Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Trek Crank Length

Started by Garrison Hillia · · Last activity · 85 posts · 3,683 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
7 January 2004
Last activity
10 February 2004
Original author
Garrison Hillia
Posts
85
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
3,683
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 21–40 of 85
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. "Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<Kk0Mb.19072$xy6.52817@attbi_s02>...

    Quoted message said:

    "Andrew Bradley" <[email hidden]> wrote

    Quoted message said:


    But you are not "making steps" on a bike in the normal sense. Although similar muscle groups and
    joint angles may be used as compared with, say, walking uphill, loads-wise the activities are
    very different.

    How so?

    Well when you are walking up hill/stairs the major muscle load comes early in the "stroke" where the
    leg is bent. The only way to reduce this load is to take smaller strides to reduce leg bend.

    Body weight, muscle X-section and fatigue will be significant factors in stride length.

    Very different situation from cycling I think.

  2. "Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<Kk0Mb.19072$xy6.52817@attbi_s02>...

    Quoted message said:

    "Andrew Bradley" <[email hidden]> wrote

    Quoted message said:


    But you are not "making steps" on a bike in the normal sense. Although similar muscle groups and
    joint angles may be used as compared with, say, walking uphill, loads-wise the activities are
    very different.

    How so?

    Dear Peter,

    To start from the bottom, walking involves rolling your entire weight from toe to heel, not pushing
    down with far less weight on a cleat under the ball of your foot.

    True, riders standing up and heaving on the handlebars will throw their whole weight onto a pedal as
    they struggle up a steep climb, but this is rarely sustained for long--they're fighting the leverage
    of all that gearing, which is absent from walking uphill.

    That is, even with a mountain bike's granny gear down to a roughly 1 to 1 ration, your foot goes
    around a circle of about 1100mm (the circumference for a 175mm crank), while the rear tire rolls
    through a circle of about 2100mm--almost twice as far.

    For all but the most extreme riding, the bicyclist's foot, ankle, knee, and hip bear far less than
    their normal weight. Most of the weight rests on the underside of the pelvic bone, with our hands
    taking additional weight on the handlebars.

    The angle at which our legs flail on a bicycle is quite different from the angle of normal walking.
    To be blunt, we pedal while hunched over like gorillas, our knees coming up much higher than they do
    when we're walking.

    Even the supposedly upright mountain bike involves bending over and leaning on the handlebars.
    Ride no hands and sit bolt upright as if you were striding along on your hind legs, and you'll
    probably be unable to touch the bars with your fingertips, much less grasp them. Your head will
    rise a foot or more.

    Serious riders tend to use high cadences with lighter pedal pressure, rather than slower cadences
    with heavier pedal pressure. This simply isn't possible when walking--you have to raise your weight
    with each step as you climb. The closest that walking comes to a bicycle gearing down is when we
    shorten our stride, but there just isn't much gearing range available with a normal climbing stride.
    Notice how awkward it is to climb stairs that are even slightly steeper, shallower, narrower, or
    broader than normal.

    Finally, of course, pedalling is practically free of impact. Stress fractures of the foot are almost
    unheard of in cycling for the same reason that bicyclists rarely complain about blisters on their
    feet until they break down and have to walk their bikes home--normal pedalling involves far less
    pressure and far less impact than ordinary walking.

    There are all sorts of other differences, but foot action, load, posture, cadence, and impact are
    good places to start when comparing walking to pedalling. Fascinating details are easily discovered.
    For example, just as some people lack ear-lobes, other people lack a vestigial leg muscle, the
    plantaris.

    Carl Fogel

  3. Carl Fogel said:

    ... To be blunt, we pedal while hunched over like gorillas, our knees coming up much higher than
    they do when we're walking....

    Dear Carl,

    Some of us pedal in a position similar to that obtained by a Lay-Z-Boy in fully reclined mode. Since
    this continues the general rotational trend of human evolution, I argue that it is the more
    evolutionary advanced position. 😉

    Tom "[censored] Recumbutus" Sherman - Quad Cities

  4. Carl Fogel said:

    The angle at which our legs flail on a bicycle is quite different from the angle of normal
    walking. To be blunt, we pedal while hunched over like gorillas, our knees coming up much higher
    than they do when we're walking.

    Position has nothing to do with the articulation of the knee. It is the same for riding no-hands in
    a vertical position as when down on the drops of the bars. Legs move from the hips and knee
    articulation is derived from the pedal stroke.

    Quoted message said:

    Even the supposedly upright mountain bike involves bending over and leaning on the handlebars.
    Ride no hands and sit bolt upright as if you were striding along on your hind legs, and you'll
    probably be unable to touch the bars with your fingertips, much less grasp them. Your head will
    rise a foot or more.

    This is like the Easy-seat with articulating buttocks pads where the inventor thought that the
    pivot point is somewhere on the pelvis, a unit of the skeleton that does not change angle with
    pedal position.

    Quoted message said:

    Serious riders tend to use high cadences with lighter pedal pressure, rather than slower cadences
    with heavier pedal pressure.

    I don't like "Serious riders", I like to enjoy bicycling and the schtick of the serious rider is a
    tragic comedy. I see them all the time and no one waves to them or says hello when passing because
    no one wants to interrupt the act, grimace and all.

    However, as has often been brought up here, knee articulation on a bicycle is about twice that of
    walking up most standard stairs. It is my contention that oldsters who take up riding late in life
    do not have knee joints that measure up to a loaded deep knee bend of that type, having never done
    such loaded knee articulation for at least early youth.

    This came to my attention when the US Military got rid of the "Squat-jump" exercise in which one
    goes into a kneeling position alternately with one knee to the floor. These deep knee bends caused
    more medical discharges than any other cause, it being more than most recruits who weren't bikies
    from early youth could take at age 18. I was lucky and survived this basic training test but it made
    me think of all the knee problems of which I hear along with admonitions from new converts to
    bicycling who are sure that I will soon collapse if I don't twiddle small gears up hills.

    Quoted message said:

    Finally, of course, pedalling is practically free of impact. Stress fractures of the foot are
    almost unheard of in cycling for the same reason that bicyclists rarely complain about blisters on
    their feet until they break down and have to walk their bikes home--normal pedalling involves far
    less pressure and far less impact than ordinary walking.

    That's another problem entirely. There are enough people whose knees are barely up to bicycling with
    normal length cranks. A length that has been developed over 150 years of pragmatic competition.
    You'll notice that high wheelers had amazingly short cranks. This was mainly due to the relatively
    small gear they rode and that the shorter the crank, the larger the possible "gear" possible for any
    leg length. That by the way is where "gear inches' came from and it is a single parameter that
    describes the crank to distance traveled without involving PI or any other complex mathematics.

    Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

  5. Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Carl Fogel said:

    ... To be blunt, we pedal while hunched over like gorillas, our knees coming up much higher than
    they do when we're walking....

    Dear Carl,

    Some of us pedal in a position similar to that obtained by a Lay-Z-Boy in fully reclined mode.
    Since this continues the general rotational trend of human evolution, I argue that it is the more
    evolutionary advanced position. 😉

    Tom "[censored] Recumbutus" Sherman - Quad Cities

    Dear Tom,

    Possibly true, but is there no air of an overturned tortoise in the recumbent rider's posture, lying
    on his back with all four limbs waving hopefully in the air? The fastest recumbents, after all, have
    grown protective shells.

    More seriously, a recumbent also shows the differences between walking and pedalling. There is still
    no rolling of the weight from toe to heel, practically no impact, a bent posture, and probably even
    less load on the hip-knee-ankle than on a double-diamond frame because of the difficulty of throwing
    your normal walking weight onto the pedals from a lawn-chair position.

    Carl Fogel

  6. "Carl Fogel" <[email hidden]> < <Huge snip>

    Quoted message said:


    There are all sorts of other differences, but foot action, load, posture, cadence, and impact are
    good places to start when comparing walking to pedalling.

    I was really commenting on the (claimed) differences between cycling and climbing, especially stair
    climbing. My experience has been that stair climbing uses the same muscles as cycling, or enough so
    that using a "Stair Master" in the gym is as good as using a stationary bike.

  7. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

    In article <[email hidden]>, Andrew Bradley

    Quoted message said:

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

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Gears are there for leverage adjustments. Using shorter cranks for spin defeats the object.
    >

    _ But you can spin faster if you don't have to bend your knees as much. I am definitely more
    comfortable on 165's than 175's at higher RPM's.

    But what's the objective of "higher RPM's" in the first place?

    _ I don't know for anybody else, but for me it allows me the delusion that I'm still in somewhere
    near the same shape as I was 25 years ago.

    Quoted message said:

    What advantage is gained by using a shorter crank with a lower gear?

    _ Less knee stress, bike is more comfortable to ride. No thighs wacking beer belly.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    Use gears to adjust force, crank length to make your knee's happy.

    Precisely, so what's the point about RPM's?

    _ I don't know. My experience is that you can spin faster with shorter cranks. Whether that's good
    or bad is not my point.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I think there is some arguement to using shorter cranks for touring as it's easier to make many
    small steps rather than many bit ones.

    But you are not "making steps" on a bike in the normal sense. Although similar muscle groups and
    joint angles may be used as compared with, say, walking uphill, loads-wise the activities are very
    different.

    _ It's still big vs. small. I've tried 170, 165 and 175 mm cranks recently and I know which is more
    comfortable for the way I ride.

    _ Booker C. Bense

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2

    iQCVAwUBQALL/GTWTAjn5N/lAQHfcQP/VDt45QPh6VwOX1J4+4vNDl0F7Bqu/O82
    nBW+o5gWF9/lGcC5kKty1isxtYXcPJrbANllpRB3fEXXgVTNd5BdDFy+FRO3BhMe
    bPKn1npWkKXqgwiZXeB4wZMT4Xgn2XhPfyF376IGins3tAgF5Vsvd9clCeqGoomP /pNjPjsLzzE= =Baud -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  8. [email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Carl Fogel said:

    The angle at which our legs flail on a bicycle is quite different from the angle of normal
    walking. To be blunt, we pedal while hunched over like gorillas, our knees coming up much higher
    than they do when we're walking.

    Position has nothing to do with the articulation of the knee. It is the same for riding no-hands
    in a vertical position as when down on the drops of the bars. Legs move from the hips and knee
    articulation is derived from the pedal stroke.

    Quoted message said:

    Even the supposedly upright mountain bike involves bending over and leaning on the handlebars.
    Ride no hands and sit bolt upright as if you were striding along on your hind legs, and you'll
    probably be unable to touch the bars with your fingertips, much less grasp them. Your head will
    rise a foot or more.

    This is like the Easy-seat with articulating buttocks pads where the inventor thought that the
    pivot point is somewhere on the pelvis, a unit of the skeleton that does not change angle with
    pedal position.

    Quoted message said:

    Serious riders tend to use high cadences with lighter pedal pressure, rather than slower
    cadences with heavier pedal pressure.

    I don't like "Serious riders", I like to enjoy bicycling and the schtick of the serious rider is a
    tragic comedy. I see them all the time and no one waves to them or says hello when passing because
    no one wants to interrupt the act, grimace and all.

    Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

    Dear Jobst,

    Perhaps you misunderstood me. It is the hip joints whose articulation changes, not the knee. When we
    pedal bent over in our typical position, our straightened leg approximates the forward kick of a goose-
    stepping soldier, not the downward and then trailing leg of normal walking.

    Our knees come up half-way to our chests for two reasons--the increased flexing and the bent over
    psoture. It could also be described as our chests coming half-way down to our knees. Either way,
    your femur is waving back and forth from your hip joint at a strikingly different angle than its
    usual walking motion.

    Your point about the increased flexing of the knee is well-taken, but since the load is usually
    greatly reduced, it's not nearly as bad as squat thrusts, which take the whole weight of the body.
    The usual complaints about knee pain tend to revolve (sorry, couldn't resist it) around float, the
    tendency of the cleated foot to attempt to rotate slightly in imitation of normal walking.

    As for the serious riders, I like 'em--they provide me with fascinating threads, even though I don't
    use most of their equipment, pedal at their cadence, or eat what they eat.

    Let's edit your last paragraph just a bit:

    Quoted message said:

    I don't like "Serious posters", I like to enjoy newsgroups and the schtick of the serious poster
    is a tragic comedy. I see them all the time and no one waves to them or says hello when passing
    because no one wants to interrupt the act, grimace and all.

    Hmmm . . . there are some posters who seem to have less fun than others and who write with a
    grimace. Perhaps we should spend less time on our dislikes?

    Carl Fogel

  9. "Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<GmyMb.33962$I06.223814@attbi_s01>...

    My experience has been that stair

    Quoted message said:

    climbing uses the same muscles as cycling, or enough so that using a "Stair Master" in the gym is
    as good as using a stationary bike.

    How does the "Stair Master" work?

    Andrew Bradley

  10. "Andrew Bradley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:<GmyMb.33962$I06.223814@attbi_s01>...

    Quoted message said:


    My experience has been that stair

    Quoted message said:

    climbing uses the same muscles as cycling, or enough so that using a


    "Stair

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Master" in the gym is as good as using a stationary bike.

    How does the "Stair Master" work?

    Like climbing a set of stairs. Some machines are actually like reverse running escalators, but
    others just have hydraulic/pneumatic damped footpads, the effect is pretty much the same -- like
    climbing an infinite staircase.

  11. Tom Sherman said:
    Carl Fogel said:

    ... To be blunt, we pedal while hunched over like gorillas, our knees coming up much higher than
    they do when we're walking....

    Dear Carl,

    Some of us pedal in a position similar to that obtained by a Lay-Z-Boy in fully reclined mode.
    Since this continues the general rotational trend of human evolution, I argue that it is the more
    evolutionary advanced position. 😉

    We're gradually approaching bats?

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    Everything that can be invented has been invented. -- Charles Duell, Director of U.S. Patent
    Office, 1899

  12. Peter Cole said:

    "Andrew Bradley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:<GmyMb.33962$I06.223814@attbi_s01>...

    Quoted message said:


    My experience has been that stair

    Quoted message said:

    climbing uses the same muscles as cycling, or enough so that using a "Stair Master" in the gym
    is as good as using a stationary bike.

    How does the "Stair Master" work?

    Like climbing a set of stairs. Some machines are actually like reverse running escalators, but
    others just have hydraulic/pneumatic damped footpads, the effect is pretty much the same -- like
    climbing an infinite staircase.

    Not to forget that you can apply power with your arms fairly similar to that of holding on to the
    handlebars of a bike.

    --
    Perre

    You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

  13. On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:44:47 GMT, [email hidden]

    Quoted message said:

    that is much to plain. Language is going to the dogs. Today people don't even wince at "for who the
    bell tolls" or "who do you ask".

    Is "for who the bell tolls" a common expression today?

    Quoted message said:

    Jobst Brandt [email hidden]


    --
    Rick Onanian

  14. On 12 Jan 2004 10:10:07 -0800, [email hidden] (Carl Fogel)

    Quoted message said:

    Our knees come up half-way to our chests for two reasons--the increased flexing and the bent over
    psoture. It could also be described

    Oh, I thought that it was because my aerobelly is in the way.

    Quoted message said:

    Carl Fogel


    --
    Rick Onanian

  15. Carl Fogel said:

    ... More seriously, a recumbent also shows the differences between walking and pedalling. There is
    still no rolling of the weight from toe to heel, practically no impact, a bent posture, and
    probably even less load on the hip-knee-ankle than on a double-diamond frame because of the
    difficulty of throwing your normal walking weight onto the pedals from a lawn-chair position.

    Dear Carl,

    One can actually apply more force to the pedals of a recumbent that to the pedals of an upright. The
    recumbent position is similar to that of the leg press in a weight (lifting) machine. This has no
    practical advantage, as applying very high force to the pedals leads to rapid muscle fatigue and
    possible knee problems.

    Proper seat to pedal distance is at least as important on a recumbent as it is on an upright
    bicycle, to avoid overstressing hip, knee and ankle joints.

    Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

  16. Benjamin Lewis said:

    Tom Sherman wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Some of us pedal in a position similar to that obtained by a Lay-Z-Boy in fully reclined mode.
    Since this continues the general rotational trend of human evolution, I argue that it is the more
    evolutionary advanced position. 😉

    We're gradually approaching bats?

    Yes. You must admit that anyone who spends a significant amount of time posting to Usenet cycling
    groups is at least a little batty. 😉

    Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

  17. Peter Cole said:

    "Andrew Bradley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    How does the "Stair Master" work?

    Why, it is the master of stairs, of course.

    No, actually, it's a hamster wheel for humans.

    This reminds me: Why aren't gym devices such as this all hooked up to dynamos, so that instead of
    producing lots of heat (from user and from machine doing it's best to waste energy) and requiring
    air conditioning, they could instead just help generate the electricity required for said air
    conditioning (as well as reducing the generated heat)?

    Why, you ask, did "hamster wheel" remind me of that? Well, one renewable energy source suggested by
    a friend of mine was hamster power -- a mill full of hamsters running in hamster wheels, their power
    harnessed for electricity creation.

    Quoted message said:

    Like climbing a set of stairs. Some machines are actually like reverse running escalators, but
    others just have hydraulic/pneumatic damped footpads, the effect is pretty much the same -- like
    climbing an infinite staircase.

    That's a general technical description, but here's a more practical and societal description. Actual
    wisdom from Dennis Leary (rare): :But have you seen these people who are using the Stairmasters?
    :Have we turned into gerbils, ladies and gentlemen? :People are paying money to go into a room and
    walk up three :steps over and over again for an hour and a half. :You can do this at home for free!
    Move into a fifth-floor :walk-up on the Lower East Side and you can walk up and down :stairs all
    day! What's next, the chairmaster? I sit down. :I get up. I sit down. I get up. The doormaster! I
    open the door. :I close the door. What's going on? (from jorgen.nu03 drink.asp )

    Of course, I decided to google for chairmaster, and nearly crapped my pants; there is exactly such a
    thing: accentonhealth.comchairmaster.cfm
    --
    Rick Onanian

  18. Tom Sherman said:
    Benjamin Lewis said:

    We're gradually approaching bats?

    Yes. You must admit that anyone who spends a significant amount of time posting to Usenet cycling
    groups is at least a little batty. 😉

    Yes, and we communicate and navigate outside of the normal human aural range.

    Quoted message said:

    Tom Sherman - Quad Cities


    --
    Rick Onanian

  19. Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Carl Fogel said:

    ... More seriously, a recumbent also shows the differences between walking and pedalling. There
    is still no rolling of the weight from toe to heel, practically no impact, a bent posture, and
    probably even less load on the hip-knee-ankle than on a double-diamond frame because of the
    difficulty of throwing your normal walking weight onto the pedals from a lawn-chair position.

    Dear Carl,

    One can actually apply more force to the pedals of a recumbent that to the pedals of an upright.
    The recumbent position is similar to that of the leg press in a weight (lifting) machine. This has
    no practical advantage, as applying very high force to the pedals leads to rapid muscle fatigue
    and possible knee problems.

    Proper seat to pedal distance is at least as important on a recumbent as it is on an upright
    bicycle, to avoid overstressing hip, knee and ankle joints.

    Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

    Dear Tom,

    I'm willing to be convinced that a recumbent allows greater pedal pressure, but I'm still dubious.

    My reasoning is that a recumbent rider can't add his own weight to the downward force on the pedals.

    Obviously, our legs can produce more pressure on our feet than just our weight, but the upright
    rider can increase his pressure beyond his own weight's resistance to the limit of his hands hanging
    on to the handlebars.

    Is the typical rider able to press more with one leg than he can resist with his own weight and two
    hands hanging onto the handlebars?

    If so, then the additional resistance of the recumbent frame would be useful--you could press harder
    in a recumbent than on an upright.

    But I suspect that this advantage, if it exists, is still impractical. It's likely to be good for
    only maximum effort and at most a few pedal strokes. I'd be impressed if any rider can come close to
    tearing his hands off the bars while standing on the pedals for more than sixty seconds.

    In normal riding at the same speed, I would expect the actual load on the pedals to be less on a recumbent--
    less wind drag at the same speed should require less pressure on the pedals.

    Neither my reasoning nor my willingness to be impressed have ever had the slightest effect on how
    things really work, so let me know when you spot the more obvious flaws in my fantasies.

    Carl Fogel

  20. Carl Fogel said:

    Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]-
    berlin.de>...

    Quoted message said:
    Carl Fogel said:

    ... More seriously, a recumbent also shows the differences between walking and pedalling. There
    is still no rolling of the weight from toe to heel, practically no impact, a bent posture, and
    probably even less load on the hip-knee-ankle than on a double-diamond frame because of the
    difficulty of throwing your normal walking weight onto the pedals from a lawn-chair position.

    Dear Carl,

    One can actually apply more force to the pedals of a recumbent that to the pedals of an upright.
    The recumbent position is similar to that of the leg press in a weight (lifting) machine. This has
    no practical advantage, as applying very high force to the pedals leads to rapid muscle fatigue
    and possible knee problems.

    Proper seat to pedal distance is at least as important on a recumbent as it is on an upright
    bicycle, to avoid overstressing hip, knee and ankle joints.

    Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

    Dear Tom,

    I'm willing to be convinced that a recumbent allows greater pedal pressure, but I'm still dubious.

    My reasoning is that a recumbent rider can't add his own weight to the downward force on
    the pedals.

    Obviously, our legs can produce more pressure on our feet than just our weight, but the upright
    rider can increase his pressure beyond his own weight's resistance to the limit of his hands
    hanging on to the handlebars.

    Dear Carl,

    On a recumbent, the rider is braced against the seat. Unless the seat fails (unlikely unless Chalo
    Colina starts riding a recumbent), the force the recumbent rider can apply to a pedal is limited
    solely by leg strength, which is usually greater than the combination of rider weight and arm
    strength. (If leg strength were the limiting factor, maximum pedal force would be the same for both
    the upright and recumbent, assuming the same hip angle.)

    This may be verified at the gym on a leg press machine.

    Quoted message said:

    Is the typical rider able to press more with one leg than he can resist with his own weight and
    two hands hanging onto the handlebars?

    If so, then the additional resistance of the recumbent frame would be useful--you could press
    harder in a recumbent than on an upright.

    But I suspect that this advantage, if it exists, is still impractical. It's likely to be good for
    only maximum effort and at most a few pedal strokes. I'd be impressed if any rider can come close
    to tearing his hands off the bars while standing on the pedals for more than sixty seconds.

    Correct - as I said in my previous post, the recumbent rider being able to apply a larger force due
    to being braced against the seat back provides little or no real world advantage (at least in my
    experience). Having low enough gearing to maintain a reasonable cadence is much more critical on a
    recumbent than on an upright.

    Quoted message said:

    In normal riding at the same speed, I would expect the actual load on the pedals to be less on a
    recumbent--less wind drag at the same speed should require less pressure on the pedals.

    Discussing relative upright and recumbent bicycle performance on rec.bicycles.tech is like opening a
    very large can of worms. 😉 My experience leads me to hypothesize that the relative performance
    difference range between the slowest and fastest commercially available recumbents are greater than
    those between the normally available spectrum of uprights (single-speed "beach cruiser" to carbon
    fiber composite frame, DA or Record equipped TT bike). Which type of bike is faster for a given
    power input will depend on course profile, wind speed and direction, and road surface conditions.

    Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.