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 ...

It's not foot speed which drives HR, it's simply cadence, the up and down motion of the legs. The speed of that motion increases oxygen consumption (how could it not!) and hence HR increases.

But really? It's silly to argue about this. You'll just have to get on your bike and experiment. Ride the same section of road or on your trainer or rollers at the same power at 50 and 110 cadence for say 5 minutes with enough normal riding at the same power in between for your HR to resettle. Note HR at the end of the interval. Pick a moderate power to make it easy.

At the same power, you'll pedal faster with shorter cranks if you keep pedal pressure the same. The difference between 165 and 170 is so small it might not be particularly noticeable in the short run. I don't know of a device which records total pedal revolutions for a ride, but I betcha that 2 long rides at the same speed with different crank lengths would show more revolutions for the shorter cranks. That's the whole idea of going shorter - we keep our pedal pressure the same and pedal a lower gear. Ever wonder why LA started pedaling 110-115 in TTs after he started seriously juicing?

For instance when I do Fastpedal intervals on my rollers, I use a gear in which I have to hit about 115 cadence to produce 112 watts. That'll produce a HR of about 122, whereas at my preferred cadence HR will be about 105 and lower yet at 50 cadence. That's a bit of reductio, but the principle applies, the numbers are just closer together in normal riding.

I wish people would ignore efficiency because it comes in flavors, none of them seem particularly relevant to cycling, and there's a tendency not to indicate what flavor is being referred to.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/disp...0803100146208;.

Agreed... just want to make the point that anyone who feels constrained by their current configuration such as, medical conditions involving range of motion &etc., should feel free to experiment with crank length if that allows them to get back to the sport they love...

Hello. Finally got well enough to ride again after 4 years. 75 now though. any suggestions on how to 'get back into it' gradually without damaging anything. Be well ya'll.

To RDLange: Having (mostly) recovered from back issues and wanting to get back in the saddle again, I have adjusted my prime ride to have three modifications.
1. Softer saddle
2. Mildly curved upright handlebar with padded grips, also more padded gloves
3. An upgraded triple crankset with the lowest cogs 30. The idea is to maintain consistent cadence of 70-80 with moderate pedal resistance.
The idea is making your ride comfortable and with reduced stress on the old body. I'm 72 but, with these modifications, feel younger!
Best of luck. Be well!

I restarted in 2013 after a 11 year layoff.

I had a back problem in the mid-'80s. Previously, I had trained myself by doing a little more on each ride than I thought I could, but that often resulted in post-ride back pain. I started riding a little less than I thought I could on each ride - 2 miles if I thought I could do 3, 18 miles if I thought I could do 20, etc. I advanced more slowly, but my back didn't hurt. I followed the same method in 2013 - I started with 2 mile rides, . It took me 2-3 months to get from 2 miles to 20. I can't guarantee this will work for you, but I recommend considering the approach of riding less than you think you can.

In the end, the only way to get comfortable riding is to ride. If you start with slow short rides and attend to your body, you'll get faster and go farther eventually, as appropriate to your fitness and comfort on your bike.

I can only speak from my own experience, but barring any underlying health problems, it will partly depend on your overall fitness. Getting back into it will be easier if aerobically and strength-wise you’re in decent shape. Concurrent with gradually getting back into riding and finding the right equipment (as suggested), I think working on biking-specific strength and conditioning exercises would be helpful.

I am with you on this. Selle Anatomica saddles, higher bars level with saddle with gel under the tape, lower gearing and anti-vibration gloves which are much better than cycling gloves. On the occasional bad days a recumbent trike.

Good for you! 77 here. I ride the same bike with the same setup I bought in 2000. All just fine.

I have been a gym member since '79. In the winter and fall, I go for about an hour twice a week to build strength and flexibility. In spring and summer once a week, about 50' for strength maintenance. IMO this is a critical element. Start light with high reps and gradually decrease reps and add weight after the first year, though you can add weight during the first year, just keep the reps high, say 20-30. Sarcopenia is a real thing.

Do a stretch routine every morning. On days you don't go to the gym, add one long as possible plank, and one set of as many pushups as you can do.

On the bike, IMO the best thing is to start with rollers if you've been using them all along, or a simple trainer if you haven't. Start with say 30' every other day, gradually increase frequency and time. Walk on some of the days you don't ride. Wear a heart rate monitor. On the bike, keep your breathing deep and even, "conversational" pace for the first couple months. Then try riding outside, again keeping the pace moderate. If you have hills, just gear way down.

Gradually increase intensity on the bike over the months. Four years is a very long time at our age. You won't be the same and you won't get it all back. Just do and be satisfied with what you can do.

I haven't been riding outdoors much since my first syncope in October. Yesterday I led my first group ride in a long time, on our tandem. Five tandems and 10 singles showed up, all old riding buddies of two sexes. We did 31 miles with only ~700 of total gain in a little over 2 hours. After ride, we had our traditional pub gathering with plenty of pain solvent and joyous conversation. The plan is to do this every Sunday when it isn't raining. The ride was I would say, extremely popular. You can imagine.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...c7b282299d.jpg
New brewpub around here...

My schedule is every 3 days but about the same overall weekly mileage...
​​​​​​