Yes ... 153 is not all that "radical" ! There are many triathletes that
are using cranks as short as your kids !!! No Joke and they wouldn't
be doing it if it didn't work for them !! You can get certain brands
stock quite short, in a 110mm BCD. Origin8 goes to 140mm and a few go dow
Working with Mark Stonich (Bikesmith) the other night on a Dimension/Andel 175
mm mountain double crank I bought for this project, I came away with some 153
mm cranks for the ladyfriend. We'll see how it goes. For a lot of cycling
enthusiasts, conditioned to the notion that 5 mm of crank length
I found my own answer ... lol.. Ritchey Quick disconnects is what they are
!!! For brake and derailer cables.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
That's Great Deacon Patrick !!! Barefoot riding . that's pretty cool
.
And Hugh, Yes it can take awhile to dial in your saddle height and
fore/aft position, and of course some soreness my appear as your are
changing and using slightly different proportions of muscles. But all
I've taken a solid year to dial in my saddle height, tilt, front to back
position etc. I make sure to only change one thing at a time and see how it
goes for a 5+ hours of riding, including one ride of at least 3 hours, then
shift as needed. WIth a mid-foot position on the peddles, I like my sad
Jim so interesting I was just thinking about crank arm length the other
day! I suppose great minds think a like. Lol Really glad you brought this
up.
Hugh
Sunland, CA
On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:38:07 AM UTC-7, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery
wrote:
>
> Not exactly a Riv-specific topic, but I th
Well another great topic and one that applies to the well being of every
cyclist as riding then having pain is counter productive. Thanks Jim!
Now on to my non-scientific opinion, I'm 5' 101/2" with a PBH of 83.5
riding with a 170 mm crank arms. I used to ride exclusively with 172.5
cause that
I get it. I'll have to try that with my new Decksters -- well, try pedaling
with my arch: I'm not going to swap out cranks. I loved the comfort of boat
shoes with MKS touring pedals and straps, except that I kept pulling my
shoes out of the pedals (or foot out of the shoes) so went to back to
slott
On 03/04/13 04:13, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote:
I believe our perceptions are altered by the unnaturally narrow selection of
crank options. In this world, 170 is the middle; 175 is long; and 165 is short.
That is equivalent to mosf bikes being available in 55, 56, and 57 cm frame
sizes.
Since you already know about Mark Stonich, I will just mention I've had cranks
shortened by him for a recumbent and spoken with him on the phone. He feels
that width is not the problem--length is. The general principle (and it has
caught on with some recumbent riders as as some upright bike ride
I have noticed that when I pedal in the "sneaker position" (arch centered over
pedal spindle) I feel like my cranks are longer too. I'm think that no matter
what when the balls of our feet engage they go into the sprinters position.
When the arch is flat on that's mostly impossible. This gives t
After years of foot pain, I finally discovered that the combination of flat
wide and large pedals (DMR Vault -
http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=40265 in
silver) and placing the foot on its middle over the pedals completely
eliminated all the pain, provided the sole is
Colorado Patrick here. Riding barefoot I quickly learned midfoot is most
comfortable and yes, the difference in power is astonishing. I actually
took your post to mean what you describe below, and was puzzled when
other's didn't follow. That should likely scare both of us! Grin.
With abandon,
P
Well Patrick, I was using 175's at the time and I started using a mid
foot position over the pedal . It felt wonderful but it also felt like I
was using really long cranks ! I used to use 185's and this felt
longer . So that's when the short cranks came to mind. I found some
people
Bike A: 172.5 DuraAce triple crank on my Ram.
Bike B: 175 Sugino XD triple crank on my Bomba.
6'-tall, PHB of 87.6.
I think I'd prefer the 17.5, maybe even a 170, on the Bomba...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubsc
Very interesting observation and comments. I've often wondered if longer
would be better for me.
To make it more useful could posters include their PBH with their comments.
blissfully ignorant at 6' tall spinning on 175s with a 94cm PBH
--
You received this message because you are subscrib
I believe our perceptions are altered by the unnaturally narrow selection of
crank options. In this world, 170 is the middle; 175 is long; and 165 is short.
That is equivalent to mosf bikes being available in 55, 56, and 57 cm frame
sizes. Something for everybody!
--
You received this message
Another variable is femur length. It drives people to longer cranks and
more seat setback to get a good hip angle. With longer than average femurs
(from bike fit sessions) a longer crankarm is a better match, at least for
me. I have 175's on all my bikes and prefer that for climbing. It may be
For some, the changes seem more important than others. When first getting
back into riding I was determined to have 175's because that's what I had
before my layoff. Since then, it's become less important. Both the
current Rivendells have 170's and feel just fine. My LHT might have 175s
on it.
Small changes make a difference for me as well. 165's are sweet,
170's OK, 172.5's are hard for me to use. I've had occaision to
forget what length cranks were on a bike only to look down and wonder
just what was going on. Just me, though.
-Ken
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Bruce Herbitter
And Garth, ever gnomic, uttered: "What would it feel like to have the
leverage of long cranks yet still be able to spin like short ones ? Lo and
behold ... this came to my mind to try and it's better than I even imagined
!!! "
O, unfathomable Garth: explain thyself to us of mere mortal ken: how,
I've tried 165, 170, and 172.5. Small changes can make a discernable
difference on a bike. 170s work best for me (and I'm short with a 29"
inseam) so that is what I stay with.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Kelly wrote:
> Garth,
>
> You and I are on the same page .. it's bunk for me. Then I a
Garth,
You and I are on the same page .. it's bunk for me. Then I am not as
sensitive to bike setup as many. I have 171 I think on the Ram and they
are perfect.. those Rene Herse Cranks.. I have 175's on my AHH and 175's on
my Bombadil with 172.5 on my Mountain bike I accidentally put 1
Experimenting on myself, all "formulas" for crank length are bunk ! lol
lolYes, I said it !I followed them , like "they" say, and I have
found using shorter ones to be absolutely prfect , for Me ! And yes
I need please no one but me ... who else is there ? lol
I use Sug
24 matches
Mail list logo
