Was my off road bike trying to tell me something. Only a couple of months until 74. Sunday (10/13) went out for a trail ride with a neighborhood friend (10 yrs younger). Been a while since I had the old (98) mtn bike out. The suspension fork is a basic coil/oil Manitou from 2004 with a port (similar to a grease fitting but diff) so the stanchions slide freely. Didn't notice until we got back to the truck that the port was stuck open, letting fork oil/grease to run down the fork, and onto the tire and rim. Have it fixed now. Enjoyed the ride, 5.6 miles of rooty and rocky singletrack, but the hardtail and basic fork beat me up a bit. Maybe the bike was telling me I have no business on trails like that, or maybe need a dual susp (ain't happenin" at this age--good ones are $$$$!)

Why post in 65+ thread? Unless you want caution for replies. At your age, I would not be riding rocky & rooty. And since I am your age, I would stick to smoother trails or gravel roads. And friends along....

I just turned 70 and recently invested in a mid-priced full suspension. I do intend to wear it out.

I tried posting pics. Didn't seem to post. Frustrated with it, after finally getting to 10 posts, after a year.

In my neighborhood the kids would prefer the cigars, especially if they were Cuban

Just hit the box that looks like the silhouette of a mountain range and a rising Sun perhaps...?


Then, e.g., 'From Device'

Thanks. Figuring my way around.




My bikes:
Fuji for dirt railways.

Windsor Chrome-Moly from early 80's. Ten speed, made in Mexico.

'07 Trek Pilot 5.0 carbon, Ultegra, 105 triple. 10 tooth cluster. Pilot was an upright geometry frame bike. But, wheels have too large pitch for long durability. Back wheel cracked. Replaced under warrenty. Otherwise no issues. Made in Wisconsin. Now made in Taiwan, according to a dealer.

Gave away my Shimano cleats. No longer want to be attached to bike. If I were to get hit.

Loved my Pilot triple (comfort geo and only CF)- retroed it to get a one-to-one... current rig is the first bike I've had that wasn't a triple (and first alloy) but... retroed to get my one-to-one. Don't use cleats anymore either but do use large cages... with shorter cranks (165s) so no dragging issues (good for better RPMs too).

Well, I’ve decided that I don’t need an 11 tooth cassette cog anymore on any of my road bikes. Gotta be going over 40 mph to use it, and that just ain’t happening anymore. What I do need is lower gears so that I can get up all the hills in my area sitting down. So, I’ve re-geared three of my road bikes as follows:

1) 10 speed 34-50 front: 11-28 to 12-30
2) 11 speed 36-52 front: 11-25 to 12-28
3) 12 speed 36-52 front: 11-30 to 12-34

Now, I do have a 1 x 12 hybrid bike with an 11T high gear, but the chainring is only 38T, so it’s actually usable. Today I rode the 12 speed up a hill that peaks at a 10 percent grade into a 15 mph headwind and really appreciated the new 34T low gear. On the way back down the hill with a tailwind, I maxed out at 38 mph in the 12T high gear w/o spinning out, and was nowhere near needing an 11T.

When I began riding in the 1960s, 11T cogs didn’t even exist, or even 12T cogs for that matter. In fact, I didn’t even own a road bike with an 11T cog until twenty years ago. I’ve always been more of a spinner than a gear masher, and routinely beat the latter in sprints where they were trying to push much higher gears. Nowadays, I go on fitness rides where I try to keep my cadence at a 80 rpm minimum with a lot of over 100 rpms, even when riding uphill. I’m not concerned with how fast I’m riding, just how much cardio I’m getting. Anyway, it’s adios 11T forever.

I re-geared mine from an 11/28 to an 11/32 in anticipation of needing the lower gearing, but except for road testing to make sure it worked okay (short cage 105-11spd) since everyone told me it wouldn't, I haven't needed it yet (knock on wood). I would miss my 11t though (52/36). I find myself in it a lot and I like to just mindlessly cruise at speed. I'm not a spinner though, so speed for me is in the 25-30 mph range.

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.

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

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!