Road bike fit

On Dec 25, 9:46*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Lou Holtman considered Sun, 25 Dec 2011
18:20:14 +0100 the perfect time to write:









Op 25-12-2011 14:20, thirty-six schreef:
On Dec 25, 8:49 am, Lou *wrote:
Op 25-12-2011 6:43, Frank Krygowski schreef:

On Dec 24, 12:30 pm, Lou * *wrote:
Op 24-12-2011 17:06, Frank Krygowski schreef:

I don't see much connection between ten speed cassettes and low gears.
My touring bike is a 1986 Cannondale with five, count 'em, five cogs in
back. The largest cog is a 34, I think, and the seldom-used granny ring
in front is a 24, I think. That's used to climb Appalachian hills
carrying camping gear. A ten speed rear isn't going to get any lower
than that.

Sure, even with a 3 speed you can get a wide range: 11-19-32 but with
9-10 speed you get some usefull gears in between.

I've got thirteen usable speeds. *(The small chainring can't work with
the two smallest freewheel cogs.)

* * * *For a non-racer, the benefits of lots of rear cogs are much less than
the benefits of a wide range of gears. You can get a very wide range of
gears with very old technology.

For a non racer it is also very annoying climbing a 10 km climb in the
wrong gear (too small or too big).

It's a half-step setup, so jumps between most gears are about 10%,
which if perfectly fine for me. *I've climbed the Rockies and the
Appalachians with this bike, fully loaded. *So has my wife, on her
identical setup. *It wasn't annoying at all, even things like Lolo
Pass that take most of the day to get up. *What I find annoying is
having a low gear that's not low enough.

Go with the flow and for a road bike
that means a 10 speed cluster in the back and when Shimano goes to 11
speed next year it will be 11 speed in about 2 years.

Heck, if I wanted to go with the flow, I'd drive my car on tours!

Seriously, I see no need to buy another transmission system every time
Shimano figures out a new answer to N+1.

- Frank Krygowski

We are not talking about you Frank and we are talking about a roadbike

My ex-racing bike of criterium styling is fitted with half-step
gearing and as such I have made a non-stop ride of around 120 miles.
I was also able to climb a hill with an average 1 in 5 gradient
without getting out of my seat or noticing any particular difficulty
in breathing, maintaining a steady temperature or suffering with any
moscular or joint pains.
The gearing is from about 31" up to about 81" (possibly). *My bottom
pace in the saddle is around 65rpm, but prefer a climbing rate of
85rpm. *Out of the saddle I have got down to 40rpm but prefer never to
fall below 55rpm, *85rpm seems to be about the maximum useful speed
when out of the saddle in the gear ratios I have preferred to use in
the last 10 years or so.

What does a gearing of 31" mean? Every rotation of the cranks gets you
31" further? That is 78/210 revolution of a normal roadbike wheel with
23 mm tires. Right?

Lou

Wrong.
When expressed in gear inches, it is the equivalent of a driving wheel
of that many inches in diameter. *That method of expressing gearing
originates from the ordinary bicycle, AKA highwheeler, (commonly
described as the penny farthing) where the only way of changing
gearing was to use a different sized wheel. *When "dwarf safety
bicycles" started being used, there was a common desire to express the
gearing in the same way as if it was an ordinary, which is how the use
of "gear inches" became commonplace.
I suspect you are more used to "metres development", which IS the
distance driven by each full turn of the cranks.
To get progression from gear inches, you'd need to multiply by pi.
Then convert from inches into whatever unit of length makes most sense
to you.

Sheldon Brown's "Gain ratio", described on his web site athttp://www.sheldonbrown.com/gain.htmlis actually more complete as a
description of overall gearing, since it is the only method to make
allowance for differing crank lengths, although the gear calculator


That's practically irrelevant for a multi-geared bike and only
relevant to a single speed if it's already overgeared. Using a
smaller front sprocket or bigger rear sprocket is WAY more practical.
Use a crank length that you can cope with continuously, then change
your gears as appropriate. Unless you are riding in a protected
velodrome the wind is going to affect the force required by your legs
more than any of the varied choices in crank length.

athttp://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/only includes a limited range from
150mm to 190mm. *Some streamlined racing recumbents are using much
shorter cranks these days, and their experiments show no
disadvantages*, but considerable aerodynamic benefits**.

I think many people using adult racing cranks today would be no worse
off with a crank length between 140 and 150mm

*Down to 95mm, power produced by riders seems to be fairly constant,
although this may be influenced by the fact that almost all athletic
riders are highly adapted to cranks of =170mm. *Nobody yet knows what
the output would be of a rider who had done all their development and
training on short cranks.

**Fairing size is dictated by the space required for the riders legs
whirling around inside.
Even without a fairing, aerodynamics are compromised by flailing legs.
Many recumbent riders have reported being able to descend faster by
unclipping one leg and extending both legs directly forward, or even
crossing them.

On Dec 25, 12:02*pm, damyth wrote:
On 12/24/2011 12:01 AM, OccasionalFlyer wrote:



On Dec 18, 7:22 am, *wrote:
On Dec 17, 11:25 pm, *wrote:

I'm shopping for a new road
bike, with better components than the twenty-year-old 105 components
on my Trek 2100. *The main bikes in the price range I'm aiming for
include a Trek Madone, Cannondale Synapse or Supersix, or Cervelo
(like an R3). *I'm having trouble with finding a bike that fits.
Cannondale and Cervelo both seem to have frame sizes of 51 and 54 but
nothing in-between. My current road bike is 52cm and that feels
right. *I've tried both the 51' with the seat raised and the 54' with
the seat lowered. *The person at the bike store who worked with me
didn't really seem able to say, "You can tell if it's the right frame
size if..." *The 54' is too tall, even with the seat lowered, while
the 51' feels a bit too cramped. *I know that comfort (since I'm not
trying to race any more) is important but there are multiple
adjustments that could be made, like stem height, to make the right
sized frame feel more comfortable. *Is there any good technique
beyond
standing over the top tube and assessing how much space there is
between the bike and the rider to determine if I'm choosing the right
frame size? *There are probably bike shops where I could get more help
with this but I haven't found any yet in my area (Pasadena to Pomona
in LA county, southern California). *Any suggestions? Thanks.

Ken

also, I noticed that you will be buying a pretty high quality and
expensive bike. the bike shop should be able to thoroughly provide
outstanding service in terms of measurements. where do you live?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I live in the San Gabriel Valley in southern California (east of LA).
I sure miss my LBS in northern California.

.

My info is a bit dated (as in over 20 yrs), but there were plenty of
good bike shops in that area, and if anything, I'd expect those to only
have gotten better. *In some ways, aside from the heat and air quality
(which probably has improved by now), I actually think LA rides,
especially in the San Gabriel Mountains, are superior to Northern
California rides. *Check out Mt. Wilson, Chantry Flats, and a whole host
other rides that I won't bother to enumerate.

You show up in the the early evenings at the Rose Bowl there will be
plenty of people qualified to give you advice on bikes, shops, and
fitting. (Although these will be predominantly crit. riders)http://www.socalcycling.com/Group%20.../rose_bowl.htm

Things probably have changed significantly by now (and therefore
shouldn't be taken as a current endorsement) but I fondly recall the
days when you could get the latest and greatest components before pretty
much anyone else in the US, from Montrose Bike shop, started by Bob
Hansing, the same guy who founded Euro Asia Imports.http://www.encinovelodrome.org/bhansing.htm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for the info. Personally, I prefer Highway 9 in Saratoga (was
my favorite long climb) and when I wanted pain, Metcalf. I haven't
really found either here, though Glendora Mountain Road is a
challenge.

On Dec 26, 7:42*am, Phil W Lee wrote:
thirty-six considered Sun, 25 Dec 2011
18:24:47 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:









On Dec 25, 9:46*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Lou Holtman considered Sun, 25 Dec 2011
18:20:14 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Op 25-12-2011 14:20, thirty-six schreef:
On Dec 25, 8:49 am, Lou *wrote:
Op 25-12-2011 6:43, Frank Krygowski schreef:

On Dec 24, 12:30 pm, Lou * *wrote:
Op 24-12-2011 17:06, Frank Krygowski schreef:

I don't see much connection between ten speed cassettes and low gears.
My touring bike is a 1986 Cannondale with five, count 'em, five cogs in
back. The largest cog is a 34, I think, and the seldom-used granny ring
in front is a 24, I think. That's used to climb Appalachian hills
carrying camping gear. A ten speed rear isn't going to get any lower
than that.

Sure, even with a 3 speed you can get a wide range: 11-19-32 but with
9-10 speed you get some usefull gears in between.

I've got thirteen usable speeds. *(The small chainring can't work with
the two smallest freewheel cogs.)

* * * *For a non-racer, the benefits of lots of rear cogs are much less than
the benefits of a wide range of gears. You can get a very wide range of
gears with very old technology.

For a non racer it is also very annoying climbing a 10 km climb in the
wrong gear (too small or too big).

It's a half-step setup, so jumps between most gears are about 10%,
which if perfectly fine for me. *I've climbed the Rockies and the
Appalachians with this bike, fully loaded. *So has my wife, on her
identical setup. *It wasn't annoying at all, even things like Lolo
Pass that take most of the day to get up. *What I find annoying is
having a low gear that's not low enough.

Go with the flow and for a road bike
that means a 10 speed cluster in the back and when Shimano goes to 11
speed next year it will be 11 speed in about 2 years.

Heck, if I wanted to go with the flow, I'd drive my car on tours!

Seriously, I see no need to buy another transmission system every time
Shimano figures out a new answer to N+1.

- Frank Krygowski

We are not talking about you Frank and we are talking about a roadbike

My ex-racing bike of criterium styling is fitted with half-step
gearing and as such I have made a non-stop ride of around 120 miles..
I was also able to climb a hill with an average 1 in 5 gradient
without getting out of my seat or noticing any particular difficulty
in breathing, maintaining a steady temperature or suffering with any
moscular or joint pains.
The gearing is from about 31" up to about 81" (possibly). *My bottom
pace in the saddle is around 65rpm, but prefer a climbing rate of
85rpm. *Out of the saddle I have got down to 40rpm but prefer never to
fall below 55rpm, *85rpm seems to be about the maximum useful speed
when out of the saddle in the gear ratios I have preferred to use in
the last 10 years or so.

What does a gearing of 31" mean? Every rotation of the cranks gets you
31" further? That is 78/210 revolution of a normal roadbike wheel with
23 mm tires. Right?

Lou

Wrong.
When expressed in gear inches, it is the equivalent of a driving wheel
of that many inches in diameter. *That method of expressing gearing
originates from the ordinary bicycle, AKA highwheeler, (commonly
described as the penny farthing) where the only way of changing
gearing was to use a different sized wheel. *When "dwarf safety
bicycles" started being used, there was a common desire to express the
gearing in the same way as if it was an ordinary, which is how the use
of "gear inches" became commonplace.
I suspect you are more used to "metres development", which IS the
distance driven by each full turn of the cranks.
To get progression from gear inches, you'd need to multiply by pi.
Then convert from inches into whatever unit of length makes most sense
to you.

Sheldon Brown's "Gain ratio", described on his web site athttp://www.sheldonbrown.com/gain.htmlisactually more complete as a
description of overall gearing, since it is the only method to make
allowance for differing crank lengths, although the gear calculator

That's practically irrelevant for a multi-geared bike and only
relevant to a single speed if it's already overgeared. *Using a
smaller front sprocket or bigger rear sprocket is WAY more practical.
Use a crank length that you can cope with continuously, then change
your gears as appropriate. *Unless you are riding in a protected
velodrome the wind is going to affect the force required by your legs
more than any of the varied choices in crank length.

So what's "as appropriate" if crank length isn't a factor included in
the gear calculation?





Feel. For me, I tend to use no more than the weight of my forward leg
to aid propulsion. This maintains a low acid level so I dont become
breathless trying to exhaust CO2 at a higher rate than I'm capable.
Other people like to ride in a state of constant distress so will
choose higher gearing and make a determined pressure at the pedals.
Apparently, getting breathless and watching a heartrate monitor
escalate makes them happy.

On Dec 26, 6:05*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
thirty-six considered Mon, 26 Dec 2011
05:22:22 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:









On Dec 26, 7:42*am, Phil W Lee wrote:
thirty-six considered Sun, 25 Dec 2011
18:24:47 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 25, 9:46*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Lou Holtman considered Sun, 25 Dec 2011
18:20:14 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Op 25-12-2011 14:20, thirty-six schreef:
On Dec 25, 8:49 am, Lou *wrote:
Op 25-12-2011 6:43, Frank Krygowski schreef:

On Dec 24, 12:30 pm, Lou * *wrote:
Op 24-12-2011 17:06, Frank Krygowski schreef:

I don't see much connection between ten speed cassettes and low gears.
My touring bike is a 1986 Cannondale with five, count 'em, five cogs in
back. The largest cog is a 34, I think, and the seldom-used granny ring
in front is a 24, I think. That's used to climb Appalachian hills
carrying camping gear. A ten speed rear isn't going to get any lower
than that.

Sure, even with a 3 speed you can get a wide range: 11-19-32 but with
9-10 speed you get some usefull gears in between.

I've got thirteen usable speeds. *(The small chainring can't work with
the two smallest freewheel cogs.)

* * * *For a non-racer, the benefits of lots of rear cogs are much less than
the benefits of a wide range of gears. You can get a very wide range of
gears with very old technology.

For a non racer it is also very annoying climbing a 10 km climb in the
wrong gear (too small or too big).

It's a half-step setup, so jumps between most gears are about 10%,
which if perfectly fine for me. *I've climbed the Rockies and the
Appalachians with this bike, fully loaded. *So has my wife, on her
identical setup. *It wasn't annoying at all, even things like Lolo
Pass that take most of the day to get up. *What I find annoying is
having a low gear that's not low enough.

Go with the flow and for a road bike
that means a 10 speed cluster in the back and when Shimano goes to 11
speed next year it will be 11 speed in about 2 years.

Heck, if I wanted to go with the flow, I'd drive my car on tours!

Seriously, I see no need to buy another transmission system every time
Shimano figures out a new answer to N+1.

- Frank Krygowski

We are not talking about you Frank and we are talking about a roadbike

My ex-racing bike of criterium styling is fitted with half-step
gearing and as such I have made a non-stop ride of around 120 miles.
I was also able to climb a hill with an average 1 in 5 gradient
without getting out of my seat or noticing any particular difficulty
in breathing, maintaining a steady temperature or suffering with any
moscular or joint pains.
The gearing is from about 31" up to about 81" (possibly). *My bottom
pace in the saddle is around 65rpm, but prefer a climbing rate of
85rpm. *Out of the saddle I have got down to 40rpm but prefer never to
fall below 55rpm, *85rpm seems to be about the maximum useful speed
when out of the saddle in the gear ratios I have preferred to use in
the last 10 years or so.

What does a gearing of 31" mean? Every rotation of the cranks gets you
31" further? That is 78/210 revolution of a normal roadbike wheel with
23 mm tires. Right?

Lou

Wrong.
When expressed in gear inches, it is the equivalent of a driving wheel
of that many inches in diameter. *That method of expressing gearing
originates from the ordinary bicycle, AKA highwheeler, (commonly
described as the penny farthing) where the only way of changing
gearing was to use a different sized wheel. *When "dwarf safety
bicycles" started being used, there was a common desire to express the
gearing in the same way as if it was an ordinary, which is how the use
of "gear inches" became commonplace.
I suspect you are more used to "metres development", which IS the
distance driven by each full turn of the cranks.
To get progression from gear inches, you'd need to multiply by pi.
Then convert from inches into whatever unit of length makes most sense
to you.

Sheldon Brown's "Gain ratio", described on his web site athttp://www.sheldonbrown.com/gain.htmlisactuallymore complete as a
description of overall gearing, since it is the only method to make
allowance for differing crank lengths, although the gear calculator

That's practically irrelevant for a multi-geared bike and only
relevant to a single speed if it's already overgeared. *Using a
smaller front sprocket or bigger rear sprocket is WAY more practical.
Use a crank length that you can cope with continuously, then change
your gears as appropriate. *Unless you are riding in a protected
velodrome the wind is going to affect the force required by your legs
more than any of the varied choices in crank length.

So what's "as appropriate" if crank length isn't a factor included in
the gear calculation?

Feel. *For me, I tend to use no more than the weight of my forward leg
to aid propulsion. *This maintains a low acid level so I dont become
breathless trying to exhaust CO2 at a higher rate than I'm capable.
Other people like to ride in a state of constant distress so will
choose higher gearing and make a determined pressure at the pedals.
Apparently, getting breathless and watching a heartrate monitor
escalate makes them happy.

But using feel requires trial and error.
You may be lucky, and get the right combination early on, but
otherwise trail and error can be a very expensive and time consuming
exercise.
Far better to have a calculation system that takes account of crank
length so that you can stand a moderate chance of predicting what will
be right before spending money on it.
That's where gain ratio scores.
Of course, it's fairly easy to produce a "translation table" for gain
ratio/gear inch equivalence for 170mm cranks, which would serve as a
useful starting point when making the adjustment to gear ratios
necessary to take advantage of less common crank lengths.

I've worked out a few simple figures for comparative purposes.
With a 170mm crank length, the gain ratio is gear inches / 13.395.
And the number to divide gear inches by to obtain gain ratio can be
found for any length crank by dividing the crank length in mm by
12.68.

Is this for the good or the bad washing powder, with or without extra
rinses and borax?

Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 25, 9:47 am, Lou wrote:
Op 25-12-2011 17:42, Frank Krygowski schreef:


There are lots of riding styles, and there are lots of people who end up
on bikes that aren't particularly well-suited for their riding style. I
think it's a mistake to assume that a guy buying a bike with a ten speed
cassette is going to be riding sporty, trying to beat buddies up hills,
etc. I've seen too many counterexamples. (How about a lifelong
non-cyclist, non-athlete, who bought his first bike at about age 65, and
got a carbon fiber racer with handlebars so low he couldn't reach them?)

That is an idiot.

I go in to bike shops and see about a million non-racing bikes and
wonder how these scenarios can possibly exist. At this joint you
can't even get a racing bike. http://clevercycles.com/ Even at the
racing bike joints, there are endless fixies, town bikes, comfort
bikes, etc., etc. I'm still relatively fit and ride a lot, yet I
can't bait the local shop help in to trying to sell me something super
fast. They see some mid-50s guy and immediately think I want the
model with the long head tube and upright position -- and a triple.
The likelihood that this staff would sell some uberbike to a first-
time buyer, non-athletic old dude is beyond belief.

That incident was maybe 8 to 10 years ago. I would never describe the
guy as an idiot, although he was in some ways unwise. He had a PhD in a
non-technical but still difficult field, and was very competent in that
field.

But he had a relatively new wife some 20 years younger than he, and she
loved cycling. Somehow, he was led to believe that the bike under
discussion would allow him to keep up with her. (Obviously, he never
consulted with me.)

Sadly, it didn't allow him to keep up. And sadly, they weren't married
for very long. As I said, he was in some ways unwise - and so was she.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/26/2011 3:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 25, 9:47 am, Lou wrote:
Op 25-12-2011 17:42, Frank Krygowski schreef:


There are lots of riding styles, and there are lots of people who
end up
on bikes that aren't particularly well-suited for their riding style. I
think it's a mistake to assume that a guy buying a bike with a ten
speed
cassette is going to be riding sporty, trying to beat buddies up hills,
etc. I've seen too many counterexamples. (How about a lifelong
non-cyclist, non-athlete, who bought his first bike at about age 65,
and
got a carbon fiber racer with handlebars so low he couldn't reach
them?)

That is an idiot.

I go in to bike shops and see about a million non-racing bikes and
wonder how these scenarios can possibly exist. At this joint you
can't even get a racing bike. http://clevercycles.com/ Even at the
racing bike joints, there are endless fixies, town bikes, comfort
bikes, etc., etc. I'm still relatively fit and ride a lot, yet I
can't bait the local shop help in to trying to sell me something super
fast. They see some mid-50s guy and immediately think I want the
model with the long head tube and upright position -- and a triple.
The likelihood that this staff would sell some uberbike to a first-
time buyer, non-athletic old dude is beyond belief.

That incident was maybe 8 to 10 years ago. I would never describe the
guy as an idiot, although he was in some ways unwise. He had a PhD in a
non-technical but still difficult field, and was very competent in that
field.

But he had a relatively new wife some 20 years younger than he, and she
loved cycling. Somehow, he was led to believe that the bike under
discussion would allow him to keep up with her. (Obviously, he never
consulted with me.)

Sadly, it didn't allow him to keep up. And sadly, they weren't married
for very long. As I said, he was in some ways unwise - and so was she.


I've ridden with largely the same group, over the same course, weekly,
for over a decade. People upgrade, and don't get any faster. I can think
of no better test.

Frank Krygowski schreef:
Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 25, 9:47 am, Lou wrote:
Op 25-12-2011 17:42, Frank Krygowski schreef:


There are lots of riding styles, and there are lots of people who end up
on bikes that aren't particularly well-suited for their riding style. I
think it's a mistake to assume that a guy buying a bike with a ten speed
cassette is going to be riding sporty, trying to beat buddies up hills,
etc. I've seen too many counterexamples. (How about a lifelong
non-cyclist, non-athlete, who bought his first bike at about age 65, and
got a carbon fiber racer with handlebars so low he couldn't reach them?)

That is an idiot.

I go in to bike shops and see about a million non-racing bikes and
wonder how these scenarios can possibly exist. At this joint you
can't even get a racing bike. http://clevercycles.com/ Even at the
racing bike joints, there are endless fixies, town bikes, comfort
bikes, etc., etc. I'm still relatively fit and ride a lot, yet I
can't bait the local shop help in to trying to sell me something super
fast. They see some mid-50s guy and immediately think I want the
model with the long head tube and upright position -- and a triple.
The likelihood that this staff would sell some uberbike to a first-
time buyer, non-athletic old dude is beyond belief.

That incident was maybe 8 to 10 years ago. I would never describe the
guy as an idiot, although he was in some ways unwise. He had a PhD in a
non-technical but still difficult field, and was very competent in that
field.

But he had a relatively new wife some 20 years younger than he, and she
loved cycling. Somehow, he was led to believe that the bike under
discussion would allow him to keep up with her. (Obviously, he never
consulted with me.)

Sadly, it didn't allow him to keep up. And sadly, they weren't married
for very long. As I said, he was in some ways unwise - and so was she.


Geez Frank, your stories get weirder and weirder ;-)

Lou

On Dec 23, 8:18*am, " wrote:
On Dec 22, 6:54*pm, James wrote:

I can comfortably squat where my knees are at such an acute angle that
my heels are in contact with my arse, and then stand up straight legged..

I used to be able to do that, too. Very useful in my daily work
(working on fixing things for people); saves kneeling on the knees
which is not good for knees. I don't think it's as commonly
comfortable, even among younger people, as you, on account of your own
ease, are projecting.

A 3% reduction in muscle strain, and improved sprinting torque/power for
a 5mm extension from 170mm.

What is critical is not the actual length buit the whether the joint
angles are within their natural range of motion. *For high intensity
of short duration, there may be a tiny benefit in increasing the
length over what the rider is most economical in using over 12 hours.

I don't race or ride for pleasure for 12 hours solid.

IMHO, crank length is "ergonomic"-- if a certain length suits you, it
suits you. *I have a short inseam (or inseams if you prefer), and
175's hurt my knees even back in the days of relative youth. My
"snap" (quick acceleration) was much degraded, too. Measured against
frequent ride partners on the amateur race team, just to say.

I've settled on 165's for "everything" (road, track). I stopped having
those "slightly sore" knees after hard rides when I made the change
from 170-172.5's.
It is my opinion, following my own experience, that many people could
ride 165's and shorter, with benefit, just based on leg length alone--
whether or not that is really much of a determining factor for crank
length.

When I've discussed my "favorite crank length" with others, some have
opined that 165's should make my knees hurt *more*, as I'm "losing"
some percentage of force applied to pedals-- and then, sometimes,
comes the shaking of the head at one who "can't get simple math".

Maybe it's not so simple? Just somehow barely possible?

(Some headshaking is of the "Going to Hell for doing it wrong because
165's are only to be used on the track", of course. Whatever sinks
your boat!)

Tall people can "like" short cranks, and vice-versa. If you google the
Dr. James Martin studies on crank length, you might see where,
following his findings on leg length v. crank length, *he says "ride
what you like", after some pretty rigorous "lab testing" of well-
conditioned cycling subjects of varying height.

The "12 hours" thing might be more of a yardstick where you want
"comfortable" for shorter rides where "comfortable" is really deep.
IOW, producing a very low stress level. Over a lifetime of riding?
Sounds like a good idea to me. Then, when you get old you can amaze
all the nurses and onlookers in the old folks home by doing your "I'm
touching my arse" deep knee bends and maybe still standing right up
all by yourself. Think about it, that's a good thing!
--D-y

The question for me would be, How do I know when it is crank length
that is causing the pain versus the internal joint mechanics? I went
out on a fairly normal (for me these days) ride that does not have any
steep or long climbs and since then my knees have been killing me, but
I've taken the same ride too many boring times to count without this.
So I wouldn't know what part, if any, the crank length has in the
equation sometimes bike rides = knee pain for one or more days

On Dec 23, 2:59*pm, " wrote:
On Dec 23, 3:39*pm, OccasionalFlyer wrote:

Wow, I had no idea I'd get so much info. Thanks everyone. *On the
issue of the seat tube angle, sorry for a novice question, but is a
steeper angle when, looking at the bike from the side, the seat tube
is farther from vertical (tilting more towards the back of hte bike)
or the opposite?

Steeper like the side of a hill-- closer to vertical is steeper; a 75
degree seat tube angle is steeper than a 73 degree seat tube angle.
--D-y

Thanks. Sorry for a basic question. In my field, I can talk about
the tiniest details but some of these bike points I've never looked
into, so I never had to find out the meaning, other than a person in a
bike shop saying that a steeper seat tube angle makes for a less
comfortable (less upright) position.

On 12/27/2011 2:39 AM, OccasionalFlyer wrote:
On Dec 23, 2:59 pm, wrote:
On Dec 23, 3:39 pm, wrote:

Wow, I had no idea I'd get so much info. Thanks everyone. On the
issue of the seat tube angle, sorry for a novice question, but is a
steeper angle when, looking at the bike from the side, the seat tube
is farther from vertical (tilting more towards the back of hte bike)
or the opposite?
Steeper like the side of a hill-- closer to vertical is steeper; a 75
degree seat tube angle is steeper than a 73 degree seat tube angle.
--D-y
Thanks. Sorry for a basic question. In my field, I can talk about
the tiniest details but some of these bike points I've never looked
into, so I never had to find out the meaning, other than a person in a
bike shop saying that a steeper seat tube angle makes for a less
comfortable (less upright) position.

What kind of pedals do you use? If you use clipless pedals, are your
cleats worn or out
of adjustment?