Originally Posted by
McBTC
True and a consideration that many do not seem to appreciate is sort of the reverse side of cadence in that while shorter cranks work to increase RPMs -- so, going to shorter cranks, it might seem to some, may hit up against natural performance barrier that limits what may be attainable by an average rider -- there also is the issue of pedal speed: longer cranks increase that. And, as far as what feels more natural to the average rider, pedal speed may be as important and possibly a more important factor than simply looking at RPMs. In other words, for any given RPM, the pedal speed will be faster for longer cranks -- perhaps faster than feels natural such that shorter cranks at a higher gear but lower pedal speed may be a higher performance option.
You and Anthony both need to get out on your bikes and observe gears, terrain and resistances in the real world. Not physics textbooks. Both of you make your assumptions from the rider outward. Reality is actually the reverse. Shorter cranks require shorter gears. Thats why mountain bikes have shorter gears than road bikes. They always have shorter cranks and shorter gears together and longer cranks and taller gears together. If you go shorter than the MTB standard of 160/165 you must made still another reduction in the gearing. This, however is never done. People are using 150/140, even 130 with the same cassettes and chainrings meant for use with 165 cranks and calling the results a success. I'm not sure how that can be but people are contrary and who knows what criteria they are using to define success anyway.