Wind!

[Patrick Moore]

Even though we are a month or more away from our strong spring winds, recent storm systems have brought cold, precipitation, and high winds to Albuquerque. I was out on a ditchbank road on Saturday and got caught in squalls; on Tuesday on a heavy-headwind return on an out-and-back; and today had a very pleasant ride, warm in upper 50s with mile high sun, with 13-15 gusts in 20s, this last time riding the Riv custom, Joe Starck fixed gear gofast.

Every time I get back on the gofast, this over  the 26 years (in April) that I’ve owned it, it just feels perfect: fit, ease of pedaling; it’s my bike geometry and saddle/bar position benchmark. I was struck today at how easy it seemed to pedal against a headwind of teens gusts to 20s, this despite the 76” gear that is higher than the flatland cruising gears on my other 2 bikes; tho’ I took it easy in the hooks. I did not move the chain to the 19/68.

OTOH, Tuesdays’ return against admittedly stronger winds on the IGH Matthews was just plain old work, tho’ again, stronger winds and Ortlieb Bikepackers in back. OTOH again, I was in 2nd, 65”; it still felt harder to pedal. And the dirt road Matthews on Sat with 28 1/2” tall knobbies (small, closely spaced knobs on the Oracle Ridges) — even with fenders — was very certainly harder to push against the headwind, even geared down to 65” and 60,” with 175s instead of 170s. Deep in the hooks on all 3 of the bikes. Riding in the hooks of drop bars gives two headwind advantages, less area exposed to the wind, but just as much or perhaps even more, new muscles called into play.

The gofast, stripped of all except 2 Iris cages, one with a bottle and a Ruthworks large saddle wedge, and its short* 24 3/4” tall*) 559X27 mm (actual; labeled 32) RH Elk Passes just seems to cut through the wind better.

Saturday’s ride made me sore in the quads and, oddly, in the upper arms; this compounded by Tuesdays’ ride; but today most of it had gone. You feel it more at 70 (next month) than when younger.

I remember 30 years ago when I started riding fixed in our ABQ winds: I’d fight them and get discouraged. It took me what, 5 years, perhaps more, to learn to back off and slow my cadence to match the resistance. I was glad today that I’d internalized that lesson, and the ride was very pleasant and the pace sustainable despite the harder work.

I daresay this interests me more than it interests others, but over the years I’ve found it very interesting  that headwinds certainly do affect tall and fat tires and above all, knobby tires. Pushing y Monocog 29ers or even the Bontrager Race Lite 26er with heavily knobbed tires was particularly painful against strong winds..

* Recall reading claims on the Rodriguez site that 650C (“see”, 571 bsd) is better for time trials because the shorter wheels resist the air less. I’m prepared to believe that.

Patrick Moore, who will shortly switch from the Phil with 17/19 Dingle to the SA TC hub with direct and 86.54% underdrive — 76” and 66” for March and April winds..

--

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing services

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When thou didst not, savage, know thine own meaning,

But wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish,

I endowed thy purposes with words that made them known.

[Garth]

Well yes Patrick, knobbies and wider tires in general catch more wind in a notable way. Fenders add to this also. I study the designs and specs of pro road and TT racing bikes and they are all pretty much on 700c 28mm tires, give or take a few mm's. Aerodymanics is the current "frontier" of the racing world. It's not just the dedesign of a given part, wheel diameter/width, or the frame, but the rider and bike as one entitre unit. They now consider aerodymamics even in regular road races as vital. As a "normal/average" non-competetive rider it's easy to get so caught up in the design of the bike and ignore that the riders own bodily form/position is the largest form of resistance. That's if it even concerns one !  I also surely notice a difference in ease of riding with drop bars at below the saddle height contrasted to wide Albatross bars 2-3 above. Plus clothing also, I'm wearing form fitting road stuff now and I can feel and hear the difference. 

I'm not sure what TT racing Rodbikes.com is referring to because I see all 700c wheels(save XS sizes) and 25-28mm tires in road and track TT bikes. 

[ascpgh]

What are the drag or mechanical resistance numbers for the IGH you use? I've never needed to look but has anyone tabulated such? We have a growing number of sources for methods and result metrics for tires and their aerodynamics to consider. 

We built a Sachs-Huret 7-spd IGH (Spectro?) for a demo in my Ozark Mountain shop days (a very high cost sensitivity project) and felt like it was great in the near to direct drive ratios and began bogging when in higher or lower. Slower and more effortful pedaling uphill than a near equal derailleur bike and a greater burden to keep up with on fast level ground. I had chalked it up to a pedestrian CB-0 frame and fork, the cheapest or free front wheel and rim for building the 36°rear and the cheapest 26" tires and tubes. Would we have sensed the same interesting scale of efficiency in the gears had we selected a frame, built wheels and chose tires/tubes as we would have for ourselves?  

When looking at representative gearing I always saw particular inches relative to being in the particular chainring size as important if for climbing versus for high speed. HP versus torque. 

Plain old chain drive always seems to win at efficiency and I wonder if wind is the environmental feature variable that can bring you to the edge of sensing both your wheel/tire aero differences but also bring that drive difference to the crux as well. 

Andy Cheatham

Pittsburgh

(Were it's always uphill home)

On Monday, February 24, 2025 at 2:04:28 AM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:

[ascpgh]

Patrick might need some of Jan's moto-inspired aero fairing "fenders" as he installed on his Oregon Outback FKT bike for his Matthews to deflect resistance from his knobbies when the wind blows like that. He'd be looking really fast even when not in the spring winds.

I can admit that I'd need the 20mph headwind to reach the point where much of the aero stuff reaches the level of mattering. 

Andy Cheatham

Pittsburgh

[Steven Sweedler]

Several pro riders are moving to much narrower bars for the aero benefits.

Steven Sweedler
Plymouth, New Hampshire

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f1efe4ce-cb12-4787-a98b-9116c3210331n%40googlegroups.com.

[Nick Payne]

On Tuesday, 25 February 2025 at 2:37:16 am UTC+11 Steven Sweedler wrote:

Several pro riders are moving to much narrower bars for the aero benefits.

There is a UCI-imposed limit on how narrow handlebars are allowed to be for road events (350mm, I think). The other change that some riders are making / have made is going to shorter cranks. Apart from any biomechanical advantages, shorter cranks allow a more aero position because the rider's knees are not coming up as far at the top of the pedal stroke, so the torso can be lower without reducing the hip angle to the point where power production suffers. Tadej Pogačar started his racing career on 172.5mm cranks. A couple of year ago he moved to 170mm, and last year to 165mm, and his results after the change speak for themselves - last year he entered 27 races and won 24 of them, including two monuments, the Giro, the TdF, and the world road championship.  Pogačar is 5'8", not particularly tall, but even Wout Van Aert, who is 6'3", is now using 165mm cranks on his road, cyclocross, and TT bikes.

Nick Payne

[Bill Lindsay]

LOL, tell me how much faster I'll be on my Roaduno if I switch from 173mm Silver cranks to 165mm.  ;-)

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[Nick Payne]

You'd better try it and see:-) Though Riv, rather strangely, only seem to offer their own brand cranks in long lengths...

[Steven Sweedler]

I switched from 180 to 165 crank arms on my touring bike because of a very low bottom bracket.A bit embarassed to say I can’t feel a difference, and don’t feel like I a fiding any faster, though thats rarely a goal.

Steven Sweedler
Plymouth, New Hampshire

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/08efa1b5-d00c-43f7-beb5-fec4e84fcc1dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Bill Lindsay]

Haha.  There is a generational talent in professional road racing, and that individual is dominant at age 22.  That individual continues to improve through age 25, and incidentally switches from 172.5mm to 165mm cranks.  He's just entering his prime, but now, all over the place, we're hearing: "sWiTcH tO 165s!  It'S tHe ChEaT cOdE!!!"  Like training and experience (not to mention "nutrition") mean nothing.  I'm going to run what I want to run.  If I want to go faster I'll push harder on the pedals.  Some day Patrick Moore will figure out the secret sauce that Joe Starck injected into his bike that makes it easier to pedal, and then he'll bottle that up and sell it to us.  

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[John Dewey]

Whoa now…replacing all my long 170 cranks and wide 420 bars is bound to put an ugly dent in the bank account. For sure…considering the tidy collection of beautiful silver bits I’ve accumulated to replace stuff that will inevitably (if I’m lucky) need replacement. 

What’s more, if this stuff is no longer fashionable I suspect folks won’t be interested in buying. 

I do like a spirited pace but I’m also mindful of preserving my assets. Therefore gram and mm counting at the edges is probably not in my best interest. 

As a wise observer once said ‘fashion has consequences’. 

Jock

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/08efa1b5-d00c-43f7-beb5-fec4e84fcc1dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Doug H.]

Bill,

  "There is a generational talent in professional road racing, and that individual is dominant at age 22"

I've waited many years to reach my dominant age which I thought would be 58. Now that I'm almost there, you tell me that I missed it! Haha. 

Doug

[Bill Lindsay]

Doug

According to some, all you need to unlock your dominance is buy shorter cranks.  

BL in EC

[Nick Payne]

Here's Jacob Vingegaard's bike at the recent Volta Algarve (which he won), with 150mm cranks fitted:-)

Nick

[Bill Lindsay]

"Here's Jacob Vingegaard's bike"

Is he related to Jonas?

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[Nick Payne]

Yes, Jonas, not Jacob. I've always been bad with names...

[Garth]

I suspect many people would like the feel of short cranks regardless of the bodily measurements. I'm talking about say 140-155mm. Small 5-10mm changes are often not even noticed. Aerodymamics comes into play from short cranks in that it's less stressful to effectively ride in a low position while pedalling. Many racers are now going really low even on the their road bike. Regardless of one's abilities, anyone riding into the wind or downhill can tell that lowering the torso into the wind is more efficient than sitting up with the upper torso catching the wind. As for performance/speed gains from the shorter crank alone, that depends on the rider and how effectively they can put power down to the pedals more efficently. That's what I experience using 150's. I figured eventually some successful riders would find them beneficial, then and only then will we see the likes of "big bike" start selling them. SRAM has been selling 155's for mtb use for a number of years. Maybe now it's the road's turn to go down to at least 150mm. If you really think about it a very imited selection of cranks for such a vast range of heights and leg lengths. One can buy a stem from 0 to 170mm but the majority of cranks are only made from 165 to 175. . 

Even @6'2"  I found the 185mm length didn't live up to crank length theoretical claims. It was just the opposite. More length didn't equate to output efficiency, greater ease in climbing, or anything for that matter. Going to 175 or 170 didn't make any notable difference either. That didn't happen until I tried some stock retail 152 Sugino XD's. Those ended up being break-happy so I went with some Andel and Origin8's in 150. I also have a custom cut SRAM triple mtb crank in 150 that I haven't used yet. I also pedal more towards the mid-foot than ball. I feel very "planted" to the bike. The ability to ride low easier came about after I was riding them for a few years and was tiring of riding more upright, I craved going lower and back to drop bars. I could never figure how in my 20's and dabbling in racing, how anyone could ride without strain and pain in a lower TT position. It felt all wrong to me, too much strain in the hips and knees. When I started moving my saddle forward with the short cranks I started to have "ah-hah!" feelings. I've now moved my saddle forward over 25mm. Now I get it, moving closer to the BB, plus shorter cranks it's just less straining to pedal. Less strain on the hip and knees, and on a day to day basis I feel fresher even after doing many hills the previous day. 

Please note, this setup works for ME. What works for anyone else is up for them to experiment with. Short cranks have been around for a long time but they take a little strategic and patient searching. It wouldn't take much for Riv to offer them as their manufacturer Andel is already manufacturing some cranks down to 150mm. But I get it, cycling traditions and myths die hard. I read many comments of riders who mock short cranks without ever using them. As a kid I used to mock anyone I saw pedalling their bike mid-foot ...... now I get it. Humble pie, mmmm good ! Aahahahahaha ! 

I've read this : https://biketestreviews.com/cranklength/

It makes sense why long crank lever were not effective for me. Much of it is rather techie even, but the benefits of riding short cranks is clearly stated throughout. 

I've been riding the rollers all winter with a few random outdoor days when it's been in the 50's. Even being in winter/sucking wind kinda shape, I'm amazed how efficient pedalling is uphill, the ease of spinning the circle, it's very zippy ! 

[Ted Durant]

On Monday, February 24, 2025 at 1:04:28 AM UTC-6 Patrick Moore wrote:

I remember 30 years ago when I started riding fixed in our ABQ winds: I’d fight them and get discouraged. It took me what, 5 years, perhaps more, to learn to back off and slow my cadence to match the resistance. I was glad today that I’d internalized that lesson, and the ride was very pleasant and the pace sustainable despite the harder work.

Back on the nominal topic - we have had a depressingly windy fall and winter here. Or, maybe I'm just getting older and crankier. One of the things I took from training with a heart rate monitor was respect for how much extra effort it took to ride in the wind, especially when it's cold.  It was a surprise to see exactly how much slower I had to go to maintain a steady level of effort. Cold weather means not only is the air more dense, but also bulkier and sometimes flappier clothing, both of which significantly increase air drag. Not being limited with a ss or fixed gear, I usually shift down and keep my cadence up going into the wind. My favorite "training" ride, though, is to ride single-speed, not allowing myself to shift. On a windy day that means grinding into the headwind and up the hills, and spinning out with the tailwind and down hills. It's my way of replicating the old-fashioned practice of riding a fixed gear in the spring.

And on the side topic - I have been going to 165mm cranks the last couple of years. I still have 172.5 on my Riv Road. I would not bet a large amount of money on being able to tell the difference in a blind test, but I do think I feel better in my knees and hips on longer rides with the shorter cranks. Relevant stats: my PBH is 825mm and my shoe size is a Lems 9.5. 

Ted Durant

toujours le vent in Milwaukee, WI USA

[Patrick Moore]

The segue to crank length and pros and cons is an interesting tangent. I have no dog in the debate about the aero question, but I do recall switching from 170s to 175s when I tried riding fixed offroad with a 60” gear. Uphills were fine; the problem was downhills and flats without strong headwinds: horrible. I switched back to 170s within a week or so; much better.

I didn’t use the 175s long enough to decide if they imposed an aero penalty.

I still use 170s for everything on road, tho’ I do prefer 175s off road now as long as I have multiple gears and a freewheel.

I do marvel at the contortions, literal and metaphorical, that pros undertake for the tiniest advantages. I too have noticed how low the hoods are in current pro bikes, but I can’t imagine switching to 150s for any reason. Perhaps the one, single reason I’m not a pro.

Patrick Moore, who just beat down headwinds again this morning in the drops on the super-magic Joe Starck Riv fixie. (Despite the 170 mm cranks.)

[Patrick Moore]

I’m curious how those who ride very upright, with say a 58 cm Bosco 6” above saddle, deal with riding straight into strong winds if you live in windy areas; say 22 gusts to 28 which is pretty common here in Spring. Or for that matter how you pedal up hills. I can’t do either without bending in the middle, usually sliding back in the saddle and bending down.

Long ago I’d see riders on Indian rod braked roadsters with very short top tubes, very slack angles, and stems with no forward extension, all arranged to make you sit bolt upright, bucking headwinds or trying to make speed by sliding back, crouching down, and gripping the bar on either side of the stem. 

This is not criticizing, dammit! I want to know!

[Ted Durant]

On Feb 27, 2025, at 5:07 PM, Patrick Moore <bert...@gmail.com> wrote:

I’m curious how those who ride very upright, with say a 58 cm Bosco 6” above saddle, deal with riding straight into strong winds if you live in windy areas; say 22 gusts to 28 which is pretty common here in Spring

Ted Durant

Milwaukee, WI USA

[Bernard Duhon]

I went from 172 to 165 to reduce toe overlap When I mounted fenders on my road bike.

That required me to raise my seat as well as move it further back, which of course required ao change the height of the handlebars.

the 165 Hollow Tech cranks that didn't work out. I had to change the bottom bracket and then the hollow axle broke so I went back to solid axle & 170 back on. 

Then I had to readjust my seat height and move seat up.as well as adjust the handlebars

That's quite a bit of tinkering that goes along with changing crank length

 

 

 

 

 

---

From: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Patrick Moore <bert...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 3:54 PM
To: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Wind!

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgtKmrH9JAE71VD2ynTLePznuQtwpTSMeqF6_gjYwkpJ8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Eamon Nordquist]

I wonder if there is any correlation between the crank length that works best for people and the cadence they prefer to ride? I have a suspicion that some people with longer legs who favor a slower cadence might do better with long cranks. So much of the talk about crank length centers on racing performance and higher cadences. As for myself, I have tried 165, 170, and 175 cranks. I have years (decades) of experience with the 170 and 175 cranks, but closer to a month on the 165's. I have always adjusted saddle height based on the crank. I like both 170's and 175's, but always felt the 165's only worked when I was using a faster cadence (regardless of gearing). Otherwise I started to get the sensation of riding a clown bike. I am unable to maintain higher cadences because of lung issues, but can otherwise ride all day on a bike. I've certainly had my best performances ever (long rides and touring) on the 175's, and have no plan to change. For reference, I am just under 6 feet tall and have a pbh of 89cm. I also never really ride with very much if any saddle to bar drop and have long arms.

Eamon

Seattle

[Ted Durant]

On Feb 28, 2025, at 8:37 PM, Eamon Nordquist <eamonr...@gmail.com> wrote:

I wonder if there is any correlation between the crank length that works best for people and the cadence they prefer to ride? I have a suspicion that some people with longer legs who favor a slower cadence might do better with long cranks. 

The math on this is pretty straightforward. Colloquially, power = torque * rpms. For a given amount of power at the rear wheel, a shorter crank requires proportionally higher force on the pedal axle.  If the rider is to put the same force into the pedal axle, she has to reduce the gear and increase the cadence to generate the same level of power at the rear wheel. 

Physiologically there’s a lot at play here.  In general, people with shorter legs and shorter feet will keep their joint angles in a better range with shorter cranks.  In general, smaller people put less force into the pedal axle than larger people. In general, smaller people are more comfortable at higher cadence than larger people because they’re moving less mass around the circle. But, in practice, the research I’ve seen says that people develop a preferred cadence that may or may not match up with what you’d expect based on their physique, but almost always it turns out to be the physiologically optimum cadence for them.

[Nick Payne]

On Thursday, 27 February 2025 at 12:33:18 am UTC+11 Garth wrote:

I suspect many people would like the feel of short cranks regardless of the bodily measurements. I'm talking about say 140-155mm.

A blind experiment: my wife, who is only 5'2", is an experienced cyclist, and has been riding on 160mm or 165mm cranks for over 40 years. She's always used quite a high cadence, and on the most recent bike I built up for her, I installed a pair of the 152mm Sugino XD cranks. I set the saddle height so that at the bottom of the pedal stroke she had the same leg extension as on her other bikes, but I didn't tell her that the cranks were shorter.

She didn't make any comment about the cranks feeling shorter, but said, after three or four 40-50km rides on the bike, that she really liked pedalling that bike. I then told her that I had fitted shorter cranks, and she has now asked that I also fit shorter cranks to the other couple of bikes on which she does most of her riding.

Nick Payne

[ascpgh]

Probably a combination of several things create individuals' perception of optimal crank length. I'm not going to say anyone should do this or that based on my spec or choices. Pro cyclists are so narrow of a group that other industries would select as the model for equipment selection. They are so homogenous in physiological specs and genetic expression as to be highly discriminating when compared to the potential public customer looking to buy a bike. 

I am 6' 1",  187#, have a 70" tip to tip arm span (19" outside/outside shoulder width), have a 94cm PBH and size 11 feet. I ran middle distance and did long triple jump in high school. 

My ortho injuries requiring reconstruction are right knee ACL reconstruction (Andrews autograft + Macintosh band support), left shoulder reconstruction of damage from wear. Non surgical healed ortho damages include left shoulder 3° separation (prior to and distinct from the surgical repairs) and left high ankle sprain with fibula fracture. 

I prefer riding clipped since recovering from the knee thing and always pull up and back with the rising foot, even commuting. My climbing style is to remain seated, sliding as far back to advance my timing (car folk get it) until utterly out of gears. Transitioning to standing uses more energy for me than shorter folks and the output while taking the power production off the largest muscles, tapping smaller ones with less glycogen stores and stamina in sustained output, all proportionally less compared to riders more closely resembling the pro phenotype. 

Ever since the knee thing (all my adult riding) I have stayed on 175mm cranks. I move less on the saddle through phases of level, uphill and downhill pedaling while retaining my preferred sliding back on the saddle for extended outputs rather than gearing down and standing up. As for how I compare to the current pro peloton template I am so abhorrent I should take up another pastime. I have long seen the small set of pro racers as the deviants whose publicity ruins the cycling for me and other normals who enjoy riding without having what they do or use forced upon us. 

When I built my custom Coast around my needs and wants, we optimized my riding position and unique challenges/preferences. This time I was faced with cranks a tad shorter or longer than my habitual 175mm in the RH item and I  picked (correctly by the last four years' riding) the 177mm. It works for me, glad it was a choice. 

Andy Cheatham

Pittsburgh

[Patrick Moore]

After a calm and pleasantly warm (66*) and calm Sunday, today: 25 to 35 gusts to 50 W/WSW today. Am not riding today but hope to tomorrow. Tomorrow: 25 to 35, gusts to 40, NW.

How deal with this? One way is to ride early before they really kick up, but tomorrow that would mean getting up early enough to ride before a 9 am East Coast client call and (1) I’m not a morning person and (2) I’ve got a lot to do in the morning which would mean getting up at 5 am, and at 7-8 am winds forecast at 15 WNW anyway.

[One annoying circumstance of my life and travels is that I very often travel North in the morning against NW winds and then return in the afternoon against SW winds. But I guess this builds character. I had one gig 20 years ago where I happily rode South in the morning at 25 mph and returned North in the evening at 25 mph.]

Another way to do it is Rule #5 (“Man Up”) and really, I rather like riding against wind or up hills if I’m feeling good and the distances are relatively short. This method requires a sufficiently low position in the drops.

But again, I’m curious what riders do who sit upright with wide sweepback handlebars. How do you deal with strong headwinds? Do you not ride when the winds are high, or do you live in some windless Utopia?

Patrick “time to convert the 1999 Joe Starck gofast from Phil + Dingle to SA TC or even TF with new shifting system using Suntour 6-speed indexed barcon” Moore

On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 3:43 PM Patrick Moore <bert...@gmail.com> wrote:

That is great; I laughed (out loud). I see that they’re averaging 17-18 mph against ~30 mph winds over the ~5 mile course; damned good! Think what they could do with drop bars!

Patrick Moore, who wishes he could still  average 18 mph over a 20 mile still flat course, in ABQ, NM. (Hey. Back in my day as a slender 40-something I’d average in the mid-19s for 18 mile hilly routes with 4-way stops and stoplights. This while smoking 15 cigs a day.)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/90586393-F7BE-4189-9CD9-1379ACA2CC9D%40gmail.com.

--

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing services

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When thou didst not, savage, know thine own meaning,

But wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish,

I endowed thy purposes with words that made them known.

[Patrick Moore]

Twiddling, from Dave Moulton: https://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/twiddling.html

On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 1:46 PM Patrick Moore <bert...@gmail.com> wrote:

5’11” with shortish legs. I used 170s when I was more comfortable at cadences well over 100 (21-23 on windless flats was comfortable in a 64” or 65” gear) and also when I became a masher comfortable below 90 rpm. I find 175s comfortable on my one derailleur bike but compensate with the gearing, riding 1 tooth smaller in back in similar conditions. I think part of the change was aging, part of it obeying Grant’s suggestion to move from radically and in retrospect unnatural radically forward position to a way-back position that favored torque and of course discouraged twiddling — last technical term from old-time Brits.

Funny, now if I have to pedal well over 90 I quickly run out of breath — annoying. So I’d guess that riding position and perhaps age are at least as much factors as body type and crank length.

On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 7:37 PM Eamon Nordquist <eamonr...@gmail.com> wrote:

I wonder if there is any correlation between the crank length that works best for people and the cadence they prefer to ride? I have a suspicion that some people with longer legs who favor a slower cadence might do better with long cranks. 

[Cormac O'Keeffe]

Thanks for all the problematisation around crank length. I've never thought much about myself as I've, like most people, rode what was available. I started looking around and it appears that there's a bit of research (that reiterates much of what's been said so far). My discipline isn't biomechanics, but I thought I'd share it anyway as it's pretty interesting (I know it's not a lit review, just a quick look).

Bouman (2021) found that shorter riders (that is people on bikes that are in smaller than 55cm) tend to be underserved when it comes to cranklength:

• Industry Standard Crankarm Length (CL): Most cyclists ride with a standard crankarm length of 165–175 mm, regardless of their bike frame size.
• Potential Mismatch for Small/Medium Riders: Riders on smaller frames (<55 cm) may have CLs longer than optimal (>20% of inseam), which could affect comfort and performance.
• Impact on Joint Angles: A standard CL can increase knee and hip flexion angles for shorter riders, potentially affecting comfort and force production.
• Power Production & Efficiency: Optimal crank length for power production is around 20% of inseam length, but most shorter riders use crankarms that are longer than optimal.

Ferrer-Rocha (2017) found that 

• Longer cranks led to more force but less efficiency. 
• Also, when in doubt as to crank length, since shorter cranks produce less range of motion and thus less flexion in the knee, they're probably less likely to produce discomfort and/or pain.  

As it turns out, there's even literature on set back on saddles and comfort! 

Refs

Bouman, M. J. (2021). The Relationship Between a Road Cyclist's Bike Frame Size and Riding Comfort, Pain, Frequency, and Duration. California State University, Long Beach.

Ferrer-Roca, V., Rivero-Palomo, V., Ogueta-Alday, A., Rodríguez-Marroyo, J. A., & García-López, J. (2017). Acute effects of small changes in crank length on gross efficiency and pedalling technique during submaximal cycling. Journal of sports sciences, 35(14), 1328-1335.