I now qualify:


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...3117b517d.jpeg

[QUOTE=TejanoTrackie;22821330]So, I went back to the bike shop and spoke with the head honcho, and after much discussion I have decided to buy this bike instead.

9

It's the same price and specs as the Cervelo, but a bit lighter. The only thing I don't like about it is that the bar and stem are one piece, so I can't rotate the bar to adjust it's position. Also, both the bar and stem are flat on top, so attaching accessories like a bike computer will be a challenge.

https://trek.scene7.com/is/image/Tre...id=800&hei=600[/QUOTE
i started riding during the pandemic when gyms closed and I had an old hybrid bike that got me back in the saddle so to speak. Bikes were hard to come by back then but I was able to get a Trek Domane 5 from my LBS. I love the bike and it’s been a pleasure to ride. Now I’m 71 and my typical ride is 25-30 miles a few times a week. One thing I did was have a professional bike fit and found that to be important to the comfort of the bike and rides. I have a computer mounted as well as lights without issues. I hope you enjoy the bike.

So if you need a shorter or longer stem.....you are out of luck? Or do they stock bar/stem options? Do they also offer options if you need/want a wider or narrower bar? Looks like a very nice bike...but ONLY if it fits.

Yes, the combo bar/stem comes in a variety of stem length / bar widths, and it is sized based on the frame size. So, I'm getting the smallest 47cm frame size (seat tube length), and the bar/stem has a 8cm long stem and a 38cm wide bar, which is exactly what fits me. Also, I chose my frame size based on the top tube length rather than the seat tube length. The largest 62cm frame has a 11cm long stem and a 44cm wide bar. However, if this had not worked for me, then my shop was willing to swap it out with a conventional separate bar and stem setup. This would be the case for anyone with unusual proportions, such as very short legs and very long torso.

As a guy who rides a 48cm frame, with a 27" inseam and short legs and torso at 5'4"....I'm happy to hear you have options. There are not that many guys who are short these days and our options are slim. Good luck!!!

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...0115366cec.jpg
Riding duds...
Weather here in SoCal has been good enough such that, a bit laundry was needed...

Picked up my new bike today, and she's a beauty. The weight is 17.2 lbs as shown with two water bottle cages and a Garmin Edge 830 bike computer. I did replace the stock 700x25c tubed tires with 700x28c tubeless tires to improve the ride. The bike computer includes a heart rate monitor, which is very important to me, since I'm prone to bouts of tachycardia. It also can be paired with my bike's wireless electronic shifter system, so I can change the screen on the computer by pressing buttons on the top of the shifter hoods. Also, I have bad arthritic hand pain, such that using mechanical shifters is painful. Will ride it tomorrow to get my saddle position dialed in.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...7d27033f55.jpg
Trek Émonda SLR 7

Clear your handlebars and your mind will follow


...at our age one can afford to be free


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...a04ce486f.jpeg

Out today on an ebike, yesterday was a <~1/2hp motored pedal bike, tomorrow the ski slopes (with son). Life is good.

my question unanswered in 2 consecutive days of cycle deliberations: If those of us with 7 decades (and extra years, too) behind us = Why aren't we octogenarians? Same in years, 72 completed makes me feel 73 the next day.
Who can say? Reject inconvenient convention.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...c3f6b261c.jpeg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...92cc66b8e.jpeg

Been out for a few rides... but brrrrr.... layers to start and shedding as the ride progresses... but still experimenting with head cover... never seems to be right, too hot and sweaty or too cold... yes 48F in SF.

I have a shell cover for for the helmet, and some crazy head cover with ears... but probably need a thinner layer

I have this one, good for the first 4k (cannot upload) so here are the keywords: Hikenture skull cap helmet liner with glasses holes.

Michel

Had my post-op visit today for my melanoma surgery and the lymph node biopsies were negative. This combined with a negative PET scan means that I am now cured. The PET scan did detect a nodule on my thyroid gland which needs to be biopsied to be sure it's not cancerous, but most of the time these things are benign and 50% of people over 60 have them. They also removed an annoying surgical drain in my armpit at the site of the lymph node removal and the arm is healing nicely at the melanoma site, so the surgeon said I can resume all normal activities including cycling in just one more week. Can't wait to get in some miles on my new steed !

I also found out that I can view my front and rear gear positions on my Garmin as well as the status of all the Di2 batteries. This new fangled tech stuff is simply insane.

Head cover
 

Sounds like belt + suspenders. I'm in San Antonio so by no means a cold weather rider, but for 48deg weather I wear an earband with helmet (no helmet cover, no cap). Layers are good for torso, not needed IMO for your head.

​​​​​​
Got in January and works well for me, e.g. below 60° but still into 50s...
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...f6b1772b51.png

I wear this thin merino beanie made by Ibex.

It's very comfortable and light, fits easily under a helmet, and it keeps my head and ears comfortable down into the 40s. It's particularly comfy on long, fast descents.


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...adbe432c69.jpg

Glad my name isn't Wildwood Specialized or Wildwood Trek - I would have millions to buy.
Latest - in a nearly perfect fit. Just arrived and I hung a few bits for proportion. 60X57 w/ 19cm HT. Will need a longer stem.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...4de989bc2.jpeg

First one I found that fit (smallish @58cm), a number of years ago. Also was a stripped frameset.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...6372e85074.jpg
These are Holdsworth manufactured framesets, re-branded as Irish Harding bikes. 1972 (top) & 1982.

You can't beat the warmth of merino wool being thinner and softer than other wool fibers
.

So, now that I'm recovered from my melanoma surgery, I've had a chance to put a few miles on my new road bike. As expected, the ride with the 28mm tubeless tires inflated to only 50 psi is much better than my old carbon bike with 23/25mm tubed tires inflated to 80 psi, especially on rough Texas chip seal pavement. The electronic shifting works really well, especially with my arthritic hands, and the hydraulic disc brakes are strong but progressive, so no problem with overbraking. It weighs 21 lbs as shown in the photo below with a seat bag and two full standard water bottles.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...5bc9fd5102.jpg
Trek Émonda SLR 7

On an aside, the results of my thyroid ultrasound shows that I have two small TI-RADS 4 nodules that are too small to biopsy at this time, but they should have continued sonographic surveillance to make sure they don't grow significantly.

So, it's been awhile since I had a bike computer that displayed cadence, and I didn't realize how much my cadence had declined over time. I used to race criteriums with a cadence of 100 rpm, and now I'm slogging along at a paltry 60 rpm. Yesterday, I decided to do my ride at a minimum cadence of 90 rpm by running a lower gear as necessary, and managed to do this for about 80% of my ride until I tuckered out, and was forced to lower my cadence, but still managed to keep it above 70 rpm. My goal is to continue this effort such that my average cadence for the entire ride is at least 90 rpm. But why do I care about this, anyway ? Well, I believe that by maintaining a higher cadence I'm being kind to my joints, maintaining muscle suppleness and getting better cardio. It doesn't make me any faster, but it does benefit me physically. Just my 2 cents.

Shorten your crank arms? Works well!

They are already 165mm, can't get much shorter than that.

These work well -

Description

Ride2 Crank Arm Shorteners. Features: Threads into crankarm and pinches arm with adjustable cams Shortens cranks by 24, 41, 59 and 76mm Two versions for narrow or wide crankarms


... They do result in a modestly larger Q-factor...

Going lower than 145 may begin to reduce efficiency but can be made up for with a more midfoot pedal position...

At some point the limiting factor may be the bike you have to work with as the shorter the crank length the higher the saddle must be which can compromise riding position unless you can raise the handlebars...
​​​​​​

Interesting concept, but a bit too extreme IMO. Even at the minimum setting of 24mm, my cranks would be only 141mm long and that is way too short for me. The Ultegra cranks on my new road bike are available in a 160mm length, and perhaps I'll go that route, but my real problem is just a loss of fast twitch muscles as I age, and no amount of crank arm shortening will solve that.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...1ab3793c44.png
Not my experience but I'm no expert in such matters and may be just the reverse, e.g. see the above...

From what I've read on the 'science' of crank arm length (which encourages going as low as 145 for maximum performance, irrespective of leg length), the body's preference for a given foot speed may be a greater factor such that going to shorter crank arms seems to encourage the use of a higher gear cuz RPMs are greater than you are accustomed to (resulting in an overall greater output of power, much like performance race car engines that operate at high RPM vs a diesel truck engine). In any event, in one study that's often mentioned, there was less than 4% sacrifice of output going from the best at 145 to the worst at 120 and 220 so... 141 could result in a greater performance than 160.

​​​​​Even going the 41 (instead of 24)... from top to bottom of the pedal stroke is still ~2" greater than a standard stair step...

Too funny the belt + suspenders... in fact it is more a layering way...

thank you , I have a bigger cap, so this is a better choice

perfect for the very cold days, thank you

The seldom mentioned downside of short cranks is that HR is proportional to cadence, not so much power. HR has zones, just like power, thus short cranks may actually limit power for older riders who don't rev their hearts to 180 anymore. I'm working on revving my heart less, so I'm trying to train myself to be able to pedal for long periods, like on long climbs, at below 60 rpm. My inseam/crank length ratio says I should be on 165s. My singles all have 170 and our tandem 175. That's been working well for me for several decades.

A local champ LD fixed-gear rider used 90 g.i. in the mountains. Seems to simply be a training issue. I don't have any physical limiters in my legs, maybe because I've strength trained for most of my life. I hadn't done full, ATG squats for most of that, so I started doing those for the last couple years, another aging defense strategy. Good idea for those who still have natural knees. Do them with no weight for a while, then try just the bar. Try to bounce at the bottom.

You know, as a geezer when you go to the doctor one of the things they ask you to do is to rise out of a chair without using your hands. The last time I did that for a doctor, I jumped several inches into the air. You should have seen her face. I do have a gray full beard. I mean really, a lot of people our age can't pass that test. Imagine what that would be like. "There but for fortune go I." Denial is not just a river in Africa, etc.

Very much doubting that proportional relationship (HR and crank length) absent considering that the resultant combination of gear selection and foot speed may produce a higher output such as might be measured in watts. But, that will always be the case irrespective of the choice of crank length.

No science behind it but just talking about the matter-- logically, it probably shouldn't be any different then optimizing the volume of the shovel used to fill the firebox of a locomotive with coal such as the example we often see in studying Frederick Taylor on the subject of efficiency... there's an often referred to study showing an optimal crank length was 145 instead of e.g., 175 and I think you have to assume that's because more horsepower is produced given the same amount of energy that is put in. Only on the extremes does that relationship break down-- e.g., if the shovel is too big you can't even lift it so no coal is loaded no matter how much effort is put in. And if the shovel is so small, even a flurry of activity won't move much coal.

Another reason why I wouldn't worry about HR is that In the mid-range where for example in crank length the study was looked at in the range of 120 to 220, there was less than a 4% difference in efficiency when comparing the most to least efficient.


​

Power = Torque X RPM. Torque = Force X Lever arm distance perpendicular to the Force. So, increasing any one of these three parameters Force, Lever arm and RPM will increase Power output. The problem is that increasing any one parameter often means decreasing another, such that increasing crank arm length results in a lower RPM (cadence). I used to repeatedly beat a time trial specialist in sprints because he insisted in sprinting in a very high gear with 180mm crank arms, whereas I sprinted in a much lower gear with 165mm crank arms, and had a much higher cadence. He definitely produced more torque than me, but I had more power at peak speed. There are many other factors that enter into the production of power, such as the use of foot retention which allows application of force to the pedals on the back and upstroke. As regards Heart Rate (HR), it is related to both external and internal energy consumption, so a higher Cadence even w/o much load such as when riding rollers will still result in a higher HR even though there is very little Power production.

I think you may be saying as much... showing RPM is independent of foot speed since at the shorter crank length, at any given RPM, the foot speed at the shorter crank length will be less, meaning that the length of the crank cannot alone necessarily mean a higher HR ...