What Sort of Gearing Works Best for your Needs?
04-16-21, 08:08 PM
#151
Drip, Drip.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575
Bikes: Trek Verve E bike, Felt Doctrine 4 XC, Opus Horizon Apex 1
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times
in
163 Posts
Thought I'd revisit this thread after getting some 190mm crank arms.
I now have a much wider range of reasonably cadences to spin in each gear. I can also coordinate myself to spin much faster in the lower gears than with my prevuous 175mm arms.
I'm using 34/50 chainrings with a 11-34 9 speed cassette. I have the limit screws set to stop at the two outer most cogs. Effectively a 13-30 7 speed. My observations:
- 13t is sufficient for the majority of hills
34/30 is simply not enough when riding even with a light load, if we're talking about more serious hills. Don't understand how some of these road bikes come with a 42/52 front rings and up to 28t for the rear freewheel.
I shift gears much less often with my new crankarms. Before I would always have to play around with the ratios to try and maintain a very specific cadence. These new crank arms give me a much better idea of what works best for my needs. I still try to maintain a specific cadence, but I don't need to change the ratios nearly as often as I'm content with pedalling at a lower or higher than average cadence depending on the situation.
For regular unloaded riding on pavement id like 36/48 with a close ratio 13-28 cassette in the back.
Loaded riding would require a better spaced freewheel. Gravel would require less teeth on the chainrings. Achieving an ideal balance between front and rear tooth count according to your specific needs is critical here.
Also, my 9 speed cassette seems to shift much smoother and offer better acceleration while shifting compared to my old 6 speed freewheel. Maybe its because of the profiling of the teeth?,
Ultimately it boils down to getting the chainline right, in which case I'd like a 3x setup up front with a close ratio cassette in the back.
I ditched the biopace rings and strap in pedals with the introduction of my new crank arms. I feel like I can spin just as smooth now without them. Probably thanks to the bottom bracket. I do want to try both of them out with the 190mm crank arms though.
I now have a much wider range of reasonably cadences to spin in each gear. I can also coordinate myself to spin much faster in the lower gears than with my prevuous 175mm arms.
I'm using 34/50 chainrings with a 11-34 9 speed cassette. I have the limit screws set to stop at the two outer most cogs. Effectively a 13-30 7 speed. My observations:
- 13t is sufficient for the majority of hills
34/30 is simply not enough when riding even with a light load, if we're talking about more serious hills. Don't understand how some of these road bikes come with a 42/52 front rings and up to 28t for the rear freewheel.
I shift gears much less often with my new crankarms. Before I would always have to play around with the ratios to try and maintain a very specific cadence. These new crank arms give me a much better idea of what works best for my needs. I still try to maintain a specific cadence, but I don't need to change the ratios nearly as often as I'm content with pedalling at a lower or higher than average cadence depending on the situation.
For regular unloaded riding on pavement id like 36/48 with a close ratio 13-28 cassette in the back.
Loaded riding would require a better spaced freewheel. Gravel would require less teeth on the chainrings. Achieving an ideal balance between front and rear tooth count according to your specific needs is critical here.
Also, my 9 speed cassette seems to shift much smoother and offer better acceleration while shifting compared to my old 6 speed freewheel. Maybe its because of the profiling of the teeth?,
Ultimately it boils down to getting the chainline right, in which case I'd like a 3x setup up front with a close ratio cassette in the back.
I ditched the biopace rings and strap in pedals with the introduction of my new crank arms. I feel like I can spin just as smooth now without them. Probably thanks to the bottom bracket. I do want to try both of them out with the 190mm crank arms though.
04-16-21, 09:41 PM
#153
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,355
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6215 Post(s)
Liked 4,213 Times
in
2,362 Posts
Yes. A smaller wheel will result in faster acceleration but lower top speed. You have to work harder with larger wheels to get up to speed but you also have to work harder to keep that speed as well. There’s a bit of a flywheel advantage but only a bit. The wheel really isn’t heavy enough to act as much of a flywheel and the difference in weight between a small wheel and a large wheel isn’t all that great.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
10-19-21, 03:32 AM
#155
Drip, Drip.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575
Bikes: Trek Verve E bike, Felt Doctrine 4 XC, Opus Horizon Apex 1
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times
in
163 Posts
Revisiting this thread, I find that crank arm length is a bit factor with influencing crank arm length. Something between 20-21% of your cycling inseam should offer the right amount of gear inches for most riders.
As for actual gear teeth counts and what not, id mostly go for a 1x setup and avoid 11t final drive cassettes like the plague.
Something like a 28/36/44t with a 13-32 for a hybrid bike.. all around useful gearing, unless you like to race the downhills at lower cadences...
34/48 and 12-28 for road,
26/34/42 and 14-40 for mountain..
As for actual gear teeth counts and what not, id mostly go for a 1x setup and avoid 11t final drive cassettes like the plague.
Something like a 28/36/44t with a 13-32 for a hybrid bike.. all around useful gearing, unless you like to race the downhills at lower cadences...
34/48 and 12-28 for road,
26/34/42 and 14-40 for mountain..
10-19-21, 05:12 AM
#156
Expired Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 11,526
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3661 Post(s)
Liked 5,408 Times
in
2,747 Posts
10-19-21, 08:20 AM
#157
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,608
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10954 Post(s)
Liked 7,482 Times
in
4,184 Posts
moist, I too have found that crank arm length is a bit factor with influencing crank arm length.
All seriousness, 20% of my cycling inseam is 193mm. I have yet to care much about crank length. I have 175mm on my main road bike, 172.5mm on my gravel bike, 170mm on a secondary road bike, and 180mm on my commute bike only because I happened to have the crank and wanted to try it but dont ride the bike frequently enough to care about changing it to something shorter.
I could switch between those bikes all day and not care at all about the different lengths, and they are 1-2cm shorter than what you say I should have.
Also, it seems like you dont know what gear inches means. That isnt a crank arm length, its a comparison between front and rear tooth counts on a drivetrain.
All seriousness, 20% of my cycling inseam is 193mm. I have yet to care much about crank length. I have 175mm on my main road bike, 172.5mm on my gravel bike, 170mm on a secondary road bike, and 180mm on my commute bike only because I happened to have the crank and wanted to try it but dont ride the bike frequently enough to care about changing it to something shorter.
I could switch between those bikes all day and not care at all about the different lengths, and they are 1-2cm shorter than what you say I should have.
Also, it seems like you dont know what gear inches means. That isnt a crank arm length, its a comparison between front and rear tooth counts on a drivetrain.
10-19-21, 08:28 AM
#158
Zip tie Karen
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fair Oaks Ranch, TX
Posts: 7,004
Bikes: '13 Motobecane Fantom29 HT, '16 Motobecane Turino Pro Disc, '18 Velobuild VB-R-022, '21 Tsunami SNM-100
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1465 Post(s)
Liked 1,542 Times
in
806 Posts
Thought I'd revisit this thread after getting some 190mm crank arms.
I now have a much wider range of reasonably cadences to spin in each gear. I can also coordinate myself to spin much faster in the lower gears than with my prevuous 175mm arms.
I'm using 34/50 chainrings with a 11-34 9 speed cassette. I have the limit screws set to stop at the two outer most cogs. Effectively a 13-30 7 speed. My observations:
- 13t is sufficient for the majority of hills
34/30 is simply not enough when riding even with a light load, if we're talking about more serious hills. Don't understand how some of these road bikes come with a 42/52 front rings and up to 28t for the rear freewheel.
I shift gears much less often with my new crankarms. Before I would always have to play around with the ratios to try and maintain a very specific cadence. These new crank arms give me a much better idea of what works best for my needs. I still try to maintain a specific cadence, but I don't need to change the ratios nearly as often as I'm content with pedalling at a lower or higher than average cadence depending on the situation.
For regular unloaded riding on pavement id like 36/48 with a close ratio 13-28 cassette in the back.
Loaded riding would require a better spaced freewheel. Gravel would require less teeth on the chainrings. Achieving an ideal balance between front and rear tooth count according to your specific needs is critical here.
Also, my 9 speed cassette seems to shift much smoother and offer better acceleration while shifting compared to my old 6 speed freewheel. Maybe its because of the profiling of the teeth?,
Ultimately it boils down to getting the chainline right, in which case I'd like a 3x setup up front with a close ratio cassette in the back.
I ditched the biopace rings and strap in pedals with the introduction of my new crank arms. I feel like I can spin just as smooth now without them. Probably thanks to the bottom bracket. I do want to try both of them out with the 190mm crank arms though.
I now have a much wider range of reasonably cadences to spin in each gear. I can also coordinate myself to spin much faster in the lower gears than with my prevuous 175mm arms.
I'm using 34/50 chainrings with a 11-34 9 speed cassette. I have the limit screws set to stop at the two outer most cogs. Effectively a 13-30 7 speed. My observations:
- 13t is sufficient for the majority of hills
34/30 is simply not enough when riding even with a light load, if we're talking about more serious hills. Don't understand how some of these road bikes come with a 42/52 front rings and up to 28t for the rear freewheel.
I shift gears much less often with my new crankarms. Before I would always have to play around with the ratios to try and maintain a very specific cadence. These new crank arms give me a much better idea of what works best for my needs. I still try to maintain a specific cadence, but I don't need to change the ratios nearly as often as I'm content with pedalling at a lower or higher than average cadence depending on the situation.
For regular unloaded riding on pavement id like 36/48 with a close ratio 13-28 cassette in the back.
Loaded riding would require a better spaced freewheel. Gravel would require less teeth on the chainrings. Achieving an ideal balance between front and rear tooth count according to your specific needs is critical here.
Also, my 9 speed cassette seems to shift much smoother and offer better acceleration while shifting compared to my old 6 speed freewheel. Maybe its because of the profiling of the teeth?,
Ultimately it boils down to getting the chainline right, in which case I'd like a 3x setup up front with a close ratio cassette in the back.
I ditched the biopace rings and strap in pedals with the introduction of my new crank arms. I feel like I can spin just as smooth now without them. Probably thanks to the bottom bracket. I do want to try both of them out with the 190mm crank arms though.
BTW, I'm not saying that I'm in that class, because I'm not.
Likes For Phil_gretz:
Likes For rydabent:
10-19-21, 10:03 AM
#160
Drip, Drip.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575
Bikes: Trek Verve E bike, Felt Doctrine 4 XC, Opus Horizon Apex 1
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times
in
163 Posts
mstateglfr , factors such as wheel diameter and crank arm length can change the amount of gear inches you are able to push through.
Therefore, gear combinations front to rear alone are not the only factor concerning gear inches.
Therefore, gear combinations front to rear alone are not the only factor concerning gear inches.
10-19-21, 10:25 AM
#161
Zip tie Karen
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fair Oaks Ranch, TX
Posts: 7,004
Bikes: '13 Motobecane Fantom29 HT, '16 Motobecane Turino Pro Disc, '18 Velobuild VB-R-022, '21 Tsunami SNM-100
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1465 Post(s)
Liked 1,542 Times
in
806 Posts
mstateglfr , factors such as wheel diameter and crank arm length can change the amount of gear inches you are able to push through.
Therefore, gear combinations front to rear alone are not the only factor concerning gear inches.
Therefore, gear combinations front to rear alone are not the only factor concerning gear inches.
10-19-21, 10:36 AM
#162
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked 408 Times
in
252 Posts
50-34 with a 11-30 is an all-around great combination for road 11 speed, for 12 speed I'd go with 11-32. Low enough gears to really climb, tall enough to be sufficient for most downhills, and the chainline is pretty straight with a compact when you are riding with a fair bit of speed.
For those who are struggling, a sub-compact (48-32) might be something to consider.
Crank length is something not worth fussing about, given that the three mainstream road crank lengths vary by 2.9% between 170mm and 175mm. If you bought the right sized bike, the crank length on it is almost assuredly fine.
For those who are struggling, a sub-compact (48-32) might be something to consider.
Crank length is something not worth fussing about, given that the three mainstream road crank lengths vary by 2.9% between 170mm and 175mm. If you bought the right sized bike, the crank length on it is almost assuredly fine.
Last edited by Branko D; 10-19-21 at 10:46 AM.
Likes For Branko D:
10-19-21, 10:37 AM
#163
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 5,805
Bikes: 1986 Cannondale SR400 (Flat bar commuter), 1988 Cannondale Criterium XTR, 1992 Serotta T-Max, 1995 Trek 970
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1943 Post(s)
Liked 2,164 Times
in
1,323 Posts
I believe Moisture is focusing on Sheldon Brown’s Gain Ratio.
While the actual gear inches do not change, a significantly longer crank arm will provide more leverage and that will “theoretically” allow the rider to be able to push a higher gear.
Going from 170mm to 190mm is about 10% increase in leverage. It is difficult to assess how that translates into the real world.
I imagine with a low cadence there is some validity. From a speed perspective it all depends on whether the longer crank arm impedes cadence and results in no speed gain.
I’ve never bothered with Gain Ratio as typical incremental changes in crank length, (170/172.5/175), are probably inconsequential or reside in minutia.
John
Edit added: I’m no expert on Gain Ratio, but I understand the simple leverage theory.
While the actual gear inches do not change, a significantly longer crank arm will provide more leverage and that will “theoretically” allow the rider to be able to push a higher gear.
Going from 170mm to 190mm is about 10% increase in leverage. It is difficult to assess how that translates into the real world.
I imagine with a low cadence there is some validity. From a speed perspective it all depends on whether the longer crank arm impedes cadence and results in no speed gain.
I’ve never bothered with Gain Ratio as typical incremental changes in crank length, (170/172.5/175), are probably inconsequential or reside in minutia.
John
Edit added: I’m no expert on Gain Ratio, but I understand the simple leverage theory.
Last edited by 70sSanO; 10-19-21 at 10:42 AM.
Likes For 70sSanO:
10-19-21, 11:32 AM
#164
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
I believe Moisture is focusing on Sheldon Brown’s Gain Ratio.
While the actual gear inches do not change, a significantly longer crank arm will provide more leverage and that will “theoretically” allow the rider to be able to push a higher gear.
Going from 170mm to 190mm is about 10% increase in leverage. It is difficult to assess how that translates into the real world.
I imagine with a low cadence there is some validity. From a speed perspective it all depends on whether the longer crank arm impedes cadence and results in no speed gain.
I’ve never bothered with Gain Ratio as typical incremental changes in crank length, (170/172.5/175), are probably inconsequential or reside in minutia.
John
Edit added: I’m no expert on Gain Ratio, but I understand the simple leverage theory.
While the actual gear inches do not change, a significantly longer crank arm will provide more leverage and that will “theoretically” allow the rider to be able to push a higher gear.
Going from 170mm to 190mm is about 10% increase in leverage. It is difficult to assess how that translates into the real world.
I imagine with a low cadence there is some validity. From a speed perspective it all depends on whether the longer crank arm impedes cadence and results in no speed gain.
I’ve never bothered with Gain Ratio as typical incremental changes in crank length, (170/172.5/175), are probably inconsequential or reside in minutia.
John
Edit added: I’m no expert on Gain Ratio, but I understand the simple leverage theory.
10-19-21, 12:13 PM
#165
Drip, Drip.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575
Bikes: Trek Verve E bike, Felt Doctrine 4 XC, Opus Horizon Apex 1
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times
in
163 Posts
I don't know how to calculate this, but if you increase the lever length by 10%, aren't you also increasing the amount you have to lift the leg 10% to reach the top of the cycle? I just wonder if that slight increase in "wasted" energy offsets any gain you get in leverage.
10-19-21, 12:14 PM
#166
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 5,805
Bikes: 1986 Cannondale SR400 (Flat bar commuter), 1988 Cannondale Criterium XTR, 1992 Serotta T-Max, 1995 Trek 970
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1943 Post(s)
Liked 2,164 Times
in
1,323 Posts
I don't know how to calculate this, but if you increase the lever length by 10%, aren't you also increasing the amount you have to lift the leg 10% to reach the top of the cycle? I just wonder if that slight increase in "wasted" energy offsets any gain you get in leverage.
The biggest issue with a longer crank would be hip angle. The impact would depend on the individual as we have all seen people ride bikes with the seat an inch too low which also creates a more severe hip angle and they ride along with no apparent issues; well at least until they turn 60.
John
Likes For 70sSanO:
10-19-21, 12:14 PM
#167
Drip, Drip.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575
Bikes: Trek Verve E bike, Felt Doctrine 4 XC, Opus Horizon Apex 1
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times
in
163 Posts
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Cran...ring_4095.html
10-19-21, 12:15 PM
#168
Drip, Drip.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575
Bikes: Trek Verve E bike, Felt Doctrine 4 XC, Opus Horizon Apex 1
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times
in
163 Posts
I believe Moisture is focusing on Sheldon Brown’s Gain Ratio.
While the actual gear inches do not change, a significantly longer crank arm will provide more leverage and that will “theoretically” allow the rider to be able to push a higher gear.
Going from 170mm to 190mm is about 10% increase in leverage. It is difficult to assess how that translates into the real world.
I imagine with a low cadence there is some validity. From a speed perspective it all depends on whether the longer crank arm impedes cadence and results in no speed gain.
I’ve never bothered with Gain Ratio as typical incremental changes in crank length, (170/172.5/175), are probably inconsequential or reside in minutia.
John
Edit added: I’m no expert on Gain Ratio, but I understand the simple leverage theory.
While the actual gear inches do not change, a significantly longer crank arm will provide more leverage and that will “theoretically” allow the rider to be able to push a higher gear.
Going from 170mm to 190mm is about 10% increase in leverage. It is difficult to assess how that translates into the real world.
I imagine with a low cadence there is some validity. From a speed perspective it all depends on whether the longer crank arm impedes cadence and results in no speed gain.
I’ve never bothered with Gain Ratio as typical incremental changes in crank length, (170/172.5/175), are probably inconsequential or reside in minutia.
John
Edit added: I’m no expert on Gain Ratio, but I understand the simple leverage theory.
10-19-21, 12:18 PM
#169
Drip, Drip.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575
Bikes: Trek Verve E bike, Felt Doctrine 4 XC, Opus Horizon Apex 1
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times
in
163 Posts
Crank arm length will affect how you must adjust saddle setback as well as height.
As long as your crank arms are not longer than 21.6% and your saddle is in the correct position, i dont see any potential issues with hip angle unless you ride in an extremely low and aerodynamic position. A ride able to maintain such a position would most suredly benefit from either average proportioned crank arms to inseam or even lower.
As long as your crank arms are not longer than 21.6% and your saddle is in the correct position, i dont see any potential issues with hip angle unless you ride in an extremely low and aerodynamic position. A ride able to maintain such a position would most suredly benefit from either average proportioned crank arms to inseam or even lower.
10-19-21, 12:37 PM
#170
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
"Many folks don't seem to understand that crank arms does influence gearing..."
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Cran...ring_4095.html
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Cran...ring_4095.html
Well, then you used the phrase "gear inches" improperly which confused everyone.
10-19-21, 12:52 PM
#171
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 5,124
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1581 Post(s)
Liked 1,189 Times
in
605 Posts
Crank arm length will affect how you must adjust saddle setback as well as height.
As long as your crank arms are not longer than 21.6% and your saddle is in the correct position, i dont see any potential issues with hip angle unless you ride in an extremely low and aerodynamic position. A ride able to maintain such a position would most suredly benefit from either average proportioned crank arms to inseam or even lower.
As long as your crank arms are not longer than 21.6% and your saddle is in the correct position, i dont see any potential issues with hip angle unless you ride in an extremely low and aerodynamic position. A ride able to maintain such a position would most suredly benefit from either average proportioned crank arms to inseam or even lower.
10-19-21, 01:01 PM
#172
Expired Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 11,526
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3661 Post(s)
Liked 5,408 Times
in
2,747 Posts
10-19-21, 01:31 PM
#173
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
Nonsense. And cheap shot emojis to boot.
I'm not going to take much in the way of pacing advice from a 30 mile max rider, but there's no reason they won't have good ideas of what is and what isn't important. If something about a bike is going to bother me going 100 miles, I'm definitely noticing the issue by 30.
Last edited by livedarklions; 10-19-21 at 01:34 PM.
10-19-21, 01:39 PM
#174
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
Crank arm length will affect how you must adjust saddle setback as well as height.
As long as your crank arms are not longer than 21.6% and your saddle is in the correct position, i dont see any potential issues with hip angle unless you ride in an extremely low and aerodynamic position. A ride able to maintain such a position would most suredly benefit from either average proportioned crank arms to inseam or even lower.
As long as your crank arms are not longer than 21.6% and your saddle is in the correct position, i dont see any potential issues with hip angle unless you ride in an extremely low and aerodynamic position. A ride able to maintain such a position would most suredly benefit from either average proportioned crank arms to inseam or even lower.
Where does this 21.6% figure come from? That's oddly specific.
10-19-21, 01:54 PM
#175
Expired Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 11,526
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3661 Post(s)
Liked 5,408 Times
in
2,747 Posts
