] Additional (see the femur section) Assumptions:
[1.1] The tibia will be less than the femur (from Gray and from
King). A longer tibia than the respective femur is
pathological.
[1.2] This measurement can be defined from some function using
the length of the femur (which is related to overall
height.)
[2] Definitions:
[2.1] Tibia length (TibiaLEN): The tibia's length as measured
from top condyle that articulates with the femur to the
condyle that articulates with the talus. Because of the
interaction of the knee joint, these measurements may
overlap in the overall height even though there is a
cartilage between the condyle surfaces.
[2.2] Aspect Ratio (AspectR for the scope of this topic): The
object of this discussion. It is the TibiaLEN divided by
the femur length (FemrLEN). The factors are each expected to be about a quarter of the individual's height,
even in a long legged person; more specifically, a "leggy" female as the desired android. This aspect ratio is
tightly coupled to the FemrLEN/OAHeight ratio. An attractive female could still have a greater ratio than a
man or not-so-attractive woman.
[3] Desired Attributes of Subjects (Same as a previous discussion
about the femur length for consistency):
[4] Findings:
[4.1] SAMPLE =========================
Avg.
[4.2.2] There is a tendency to have a ratio closer to
one (1.0) as the subject's tibia length gets
longer. The length is a function of the subjects size. The lack of points to the left of
the .8 cluster is proof that this is not a normal distribution. "Fire plugs in pantyhose" were not in the data set. This obviously skews the average.
[4.2.3] High heels make the leg's calf appear longer.
The high heel class produced the highest maximum ratio.
[4.2.4] Strangely, bare feet have more values in the
highest range (6) to high heels (5).
[4.2.5] Bare feet on toes appeared to increase the
ratio as tibia measurement decreased. This is
unexpected and unexplainable.
[4.2.6] The curve for flat heel shoes is most linear,
but it had only 1 point greater than .95.
[4.2.7] High heels have the widest variation; the
highest and lowest ratios. This is unexpected
and the reason is unknown also.
[5] CONCLUSIONS:
[5.1] A doll's, model's or android's tibia length-to-femur
length ratio for this described desired subject may vary
around 90%.
[5.2] The measurement should be easy to determine because this
is a simple function of a given value or a result of
other functions. This function being:
See the definitions topic for more information about
"AspectR."
[5.3] The AspectR constant for the following attributes:
[5.3.1] Of the desired subject as described: 90%
[5.3.2] For average appearance: 80%
[5.3.3] Pathological: <70% or >98%.
The longer femur with the associated length of the tibia
(and the fibula) comprise about an additional 6% of the body
height to the standard quarter for the femur and the second
quarter to the floor regarding the attractive leg length.
Although 6% does not seem like much, the corresponding 6% out
of the upper half of the body makes a 12% difference.
The ratios for masculine androids have not been
investigated. It can be assumed that if using the pathological range is not suitable, then the average-less one standard
deviation (appearance) value is probably quite usable.
Perhaps this is not a gender dependent ratio.
The accompanying graph was made with the same technique and
for the same reason as . The .PIC format does not wipe
over the desired image in a .WPG file, but the graphic is not as
smooth as the HPGL type file type provides.
Many of the points regarding measurements, design, and construction mentioned in the femur topic apply here also. Any "Other
tibia facts are:" subsections should be in the general "Tibia"
entry.