For re-gearing, for anyone who may be interested, Shimano now provides (actually, a couple years ago) the 105 12-speed 11-34 tooth cassette that can be retroed to an 11-speed freewheel hub. That'll give anyone with an inner chain ring of 34T a one-to-one.

Interesting little factoid that some may find that even AI may provide erroneous information, depending how the question is asked. But, irrespective of what AI might say, shortening your crank length essentially has the same effect as increasing the teeth on a chain ring or decreasing the teeth on a cluster. It all of course has to do with the loss of leverage, so... more RPMs are required. Accordingly, if you shorten your crank length, you would need to increase the teeth on your free wheel, or decrease the teeth on your chainring, to maintain a constant power output (albeit, at a higher RPM). That is why I find a one-to-one as useful now as back in the day when touring and climbing a mountain with full load with the usual 175 mm cranks. People argue the issue but nevertheless, there is science on the matter, such that it, that accords with findings that 145 mm cranks provide the maximum power output irrespective of the fitness of the rider and the total amount of power the rider is capable of producing.hile both can affect your gear ratio, shortening the crank length generally means you'll need a slightly smaller chainring to maintain the same gear, as it reduces your leverage and requires a higher cadence to maintain the same power output.

I'm running a 26 X 30 low gear on my single and a 26 X 40 on our tandem. 1 X 1 used to be OK . I went to this ratio on my single at about 70 and the low ratio on the tandem at 75. At 69 & 65, we rode RAMROD on the tandem with 26 X 34. Cayuse Pass was hard but we finished strong. I do long climbs at about 83 cadence on my single and 78 on the tandem. 175 cranks on the tandem, 170 on the single. I don't notice any difference in crank feel between the bikes.

If 145mm were the most powerful setup, the pros would all be using it, i.e. there are drawbacks. My experience with cadence is that oxygen consumption increases with a higher cadence at the same power. That improves somewhat with specific training but doesn't go away. That might mean though that folks with a very high VO2max could benefit from shorter cranks. I think we saw that in the last TdF.

Is there any information out there on what crank length specific pros are using? Might interesting to see if there is any correlation between crank length and height or any other variable like sprinter or climber.

Back at i t after major weight loss
 

I gained a lot of weight over twenty five yrs. Starting in my late 30s at 250 lbs .by 62 I was 585 lbs and near death. I made a drastic change in diet when told I was going to be a grandpa. By 64 I was under 300 lbs and decided to pick up a bike to help w/ exercise . I bought a trek marlin 5. For next yr I used it dropping down to 215 lbs . At 65 I started collecting road bikes and using them to build strength. Today I own a dozen vintage 70s steel frame bikes. At 66 and down to 175 lbs ,I ride a different bike each day. I try to ride 20 miles a day . Biking and walking everyday has helped me greatly.i lost a total of 410 lbs ,put my diabetes into remission ,and gave myself a satisfying hobby to fill my time.

Pogacar has at least two distinctions as a current bike racer: he's on track to being considered the best road racer ever and, at 5'9" tall, he uses 165-mm cranks. Most of his fellow racers likely use 170 mm or longer, or else his crank length wouldn't be cited as being unusual.

'Despite various leg lengths for different heights, Track Cyclists commonly stick to 165mm or 170mm Crank Lengths. The shorter 165mm Crank Length encourages a greater pedaling efficiency as your pedaling cadence (RPM - Revolutions per Minute) will be higher.'

https://www.velodrome.shop

AWESOME - Congrats on the hard work and success :love::thumb:

That's incredible! 400# in 4 years! That's absolutely amazing.

Yes, there is. Look around, google, etc. The winner was on 165s, most are on 170s, some 172.5 and 175. No one smaller than 165 that I saw. Short cranks are an online fad IMO - that is unless one has knee issues with limit one's range of motion like a TKR. For the most part, working to improve one's range of motion for all joints is the way to go. In the weight room, I do everything to full range of motion, injury prevention.

The issue I've noticed from training at abnormal cadences is that as cadence increases at the same power, oxygen consumption, and therefore HR, increases. Momentary max power doesn't seem to be an issue as pro sprinters use normal crank lengths. Of course they have to get to the last kilometer near the front to even contest the sprint, so that might be a factor too. One might consider what one's max cadence OOS is, which would certainly affect max sprinting speed.

There is an issue that's hard to talk about when discussing crank length and RPM- it's confusingly ticklish to the extent it apparently is impossible to understand but exist nonetheless.

It's natural to think of decreasing crank length as increasing RPMs to maintain the same power output and and so apparently, vice versa, but the reverse also seems to true.

At any given RPM, at a longer crank length, the foot speed is significantly higher, i.e., the longer the crank, the more distance the foot travels in a single revolution. Foot speed does not seem to be anything mythical when thinking about the difference between a fast vs slow runner but... how it applies to cycling is a big mystery.

Where it gets ticklish is, e.g., you decrease the crank length so now the leverage is less in any given gear so you have to increase the RPMs to maintain the same output In that gear but.. that isn't what necessarily happens because everyone's different and certain foot speeds seem more natural and it might 'feel' to be a more natural response to the decrease in leverage to lower the gear to maintain foot speed. But then, that means the rider must be putting in more power to maintain the same power output in response to the loss of leverage, no?

Well, apparently The answer is, 'yes' or that is at least what the science is saying- your output is greater at a lower crank length.

The explanation may be the example of the optimum shovel size, e.g., a bigger shovel will move more coal, but the person moving the shovel might move more coal using the smaller shovel.

Odd. I was told sometime after I started racing on a velodrome as a 13-year-old kid that longer crank arms were prohibited for most track events because of the increased likelihood of pedal strikes and thus crashes, especially on short tracks. The minor difference in cadence is probably incidental. After all, a longer crank would give a leverage advantage for getting the jump in a sprint.

Opposed to that idea however, if you think of a piston being similar to foot speed, many high performance race car teams choose short stroke, high revving engines to lower piston speeds at high revs.

Bit of thread drift, but whatever happened to front derailleurs? I missed that development somehow.

I had a touring bike in college (decades ago) with even a triple front derailleur. I needed the granny gear to get up mountains with panniers full of camping gear.

Now you hardly see a front derailleur. Why?

'The Rise of the Compact Crank (aka “The Death of the Triple")' ~Bikehugger

... that and freewheels w/ 12 cassettes....

And, another thing you don't see since those days (not since the '80s)... downtube shifters!

In the heyday of triples, which was probably the era of 5- to 7-cog freewheels or cassettes, you usually had maybe 10 distinct useful combinations compared to 15, 18, or 21 theoretical choices. Want to shift through those 10 in sequential order of the gear ratios? You'd better have good puzzle-solving instincts.

The exception: triples with half-step-plus-granny chainrings. All the (closely spaced) gear ratios you need, plus a logical pattern for shifting between them. (But those, too, were rendered superfluous by the subsequent proliferation of cogs.)

When 10-cog cassettes came along, they made the move to a single chainring inevitable. The problem of figuring out which lever to push which way for the next gear was eliminated, along with the left shifter (and the trickiness of getting front indexing to work right with three chainrings; not often easy).

Let me add one more issue to what Trakhak has said. Rear derailleurs have evolved to the point where they work very well even under load, but front derailleurs simply do not, and are much more prone to chain dropping. Also, unless you are using electronic shifting, you are constantly having to trim the front derailleur as you shift across the rear cassette to prevent chain rub on the front derailleur cage. I have a hybrid fitness bike with a 1 x 12 drivetrain, and it’s such a delight to ride w/o needing to mess with all the shortcomings of a front derailleur.

I gravel ride in an area where 1,000 feet of climbing/10 miles is pretty standard. At 76, I question whether I could manage with a 1X and still do the hills (and have enough high end for paved road flats). I might be missing something, though. I’m running 11-36 cassette and 31/48 chainring.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...f17916a2d.jpeg
Specialized Sirrus X 5.0

So with your 31 x 36 low gear you have a 0.86 gear ratio. My 1 x 12 has a 38 x 50 low gear for a 0.76 gear ratio which is lower than yours. Now, my 38 x 11 high gear is not as high as yours, but it is plenty high for me since I’m more of a spinner than a gear masher. I’d need to be going well over 30 mph to use a 48 x 11. In fact, none of my 2 x road bikes have 11T cassette sprockets anymore, since I never use them. YMMV.

So true... e.g., 'It wasn't my first bike accident'

https://www.patriotledger.com/story/...y/75920293007/

OTOH, there's the issue of having a wide range of gear-inches with close steps between them. The 9-speed triple I've been riding for the past 24 years has 20 non-duplicated gears, ranging from 130 g.i. to 23 g.i. I normally stay in one chainring until I run out of good gears in it, i.e. I don't use the lowest 2 cogs in the big ring and the 5 largest cogs in the granny, so out of that total of 27 possibilities, I use 20. I normally only shift the front when I run out of useful gears in the ring I'm in. Middle ring, I use all 9, from 96 g.i. to 35 g.i. The covers a lot of terrain. I'm particular with my cadence, only using a range of 90 to 80 in normal cycling, including mountains. I will go over that on descents if I'm trying to drop someone. So it's no problem deciding which gear to use: I use the next one in each ring until I run out. I seldom switch rings to get a particular gearing. With all those gears, why would I do that? In fact, riding behind a person running a Compact 9 or 10 speed double is a complete PITA because they're forever shifting the front with lost momentum every time. I drop them if I can.

I totally understand the utility of a single ring for MTB. There's so much terrain variation that shifting the front is just lost momentum. But on a long road ride, where cadence will determine endurance, the wide range and close spacing of a triple is wonderful. I think it's possible to duplicate my range of gearing with a 12 speed double, but the g.i. spacing is larger.

I have 3 singles and one tandem, all with triples. Getting the shifting to be reliable is not a issue. One just puts the bike on a stand and fools with it, only necessary if something changes on a single. On the tandem, cable stretch is an issue, so I'll have to adjust it a few times a year. Totally worth it. The tandem is a 10 speed triple, g.i. from 130 to 18. I don't think that's duplicable on any double, much less a single. Shifting is about the same as on my 9 speed singles. We toured loaded in the mountains in our mid 60s and my wife is not a strong stoker but is quite fit. Had a great time.

Absolutely agree. I was trying to look at the issue from the point of view of someone for whom 1x might be worth considering, but since I haven't ridden off-road in many years, and knowing as I do the merits of 2x and 3x, I have absolutely no interest in a 1x setup,

There's local park with foot and bike trails. Some trails are both. I've watched the riders there and they now pretty much all run 1X with maybe 36T rings. Makes perfect sense because you can't ride a recreational MTB fast anyway. With a 36X11 one would go 21mph at 80 cadence, plenty fast. The cassettes I've seen are pretty big, maybe 40T big cog.

We're probably all gear-heads here, I suppose, but... I've been witness to an exponential increase in the number of electro-assist bikes In my neck of the woods since about '19... fat tires, small wheels... even skateboards and one-wheelers. Still see the occasional tourer.

Thanks for the 1X info/comparison. I think I had some misguided assumptions about what’s possible. As I continue to resist the e-bike tsunami in our age group I know I’ll need to make some adjustments in coming years to keep making it up the hills. This may be the way to go. I have a Shimano GRX group set and really have no complaints about the 2X. But simpler seems better.

As the simplified version of a remark by Einstein says, everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. If a rider is satisfied with both the range of gears and the jumps between gears, great. A 1x setup would achieve that for some riders. For others who would do better with a 2x or 3x, 1x would represent simplicity at the expense of utility.

Yesterday, I switched my Lemond Poprad to a 1X drive train, 44 tooth front with 12 speed 11-40 cassette. The cassette is a Sunshine brand, derailleur is a Shimano Deore 9 speed, long cage, and shifting is with a Shimano BS-50 bar end lever set in friction mode. I have an Sram Xsync chain ring and chain on 6750 crank arms. With X sync ring and chain the drive train is much quieter and feels like it operates more smoothly, especially in the extreme high/low gears, like cross chaining is not an issue. Gear jumps of 2 tooth 11-25, then 25-28, then 4 tooth jumps to 32-36-40. It works really well for all of types of rides that I do. I live in flatland coastal Delaware, but we sure get a lot of wind. With the 44-40 low gear, it really has to be blowing for me to bottom out on the gears.

I have bikes with 1x, 2x, and 3x - like them all

one 2x bike is a 48/31 with 11-34 - the 1x bike is a 40 with 10-42 ; prefer the 1x bike gearing over the 2x - front shift (48/31) gap too big and clunky … considered replacing the 48t with 46t - but the Shimano 48t and 46t rings mount slightly different (RX810 vs RX600)

for me / my riding - the 1x bike would be better with a 38t (as opposed to the 40t) … don’t use the 10t much

Always a mental challenge, looking forward to coming winter rides, when the return leg is always in low gear against a stiff icy headwind.

I've a 2x Aethos/105 Di2 and a 1x Diverge/SRAM Apex...I much prefer the 2x and the Shimano shifting...not a fan of the 'double' click sram system but I got the bike for a great price and there were no Diverges available with Shimano when I wanted one. It always takes me a bit of time to get the sram shift method back in my 'mode' when riding it.
I don't mind the 1x at all...i've ridden and raced it many times and it works quite well once you get used to the gearing range.