Trek Crank Length

Rick Onanian said:

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]

No. Today it's more like "Your time is out"

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But what's the objective of "higher RPM's" in the first place? What advantage is gained by using
a shorter crank with a lower gear?

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?

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.

For most people, increasing the cadence in a lower gear will improve their cycling performance
because it causes less muscle fatigue.

You could be right.

My point is that obtaining higher cadence via shorter cranks defeats the object of "spinning" which
is to use lower pedal force.

The "optimum" cadence (if it makes much difference) for a given individual will depend on various
things, amongst them crank length (relative crank length might be more relevant than absolute crank
length here)

Andrew Bradley

On 13 Jan 2004 02:34:11 -0800, [email hidden] (Andrew

Bradley) said:

My point is that obtaining higher cadence via shorter cranks defeats the object of "spinning" which
is to use lower pedal force.

The "optimum" cadence (if it makes much difference) for a given individual will depend on various
things, amongst them crank length (relative crank length might be more relevant than absolute crank
length here)

And, if I understand correctly, crank length is more effectively chosen by leg geometry for fit
purposes than chosen by leverage for gearing purposes. That is, it's more important to fit right,
and any given person fits one crank length best.

Once that's done, then worry about gearing.

Quoted message said:

Andrew Bradley

--
Rick Onanian

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<wSBMb.35517$xy6.88521@attbi_s02>...

Quoted message said:

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.

Sounds nasty. When you get tired, do you find yourself wanting the steps to be lower?

Andrew Bradley

Andrew Bradley said:

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<wSBMb.35517$xy6.88521@attbi_s02>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My experience has been that stair
> climbing uses the same muscles as cycling, or enough so that using a

"Stair

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.

Sounds nasty. When you get tired, do you find yourself wanting the steps to be lower?

Andrew Bradley

It doesn't work like that. Your passive foot gets lifted back up to level by the active foot. Much
like when pedaling. The big difference is that you can switch feet before you are all the way at the
top, thus deciding how much you want to bend your knees.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

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

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel said:

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

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel wrote:

>... 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.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

Dear Tom,

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?

Are you saying that with a single leg (not two) a typical cyclist can press upward against his full
weight hard enough to tear both his hands from a metal railing?

Carl Fogel

On 13 Jan 2004 11:28:48 -0800, [email hidden] (Carl Fogel)

Quoted message said:

Dear Tom, Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?

I think that's the case.

Quoted message said:

Are you saying that with a single leg (not two) a typical cyclist can press upward against his full
weight hard enough to tear both his hands from a metal railing?

It appears that Tom is saying exactly the opposite -- that a typical cyclist can NOT put anywhere
near as much force into the pedals as the atypical variety found on recumbents; the bent riders can
push with as much force as their leg can produce, braced with their back against the seatback.

Now, such a bent rider could probably replace his pedals with a metal railing, and easily push it
with his feet hard enough to tear it from the grip of a typical cyclist standing next to the bent
(if said typical cyclist was himself braced well enough that he would't just be dragged away by his
railing-attached hands).

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel

--
Rick Onanian

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> 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.

Sounds nasty. When you get tired, do you find yourself wanting the steps to be lower?

Andrew Bradley

It doesn't work like that. Your passive foot gets lifted back up to level by the active foot. Much
like when pedaling. The big difference is that you can switch feet before you are all the way at
the top, thus deciding how much you want to bend your knees.

Thats a forgiving set of stairs.

I reckon that if people had to walk up stairs with the same knee range as on a bike they'd struggle
after a while, whereas an a bike, all would be well.

Andrew Bradley

Rick Onanian said:

It appears that Tom is saying exactly the opposite -- that a typical cyclist can NOT put anywhere
near as much force into the pedals as the atypical variety found on recumbents; the bent riders
can push with as much force as their leg can produce, braced with their back against the seatback.

Quoted message said:

Now, such a bent rider could probably replace his pedals with a metal railing, and easily push it
with his feet hard enough to tear it from the grip of a typical cyclist standing next to the bent
(if said typical cyclist was himself braced well enough that he would't just be dragged away by
his railing-attached hands).

I think this whole discussion got off on the wrong foot and wandered ever farther into that maze.
Bicycle riding is not so much about force on pedals as it is about aerobic output. I'm sure most
riders have noticed that after stopping for whatever reason on a hill, that riding after a respite,
the pedals seem to rotate far more easily than up to that point... for a while.

How much force a rider can exert on pedals, upright, in a TT position, or reclining is immaterial.
What is important is the endurance of the output. Carefully observed, that riding doesn't take huge
force on the pedals as in a sprint of on a steep grade. It is a cardiovascular limitation. Analyzing
lever length of ankling as a speed secret is taking nerdliness to the extreme. That's not what it is
about, so to speak.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Carl Fogel said:

... Are you saying that with a single leg (not two) a typical cyclist can press upward against his
full weight hard enough to tear both his hands from a metal railing?

Dear Carl,

Although I have not attempted to test your particular scenario, I would expect a single leg to be
stronger than two arms - especially for a typical cyclist.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

Tom Sherman said:

Carl Fogel said:

Are you saying that with a single leg (not two) a typical cyclist can press upward against his
full weight hard enough to tear both his hands from a metal railing?

Although I have not attempted to test your particular scenario, I would expect a single leg to be
stronger than two arms - especially for a typical cyclist.

While I agree with other posters that this thread has gone into the wild blue yonder, I must nitpick
with your discussion a little bit. It is not the strength of the arms that is the limiting factor in
the test you propose. It is the strength of the grip.

Perform a little experiment. Find a pullup bar. Hang yourself from that bar for as long as you can.
Now tell me: where was the limiting factor? Were your arms fatigued? I know the answer; this
exercise is well-known for increasing grip strength, not arm strength.

As mentioned elsewhere, /maximal/ pedal force has very little to do with cycling performance.
Another thought experiment. Who can exert more pedal force: Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime or
Lance Armstrong? Now who would win a bike race if the two went head-to-head?

Dave dvt at psu dot edu

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Dvt

BTom Sherman said:

Carl Fogel said:

Are you saying that with a single leg (not two) a typical cyclist can press upward against his
full weight hard enough to tear both his hands from a metal railing?

Although I have not attempted to test your particular scenario, I would expect a single leg to be
stronger than two arms - especially for a typical cyclist.

While I agree with other posters that this thread has gone into the wild blue yonder, I must nitpick
with your discussion a little bit. It is not the strength of the arms that is the limiting factor in
the test you propose. It is the strength of the grip.

Perform a little experiment. Find a pullup bar. Hang yourself from that bar for as long as you can.
Now tell me: where was the limiting factor? Were your arms fatigued? I know the answer; this
exercise is well-known for increasing grip strength, not arm strength.

As mentioned elsewhere, /maximal/ pedal force has very little to do with cycling performance.
Another thought experiment. Who can exert more pedal force: Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime or
Lance Armstrong? Now who would win a bike race if the two went head-to-head?

Dave dvt at psu dot edu [/B]

True, but most efficient /maximal/pedal force is what time trial
cycling is all about.

n crowley said:

Dvt said:

As mentioned elsewhere, /maximal/ pedal force has very little to do with cycling performance.

Quoted message said:

True, but most efficient /maximal/pedal force is what time trial cycling is all about.

Noel! Long time no see! How's the Anquetil theory coming along? Any well-known riders buy into your
system yet?

I don't understand what you just posted. I need a bit more explanation. Maximal pedal force, as I
understand it, is the pedal force that one can apply for one stroke. That's how maximal strength is
usually defined (see Bompa, in one of his periodization training books). And in the context of the
discussion (recumbent seats allowing greater pedal force), that makes sense.

I can't see how making that maximal pedal force more efficient translates into general cycling
performance. Maybe you meant something else, and I just misunderstood your comment?

Dave dvt at psu dot edu

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Dvt

Bn crowley said:

Dvt said:

As mentioned elsewhere, /maximal/ pedal force has very little to do with cycling performance.

Quoted message said:

True, but most efficient /maximal/pedal force is what time trial cycling is all about.

Noel! Long time no see! How's the Anquetil theory coming along? Any well-known riders buy into your
system yet?

I don't understand what you just posted. I need a bit more explanation. Maximal pedal force, as I
understand it, is the pedal force that one can apply for one stroke. That's how maximal strength is
usually defined (see Bompa, in one of his periodization training books). And in the context of the
discussion (recumbent seats allowing greater pedal force), that makes sense.

I can't see how making that maximal pedal force more efficient translates into general cycling
performance. Maybe you meant something else, and I just misunderstood your comment?

Dave dvt at psu dot edu [/B]

Like good wine, it just keeps on improving with time.

It does not matter what meaning you take from my statement,
all of them will give the same result. You will not get a more
efficient pedal stroke than one which enables you to eliminate
the dead spot area and increase that power by the use of
maximum arm resistance whenever the occasion demands it,
and generating all this power has only the same effect on the
knees as natural walking. For instance, using a locked rear
wheel when on a trainer, can you apply maximum chain drive
power to the pedal when it is in the 12 o'clock position with shoe
in a toes down position and increase that power even further by
using maximum arm resistance. The main problem with round
pedaling is that riders when seated try to apply power to the
pedals from the knees in the same direct downward direction as
they do when riding out of the saddle even though the hips have
moved to a position which is much further behind. Result is knee
injuries, back pain, dead spot area, and sliding forward on the
saddle and arm resistance cannot be used.
By adjusting the whole power generating technique through the
clever use of ankles, cleats, knees and hips and using a linear
technique all your problems are eliminated. What would you call
the " out of the saddle " power application pedal stroke, round
or linear?

dvt said:

Tom Sherman said:

Although I have not attempted to test your particular scenario, I would expect a single leg to be
stronger than two arms - especially for a typical cyclist.

While I agree with other posters that this thread has gone into the wild blue yonder, I must
nitpick with your discussion a little bit. It is not the strength of the arms that is the limiting
factor in the test you propose. It is the strength of the grip.

Perform a little experiment. Find a pullup bar. Hang yourself from that bar for as long as you
can. Now tell me: where was the limiting factor? Were your arms fatigued? I know the answer; this
exercise is well-known for increasing grip strength, not arm strength....

Agreed. I was including the hands as part of the arms when determining how much force could be
applied to the handlebars of an upright bike, just as I included the feet as part of the legs when
determining how much force could be applied to a recumbent bicycle pedal.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

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

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel said:

... Are you saying that with a single leg (not two) a typical cyclist can press upward against
his full weight hard enough to tear both his hands from a metal railing?

Dear Carl,

Although I have not attempted to test your particular scenario, I would expect a single leg to be
stronger than two arms - especially for a typical cyclist.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

Dear Tom,

While weight-lifting is mostly a mystery to me, I think that you'll find that most enthusiasts have
no trouble finding barbells and weights that they cannot lift by straightening two legs, much less
the single leg that we use at a time in cycling. The weight-lifters just strain without their hands
coming off.

Nor do rowers heaving at the oars as they press themselves back on their sliding seats tend to tear
their hands off, even with two legs pressing instead of one.

What I'm suggesting (some posters seem to have missed what we're discussing) is that given the
downward resistance of a rider's body weight plus two hands gripping the handlebars, no riders seem
to be in danger of flying upward off the bike. There's more than enough resistance for maximum single-
leg pedal-pressing without resorting to safety harnesses to mimic the seating resistance on a
recumbent.

(An unspeakable vision of a butt-cleat that clips into the saddle floats before me. Let's not
go there.)

Barring some actual data showing the same rider pressing harder against a strain measure on a
recumbent's pedal than he could press on an upright's pedal, I'm skeptical of what seems at first
like a reasonable claim.

Of course, there's almost no practical value to a higher maximum leg-press effort in cycling. No one
can sustain maximum leg-press efforts for anything like a minute of pedalling. No one can repeat his
maximum leg-press thirty or forty times in a single minute.

As others have pointed out, actual pedalling pressures are far less, with cardiovascular capacity
being the real limiting factor. Most people pedalling quite hard don't even lift their weight off
the saddle of an upright. Only wild sprinting and the most demanding climbing seem to benefit from
standing up on the pedals and hauling down on the bars.

Of course, neither recumbents nor weight-lifters care about my notions, so let me know if I'm still
missing something obvious. Maybe there are angles involved that I'm overlooking. Unlike the purists
in the newsgroup, I don't care whether it's impractical or useless--I'm just curious whether a rider
can push harder on a recumbent's pedal a single time, braced against his seat, than he could press
down on an upright's pedal, standing up and heaving on the handlebars.

Possibly we need to hire a weightlifter, hitch him up to a leg-press and a stairmaster, dangle some
steroids in front of him on a stick, and see what happens?

Carl Fogel

n crowley wrote:

[snip the trolling]

Describe your technique with enough accuracy that someone can replicate the action. You've been
asked to do that on many occasions, and you don't respond.

Quoted message said:

What would you call the " out of the saddle " power application pedal stroke, round or linear?

The pedal stroke is constrained to be round by a little thing called the crank. The applied force is
not uniform around that circle in any circumstance. The degree of nonuniformity may vary in some
circumstances.

I can't imagine calling any pedal stroke linear.

Dave dvt at psu dot edu

Carl Fogel said:

What I'm suggesting (some posters seem to have missed what we're discussing) is that given the
downward resistance of a rider's body weight plus two hands gripping the handlebars, no riders
seem to be in danger of flying upward off the bike.

The rider will not fly upward off the bike for many reasons. But the strength of one's hands/arms is
not germane.

Here's an unplanned experiment I ran a few weeks ago. I was riding my fixie up a short but steep
hill. This was not greatly difficult when I was using my cycling shoes and clipless pedals. A few
days later I ran a short errand using that same bike but wearing non-cycling shoes. I went up that
same hill. This time it was quite difficult to make it up that hill.

The issue was not at all related to the strength of my arms or hands. I did not stress my hands/arms
to anywhere near failure in either case. The issue was that all of the force that I could apply to
one pedal was not enough to turn the gear without cycling shoes. When I wore cycling shoes, I could
pull *up* with the other leg to keep my body down and apply more force to the pedal. Without cycling
shoes, my aft foot kept coming off the pedal.

Tom is saying that the recumbent position might be helpful in this situation, since one can press
back against the seat to assist in applying pedal force. Even if this is true, I think it is a moot
point unless you are stuck on using non-clipless pedals. The aft leg is quite effective when using
clipless pedals; the limiting factor is not grip strength. IME, the limiting factor has always been
aerobic fitness, traction, obstacles, or lack of low enough gears.

Dave dvt at psu dot edu

dvt said:

Tom is saying that the recumbent position might be helpful in this situation, since one can press
back against the seat to assist in applying pedal force. Even if this is true, I think it is a
moot point

<snip>

Quoted message said:

strength. IME, the limiting factor has always been aerobic fitness, traction, obstacles, or lack of
low enough gears.

This is the thread that I have read with gears turning in my head

Important is not the hand strength you've got when you push hard on pedals and your lungs get hot

Lung capacity, stretched too far Your hand muscles gripping the bar stealing from your legs lung
capacity, your hands are

Recumbent rider seated strider his legs get a monopoly no lung power divider

Quoted message said:

Dave dvt at psu dot edu

--
Rick Onanian

dvt said:

Rick Onanian wrote:

<bad poetry snipped>

Quoted message said:

Does anyone else find this apparent glut of poets on a .tech group mildly disturbing?

I do, and in an attempt to make this disturbation worse, I add my poetry.

Quoted message said:

Dave (who likes the comic poetry, but doesn't understand the artsy stuff)

Was mine comic, or artsy? I hope I never do anything (poetry or otherwise) that's artsy.
--
Rick Onanian