170mm vs 175mm crank arms?

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> ...
>> Great, so next time you have the occasion to get cranks on t[he]
>> short side -- say 5mm shorter than what you use now, will you?
>
> I won't speak for Mr. Cole, but I am considering trying out some
> 150-mm cranks on my lowracer.

We _were_ discussing bicycles.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Sandy Leurre wrote:
> Dans le message de
> news:[email protected],
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <[email protected]> a réfléchi, etpuis a
> déclaré :
> > John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Great, so next time you have the occasion to get cranks on t[he]
> >> short side -- say 5mm shorter than what you use now, will you?
> >
> > I won't speak for Mr. Cole, but I am considering trying out some
> > 150-mm cranks on my lowracer.
>
> We _were_ discussing bicycles.

Who is we, upright man? [1]

Two wheels in a single plane and pedal powered - a lowracer fits the
definition of a bicycle.

Note to M. Leurre - the UCI cartel does not define what a bicycle is
outside of the narrow confines of international level professional
racing.

[1] Parody of old Lone Ranger joke.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:09:41 -0900, "Andrew Lee"
<whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:29:58 -0500, Peter Cole
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.
>>
>> What I'm saying is that I'd like people who suggest crank length
>> doesn't matter to back up their suggestions by riding shorter cranks.
>>
>> JT
>
>I'm interested in what you think about crank length because I have already
>seen some answers to your question - some people have said that they have
>ridden more than one crank length and some prefer the shorter or shortest of
>the range that they have tried, some don't prefer the shortest of the range
>that they have tried, and some have no preference. Do you have a point?

That people who suggest crank length doesn't matter back up their
suggestions by riding shorter cranks.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Peter Cole]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:29:58 -0500, Peter Cole
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:57:26 -0500, Peter Cole
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>The latest research seems to agree with Peter.
>>>
>>>
>>>Great, so next time you have the occasion to get cranks on teh short
>>>side -- say 5mm shorter than what you use now, will you?
>>
>>I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.
>
>
> What I'm saying is that I'd like people who suggest crank length
> doesn't matter to back up their suggestions by riding shorter cranks.

Shorter than what?

Why don't you recommend they ride longer cranks?

I'm still not sure what you're saying.

 

[Peter Cole]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

>><http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/93/3/823.pdf>
>>"Determinants of metabolic cost during
>>submaximal cycling"
>>
>>They tested crank length from 140 to 195 and cadence from 40 to 100
>>and found no correlation to efficiency and crank size or cadence,

> There is, however, that ineffable, real, and significant factor of comfort.

These scientists were not measuring comfort.

> If you are only considering the mechanical process, over a short period of
> time, I think the results you cite may well be an accurate picture.

I'm sure they'd be gratified to know that.

> You could just as easily compare walking cadence with pedaling cadence with
> running cadence.

Er, no you couldn't, perhaps you could try some basic physiology.

 

[Peter Cole]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

>>Silly me, I thought the key was science.
>
>
> Silly isn't it. But it's more than the mechanical advantage from cleat to
> tire patch. And there's science that looks at the backward path. When you
> present that with equal authority, then we'll have something to look at
> seriously, like a much more complete picutre.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 19:56:53 -0500, Peter Cole
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:29:58 -0500, Peter Cole
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:57:26 -0500, Peter Cole
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>The latest research seems to agree with Peter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Great, so next time you have the occasion to get cranks on teh short
>>>>side -- say 5mm shorter than what you use now, will you?
>>>
>>>I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.
>>
>>
>> What I'm saying is that I'd like people who suggest crank length
>> doesn't matter to back up their suggestions by riding shorter cranks.
>
>Shorter than what?
>
>Why don't you recommend they ride longer cranks?
>
>I'm still not sure what you're saying.

If someone says, "I'm tall and I'd like to try 175s; I'm on 170s now"
anyone who tells them "That won't make a significant difference"
should walk the talk and go 5mm shorter on their next pair of cranks.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 19:56:53 -0500, Peter Cole
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:29:58 -0500, Peter Cole
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:57:26 -0500, Peter Cole
> >>>><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>The latest research seems to agree with Peter.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Great, so next time you have the occasion to get cranks on teh short
> >>>>side -- say 5mm shorter than what you use now, will you?
> >>>
> >>>I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.
> >>
> >>
> >> What I'm saying is that I'd like people who suggest crank length
> >> doesn't matter to back up their suggestions by riding shorter cranks.
> >
> >Shorter than what?
> >
> >Why don't you recommend they ride longer cranks?
> >
> >I'm still not sure what you're saying.
>
> If someone says, "I'm tall and I'd like to try 175s; I'm on 170s now"
> anyone who tells them "That won't make a significant difference"

I might; might tell them to try 185 or 195. _That_ would
make a difference. A few millimeters cannot make much
difference. Many tall riders have testified that
installing very long cranks was the best fit adjustment
they ever made. Many short riders have gone to 155-160 mm
cranks to their advantage.

> should walk the talk and go 5mm shorter on their next pair of cranks.

--
Michael Press

 

[531Aussie]

you guys aware of this crank length site?

http://www.cranklength.info/

It's the best by far, in that it's the most detailed and least 'partisan', even though the author's personal preference is for longish cranks.

he addresses just about every conceivable problem thrown up by different crank lengths.

 

[Paul Hobson]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:09:41 -0900, "Andrew Lee"
> <whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>
>
>>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:29:58 -0500, Peter Cole
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.
>>>
>>>What I'm saying is that I'd like people who suggest crank length
>>>doesn't matter to back up their suggestions by riding shorter cranks.
>>>
>>>JT
>>
>>I'm interested in what you think about crank length because I have already
>>seen some answers to your question - some people have said that they have
>>ridden more than one crank length and some prefer the shorter or shortest of
>>the range that they have tried, some don't prefer the shortest of the range
>>that they have tried, and some have no preference. Do you have a point?
>
>
> That people who suggest crank length doesn't matter back up their
> suggestions by riding shorter cranks.
>

I just switched to shorter cranks (down to 165 from 175) and can't
really tell a difference.

You happy?
\\paul

 

[Robert]

531Aussie wrote:

> Robert Wrote:
>
>>Hi, noticing comment on "lower, slightly weaker position". I'm still
>>playing with seat position with the longer cranks. Can you say more
>>what
>>you mean by "weaker", it might give me a hint. /Robert
>
> I've always felt that the best position is one that's -slightly- on the
>
> high side; one that reduces knee flexion. This is probably the best
> argument FOR short cranks.
>
> When someone gets longer cranks, they'll most likely have to drop the
> saddle by approx the same amount as the increase in crank arm length.
> So, if the increase is 5mm, this then means that, relative to the hip,
> the knee is approx 10mm higher through the top of the stroke. In other
> words, the saddle is effectively ~10mm lower through the top of the
> stroke. The knee moves slightly higher from ~the 8 o'clock position,
> right through to about 4 o'clock on the pedal circle. I reckon this is
> a small trade-off, but one that's seldom mention by the long crank
> advocates, such as Zinn and Palm.
>
> I'm such a geek, and I was so obsessed by this, that I drew a scaled
> down version of the difference between a 175mm pedal circle and a
> 180mm, relative to MY seat height.
>
> The balck circle is the 180mm crank. Note how the foot is higher right
> throuh till about 4 o'clock.

OK I'm with you now. This is exactly what I'm playing around with at the
moment. Just dropping the saddle 5 mm had me too cramped up, at the top
of the stroke. So I moved my cleats forward about 5mm and raised the
seat back to the original height (that which I had with the short cranks).

Still, I think the cranks may not be working so well for me, for longer
rides (lots of soreness at lower back / pelvic area), but the climbing
is fantastic.

Another option I have is to use a stem with more rise. I currently use a
Deda Zero 130 mm which has a 76 deg angle. If I were to use a stem with
an 82 deg angle this would in effect raise the bars by approx 1 cm and
reduce the leg bend at the hip.

This is one of the few times that I don't like the a-head system, much
harder to play around with bar height.

/Robert

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 02:50:39 -0500, Paul Hobson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:09:41 -0900, "Andrew Lee"
>> <whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:29:58 -0500, Peter Cole
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.
>>>>
>>>>What I'm saying is that I'd like people who suggest crank length
>>>>doesn't matter to back up their suggestions by riding shorter cranks.
>>>>
>>>>JT
>>>
>>>I'm interested in what you think about crank length because I have already
>>>seen some answers to your question - some people have said that they have
>>>ridden more than one crank length and some prefer the shorter or shortest of
>>>the range that they have tried, some don't prefer the shortest of the range
>>>that they have tried, and some have no preference. Do you have a point?
>>
>>
>> That people who suggest crank length doesn't matter back up their
>> suggestions by riding shorter cranks.
>>
>
>I just switched to shorter cranks (down to 165 from 175) and can't
>really tell a difference.
>
>You happy?

I will be when you switch back to 175s on your next bike.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Peter Cole]

531Aussie wrote:
> you guys aware of this crank length site?
>
> http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=177014
>
> It's the best by far, in that it's the most detailed and less partial,
> even though the author's personal preference is for longish cranks.
>
> he addresses just about every conceivable problem thrown up by
> different crank lengths.
>
>

The guy is a crank.

 

[531Aussie]

I just switched to shorter cranks (down to 165 from 175) and can't really tell a difference.

You happy?

no difference???? Really???

 

[Paul Hobson]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 02:50:39 -0500, Paul Hobson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:09:41 -0900, "Andrew Lee"
>>><whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:29:58 -0500, Peter Cole
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.
>>>>>
>>>>>What I'm saying is that I'd like people who suggest crank length
>>>>>doesn't matter to back up their suggestions by riding shorter cranks.
>>>>>
>>>>>JT
>>>>
>>>>I'm interested in what you think about crank length because I have already
>>>>seen some answers to your question - some people have said that they have
>>>>ridden more than one crank length and some prefer the shorter or shortest of
>>>>the range that they have tried, some don't prefer the shortest of the range
>>>>that they have tried, and some have no preference. Do you have a point?
>>>
>>>
>>>That people who suggest crank length doesn't matter back up their
>>>suggestions by riding shorter cranks.
>>>
>>
>>I just switched to shorter cranks (down to 165 from 175) and can't
>>really tell a difference.
>>
>>You happy?
>
>
> I will be when you switch back to 175s on your next bike.
>

I still ride both bikes regularly.

better?
\\paul

 

[Paul Hobson]

531Aussie wrote:
> Paul Hobson Wrote:
>
>>I just switched to shorter cranks (down to 165 from 175) and can't
>>really tell a difference.
>>
>>You happy?
>>
>
> no difference???? Really???
>
>

Not that I can tell. I mean, 1 cm compared to the length of my 5'10"
(177.8 cm) body just ain't a whole lot. I have noticed better pedal
clearance around turns, but I think that's all mental. I just get out
and ride. As long as things don't hurt (they don't) and I get to where
I'm going fast enough (still do) I'm happy.
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

 

[[email protected]]

Michael Press wrote:
> Knee pain can be caused by poor frame fit, saddle to far
> forward-aft, saddle too high-low, bar too high-low, bad
> cleat positioning ... Have never heard of crank length
> causing knee pain.

Well, now you have. You're welcome. --D-y

 

[Chalo]

Paul Hobson wrote:
> 531Aussie wrote:
>
> > Paul Hobson Wrote:
> >
> >>I just switched to shorter cranks (down to 165 from 175) and can't
> >>really tell a difference.
> >>
> >>You happy?
> >
> >
> > no difference???? Really???
>
> Not that I can tell. I mean, 1 cm compared to the length of my 5'10"
> (177.8 cm) body just ain't a whole lot. I have noticed better pedal
> clearance around turns, but I think that's all mental.

I have bikes with 165, 170, 175, 180, 185, 190, 196, and 205mm cranks.
I can't feel a difference between the 165s and 170s, or between the
185s and 190s, etc. I might be able to feel a difference between
cranks with 10mm difference in length, but it's not anything that ever
jumped out at me-- it's definitely overshadowed by even minor setup
differences between the cockpits of different bikes.

Now swiitching between my two most frequent choices of commuting bikes,
one of which has 185mm cranks and the other of which has 205mm cranks,
presents a noticeable change in feel at the pedals.

The cadence I settle upon is directly related to crank length. It
takes no attention to maintain over 100rpm with my shortest cranks,
whereas on the 205mm cranks I rarely exceed 80rpm except in bursts.

Chalo Colina

 

[Peter Cole]

Chalo wrote:
> Paul Hobson wrote:
>
>>531Aussie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Paul Hobson Wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I just switched to shorter cranks (down to 165 from 175) and can't
>>>>really tell a difference.
>>>>
>>>>You happy?
>>>
>>>
>>>no difference???? Really???
>>
>>Not that I can tell. I mean, 1 cm compared to the length of my 5'10"
>>(177.8 cm) body just ain't a whole lot. I have noticed better pedal
>>clearance around turns, but I think that's all mental.
>
>
> I have bikes with 165, 170, 175, 180, 185, 190, 196, and 205mm cranks.
> I can't feel a difference between the 165s and 170s, or between the
> 185s and 190s, etc. I might be able to feel a difference between
> cranks with 10mm difference in length, but it's not anything that ever
> jumped out at me-- it's definitely overshadowed by even minor setup
> differences between the cockpits of different bikes.
>
> Now swiitching between my two most frequent choices of commuting bikes,
> one of which has 185mm cranks and the other of which has 205mm cranks,
> presents a noticeable change in feel at the pedals.
>
> The cadence I settle upon is directly related to crank length. It
> takes no attention to maintain over 100rpm with my shortest cranks,
> whereas on the 205mm cranks I rarely exceed 80rpm except in bursts.

Do you have strong preferences for crank length? If so, what do you find
to be the big differences?

 

[[email protected]]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Sandy Leurre wrote:

> > We _were_ discussing bicycles.

(JS?TS rejoined):
> Two wheels in a single plane and pedal powered - a lowracer fits the
> definition of a bicycle.

Not on this planet it doesn't. Reality check.

"So what if I wobble all over the place in the pack". Right? I mean,
historically, the Tri Freds have tried this approach, and it didn't
work for them, either, even after they demonstrated their superiority
by cutting the sleeves off their jersies.

Not up to the "laborers in the vineyard", perhaps, but I tried. You're
welcome. --D-y