Lightweight Bigwheel

Discussion in 'rec.sport.unicycling' started by AlbertKarel, Aug 4, 2004.

  1. albertkarel

    albertkarel Guest

    After a breathless wait for UPS (weather delay from Atlanta) I finally
    know what it's like to ride a 28.

    I took all the very helpful comments in this thread into consideration.
    Thanks for the input. I'll follow it in the future, but for now...I
    opted for cheap....Sun 28 for $67 plus
    a Kris Holm red seat. Plus 110 cranks in observance of Mikefule's
    devotion to shortcranks.

    A few observations:

    -Cheap still looks pretty good.

    -It's much lighter than the Coker. That may seem like a "duhhhhh", but
    it's REALLY lighter.

    -It GOES. Not as fast as the Coker (more below), but finally I have a
    uni that I feel I can crank to the store, to the ocean, etc. As a
    newbie, my lack of skill kept me from doing that with the Torker 24.

    -The 110's are shockingly different than 150's, or even the 120's on the
    Torker. WOW. Litttttle spineeee foot movements. Actually, it's
    amazingly easy to balance and maneuver at slow speeds, and harder for me
    to keep stable at speed.

    -The hard, thin 28 inch tire is wonderfully maneuverable. I never
    zoomed around when travelling....was jealous of my kid's easy swooping
    turns and slaloms down the street. I swooped this A.M.....it was great.


    -I view all wheeled devices as 7-league boots....multiplying the range
    and speed of foot travel. Well, the diameter of the Coker still rules
    in the 7-league league. I marked a starting point on the pavement and
    rolled the 28 incher forward one full pedal rotation. Then, same for
    the Coker (150 cranks). The Coker covered a full foot more ground in
    one rotation of the pendals. (I just gotta try the Coker with the 110
    cranks some time...assuming I can turn the wheel enough to get it
    going!).

    So....all in all...VERY happy with the 28. I gave my 24 Torker with the
    120 cranks to the 11 year old (a 20 inch rider) and he had many of th
    same comments I've made here.

    Thanks again for all the helpful comments. I love me cheapo 28.
    Equipment lust tho, will surely set in. I wonder if they make a Hunter
    28.

    AL
    Santa Monica


    --
    albertkarel
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    albertkarel's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/7253
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/34312
     


  2. jagur

    jagur Guest

  3. Mikefule

    Mikefule Guest

    I like the 7 league boots analogy.

    As for comparing distances, it's simple arithmetic. The circumference
    is directly proportional to the diameter of the wheel. (Circumference =
    Pi x diameter. Pi is around 3.14)

    So, if the diameter doubles, the circumference doubles.

    So, a 36 is 36/29 the size of a 29. Each revolution of the wheel will
    go 36/29 as far - roughly a quarter further.

    Now, you are comparing foot movement to roll out. This is again a
    simple calculation. The only problem is that cranks are traditionally
    measured in mm, whereas wheels are traditionally measured in inches. 1
    inch = 25.4 mm.

    So, convert your crank length into inches (e.g. 110 mm /25.4 = 4.33
    inches) and then work out how that compares to the RADIUS (half the
    diameter) of the wheel.

    So, 4.33 inch cranks, 29 inch diameter = 14.5 inch radius.

    14.5/4.33 = 3.35

    For every unit that your foot moves, the wheel will move 3.35 units.

    Because everything is a linear measurement, rather than area or volume,
    there are no tricks to catch you out.

    So we can establish that a 28/110 (my rapier) magnifies foot movement
    3.23 times.

    My broadsword (Coker) is a 36/150 and gives a magnification of 3.05 .

    So, why isn't the 28/110 faster? Because there are lots more variables
    such as leg length, foot length, skill, coordination, momentum, muscle
    speed and so on.

    Which means that the Coker and 28 are very different machines to ride,
    each with pros and cons.

    Now go out and have fun on it. :0)


    --
    Mikefule - Roland Hope School of Unicycling

    Everyone should be fatuous for 15 minutes.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mikefule's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/879
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/34312
     
  4. albertkarel

    albertkarel Guest

    What the??!!

    The following portrays the thrashing of an aging, confused uni mind.

    Mikefule's calculations threw me totally off.

    We were talking about uni's multiplying the stride of your foot (a good
    thing if you have somewhere to go). For example, I find that riding a
    24 multiplies the step I could take with my unaided foot, and my Coker
    REALLY multiplies my step. I can go places that I couldn't or wouldn't
    by foot.

    But "Mike" calculates that his Rapier (28 inch with 110 cranks-the same
    as my new uni) multiplies his step by a factor of 3.23.
    His Coker 36 inch with 150 cranks (the same as my Coker) multiplies his
    step by a factor of 3.05.

    I yam confused. How could a 36 inch wheel NOT multiply your step more
    than a 28 inch wheel?

    By one step, I mean, one rotation of the cranks.

    Under my confused thinking, the length of the crank makes no difference
    (shocking, since I thought that changing crank length changed "gears"
    just like on a (ugh!) bicycle.

    On a bike, changing gears UP allows your bike to travel FURTHER for each
    rotation of the pedals.
    I thought it was the same on a uni, but a moment's observation shows
    that changing to a smaller crank on a uni, allows you to travel EXACTLY
    THE SAME distance with one rotation of the pedals as when you had longer
    cranks.

    Of course, the distance your foot flies through the air in the course of
    that one rotation is shorter on shorter cranks, and THIS must be what
    "Mike" is talking about.

    But who cares! It's not the speed your feet are flying through the air
    that count, its the speed of rotation....on a bike, you shift gears so
    you don't have to spin like a madman at higher bike speeds. With
    shorter cranks, it seems to me, your feet rotate at the same rate as
    with longer or shorter cranks.

    Ohhhhhh the confusion of it....and then why did I get 110's other than
    copycatting Mike???!!!

    See....Als-heimers has got me.


    AL
    Santa Monica


    --
    albertkarel
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    albertkarel's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/7253
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/34312
     
  5. albertkarel

    albertkarel Guest

    And even further....

    Misled by the comparison (faulty?) between bi-cycle gears and crank
    length, I assumed that longer cranks were like lower gears (climb
    powerfully but spin fast) and shorter cranks were like higher gears (the
    wheel spins at ungodly speeds but your feet are spinning at a
    comfortable speed).

    After all, that's what gears are for.
    The powerplant (me) has an ideal power range.
    The powerplant can spin only so fast, beyond that I crash and go flying
    off...no longer providing power.
    And...the powerplant has only so much slow-speed torque, more than that
    and the cycle just comes to a halt...I can't press any harder.

    So without gears....downhill, I can fling just so fast.
    And...uphill, there's a limit to how steep a hill I can climb.

    But with GEARS, amazing gears....I can shift so that I can travel
    waaayyyy faster downhill.....and uphill on much steeper hills....and I
    don't have to pedal like a maniac.

    Even on hills so steep that I approach the adhesion power of my tires, I
    can (theoretically, at least) change gear to such a low gear that I can
    still make headway.

    And on fearful downhills, I can gear up so much that despite my headlong
    rush downhill, my feet are rotating at a reasonable and controllable
    speed.

    [I know...there are geared uni's....I'm just wallowing around in my
    apparently erroneous belief that changing crank length is like changing
    gears.)

    So....what does changing crank length do?!!??

    After the shocking realization that you can change crank length from
    toothpicks to full radius and you still pedal at the same speed
    (rate)....yikes.....I am puzzled exactly what changing crank length gets
    me.

    Whatever it is...it appears to be a lot less than changing gears. I'm
    stuck inside the wheel. But what eggsactly
    does crank change do? And is the range of change so small as to be
    insignificant for the purposes I had in mind: going faster on a given
    uni, or climbing steeper hills on that uni.

    I know that there is a BIG difference in how how the uni feels as I ride
    it with different cranks...but amazingly, I'm no longer sure what that
    difference is.

    Sorry to blab on....but after one month, I'm uni-crazed and even the
    most insane commentary (such as this) holds endless fascination.
    THANKS!

    AL
    Santa Monica


    --
    albertkarel
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    albertkarel's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/7253
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/34312
     
  6. Mikefule

    Mikefule Guest

    So many questions! I posted a huge long reply last night and my browser
    stalled and I lost the lot.

    It is right to say that the diameter of a wheel dictates how far the
    wheel travels in a revolution. So, all things being equal, a 24 inch
    unicycle would be about 20% faster than a 20.

    But, all other things aren't equal. Shorter cranks allow you to pedal
    at a higher rpm. Quite simply, your foot has less distance to go, so it
    can do more circles in the same length of time. (Semi-jokingly referred
    to as The Constant Foot Speed Hypothesis.)

    So:

    Big wheels go faster than small wheels.
    Short cranks go faster than long cranks.

    Usually!

    So, as a rough and ready rule of thumb, a 10% change in crank length
    will make approximately a 10% change to the comfortable rpm for
    cruising, or the maximum rpm for sprinting.

    So, if you calculate the ratio of crank length to wheel radius, you can
    make reasonably accurate predictions about how two unicycles will
    compare in performance.

    Really, it only works well for adjacent sizes. By that, I mean that you
    can make a reasonably accurate comparison between:
    a 20 and a 24
    a 24 and a 26
    a 26 and a 28
    or
    150mm cranks and 170mm cranks
    150mm cranks and 125mm cranks (or 140s!)
    125mm cranks and 110s.

    Once the differences get bigger than about 10% - 15%, inaccuracies creep
    in and multiply.

    Do a thought experiment:

    Can you see why a 24 with 6 inch cranks would be faster than a 20 with 6
    inch cranks?

    Can you see why a 20 with 5 inch cranks might be comparable to a 24 with
    6 inch cranks, at least for short periods on the flat?

    But can you see that this last comparison (in each case, the crank is
    50% of the wheel radius) would break down if you put 9 inch cranks on a
    Coker (36) or 1 inch cranks on a 4 inch wheel?

    So, don't get too tied up in the maths, Use it for guidance, but rely
    on experience.

    Some useful rules of thumb:

    Big wheels are nearly always faster on the flat over long distances.

    Short cranks are generally faster on the flat over long distances.

    Very short cranks are a liability unless you are very experienced. (You
    slow down to maintain control.)

    Long cranks give better leverage for going up or down hill.

    The best size cranks for a cruising machine are the smallest size that
    YOU can manage to when mounting, riding slowly, or stopping. (If you
    can idle, then that is a useful guide too.)

    The best size cranks for a hill climbing uni are the longest that you
    can manage to pedal smoothly and comfortably.

    Very short cranks are great fun in a daft sort of way. I went through a
    phase of riding cross country on my 24 with 102s. How I laughed.

    In some ways, the crank:wheel ratio is a bit like gearing. However,
    it's not that simple, because with very long or very short cranks, you
    use different muscle groups, or different amounts of muscle movement, so
    your power input is affected.

    I did some semi-structured experiments against the clock a year or two
    back. I have experience with 20, 24, 26, 28 and 36 inch wheels, and
    cranks of 89, 102, 110, 125, 150 and 170 mm. My current fleet is set up
    as follows:

    Coker: 36 inch wheel, 150 mm cranks. Good for general riding and cross
    country, with some hills.

    28 inch wheel, 110 mm cranks: the rapier. It's elegant, smooth and
    light, safe on the road, reasonable on short hills, but requires care.

    26 inch MUNi with 150s. The tractor. I couldn't get on with 170s. I
    loved the torque on down hills, but they bogged me down on uphills. On
    the other hand, I am a midget.

    20 inch: I think it has 125s on. I had 110s on for a while. Only use
    it now and again, and either size will do.


    --
    Mikefule - Roland Hope School of Unicycling

    Everyone should be fatuous for 15 minutes.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mikefule's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/879
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/34312
     
  7. Ken Cline

    Ken Cline Guest

    "Mikefule" <[email protected]> writes:

    > Can you see why a 20 with 5 inch cranks might be comparable to a 24 with
    > 6 inch cranks, at least for short periods on the flat?


    You're losing me here. I doubt I could hit a 17% faster cadence just
    because the cranks are 17% shorter.

    Ken
     
  8. Mikefule

    Mikefule Guest

    You may doubt it, but that doesn't mean you're right to doubt it.

    In practice, the other factors mentioned come into play, and the 24 will
    always be faster, especially over a distance, or over rough ground.
    However, the effect is definitely there, and the 24/150 and 20/125 are
    comparable - not identical, but broadly similar. I've been there and
    done the miles.


    --
    Mikefule - Roland Hope School of Unicycling

    Everyone should be fatuous for 15 minutes.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mikefule's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/879
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/34312
     
  9. onewheeldave

    onewheeldave Guest

    Here's my thoughts on crank length (I've done a lot of riding using the
    following

    24/150 24/125 20/125 29/150 29/125 29/110): -



    Approximately speaking, for a given wheel size, shorter cranks will mean
    greater

    speed and less control; longer cranks give greater control but less
    speed.


    The extra control of longer cranks comes with the extra leverage they
    enable, the

    faster speed of short ones is because, to rotate the wheel a given
    distance

    requires less movement of the feet (smaller turning circle).



    That's the theory, and it's born out, to some extent by the experiences
    of many of

    the distance and speed riders here, who, in general, prefer shorter
    cranks for that

    kind of riding i.e. 125/110's on a 29-er and 125's on a Coker.



    However, it isn't that straightforward- there are many well documented
    exceptions.



    Firstly, in my experience, wheel size is the prime factor when it comes
    to speed- a

    28/29" wheel with long cranks will go faster than a 24" with very short
    cranks.



    Many have found that, although shorter cranks give higher speed in
    ideal, flat,

    smooth racing track conditions; in other conditions longer ones will be
    faster.



    Examples are some Coker riders who find, in urban situations which
    necessitate lots

    of stopping for traffic lights, curbs etc- the greater control and ease
    of mounting

    of longer cranks actually results in a faster journey.



    On rough terrain, longer cranks can mean less falls, hence they work out
    faster.



    On my 29-er I have switched from 125's to 150's because I live in a very
    hilly

    location, I also feel that they are safer on the roads. A few weeks
    experiment with

    110's last year was pretty horrible and resulted in a nasty backwards
    fall while

    rolling off a curb that would have been no problem with longer cranks.



    Lastly, I have found that, even when riding on relatively smooth
    pavement/road

    surfices, I actually complete journeys faster with 150's than with
    125's, as I'm

    very happy being at the upper limits of speed of the 150's than I would
    be with the

    upper limits of speed with 125's (feels safer and I know I can walk out
    of most

    UPD's with 150's).



    Having said that, many are very happy with short cranks; I've seen Mike
    Fule ride

    stuff on his 28"/110 set-up that I would want 150's for.



    In general, my impression of this forum is that most speed/distance
    riders err on

    the shorter end of the crank scale, but, recently, there's been some
    people doing

    hardcore distance who are talking about the benefits of longer cranks.



    I do wonder if part of the preference for shorter ones is due more to
    what we read

    on forums like this, than to what is actually best for the riding
    conditions we are

    on.



    I say this because, for a long time, I resisted trying 150's on my 29-er
    as I felt

    that it was an admission of failure- the consensus of those who are
    better/more

    experienced riders than me seemed to be saying that anything longer than
    125's was

    not good for a 29-er. However, having made the switch, I feel that 150's
    are the

    best length for me and the terrain I'm riding.



    I think that experience overides theory on the crank length issue- some
    people

    after trying both types prefer short, others prefer long. It seems
    logical that,

    for example, riders with shorter legs may prefer shorter cranks, and
    vice versa.



    I've also noticed that when riding a two-wheeler, I prefer spinning in a
    low gear

    to pushing hard on high gears, this would equate to a longer crank
    choice on a uni.


    --
    onewheeldave - Semi Skilled Unicyclist

    "He's also been known to indulge in a spot of flame juggling - but it's
    the Muni that really fires him up."

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    onewheeldave's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/874
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/34312
     
  10. onewheeldave

    onewheeldave Guest

    Here's my thoughts on crank length (I've done a lot of riding using the
    following

    24/150 24/125 20/125 29/150 29/125 29/110): -



    Approximately speaking, for a given wheel size, shorter cranks will mean
    greater

    speed and less control; longer cranks give greater control but less
    speed.


    The extra control of longer cranks comes with the extra leverage they
    enable, the

    faster speed of short ones is because, to rotate the wheel a given
    distance

    requires less movement of the feet (smaller turning circle).



    That's the theory, and it's born out, to some extent by the experiences
    of many of

    the distance and speed riders here, who, in general, prefer shorter
    cranks for that

    kind of riding i.e. 125/110's on a 29-er and 125's on a Coker.



    However, it isn't that straightforward- there are many well documented
    exceptions.



    Firstly, in my experience, wheel size is the prime factor when it comes
    to speed- a

    28/29" wheel with long cranks will go faster than a 24" with very short
    cranks.



    Many have found that, although shorter cranks give higher speed in
    ideal, flat,

    smooth racing track conditions; in other conditions longer ones will be
    faster.



    Examples are some Coker riders who find, in urban situations which
    necessitate lots

    of stopping for traffic lights, curbs etc- the greater control and ease
    of mounting

    of longer cranks actually results in a faster journey.



    On rough terrain, longer cranks can mean less falls, hence they work out
    faster.



    On my 29-er I have switched from 125's to 150's because I live in a very
    hilly

    location, I also feel that they are safer on the roads. A few weeks
    experiment with

    110's last year was pretty horrible and resulted in a nasty backwards
    fall while

    rolling off a curb that would have been no problem with longer cranks.



    Lastly, I have found that, even when riding on relatively smooth
    pavement/road

    surfices, I actually complete journeys faster with 150's than with
    125's, as I'm

    very happy being at the upper limits of speed of the 150's than I would
    be with the

    upper limits of speed with 125's (feels safer and I know I can walk out
    of most

    UPD's with 150's).



    Having said that, many are very happy with short cranks; I've seen Mike
    Fule ride

    stuff on his 28"/110 set-up that I would want 150's for.



    In general, my impression of this forum is that most speed/distance
    riders err on

    the shorter end of the crank scale, but, recently, there's been some
    people doing

    hardcore distance who are talking about the benefits of longer cranks.



    I do wonder if part of the preference for shorter ones is due more to
    what we read

    on forums like this, than to what is actually best for the riding
    conditions we are

    on.



    I say this because, for a long time, I resisted trying 150's on my 29-er
    as I felt

    that it was an admission of failure- the consensus of those who are
    better/more

    experienced riders than me seemed to be saying that anything longer than
    125's was

    not good for a 29-er. However, having made the switch, I feel that 150's
    are the

    best length for me and the terrain I'm riding.



    I think that experience overides theory on the crank length issue- some
    people

    after trying both types prefer short, others prefer long. It seems
    logical that,

    for example, riders with shorter legs may prefer shorter cranks, and
    vice versa.



    I've also noticed that when riding a two-wheeler, I prefer spinning in a
    low gear

    to pushing hard on high gears, this would equate to a longer crank
    choice on a uni.


    --
    onewheeldave - Semi Skilled Unicyclist

    "He's also been known to indulge in a spot of flame juggling - but it's
    the Muni that really fires him up."

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    onewheeldave's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/874
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/34312
     
  11. Ken Cline

    Ken Cline Guest

    "Mikefule" <[email protected]> writes:

    > You may doubt it, but that doesn't mean you're right to doubt it.


    Mike, you're a smart guy. But not humble, and unfortunately not
    always right. Turns out I know something about this problem you
    haven't considered, so I believe I have every right to be skeptical.

    Here's a hint: There's more to the story than the pedal's velocity.

    > In practice, the other factors mentioned come into play, and the 24 will
    > always be faster, especially over a distance, or over rough ground.


    The 24 will also be faster on the race track. If you need help
    to understand this, I'll be happy to enlighten you.

    Cheers,

    Ken

    Chief Inspector Climbing Physics Police (Ret.) operating outside my
    jurisdiction.
     
  12. johnfoss

    johnfoss Guest

    Some people are definitely more comfortable on short cranks than others.
    To each his own. A reminder when it comes to things like this; give the
    new crank size some time. As you get more comfortable with it, you will
    find it less and less of a problem. I rode a 20" for freestyle, at the
    pro level, with 125 cranks for many years. Recently I switched to 110,
    and the transition has taken a long time. This is mostly because I don't
    practice much, but also because it's new to me.

    In a similar situation, I switched from 24" to 20" for freestyle back in
    1984. This transition was very painful and annoying at first. You hop on
    the unicycle expecting to go a certain well-known distance with the
    first half-turn of the wheel. When you don't, it's really annoying. But
    I got used to it and my performances improved.

    Crank length is not the same as gears. I think we all understand that.
    Since we don't have gears available, we use different crank lengths to
    help us out. So it's kind of a mild form of gearing. For the most part,
    the wheel size is still the most important factor.

    However, this does not mean the bigger wheel will be faster. Hmm? Let's
    look at some race results for an illustration. I'm going to use the 10k
    races from the recent NAUCC and Unicon. All the riders at the front of
    the group are very fit athletes. The assumption is that they are
    well-trained on the cycles they used, and have prepared for the event.

    At NAUCC, on a course that included hills ad was at around 5000'
    altitude, the race was won by a Coker with 170mm cranks. Aspenmike is
    not just a mountain climber on his Coker, he's fast! But not far behind
    him was Brian Hansen on what I believe was a 28" wheel, with short
    cranks. Sorry, don't know how long. They were followed by Irene Genelin,
    Andy Cotter, John Childs, and me, all on Cokers, with various crank
    lengths. I had 140s, which were too short for that race. I think maybe
    150s would have worked better for me.

    The NAUCC results suggest Cokers are generally fastest, but a stray 700c
    wheel can slip in there. Okay, let's look at Unicon:

    The results for both of these events are broken down by age group which
    makes it a bit of a pain to put the riders in order. Yuta Ando was the
    winner, on a skinny 700c wheel with unknown cranks. He was followed
    closely by Roger Davies on a Coker, I think with 110 cranks but not
    sure. I'm going to take you up to 16th place, which is me, because I
    have an ego. Using photos Jacquie took during the race, I should be able
    to give the wheel size for all those riders. I don't know the cranks
    used, but the 24" wheels had *real* short ones, in the 60-80mm range.

    1 Yuta Ando - 700c - 23:33.01
    2 Roger Davies - Coker - 23:35.62
    3 Ishikoshi Saki* - 700c? - 24:34.82
    4 Daiki Izumeda - 700c - 24:59.89
    5 Ken Looi - Coker - 24 - 25:15.87
    6 Hajime Tsujimura - 24 - 25:47.22
    7 Yumi Kondo* - 700c - 26:05.28
    8 Nana Taguchi* - 24 - 26:05.69
    9 Sizue Sugiyama* - 24 - 26:05.99
    10 Yuka Nishino* - 24 - 26:11.12
    11 Nathan Hoover - Coker - 26:41.72
    12 Miki Matsumoto* - 24 - 26:53.94
    13 Tadamasa Takagi - 24 - 27:15.12
    14 Aika Moriuchi* - 24 - 27:25.54
    15 Riko Katafuchi - 26 - 27:32.52
    16 John Foss - 700c - 27:37.67

    Sorry it doesn't all line up. The stars indicate female riders. Some of
    those 24" wheels may have been 26", but mostly I think this is accurate.
    The message here, I guess is that it still boils down to the engine
    first, and wheel size afterward. But we know Roger, and we know Ken
    (Gizmoduck), and we know Nathan are all hardcore riders. Now you know
    all those Japanese riders are too. On 24"! And in hot, very humid
    conditions, with wind.


    --
    johnfoss - Walkin' on the edge

    John Foss, the Uni-Cyclone
    "jfoss" at "unicycling.com" -- www.unicycling.com

    "Read the rules!"
    'IUF Rulebook' (http://www.unicycling.org/iuf/rulebook/)
    'USA Rulebook' (http://www.unicycling.org/usa/competition/)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    johnfoss's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/832
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/34312
     
  13. albertkarel

    albertkarel Guest

    Before this thread sinks beneath the waves, back to page 78 or so on the
    forum, I want to express my sheer delight and thanks for the great
    responses. It was like tossing a few moldy fish heads into the lobster
    pot and coming back 3 days later to find a bunch a lovely lobsters with
    big claws snapping!

    I had to run get a "rich, hot black, steaming, delicious" mug of joe
    before I sat down to the delicious task to reading into the comments of
    my favorite forum contributors. Yumm.

    My only regret is that I sort of cheated the general readership by
    raising crank length on a "Lightweight Bigwheel" thread. Maybe I'll cut
    and paste and post into a new thread.

    I am sure that there remain TONS of things to say about crank length.
    The most amazing thing to me (a rank beginner) is the incredible
    physical and psychological difference changing crank length makes in
    riding, even tho crank change is, as was wonderfully said: :gearing
    light". I swapped the 110's on my new 28 for 150's this A.M. just to
    see. WOOOOOEEEE what an startling difference. And I loved MikeFule's
    comment about laughing out loud at firstride on real shorties.

    More crank posts please!!

    All the best from Santa Monica.

    AL


    --
    albertkarel
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    albertkarel's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/7253
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/34312
     
  14. onewheeldave

    onewheeldave Guest


    > I swapped the 110's on my new 28 for 150's this A.M. just to see.
    > WOOOOOEEEE what an startling difference.............
    >
    > ...............More crank posts please!!
    >
    >
    > [/B]



    Your turn :) what's your opinion on the difference between 150's and
    110's on the 28"?

    Today I did a switch of a different kind- took the 29-er tyre off and
    went back to a 28" tyre. I found it horrible- hard and unforgiving on
    road bumps.

    Despite the 29" tyre being damaged (hence the change) I knew I wouldn't
    be doing anything with the 28, so I patched the 29 up and put it back.

    What a difference! just got back from a manic night ride (29-er with 150
    cranks), bombed around like a maniac and got back after an hour,
    drenched in sweat and very happy.

    I can really recomend converting to a 29-er tyre, if your frame can fit
    one in.

    (having said that, there are plenty of people who do prefer a skinny 28"
    tyre, I think they appreciate the extra skill needed to ride it)


    --
    onewheeldave - Semi Skilled Unicyclist

    "He's also been known to indulge in a spot of flame juggling - but it's
    the Muni that really fires him up."

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    onewheeldave's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/874
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/34312
     
Loading...
Loading...