Crank Length Selection

Quoted message said:

I happily repeat what doctors have repeatedly tested and agree on.
In this case, I was startled to have a doctor measure my height at
more than it normally is. At the age of thirty, I doubted that I was
growing.

Out of curiosity, why were you measuring yourself repeatedly during
the course of the day if you were unaware of the phenomenon?

I never said I was unaware of the phenomenon -- I said my height
didn't vary that much. I was told that people's height varied over
the course of a day and I was surprised, so I looked into it and
measured myself. And lo and behold my height did vary -- in my case
by a bit more than half an inch.

So that's why I said my height does not vary that much (an inch). It
varies, but it varies less.

Quoted message said:

When can we expect to read your paper on how mistaken medical science
is about your spine?

You are such a dope to take generalizations and assuem that anyone who
is outside your generalization is wrong.

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

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:54:17 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

So how is it that I can set up a new frame, with the same seatpost and
seat from my old bike (and cranks, and BB and pedals), in the same
clothes that I rode on my old bike, ride it once and feel my knee is
tight at the end of the ride, then look really carefully at it and see
either the seatpost slipped or I made a tiny error in measurement.

Am I imagining it?

Well I guess I must be, huh.

[snip]

Dear John,

Yes, you probably are. No, you probably won't believe it.

I don't believe it and your comment is sooo stupid.

Quoted message said:

A classic sign of princess-in-the-pea syndrome is the belief that a
different pair of pants or slightly thicker socks could cause knee
problems.

But I have twice had no reason to expect to notice a difference and
yet I did. First in knee tightness and then in tracking down the
cause.

You're

\

Quoted message said:

Doctors are used to patients who insist that tinier and tinier changes
have amazingly large effects.

It's hard to remember that these hypochondriac patients are sincere.
They're so busy trying to identify tiny changes in how they feel that
they both magnify whatever they happen to feel and equate it with
whatever recent change they happen to have made.

But in both my cases I had no reason to think anything was wrong. I
thought everythign was right, then rode, then found the problem. It's
not like someone move the saddle 2mm and told me they did so and then
I "found the problem" I believe the saddle and the orthotic were
exactly the same.

So where's the snake oil? Where's the hypochondria?

What you say make no sense.

Quoted message said:

The basis of most snake oil remedies is that the patients who happen
to improve quite naturallly give all the credit to whatever elixir or
therapy they were using at the time.

Poor Eddy Mercx can be seen in videos, stopping to fiddle with his
seat height during Paris-Roubaix. Given the pain of his back injuries,
it's understandable that he constantly adjusted his seat height in
hopes that something would help.

So what. I ride for months with no problem. Then I have a problem
for no apparent reason. I look around for it carefully and find one
thing changed. And you say "Well the change is too small to detect."
That's absurd.

Quoted message said:

But it's just an example of what W. Edwards Deming illustrated with
his funnel-and-marble demonstration.

If you set up a funnel on a stand and drop one marble through it, you
can see where the marble lands near a target after it rattles through
the wide nozzle of the funnel.

If you move the funnel-stand after every drop to try to make the next
marble hit the target, you get a much worse result than you would if
you averaged a dozen marbles.

You're really rambling now. If you are going to argue by just pouring
out words it undermines your comments even further --you're throwing
up a smokescreen.

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

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Quoted message said:

If things were ever actually set up at the very farthest end of
comfortable motion, then they'd probabably start hurting within an
hour or less.

Let's play word games. At the limit of range of motion at which the
activity can be repeated thousands of times w/o it hurting.

YMMV, everybody's different, and other boiler plate disclaimers.
Frankly that sounds like a poor way to set up your bike.
I haven't seen
you on your bike, so I can't comment about your fit. And frankly, it's
your bike and if it works for you, then that's what counts rather than
the armchair opinion of a guy 1000 miles away.

Yes. Here I am being fit by the key fitting technician of a major pro
bike racing team that also runs a facility that fits racers of all
ability levels. He was a guest of our club some years ago and assessed
and fit a bunch of us:
http://www.jt10000.com/team/tgal/dram1.htm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So. I'm not saying I can hope on a bike and instantly say "Oh, the
saddle is a couple mm too high. But after repeating the motion
beyound what if appropriate several thousand times I notice.

Interestingly enough, that the exact opposite from what would be normal
and runs counter to a well established body of experimental data
regarding motor perception.

I notice it because of tightness in a certain place that only happens
when the saddle is too high and I ride for awhile. I don't notice it
in terms of "measurement." I think that's quite normal.

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

Chalo said:

Carl Fogel wrote, to John Forrest Tomlinson:

Quoted message said:

Have your wife use a ruler to mark your height tomorrow morning
against a door jamb and then do the same thing again before you go to
bed.

Wife? I though JFT was a bicycle racer.

You're a big jackass.

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

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:48:31 -0900, "Andrew Lee"

whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom said:

Rather than put a piece of tape on the seat post to mark the location as
some do, I record the height of the exposed part of the seat post. Over the
years, I have had about two occasions where, because the seat post was
removed or moved for whatever reason, I've had to fiddle with my saddle
height on the road until it felt right to me. The seat post is unmarked, so
positioning was essentially blind. Both times, when I got home and measured
the exposed section of seat post, it matched what was in my records exactly
to the nearest millimeter. Dumb luck? I don't think so.

Similarly, last year, I decided that the saddle height on my mountain bike
didn't feel quite right since I swapped out the pedals with clips and straps
with clipless pedals a couple of years ago. I had also deliberately kept
the saddle a bit low to help deal with bumps, but was re-thinking that idea.
I went out on a ride and fiddled with the height. I was surprised at how
small the difference was between feeling a bit too high and not quite high
enough. I think I started out moving the post up about 5-7 mm (just eyeing
it), but that was too much and I went up and down in smaller increments
about three more times before I quit. When I was using clips and straps, I
could feel the difference in height between using my running shoes and my
slotted cleat road shoes.

There's a lot more involved in saddle height than just "saddle
height." A *wider* saddle will feel a little higher, for example.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Ozark Bicycle said:

A Muzi said:

Ben C said:

On 2007-02-18, [email hidden] <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]
> In all likelihood, one of your legs is longer than the other by 1/4"
> or more, like most people's legs.

Quoted message said:

So should I use a longer crank arm for my shorter leg, or the other way
round?

No, don't do that.
Add space between shoe sole and cleat.

TA makes an "orthopaedic" pedal with changeable height side plates just
for leg-length correction.

I thought those pedals went out of production years ago; are they
still available?

Highpath Engineering in Wales makes special pedals and cranks and odd
looking swinging things for this.
They're probably best known as the company that made the
elliptical "eggring" chainrings.

--
Jim

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:49:26 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:

>If things were ever actually set up at the very farthest end of
>comfortable motion, then they'd probabably start hurting within
>an hour or less.
>
Let's play word games. At the limit of range of motion at which
the activity can be repeated thousands of times w/o it hurting.

YMMV, everybody's different, and other boiler plate disclaimers.
Frankly that sounds like a poor way to set up your bike. I haven't
seen you on your bike, so I can't comment about your fit. And
frankly, it's your bike and if it works for you, then that's what
counts rather than the armchair opinion of a guy 1000 miles away.

Yes. Here I am being fit by the key fitting technician of a major
pro bike racing team that also runs a facility that fits racers of
all ability levels. He was a guest of our club some years ago and
assessed and fit a bunch of us:
http://www.jt10000.com/team/tgal/dram1.htm

Mmmm. To my eyes I see a fair number of pros who look poorly fit on
their bikes- rocking hips, not able to ride in the drops looking
comfortable for hours at a time, etc. Fit is often done by formula from
static measurement of relative anatomic lengths, but IMHO this is quite
likely to be suboptimal because of dynamic differences in motor
function. Sometimes what looks like poor fit works well for the rider-
Sean Kelly, for example.

When I fit bikes to people, my goal has always been to find a position
that is comfortable. Having them at the extremes of their range of
motion rarely is and IMHO increases the risk of repetitive stress
injury. The best-regarded local fitter does it all by eyeball, putting
the rider on their bike on rollers or a trainer and watching them ride.
It takes several hours, but every racer I know who has had their fit
done by him has been pleased with the outcome and generally has not
changed their position over a course of years.

I am reminded of the story of Miguel Indurain in the wind tunnel. The
technician adjusted his position for maximum aerodynamics and shaved a
few minutes off of his prospective TT times. Indurain was very
complimentary about that, but then casually mentioned he'd be unable to
pedal the bike in that position.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So. I'm not saying I can hope on a bike and instantly say "Oh,
the saddle is a couple mm too high. But after repeating the
motion beyound what if appropriate several thousand times I
notice.

Interestingly enough, that the exact opposite from what would be
normal and runs counter to a well established body of experimental
data regarding motor perception.

I notice it because of tightness in a certain place that only happens
when the saddle is too high and I ride for awhile. I don't notice it
in terms of "measurement." I think that's quite normal.

There you aren't noticing the difference. You are noticing the
consequences of the difference.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Scotty said:

What is the theory behind picking a crank arm length ? So many
factors are involved. Frame size, leg length, or femur length, shoe
size, riding style. Everyone put in their opinions if they wish.

Guys who are much taller notice immediately how much better they are
when switching to 180-190-200 mm cranks. Shorter women notice
immediately how much better they are with 155-160 mm cranks. Nobody
else notices.

When measured in terms of power output, oxygen consumption, etc., this
doesn't necessarily hold up. For the majority of us it's unimportant.
How we feel on the bike is what counts.

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Tim McNamara said:

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

> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:49:26 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:
>
> >If things were ever actually set up at the very farthest end of
> >comfortable motion, then they'd probabably start hurting within
> >an hour or less.
> >
> Let's play word games. At the limit of range of motion at which
> the activity can be repeated thousands of times w/o it hurting.

YMMV, everybody's different, and other boiler plate disclaimers.
Frankly that sounds like a poor way to set up your bike. I haven't
seen you on your bike, so I can't comment about your fit. And
frankly, it's your bike and if it works for you, then that's what
counts rather than the armchair opinion of a guy 1000 miles away.

Yes. Here I am being fit by the key fitting technician of a major
pro bike racing team that also runs a facility that fits racers of
all ability levels. He was a guest of our club some years ago and
assessed and fit a bunch of us:
http://www.jt10000.com/team/tgal/dram1.htm

Mmmm. To my eyes I see a fair number of pros who look poorly fit on
their bikes- rocking hips, not able to ride in the drops looking
comfortable for hours at a time, etc. Fit is often done by formula from
static measurement of relative anatomic lengths, but IMHO this is quite
likely to be suboptimal because of dynamic differences in motor
function. Sometimes what looks like poor fit works well for the rider-
Sean Kelly, for example.

When I fit bikes to people, my goal has always been to find a position
that is comfortable. Having them at the extremes of their range of
motion rarely is and IMHO increases the risk of repetitive stress
injury.

My position is comfortable. I can ride in the drops at speed for
extended periods of time. I can do lots of things for a long time. I
can't do the same if you move my position in certain directions a bit.
So what?

So I don't get what the problem is other than that it makes some
people in RBR think I (or the people who fit me don't know what I'm
doing).

The Mapei guys that fit me based the position did on measurements of
limb length. Their fiting system is, at their facility, based on
watching people ride at racing power outputs on a trainer, while video
taping them. They then look at the angles between joints and specify
a range of angles that are appropriate. The angles that are
appropriate are based on norms developed by looking at riders who ride
well at various ability levels w/o injury. The norms are more
"extreme" the higher the level fo the rider -- they assume that the
higher level riders are more flexible and have more recovery work done
to all othem to be more stretched out. But they take rider flexibilty
and comfort into account.

They didn't have the video set-up when they did the fitting for us,
but worked it by eyeball with a bunch of questions. One of the women
they set up was relatively new to the sport (at the time) and had a
pretty "pro" looking set-up -- very long and low. So they said "Oh,
you look good, but we don't think you can ride comfortably like that.
Do you ride in the drops much" She says yes. THey said "Let's see
it" and they watched her. They said "Pretty good, but how flexible
are you, can you touch your toes easily" and she says "I used to be
very stiff but I've worked on it" and then demonstrates excellent
flexiblity. So they say "Keep your position."

So again, so what if some pros have bad fit?

So what if you change my position a little in one direction it would
be uncomfortable? "m inside the range that would cause repetive stress
injury, but a little movement woudl bring it up -- that's why I say I
could notice slightly longer cranks if you didn't raise my saddle to
compensate (the point of this thread). It's comfortable and effective
now. So what?

I should move my saddle further away from the edge (lowering it,
increasing range of motion at the top of the stroke) so that people in
RBR can say "see, you can't tell if it's too low anymore."

I just don't get it.

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

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Scotty said:

What is the theory behind picking a crank arm length ? So many
factors are involved. Frame size, leg length, or femur length, shoe
size, riding style. Everyone put in their opinions if they wish.

Guys who are much taller notice immediately how much better they are
when switching to 180-190-200 mm cranks. Shorter women notice
immediately how much better they are with 155-160 mm cranks. Nobody
else notices.

When measured in terms of power output, oxygen consumption, etc., this
doesn't necessarily hold up. For the majority of us it's unimportant.
How we feel on the bike is what counts.

I feel way better with longer cranks. My muscles feel more free and
loose through most of the pedal stroke. Unfortantely I can't ride
much longer than what I currently have because my knees can't handle
it.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

The Mapei guys that fit me based the position did on measurements of
limb length.

Excuse me -- I meant "did NOT base the position on limb length"

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

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Scotty" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> What is the theory behind picking a crank arm length ? So many
> factors are involved. Frame size, leg length, or femur length, shoe
> size, riding style. Everyone put in their opinions if they wish.
Guys who are much taller notice immediately how much better they are
when switching to 180-190-200 mm cranks. Shorter women notice
immediately how much better they are with 155-160 mm cranks. Nobody
else notices.

When measured in terms of power output, oxygen consumption, etc., this
doesn't necessarily hold up. For the majority of us it's unimportant.
How we feel on the bike is what counts.

I feel way better with longer cranks. My muscles feel more free and
loose through most of the pedal stroke. Unfortantely I can't ride
much longer than what I currently have because my knees can't handle
it.

What crank lenght do you use at the moment JT?

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

Lou Holtman said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Michael Press <[email hidden]> wrote:

> In article <[email hidden]>,
> "Scotty" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> What is the theory behind picking a crank arm length ? So many
>> factors are involved. Frame size, leg length, or femur length, shoe
>> size, riding style. Everyone put in their opinions if they wish.
> Guys who are much taller notice immediately how much better they are
> when switching to 180-190-200 mm cranks. Shorter women notice
> immediately how much better they are with 155-160 mm cranks. Nobody
> else notices.
When measured in terms of power output, oxygen consumption, etc., this
doesn't necessarily hold up. For the majority of us it's unimportant.
How we feel on the bike is what counts.

I feel way better with longer cranks. My muscles feel more free and
loose through most of the pedal stroke. Unfortantely I can't ride
much longer than what I currently have because my knees can't handle
it.

What crank lenght do you use at the moment JT?

175mm. Have used them for over 15 years. I'm a bit over 5'10" with
moderately long limbs for my height.

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

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Lou Holtman said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:03:02 -0600, Tim McNamara
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> In article <[email hidden]>,
> Michael Press <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email hidden]>,
>> "Scotty" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> What is the theory behind picking a crank arm length ? So many
>>> factors are involved. Frame size, leg length, or femur length, shoe
>>> size, riding style. Everyone put in their opinions if they wish.
>> Guys who are much taller notice immediately how much better they are
>> when switching to 180-190-200 mm cranks. Shorter women notice
>> immediately how much better they are with 155-160 mm cranks. Nobody
>> else notices.
> When measured in terms of power output, oxygen consumption, etc., this
> doesn't necessarily hold up. For the majority of us it's unimportant.
> How we feel on the bike is what counts.
I feel way better with longer cranks. My muscles feel more free and
loose through most of the pedal stroke. Unfortantely I can't ride
much longer than what I currently have because my knees can't handle
it.

What crank lenght do you use at the moment JT?

175mm. Have used them for over 15 years. I'm a bit over 5'10" with
moderately long limbs for my height.

5'10" is how long in cm?
Have you ever tried much longer, lets say 185 mm, cranks or much
shorter, lets say 165 mm cranks to see if you are in your sweet spot
with the standard 175 mm cranks?

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Tim McNamara said:

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

> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:49:26 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:
>
> >If things were ever actually set up at the very farthest end of
> >comfortable motion, then they'd probabably start hurting within
> >an hour or less.
> >
> Let's play word games. At the limit of range of motion at which
> the activity can be repeated thousands of times w/o it hurting.

YMMV, everybody's different, and other boiler plate disclaimers.
Frankly that sounds like a poor way to set up your bike. I haven't
seen you on your bike, so I can't comment about your fit. And
frankly, it's your bike and if it works for you, then that's what
counts rather than the armchair opinion of a guy 1000 miles away.

Yes. Here I am being fit by the key fitting technician of a major
pro bike racing team that also runs a facility that fits racers of
all ability levels. He was a guest of our club some years ago and
assessed and fit a bunch of us:
http://www.jt10000.com/team/tgal/dram1.htm

Mmmm. To my eyes I see a fair number of pros who look poorly fit on
their bikes- rocking hips, not able to ride in the drops looking
comfortable for hours at a time, etc. Fit is often done by formula from
static measurement of relative anatomic lengths, but IMHO this is quite
likely to be suboptimal because of dynamic differences in motor
function. Sometimes what looks like poor fit works well for the rider-
Sean Kelly, for example.

When I fit bikes to people, my goal has always been to find a position
that is comfortable. Having them at the extremes of their range of
motion rarely is and IMHO increases the risk of repetitive stress
injury. The best-regarded local fitter does it all by eyeball, putting
the rider on their bike on rollers or a trainer and watching them ride.
It takes several hours, but every racer I know who has had their fit
done by him has been pleased with the outcome and generally has not
changed their position over a course of years.

I am reminded of the story of Miguel Indurain in the wind tunnel. The
technician adjusted his position for maximum aerodynamics and shaved a
few minutes off of his prospective TT times. Indurain was very
complimentary about that, but then casually mentioned he'd be unable to
pedal the bike in that position.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> So. I'm not saying I can hope on a bike and instantly say "Oh,
> the saddle is a couple mm too high. But after repeating the
> motion beyound what if appropriate several thousand times I
> notice.

Interestingly enough, that the exact opposite from what would be
normal and runs counter to a well established body of experimental
data regarding motor perception.

I notice it because of tightness in a certain place that only happens
when the saddle is too high and I ride for awhile. I don't notice it
in terms of "measurement." I think that's quite normal.

There you aren't noticing the difference. You are noticing the
consequences of the difference.

Years ago I read the light blue colored bible from some Italian bike
racing school several times through. It had a lot of information on bike
fitting which I took with a grain of salt. The basic premise of the book
was that there is only one proper way to fit and adjust a bike and ALL
riders should adjust themselves through training to fit the school's
recommendations.

I reminded myself that up through the 1960s most Italians had foot
problems because of poor fitting shoes - that goes for most Europeans too.
Further, the authors of that book were probably old enough to have been
Fascists during World War II and still maintained dictatorial attitudes.

Additionally, many of the pro riders from the 1920s up through the 1970s
had grown up and/or lived through W.W.I or W.W.II and probably at some
time in their lives experienced malnutrition. Skinny kids with small bone
structure. Looking at the TDF on US TV for the past few years, today's
riders seem to have much more robust physiques than riders did 30+ years
ago; wider shoulders, wider hips, larger thighs.

Wide handle bars were very rare until the late 1970s. There were many
bikes equipped with 36 or 38cm wide bars. Why? Because you could ride
closer together in the pack? No, riders were skinny and had narrow
shoulders.

So much for my rant about bike fit nazis.

Chas.

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Scotty" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> What is the theory behind picking a crank arm length ? So many
> factors are involved. Frame size, leg length, or femur length, shoe
> size, riding style. Everyone put in their opinions if they wish.

Guys who are much taller notice immediately how much better they are
when switching to 180-190-200 mm cranks. Shorter women notice
immediately how much better they are with 155-160 mm cranks. Nobody
else notices.

When measured in terms of power output, oxygen consumption, etc., this
doesn't necessarily hold up. For the majority of us it's unimportant.
How we feel on the bike is what counts.

I feel way better with longer cranks. My muscles feel more free and
loose through most of the pedal stroke. Unfortantely I can't ride
much longer than what I currently have because my knees can't handle
it.
--
JT
****************************

You've been arguing for 25 messages about how you feel better on your
setup. I haven't seen one message disagreeing with you about that.

What several people, myself included have said is that "MOST" people cant
discern a 5mm difference in crank length let alone a 2.5mm difference.

The horse is cold, rigor mortis has set in.

Chas.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Chalo said:

Carl Fogel wrote, to John Forrest Tomlinson:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Have your wife use a ruler to mark your height tomorrow morning
against a door jamb and then do the same thing again before you go to
bed.

Quoted message said:

Wife? I though JFT was a bicycle racer.

You're a big jackass.

Well, yes. I think that's appropriate in this case.

* * Chas said:

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:03:02 -0600, Tim McNamara
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Michael Press <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> In article <[email hidden]>,
> "Scotty" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > What is the theory behind picking a crank arm length ? So many
> > factors are involved. Frame size, leg length, or femur length, shoe
> > size, riding style. Everyone put in their opinions if they wish.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Guys who are much taller notice immediately how much better they are
> when switching to 180-190-200 mm cranks. Shorter women notice
> immediately how much better they are with 155-160 mm cranks. Nobody
> else notices.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When measured in terms of power output, oxygen consumption, etc., this
doesn't necessarily hold up. For the majority of us it's unimportant.
How we feel on the bike is what counts.

Quoted message said:

I feel way better with longer cranks. My muscles feel more free and
loose through most of the pedal stroke. Unfortantely I can't ride
much longer than what I currently have because my knees can't handle
it.
--
JT
****************************

You've been arguing for 25 messages about how you feel better on your
setup. I haven't seen one message disagreeing with you about that.

What several people, myself included have said is that "MOST" people cant
discern a 5mm difference in crank length let alone a 2.5mm difference.

The horse is cold, rigor mortis has set in.

Unfortunately, experience indicates that, in this case, the poor dead
beast will continue to be flogged for some time. ;-)

Lou Holtman said:

5'10" is how long in cm?
Have you ever tried much longer, lets say 185 mm, cranks or much
shorter, lets say 165 mm cranks to see if you are in your sweet spot
with the standard 175 mm cranks?

I'm about 1.79m tall. I don't think I could handle longer cranks. If
the extra length was at the top of the stroke I'd get a little
tightness in my knee. I could handle a little extra length at the
bottom of the stroke (I know because I've had my seat higher than the
current location) a little better, but that interfered with other
aspects of comfort and power.

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

* * Chas said:

You've been arguing for 25 messages about how you feel better on your
setup. I haven't seen one message disagreeing with you about that.

How can I be arguing if no one disagrees with it?

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