KC and the Sunshine band is far better than Led Zep...
Looks like you need to move the speaker stands...did you do the 'sub crawl'???
where are the cable lifter thingys to get better signal flow???
the angle of the 'acoustic tiles' are off by several degrees and the 'shades' are causing 'cross dispersion' resulting in muddy mids
sound reflections off the plants leaves are also contra indicated...
ugh...one shade is higher than the other just to show off the model vette...again sound reflections are not equal just to show off a model car...sit it on the speaker so it can move with the vibrations...much cooler lol.
one 'cable/wire' crosses itself resulting in signal confusion...such a big 'no no' in the audiophile world...
submitting this pic to 'av rant' for their perspective...lol...jk...schmaybe...

thanks for the pic, this was fun...

Ha! Don't forget, 'The Endless Summer' poster...

Pretty funny- ran this comment through A.I.- "Electric bikes have an even lower carbon footprint than conventional bikes because fewer calories are burned per kilometre, despite the emissions from battery manufacturing and electricity use.”

Generally, the answer was, 'yes,' as for example- "Essentially, if you are powering a commute with a steak-heavy diet, the e-bike is technically "greener" per mile than a standard bike."

Not sure how a chicken-heavy diet might change that equation but seems kind of silly unless riders who decide to substitute their wheels for e-bikes, get no exercise elsewhere that would make up the difference in effort.

It wasn't lost to the younger generation, only to the generations that experienced whatever you feel has been lost. Tis the way of life. I never thought, "I
feel like I lost out on all those things my parents did for fun, that are now no longer considered fun and hip".

True, true... don't live differently now than my folks did 'cept that the only thing that keeps me from riding the Bicentennial bike trail now as I did in the past (even though I have all the time in the world and could easily use a credit card from motel to motel instead of sleeping in a tent in a hiker/biker camp) is... I can't ride 50-70 miles/day for ~10 days straight and then hop in a car to drive home and get ready for work the next day.

Join the crowd.
Exceptionalism is only achieved with extreme sacrifice.

My Winter and early (wet&cloudy&coolish) Spring were full of malaise. Much more than usual. I worried about cycling - the few nice days I rode weren't inspiring.

But sunshine, warmer temperatures (first 70*) and looking at these nice bicycles (that have brought me joy in past) has kindled a revival - of sorts.

May the weather stay nice and my motivation high.
Yeah - bicycles are a savior.

Saddle time!

:cheers:

I put it to A.I.- is it possible to cycle routinely with 76-year-old legs without taking Aleve?

The reply- Yes, it is entirely possible to cycle routinely at 76 without relying on Aleve (Naproxen), provided you transition from "riding through pain" to a strategy of mechanical adjustment and physical preparation. Cycling is one of the most recommended exercises for seniors because its low-impact nature naturally lubricates joints and can actually reduce the very arthritis pain that Aleve is typically used to mask.

We'll see... will definitely try laying back a bit in trying to increase overall mph as an alternative...

April 24 will be a year since my CABG. It's been difficult to come back from that, starting at zero really except tougher at 80. But this week I've restarted the computer training program I've been using since Windows 3.0. It's a hard taskmaster. It'll slowly ramp up toward a completion date in late August when we'll start our annual 10-day backpack. I'm 3 days into it, whoop-de-do . . .Today it's a 45' Z3 walk, tomorrow's an hour of Z2 on the bike, that's kinda what the first week is like.

Later: Average HR was Z2, max was the top of Z3 (short hill). No way, even at max walking speed, could I hold Z3 on the flat. Legs and abs got a good workout.

Been riding 700x25s on my current rig since ~'17 and while at the time they were considered the gold standard... would'a migrated to 28s for more comfort except they don't fit under my rear brake bracket. Wasn't aware of 26mm tires 'til recently. Don't wanna jinx my Rubino 25s as they are very flat resistant (knock on wood), but... the latest science now indicates they're a better choice all-around.

A.I. provides...

Optimal Balance: They offer a "middle ground" that provides slightly more air volume and comfort than 25mm without the slight weight or aerodynamic penalty of moving all the way to 28mm.

Lower Rolling Resistance: Contrary to older beliefs, wider tires (like 26mm) at slightly lower pressures can be faster on real-world, imperfect roads because they absorb vibrations rather than bouncing over them.

Specialized offer some tires in 26mm.

... quizzed A.I. if 26s have become the new de facto standard at the Tour de France– response was that 28mm has become the definitive new standard, largely replacing the 25mm and 26mm options that were common just a few years ago and goes on to say that far from stopping at 26mm, the peloton is actually pushing toward 30mm and 32mm for most road stages. No reason anymore to buy 23s or 25s so probably won't be long that they're no longer made... interestingly enough– sew-ups and tubular rims are still made but it's a niche market.

Additionally, the majority of TdF riders have now gone to cranks under 172.5 mm and 165 mm cranks are now a popular choice even for taller riders. That's what I have and the only downside is getting on and off the bike cuz the seat post is that much higher off the ground when you go to shorter cranks.

I hadn't realized I had graduated to a new category on BF. 68 yo this month (April 2026). Still feel like a kid. No health issues besides a calcium score of 24. Good genetics plus a lifetime of taking care of myself. Reading the "Over 50" forum makes me feel very fortunate. Still able to do just about anything on a bike, just maybe not as many hours per session.

Cheers!

IMHO = shorter cranks at pro races = those younger cyclists can spin faster better. Seated and spinning with power is In Again!
I wonder about VanDer Poel, Van Aert, many sprinters and taller riders on crank length.

My old legs like shorter.

Comparing cycling to the auto world short cranks would be like a car in the LeMans vs long cranks for the car in the Indianapolis 500... taking advantage of A.I., for us older folk dealing with a range of joint problems, shorter cranks may offer some advantages, e.g.,

Joint Health & Smoothness: They reduce the range of motion for your knees and hips, decreasing joint stress and preventing injury over long distances.

High Cadence: Like a Le Mans engine that must balance high power with long-term reliability, short cranks favor a higher, smoother cadence over raw grinding torque.

For any who may be interested.. beginning with 165 mm cranks (which are not hard to come by and relatively inexpensive) you can easily experiment with even shorter cranks by fitting the 165mm cranks with crank length shorteners, e.g., some studies have a lot of positive things to say about going as low as a 145mm crank length but going even shorter is possible if a joint issue demands it. Using crank shorteners does increase the Q-factor but I never found that to be an issue and may be of some benefit if you ride in ordinary shoes which generally have a wider heel than cycling shoes.

The downside of short cranks for us older riders is that higher cadence at the same speed equals higher HR for that speed. As my max HR has dropped, so has my most effective cadence. Those posting in this forum are not 25 y.o. super talented riders. It takes some experimentation to figure out what cadence range produces the fastest time on long hilly rides. I'm still pushing my limits, though they are a lot lower now. I have about a 30" inseam and run 175s on our tandem, no problem. My stoker OTOH uses custom made short cranks. the rule is that everyone's different. Our most effective cadence is around 85. I have 170 cranks on my singles and spin a little faster, no big deal. I ride by HR and don't notice the difference. My wife and I have been gymming for, I don't know, maybe 40 years, full body workouts. Full body might not be the most effective for cycling, but we don't get injured and we backpack and do whatever we want. I split stovewood for our tiny vacation cabin. Love doing that, all about accelerating the maul head, increasing the kinetic energy while maintaining accuracy.

Exactly right! I haven't ridden for years now, but still read occasional postings here.
When I was still riding I preferred lower gears, aka higher cadence for speed.
This didn't make sense to me as I had a 31 inch inseam.
Kind of like a big block Chevy that revved like a small block. This will make sense to gear heads. I was fast but never competed.

Everyone's different but as regards shorter vs longer cranks the feedback from A.I. is fairly direct on the matter of impact on heart rate, i.e. not much if any and probably none but maybe for some.

I asked A.I. as follows: in bicycling the current Trend even in the Tour de France is for shorter cranks does the use of shorter cranks at the same speed which of course increases RPMs increase heart rate or are they not related to one another.

Shorter cranks generally allow for a higher, more efficient cadence with a smaller range of motion, which often results in similar or sometimes lower heart rate at a given speed, rather than an increase. While higher RPMs can sometimes increase heart rate, shorter cranks reduce the oxygen requirement of the pedaling motion, making them more efficient.

Key Findings on Shorter Cranks: Heart Rate and Efficiency: Studies indicate that shorter cranks do not typically cause a significant increase in heart rate and may improve gross efficiency at the same power output, largely because they reduce the restriction in hip and knee joints.Reduced Oxygen

Cost: While a higher RPM can raise heart rate, shorter cranks mean the pedal travels a smaller circumference (lower pedal speed). This often leads to a lower or similar metabolic cost compared to longer cranks.

Adaptation is Key: While they facilitate higher cadences, it takes time for riders to adapt, meaning immediate tests might show temporary, small heart rate differences, but they are often inconsequential.

Comfort Benefits: Shorter cranks reduce the range of motion for knees and hips, decreasing fatigue, improving comfort, and allowing for a more aerodynamic position without sacrificing power. In summary, at the same speed, you are usually not increasing your heart rate with shorter cranks; rather, you are reducing your body's, specifically the joints' and muscles', energy expenditure to maintain that speed.

My own personal assessment is that it is possible going to shorter cranks will increase HR but not because the smaller cranks are the direct cause but because oftentimes the rider will feel more natural to shift to a lower gear and end up riding in a lower gear without any feeling of extra effort. But obviously that will increase mph and going faster does take more energy and will effect heart rate because the rider is actually working harder even though feeling fine in doing so.

As I have gotten older, I have slid down the gear range to lower gears. To go to shorter cranks would be like spitting (or something) into the wind.

–>an analogy in bicycle riding of going to shorter cranks is similar to two shovelers of coal– if you have a bigger shovel (longer cranks) it's like having a shovel with a bigger shovel... You get a bigger load of coal but you can only shovel so fast and you get worn out a lot quicker than going to a smaller shovel load but in doing many more shovel loads in the same amount of time you'll actually be shoveling more coal...

To that, A.I. says...

That is a spot-on analogy for pedal cadence versus torque.

In cycling terms, switching to a "smaller shovel" (shorter cranks or a lower gear) allows you to increase your cadence (RPM). While each individual stroke carries less "weight," your cardiovascular system handles the high-speed, low-resistance movement much better than your muscles handle the heavy, grinding "big shovel" strokes.

In the real world ... it's spinning a smaller gear vs mashing a bigger one. All in all, you end up accomplishing the same thing but in actual practice, there ends up being a benefit to shorter cranks overall according to some of the research and apparently the research has validity as, that is what the pros seem to be gravitating to, even in the TdF.

I switched from 170 mm to 165 on my commuter bike, the bike I ride the most. I don't feel a dramatic difference, but I might have done a good thing.

I have a fixed gear bike I sometimes commute on, and it has 155 mm cranks. I do feel the difference there, and it's not bad at all.

I've noticed that I'm uncomfortable with 175 mm cranks.

My jeans inseam is 30 inches FWIW.

According to Amazon the Ride2 crank shorteners are not currently available but the spec is that they (two versions to fit narrow or wide crank arms) 'shorten' cranks by 24, 41, 59 and 76mm. So, starting with 165 mm cranks, the first shortening adjustment stop of '24' results in a '141' mm crank length which is not much different from the 145 mm length that that a seminal study found to be the ideal length for maximum performance.

A relatively small 4 mm difference could easily be made up by the variance in the thickness of the sole of typical bicycle riding shoes. With a typical 175 mm crank length, the first adjustment stop would result in a 151 crank length.

It might seem odd but when you think about the typical stair step being 7 to 7-3/4 inches which is less than 200 mm, to ride a bike that would approach the exercise junkie who runs stairs would be a crank length of less than 100 mm.

Both LeMond and Armstrong were spinners although both were able to do so using 175 mm cranks so my thought is, it isn't the length of the crank so much as it is the effect of the length of the crank on the ability to spin for the individual rider– that's the important factor, i.e., spinning vs mashing or RPMs vs torque.