"I get it that there are folks under the big tent of cycling that would call me pompous or even delusional, but there's no way my preferring 172.5 is the most idiosyncratic purchasing tendency you've heard of. As long as I can buy what I like, I'll stick with 172.5. And no, I'm not interested in wagering $20 in a double blind test. If you can't tell the difference in crank arm lengths and are happy with whatever, I say good for you. Bless you and enjoy your ride.
Well, if I were to call you delusional it would be in the nicest possible way! FWIW, I used to make a living coaching track racers at the old Olympic velodrome in SoCal. At least at that time, there was an awful lot of "accumulated knowledge" (AKA dogma) in the track racing game, and from time to time we would investigate some of it. The one I remember most fondly was the "gear inch" business. On the track, gears are referred to in inches, as in "I'm on the 88 today", etc. For some reason, folks started referring to "point somethings" as well, as in "I'm on the 88.2 today", and I started hearing talk about "Well, the air is a bit heavy this evening, so I think I'll drop from the 89.8 to the 89.2". This mostly struck me as foolishness, and as I could barely tell a two inch difference in gearing after having ridden track for a couple decades, I doubted my own ability to tell the difference between that 89.8 and 89.2. Saying as much got me soundly razzed, so I had all my guys put on an "88" and roll out their bikes. Turned out that a dozen "identically" geared bikes had a 2+ inch spread due just to (I guess) differences in tire diameter. So you'll have to forgive a bit of skepticism when it comes to things like 2.5 mm differences in crank length. "One poster on the Velo Orange blog made a pretty humorous comment. Chris was dismissing 172.5 as a figment of the imagination, that nobody can tell 2.5mm differences. The responder pointed out that by that logic, Chris should have built ONLY 172.5mm cranks and skip both 170 and 175, since both groups would presumably be perfectly happy with 172.5." It was also pointed out that some of those 172.5s should be marked 170 and 175 in order to please the fixated! I think that sums things up nicely... On the whole, of course, it sounds like we're both perfectly content to live and let live. I just wanted to put in my two cents re. the "He's a fool for making that kind of decision" kind of opinions. On Aug 26, 11:00 am, William <[email protected]> wrote: > "I personally have a hard time understanding the fixation with 172.5, > and > would be interested in the results of some double-blind tests for the > aficionados." > > I guess I'm one of the fixated, although I wouldn't call it a > fixation. I prefer to buy things in my size, and I've determined > through experience that 172.5 is my best size. I know I could save > money by accepting stuff that is not my size, but I prefer to avoid > that if I can. "My size" in this case is just what I choose as my > size, since dudes my height run anything from 165 to 185 and beyond. > Personally, I also do not feel the need to run different crank arms > for different applications, I like pedalling to be the same on all my > bikes. Like it or not, believe it or don't, I can feel small > differences in my seat-pedal position. There are certain work shoes > that I try to avoid commuting in because they make my seat height feel > too low. I can also feel bigger/smaller circles when I'm running a > different length. Pain? No. Discomfort? Not really. But I can > feel the difference and I prefer what I prefer. When I've bought > mountain bikes off the rack, of course they always come with 175s and > I've lived with it, but I felt the difference every time. I was glad > to set up my Bombadil with 172.5, and I no longer feel the difference, > and that makes me happy. I get it that there are folks under the big > tent of cycling that would call me pompous or even delusional, but > there's no way my preferring 172.5 is the most idiosyncratic > purchasing tendency you've heard of. As long as I can buy what I > like, I'll stick with 172.5. And no, I'm not interested in wagering > $20 in a double blind test. If you can't tell the difference in crank > arm lengths and are happy with whatever, I say good for you. Bless > you and enjoy your ride. > > One poster on the Velo Orange blog made a pretty humorous comment. > Chris was dismissing 172.5 as a figment of the imagination, that > nobody can tell 2.5mm differences. The responder pointed out that by > that logic, Chris should have built ONLY 172.5mm cranks and skip both > 170 and 175, since both groups would presumably be perfectly happy > with 172.5. > > A while back I saw a set of XD2 cranks on ebay in 155mm. I wonder if > the enthusiastic short-arm folks would like that even better? I > thought about buying them for a 42cm LHT for my 9-year-old, but I > didn't pull the trigger. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
