A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Crank Arm Length



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 7th 17, 09:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Crank Arm Length

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:42:28 PM UTC-7, JQ wrote:
On 8/5/2017 2:57 PM, wrote:
We've probably argued about this before but since I can't remember crap I can get clean opinions.

I presently ride 175 mm length crank arms. I have problems spinning and watching the Tour this year what was clear was that there are no more luggers in the peleton. This suggests that spinning is the way to go.

So: Has anyone experimented with different crank arm lengths and have they been able to tell the difference between one size different in length?


I recently went from a 175 crank arm to 165, I did this because I have
severe degenerative arthritis in both knees. My pedal stroke seems to be
weakest and 3 to 6 but the top of the pedal stroke is the hardest on my
knees. With the shorter crank arm my power out put was a little better
on the power graph, the greatest benefit is to knee comfort especially
at the top of my pedal stroke. I can know actually ride in the drops
comfortably without my knees feeling like they are in my chest and
greater knee pains at the top. It is easier to spin at easier gearing
because the distance of pedal travel is shorter, now for the downside...
pedaling it is much harder takes more effort to turn the pedal using the
same gearing. You also feel like you don't get the same amount of power
and momentum per pedal stroke because of the shorter distance of the
pedal stroke circumference. Gear set up was 53/39 front and 11-23 rear
(my flat land and crit racing set up). What I noticed is to pedal with
similar effort I needed to drop down at least 2 gears (53/15 would need
to be 53/17). This doesn't sound like much of a difference but it is as
far as speed and power is concerned. I just changed my gearing set up on
my bike to 52/38 and 11-28 (to be able to climb hills). I even have a
12-30 for really steep hills. My original reason for changing out the
crank arms was for the arthritis of the knees, but I was hit by a high
speed car from the rear and was jacked up pretty good resulting in over
9 weeks in the hospital, over 22 broken bones through out my body
including neck, back and both legs, colostomy (after 1.5 years just had
it reversed!) and other injuries; in brief the shorter crank arms were
even more important because of the additional damage to my knees. I have
been on a long recovery and physical therapy to restrengthen my legs and
body. The recent change in gearing has made things easier but I have a
long ways to go to get back my strength, speed and power. I do like the
shorter crank arms for my knees but and being able to ride on the drops
but dislike that it takes more physical strength to pedal the same
gearing. Keep in mind the strength thing may have only been getting use
to the added resistance but adding the accident into the mix may not be
a fair comparison to an able body rider, other than I am able to pedal
without my knees feeling like they will lock up at the top of the pedal
stroke as they felt before I changed out the crank arms. oh few more
things that I need to mention; you will need to modify your bike fit by
raising the saddle height, your saddle position may need t move back or
forward, your bar height and stem length may need to be changed or at
least getting used to. I had already shorten up my stem and but have not
raised it which may be my next change as I am now in a very aggressive
forward lean, tough on the lower back, neck and arms which the accident
didn't help.


How tall are you?
Ads
  #12  
Old August 7th 17, 11:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JQ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Crank Arm Length

On 8/7/2017 4:52 PM, wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:42:28 PM UTC-7, JQ wrote:
On 8/5/2017 2:57 PM,
wrote:
We've probably argued about this before but since I can't remember crap I can get clean opinions.

I presently ride 175 mm length crank arms. I have problems spinning and watching the Tour this year what was clear was that there are no more luggers in the peleton. This suggests that spinning is the way to go.

So: Has anyone experimented with different crank arm lengths and have they been able to tell the difference between one size different in length?

I recently went from a 175 crank arm to 165, I did this because I have
severe degenerative arthritis in both knees. My pedal stroke seems to be
weakest and 3 to 6 but the top of the pedal stroke is the hardest on my
knees. With the shorter crank arm my power out put was a little better
on the power graph, the greatest benefit is to knee comfort especially
at the top of my pedal stroke. I can know actually ride in the drops
comfortably without my knees feeling like they are in my chest and
greater knee pains at the top. It is easier to spin at easier gearing
because the distance of pedal travel is shorter, now for the downside...
pedaling it is much harder takes more effort to turn the pedal using the
same gearing. You also feel like you don't get the same amount of power
and momentum per pedal stroke because of the shorter distance of the
pedal stroke circumference. Gear set up was 53/39 front and 11-23 rear
(my flat land and crit racing set up). What I noticed is to pedal with
similar effort I needed to drop down at least 2 gears (53/15 would need
to be 53/17). This doesn't sound like much of a difference but it is as
far as speed and power is concerned. I just changed my gearing set up on
my bike to 52/38 and 11-28 (to be able to climb hills). I even have a
12-30 for really steep hills. My original reason for changing out the
crank arms was for the arthritis of the knees, but I was hit by a high
speed car from the rear and was jacked up pretty good resulting in over
9 weeks in the hospital, over 22 broken bones through out my body
including neck, back and both legs, colostomy (after 1.5 years just had
it reversed!) and other injuries; in brief the shorter crank arms were
even more important because of the additional damage to my knees. I have
been on a long recovery and physical therapy to restrengthen my legs and
body. The recent change in gearing has made things easier but I have a
long ways to go to get back my strength, speed and power. I do like the
shorter crank arms for my knees but and being able to ride on the drops
but dislike that it takes more physical strength to pedal the same
gearing. Keep in mind the strength thing may have only been getting use
to the added resistance but adding the accident into the mix may not be
a fair comparison to an able body rider, other than I am able to pedal
without my knees feeling like they will lock up at the top of the pedal
stroke as they felt before I changed out the crank arms. oh few more
things that I need to mention; you will need to modify your bike fit by
raising the saddle height, your saddle position may need t move back or
forward, your bar height and stem length may need to be changed or at
least getting used to. I had already shorten up my stem and but have not
raised it which may be my next change as I am now in a very aggressive
forward lean, tough on the lower back, neck and arms which the accident
didn't help.

How tall are you?


6' tall with 33.5" inseam

--
Ride fast, ride hard, ride for health and enjoyment... JQ Dancing on the
edge

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

  #13  
Old August 7th 17, 11:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JQ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Crank Arm Length

On 8/7/2017 4:52 PM, wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:42:28 PM UTC-7, JQ wrote:
On 8/5/2017 2:57 PM,
wrote:
We've probably argued about this before but since I can't remember crap I can get clean opinions.

I presently ride 175 mm length crank arms. I have problems spinning and watching the Tour this year what was clear was that there are no more luggers in the peleton. This suggests that spinning is the way to go.

So: Has anyone experimented with different crank arm lengths and have they been able to tell the difference between one size different in length?

I recently went from a 175 crank arm to 165, I did this because I have
severe degenerative arthritis in both knees. My pedal stroke seems to be
weakest and 3 to 6 but the top of the pedal stroke is the hardest on my
knees. With the shorter crank arm my power out put was a little better
on the power graph, the greatest benefit is to knee comfort especially
at the top of my pedal stroke. I can know actually ride in the drops
comfortably without my knees feeling like they are in my chest and
greater knee pains at the top. It is easier to spin at easier gearing
because the distance of pedal travel is shorter, now for the downside...
pedaling it is much harder takes more effort to turn the pedal using the
same gearing. You also feel like you don't get the same amount of power
and momentum per pedal stroke because of the shorter distance of the
pedal stroke circumference. Gear set up was 53/39 front and 11-23 rear
(my flat land and crit racing set up). What I noticed is to pedal with
similar effort I needed to drop down at least 2 gears (53/15 would need
to be 53/17). This doesn't sound like much of a difference but it is as
far as speed and power is concerned. I just changed my gearing set up on
my bike to 52/38 and 11-28 (to be able to climb hills). I even have a
12-30 for really steep hills. My original reason for changing out the
crank arms was for the arthritis of the knees, but I was hit by a high
speed car from the rear and was jacked up pretty good resulting in over
9 weeks in the hospital, over 22 broken bones through out my body
including neck, back and both legs, colostomy (after 1.5 years just had
it reversed!) and other injuries; in brief the shorter crank arms were
even more important because of the additional damage to my knees. I have
been on a long recovery and physical therapy to restrengthen my legs and
body. The recent change in gearing has made things easier but I have a
long ways to go to get back my strength, speed and power. I do like the
shorter crank arms for my knees but and being able to ride on the drops
but dislike that it takes more physical strength to pedal the same
gearing. Keep in mind the strength thing may have only been getting use
to the added resistance but adding the accident into the mix may not be
a fair comparison to an able body rider, other than I am able to pedal
without my knees feeling like they will lock up at the top of the pedal
stroke as they felt before I changed out the crank arms. oh few more
things that I need to mention; you will need to modify your bike fit by
raising the saddle height, your saddle position may need t move back or
forward, your bar height and stem length may need to be changed or at
least getting used to. I had already shorten up my stem and but have not
raised it which may be my next change as I am now in a very aggressive
forward lean, tough on the lower back, neck and arms which the accident
didn't help.

How tall are you?


6 foot and 33.5 inch inseam


--
Ride fast, ride hard, ride for health and enjoyment... JQ Dancing on the
edge

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

  #14  
Old August 8th 17, 12:42 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Crank Arm Length

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 3:29:34 PM UTC-7, JQ wrote:
On 8/7/2017 4:52 PM, wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:42:28 PM UTC-7, JQ wrote:
On 8/5/2017 2:57 PM,
wrote:
We've probably argued about this before but since I can't remember crap I can get clean opinions.

I presently ride 175 mm length crank arms. I have problems spinning and watching the Tour this year what was clear was that there are no more luggers in the peleton. This suggests that spinning is the way to go.

So: Has anyone experimented with different crank arm lengths and have they been able to tell the difference between one size different in length?
I recently went from a 175 crank arm to 165, I did this because I have
severe degenerative arthritis in both knees. My pedal stroke seems to be
weakest and 3 to 6 but the top of the pedal stroke is the hardest on my
knees. With the shorter crank arm my power out put was a little better
on the power graph, the greatest benefit is to knee comfort especially
at the top of my pedal stroke. I can know actually ride in the drops
comfortably without my knees feeling like they are in my chest and
greater knee pains at the top. It is easier to spin at easier gearing
because the distance of pedal travel is shorter, now for the downside...
pedaling it is much harder takes more effort to turn the pedal using the
same gearing. You also feel like you don't get the same amount of power
and momentum per pedal stroke because of the shorter distance of the
pedal stroke circumference. Gear set up was 53/39 front and 11-23 rear
(my flat land and crit racing set up). What I noticed is to pedal with
similar effort I needed to drop down at least 2 gears (53/15 would need
to be 53/17). This doesn't sound like much of a difference but it is as
far as speed and power is concerned. I just changed my gearing set up on
my bike to 52/38 and 11-28 (to be able to climb hills). I even have a
12-30 for really steep hills. My original reason for changing out the
crank arms was for the arthritis of the knees, but I was hit by a high
speed car from the rear and was jacked up pretty good resulting in over
9 weeks in the hospital, over 22 broken bones through out my body
including neck, back and both legs, colostomy (after 1.5 years just had
it reversed!) and other injuries; in brief the shorter crank arms were
even more important because of the additional damage to my knees. I have
been on a long recovery and physical therapy to restrengthen my legs and
body. The recent change in gearing has made things easier but I have a
long ways to go to get back my strength, speed and power. I do like the
shorter crank arms for my knees but and being able to ride on the drops
but dislike that it takes more physical strength to pedal the same
gearing. Keep in mind the strength thing may have only been getting use
to the added resistance but adding the accident into the mix may not be
a fair comparison to an able body rider, other than I am able to pedal
without my knees feeling like they will lock up at the top of the pedal
stroke as they felt before I changed out the crank arms. oh few more
things that I need to mention; you will need to modify your bike fit by
raising the saddle height, your saddle position may need t move back or
forward, your bar height and stem length may need to be changed or at
least getting used to. I had already shorten up my stem and but have not
raised it which may be my next change as I am now in a very aggressive
forward lean, tough on the lower back, neck and arms which the accident
didn't help.

How tall are you?


6' tall with 33.5" inseam


Since you're 4" shorter and with a 1/2" shorter inseam I don't suppose I'll have any problems.
  #15  
Old August 8th 17, 03:43 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default Crank Arm Length

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:33:40 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:55:16 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 08:13:39 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:05:51 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 6:47:46 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 11:57:18 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

We've probably argued about this before but since I can't remember crap I can get clean opinions.

I presently ride 175 mm length crank arms. I have problems spinning and watching the Tour this year what was clear was that there are no more luggers in the peleton. This suggests that spinning is the way to go.

So: Has anyone experimented with different crank arm lengths and have they been able to tell the difference between one size different in length?

Years ago I conducted a personal test of spinning versus lugging (as
you call it) I rode 50km out, on a 100 km route, lugging and the
returning 50 km spinning. The second half was definitely faster.
Terrain in that case was pretty much the same in the two parts of the
test.

Currently I keep, on Phuket Island where the above test was conducted,
a road bike, currently with 170mm cranks, and a utility" bike with
175mm cranks. While most of the utility rides are in the local area I
do a 20km ride on it, usually once a week.

I can't tell the difference between 170 and 175mm cranks. In fact the
road bike originally had a mountain bike triple chain wheel set with
175mm cranks. When I changed it to a road bike triple with 170mm
cranks I never noticed the difference.

On the other hand spinning is probably not instinctive and lugging (I
prefer the verb "Mashing :-) probably is so you need to work at it a
little before it becomes instinctive.

The Pros spin at pretty high rates, Froome was said to be spinning
nearly 100rpm going up hill, but that probably isn't practical for the
average rider.

Initially, try riding, on level ground, and spinning at say 90 rpm, in
a lower gear ratio. When spinning begins to feel natural up the spin
to 100 rpm. I think that you will find it becoming natural after a
while.

Initially the secret is to use a lower gear ratio. 80 rpm in a 50 - 18
gear results in ~27 kph. 100 rpm in a 50 - 23 gear results in ~27 kph.

I think that I would like a 50-11 top gear and a 34-28 bottom. This should give me everything I have with the triple except the bottom 2 gears which I never use (well, once up a 30% grade - how common are those?)

By the way John - thanks for the information and I'll be sure and let you know the results of the experiment.


I might mention that when I first tried spinning that I seemed to
bounce in the saddle. It takes a little practice.


I pedal circles so I don't bounce.


You'd be surprised. Get a tachometer and see how high you can go
without bouncing :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #16  
Old August 8th 17, 06:33 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JQ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Crank Arm Length

On 8/7/2017 7:42 PM, wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 3:29:34 PM UTC-7, JQ wrote:
On 8/7/2017 4:52 PM,
wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:42:28 PM UTC-7, JQ wrote:
On 8/5/2017 2:57 PM,
wrote:
We've probably argued about this before but since I can't remember crap I can get clean opinions.

I presently ride 175 mm length crank arms. I have problems spinning and watching the Tour this year what was clear was that there are no more luggers in the peleton. This suggests that spinning is the way to go.

So: Has anyone experimented with different crank arm lengths and have they been able to tell the difference between one size different in length?
I recently went from a 175 crank arm to 165, I did this because I have
severe degenerative arthritis in both knees. My pedal stroke seems to be
weakest and 3 to 6 but the top of the pedal stroke is the hardest on my
knees. With the shorter crank arm my power out put was a little better
on the power graph, the greatest benefit is to knee comfort especially
at the top of my pedal stroke. I can know actually ride in the drops
comfortably without my knees feeling like they are in my chest and
greater knee pains at the top. It is easier to spin at easier gearing
because the distance of pedal travel is shorter, now for the downside...
pedaling it is much harder takes more effort to turn the pedal using the
same gearing. You also feel like you don't get the same amount of power
and momentum per pedal stroke because of the shorter distance of the
pedal stroke circumference. Gear set up was 53/39 front and 11-23 rear
(my flat land and crit racing set up). What I noticed is to pedal with
similar effort I needed to drop down at least 2 gears (53/15 would need
to be 53/17). This doesn't sound like much of a difference but it is as
far as speed and power is concerned. I just changed my gearing set up on
my bike to 52/38 and 11-28 (to be able to climb hills). I even have a
12-30 for really steep hills. My original reason for changing out the
crank arms was for the arthritis of the knees, but I was hit by a high
speed car from the rear and was jacked up pretty good resulting in over
9 weeks in the hospital, over 22 broken bones through out my body
including neck, back and both legs, colostomy (after 1.5 years just had
it reversed!) and other injuries; in brief the shorter crank arms were
even more important because of the additional damage to my knees. I have
been on a long recovery and physical therapy to restrengthen my legs and
body. The recent change in gearing has made things easier but I have a
long ways to go to get back my strength, speed and power. I do like the
shorter crank arms for my knees but and being able to ride on the drops
but dislike that it takes more physical strength to pedal the same
gearing. Keep in mind the strength thing may have only been getting use
to the added resistance but adding the accident into the mix may not be
a fair comparison to an able body rider, other than I am able to pedal
without my knees feeling like they will lock up at the top of the pedal
stroke as they felt before I changed out the crank arms. oh few more
things that I need to mention; you will need to modify your bike fit by
raising the saddle height, your saddle position may need t move back or
forward, your bar height and stem length may need to be changed or at
least getting used to. I had already shorten up my stem and but have not
raised it which may be my next change as I am now in a very aggressive
forward lean, tough on the lower back, neck and arms which the accident
didn't help.
How tall are you?

6' tall with 33.5" inseam

Since you're 4" shorter and with a 1/2" shorter inseam I don't suppose I'll have any problems.


being 4" taller 6'4" tall and 34" inseam and having longer legs will
mean you will have more radical changes than I did. If you were shorter
the shorter crank arms will may be more beneficial all the way around.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by not having any problems.
What problems were you thinking of?

--
Ride fast, ride hard, ride for health and enjoyment... JQ Dancing on the
edge

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

  #17  
Old August 8th 17, 07:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default Crank Arm Length

On 08/08/17 12:43, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:33:40 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



I pedal circles so I don't bounce.


You'd be surprised. Get a tachometer and see how high you can go
without bouncing :-)


Practise spinning by riding on rollers. You'll soon find out how fast
you can pedal smoothly.

--
JS

  #18  
Old August 8th 17, 02:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Crank Arm Length

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:33:15 PM UTC-7, JQ wrote:
On 8/7/2017 7:42 PM, wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 3:29:34 PM UTC-7, JQ wrote:
On 8/7/2017 4:52 PM,
wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:42:28 PM UTC-7, JQ wrote:
On 8/5/2017 2:57 PM,
wrote:
We've probably argued about this before but since I can't remember crap I can get clean opinions.

I presently ride 175 mm length crank arms. I have problems spinning and watching the Tour this year what was clear was that there are no more luggers in the peleton. This suggests that spinning is the way to go.

So: Has anyone experimented with different crank arm lengths and have they been able to tell the difference between one size different in length?
I recently went from a 175 crank arm to 165, I did this because I have
severe degenerative arthritis in both knees. My pedal stroke seems to be
weakest and 3 to 6 but the top of the pedal stroke is the hardest on my
knees. With the shorter crank arm my power out put was a little better
on the power graph, the greatest benefit is to knee comfort especially
at the top of my pedal stroke. I can know actually ride in the drops
comfortably without my knees feeling like they are in my chest and
greater knee pains at the top. It is easier to spin at easier gearing
because the distance of pedal travel is shorter, now for the downside...
pedaling it is much harder takes more effort to turn the pedal using the
same gearing. You also feel like you don't get the same amount of power
and momentum per pedal stroke because of the shorter distance of the
pedal stroke circumference. Gear set up was 53/39 front and 11-23 rear
(my flat land and crit racing set up). What I noticed is to pedal with
similar effort I needed to drop down at least 2 gears (53/15 would need
to be 53/17). This doesn't sound like much of a difference but it is as
far as speed and power is concerned. I just changed my gearing set up on
my bike to 52/38 and 11-28 (to be able to climb hills). I even have a
12-30 for really steep hills. My original reason for changing out the
crank arms was for the arthritis of the knees, but I was hit by a high
speed car from the rear and was jacked up pretty good resulting in over
9 weeks in the hospital, over 22 broken bones through out my body
including neck, back and both legs, colostomy (after 1.5 years just had
it reversed!) and other injuries; in brief the shorter crank arms were
even more important because of the additional damage to my knees. I have
been on a long recovery and physical therapy to restrengthen my legs and
body. The recent change in gearing has made things easier but I have a
long ways to go to get back my strength, speed and power. I do like the
shorter crank arms for my knees but and being able to ride on the drops
but dislike that it takes more physical strength to pedal the same
gearing. Keep in mind the strength thing may have only been getting use
to the added resistance but adding the accident into the mix may not be
a fair comparison to an able body rider, other than I am able to pedal
without my knees feeling like they will lock up at the top of the pedal
stroke as they felt before I changed out the crank arms. oh few more
things that I need to mention; you will need to modify your bike fit by
raising the saddle height, your saddle position may need t move back or
forward, your bar height and stem length may need to be changed or at
least getting used to. I had already shorten up my stem and but have not
raised it which may be my next change as I am now in a very aggressive
forward lean, tough on the lower back, neck and arms which the accident
didn't help.
How tall are you?
6' tall with 33.5" inseam

Since you're 4" shorter and with a 1/2" shorter inseam I don't suppose I'll have any problems.


being 4" taller 6'4" tall and 34" inseam and having longer legs will
mean you will have more radical changes than I did. If you were shorter
the shorter crank arms will may be more beneficial all the way around.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by not having any problems.
What problems were you thinking of?


Knee pain.
  #19  
Old August 8th 17, 02:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Crank Arm Length

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 7:43:38 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:33:40 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:55:16 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 08:13:39 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:05:51 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 6:47:46 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 11:57:18 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

We've probably argued about this before but since I can't remember crap I can get clean opinions.

I presently ride 175 mm length crank arms. I have problems spinning and watching the Tour this year what was clear was that there are no more luggers in the peleton. This suggests that spinning is the way to go.

So: Has anyone experimented with different crank arm lengths and have they been able to tell the difference between one size different in length?

Years ago I conducted a personal test of spinning versus lugging (as
you call it) I rode 50km out, on a 100 km route, lugging and the
returning 50 km spinning. The second half was definitely faster.
Terrain in that case was pretty much the same in the two parts of the
test.

Currently I keep, on Phuket Island where the above test was conducted,
a road bike, currently with 170mm cranks, and a utility" bike with
175mm cranks. While most of the utility rides are in the local area I
do a 20km ride on it, usually once a week.

I can't tell the difference between 170 and 175mm cranks. In fact the
road bike originally had a mountain bike triple chain wheel set with
175mm cranks. When I changed it to a road bike triple with 170mm
cranks I never noticed the difference.

On the other hand spinning is probably not instinctive and lugging (I
prefer the verb "Mashing :-) probably is so you need to work at it a
little before it becomes instinctive.

The Pros spin at pretty high rates, Froome was said to be spinning
nearly 100rpm going up hill, but that probably isn't practical for the
average rider.

Initially, try riding, on level ground, and spinning at say 90 rpm, in
a lower gear ratio. When spinning begins to feel natural up the spin
to 100 rpm. I think that you will find it becoming natural after a
while.

Initially the secret is to use a lower gear ratio. 80 rpm in a 50 - 18
gear results in ~27 kph. 100 rpm in a 50 - 23 gear results in ~27 kph.

I think that I would like a 50-11 top gear and a 34-28 bottom. This should give me everything I have with the triple except the bottom 2 gears which I never use (well, once up a 30% grade - how common are those?)

By the way John - thanks for the information and I'll be sure and let you know the results of the experiment.

I might mention that when I first tried spinning that I seemed to
bounce in the saddle. It takes a little practice.


I pedal circles so I don't bounce.


You'd be surprised. Get a tachometer and see how high you can go
without bouncing :-)


Right now I'm just returning to condition but last year at this time I could accelerate through yellow lights up to 32 mph in third gear without bouncing. This was a 52/15. In a 52/12 I could ride for four or five miles at 28 mph.

In the first case that's 116 rpm without bouncing.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Refining choice for a shorter crank. Crank length selection and seat position. Steve Freides[_2_] Techniques 12 August 2nd 11 05:52 AM
Crank Length? FatTire Unicycling 11 January 31st 07 08:27 AM
FS SRM 172.5 crank length Pro [email protected] Marketplace 0 June 19th 06 10:25 PM
Crank Length Jee Doy Techniques 8 November 29th 04 10:21 PM
Crank length ???? Jansen A. Danganan Mountain Biking 14 January 20th 04 03:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.