Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Fitting Your Bike
Reload this Page >

Shorter Cranks for Climbing

Notices
Fitting Your Bike Are you confused about how you should fit a bike to your particular body dimensions? Have you been reading, found the terms Merxx or French Fit, and don’t know what you need? Every style of riding is different- in how you fit the bike to you, and the sizing of the bike itself. It’s more than just measuring your height, reach and inseam. With the help of Bike Fitting, you’ll be able to find the right fit for your frame size, style of riding, and your particular dimensions. Here ya’ go…..the location for everything fit related.

Shorter Cranks for Climbing

Old 05-04-22, 03:03 AM
  #101  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 7 Posts
I personally use 125 mm cranks. I am short, 5''7 with short legs. I don't care what others say. while I used to only be able to do 10 miles a day comfortably I can now do 100. It completely changed cycling for me , elevating it to a higher level. For years I rode on cranks that were way too large (170mm) ignorantly and it did not do my knees any good. I did try 165, 150, 152 and 140 in the process. 125 feels perfect. If I ever find 130s and 135s I might try them. I rather ride with reduced torque than continue to bust my knees up. And I tried all fitting methods.
I know a very tall cyclist I highly respect (over 6'7) who swears by 145 mm cranks.

Last edited by Mr Sir; 05-04-22 at 03:16 AM.
Mr Sir is offline  
Likes For Mr Sir:
Old 05-05-22, 01:03 AM
  #102  
Enthusiastic Sufferer
 
SapInMyBlood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 229

Bikes: 2015 Specialized Roubaix, 2014 Salsa Fargo, 2013 Trek Remedy, 2014 Cannondale Synapse

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked 311 Times in 107 Posts
Originally Posted by Mr Sir
I personally use 125 mm cranks. I am short, 5''7 with short legs. I don't care what others say. while I used to only be able to do 10 miles a day comfortably I can now do 100. It completely changed cycling for me , elevating it to a higher level. For years I rode on cranks that were way too large (170mm) ignorantly and it did not do my knees any good. I did try 165, 150, 152 and 140 in the process. 125 feels perfect. If I ever find 130s and 135s I might try them. I rather ride with reduced torque than continue to bust my knees up. And I tried all fitting methods.
I know a very tall cyclist I highly respect (over 6'7) who swears by 145 mm cranks.
Holy cow! I'm 171cm (5'7"/5'8") and also have been cursed with very short legs. What brand are your cranks? I've never heard of anyone using cranks that short!

Also, what's your inseam?
SapInMyBlood is offline  
Old 05-09-22, 10:04 AM
  #103  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by SapInMyBlood
Holy cow! I'm 171cm (5'7"/5'8") and also have been cursed with very short legs. What brand are your cranks? I've never heard of anyone using cranks that short!

Also, what's your inseam?
I use cheap steel kids cranks with a single permanently attached chainring. They have very slim crank legs because they are all steel. Look for those with a narrow q-factor because often they have bent-out legs to clear the kids bike chain stays. But this is unneeded on an adult bike.
They don't look out of place on my bike since I ride an 80s sport-touring bicycle with Dutch ''North road'' style handlebars.
I used a 125 cm length crank with a 36t chainring but I am going to a 32t 127 mm crank because I calculated that this will suit me better, not because its 2mm longer but because it has 4 less teeth. I must say I've got no intentions of ever going back above 130mm cranks.
I am also going to experiment with making a DIY 2x chainring on these with a granny 20t ring for the extreme climbs. Currently I run a 1x system, 14-32, but I've got intentions of going to 11-34.

There is one also the Miche Young 125 mm 2x roadbike crank I might buy in the future but its currently sold out everywhere.

My goal was to achieve a knee angle as close as possible to 90 degrees on the upstroke. Only going below 130mm cranks achieved this for me. My inseam is between 70 and 75 centimeters although I haven't measured it accurately.

I don't ride bicycles for speed because I run them with 2 or 4 panniers. I rarely exceed 25 km/h and usually cycle between 15 and 20 km/h or ''3 times walking speed''. I am not a racer, nor do I like to excert myself to the max. My goal is to arrive at my destination the least tired as possible. I see myself more of a wheeled pedestrian then a cyclist, and I prefer a more upright position that allows me to enjoy the scenery. My days
of being hunched over forward are over.

The short cranks took a little while to get used to but it feels great. It keeps the cadence high and it spares my knees. The only thing withholding me from spending days in the saddle was knee pain. Aiming for that 90 degree upstroke angle got rid of it for me. For many riders in the 6ft range 140-150 mm cranks will achieve this. Mike Burrows, a man I look upto, also says that 150mm crank length would be a better general adult standard for bicycles than 170.
The recumbent world did learn me this valuable piece of advice and I will be forever grateful.

Last edited by Mr Sir; 05-09-22 at 10:22 AM.
Mr Sir is offline  
Likes For Mr Sir:
Old 05-09-22, 10:13 PM
  #104  
Banned.
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 17 Posts
Originally Posted by Mr Sir
The short cranks took a little while to get used to but it feels great. It keeps the cadence high and it spares my knees. The only thing withholding me from spending days in the saddle was knee pain. Aiming for that 90 degree upstroke angle got rid of it for me. For many riders in the 6ft range 140-150 mm cranks will achieve this. Mike Burrows, a man I look upto, also says that 150mm crank length would be a better general adult standard for bicycles than 170.
The recumbent world did learn me this valuable piece of advice and I will be forever grateful.
I have normally proportioned legs with 83cm inseam. Calculators are unanimous at telling me to use 170 mm cranks.

However, while 170mm cranks makes the effort feel easier due to improved leverage, I can't hold that effort as long as I can with shorter cranks like 145 or 150 mm.

I used to have a 26'er 90's MTB with 150 mm crank and I can hold 28 mph on that with small knob tires. Today, with road bike with 170 mm crank with 700c x 32 smooth, touring tires, I can only hold up to 25 mph. I'm 3 mph slower on a road bike, and the speed difference in climbs (identical weight) is even bigger. The irony!

While the resistance feels higher on the 150mm crank, my legs don't get sore for longer. Paced efforts are faster, both on flats and climbs. Additionally, I can lower the saddle pretty much to improve aerodynamics and still don't feel the "burn" on my legs. Short cranks are stupidly better as soon you get over it and it's not as "pro-looking" as 170mm cranks.

Dylan in one of his youtube videos showed physio study on the matter and the short cranks (150mm) consistently scored better across all performance metrics against 170mm. Consider my post a rant because I also perform significantly better on 150mm cranks but they're nowhere to be found but on kid's bikes only The rare ones I find are then stupidly expensive for my very tight budget.
couldwheels is offline  
Old 05-11-22, 05:42 PM
  #105  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,780
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4574 Post(s)
Liked 5,112 Times in 3,156 Posts
Originally Posted by couldwheels

I used to have a 26'er 90's MTB with 150 mm crank and I can hold 28 mph on that with small knob tires. Today, with road bike with 170 mm crank with 700c x 32 smooth, touring tires, I can only hold up to 25 mph. I'm 3 mph slower on a road bike, and the speed difference in climbs (identical weight) is even bigger. The irony!
re. Bike Calculator

28 mph on the flat, no wind, mtb tires = 600W
25 mph, road tyres = 380W

So a difference of some 220W right there

.....and you say the speed difference is even bigger on the climbs?

That's it, I'm ordering some 150 mm cranks and turning pro, lol.
PeteHski is offline  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 05-11-22, 06:01 PM
  #106  
Banned.
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 17 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
re. Bike Calculator

28 mph on the flat, no wind, mtb tires = 600W
25 mph, road tyres = 380W

So a difference of some 220W right there

.....and you say the speed difference is even bigger on the climbs?

That's it, I'm ordering some 150 mm cranks and turning pro, lol.
That doesn't look right. I only weighed 120 lbs around that time. I'm currently 130 lbs. Small build, low handlebar (gets me as low as TT position), low drag so my watts should be a lot lower.

The 25 mph easier on the MTB. It's a 90's steel fully rigid, rigid fork MTB btw. Narrow flatbar and as aero as gravel bike with dropbar. 26x1.95 XC tires with fairly worn center tread so the tires might actually have low rolling resistance. The MTB actually feels faster than my road bike so the watts should be roughly the same or even less at the same speed.
couldwheels is offline  
Old 05-12-22, 03:11 AM
  #107  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,780
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4574 Post(s)
Liked 5,112 Times in 3,156 Posts
Originally Posted by couldwheels
That doesn't look right. I only weighed 120 lbs around that time. I'm currently 130 lbs. Small build, low handlebar (gets me as low as TT position), low drag so my watts should be a lot lower.

The 25 mph easier on the MTB. It's a 90's steel fully rigid, rigid fork MTB btw. Narrow flatbar and as aero as gravel bike with dropbar. 26x1.95 XC tires with fairly worn center tread so the tires might actually have low rolling resistance. The MTB actually feels faster than my road bike so the watts should be roughly the same or even less at the same speed.
Okay, for the sake of argument lets say the bikes are equal and you are in a full-on TT position

28 mph, 120 lb rider, clincher road tyres, aerobar = 322W
25 mph, 130 lb rider, clincher road tyres, aerobar = 239W

So that's still a difference of 83W that you are attributing to shorter cranks. (even though they are completely different bikes at different times)

Anyone who races will know that 3 mph is a huge difference that you are not going to realise simply by changing your crank length 20 mm. Maybe you were just a LOT fitter? If you really were holding 28 mph for any signficant amount of time on an mtb, while weighing 120 lb, that would put your FTP at roughly 6 W/kg. Call me sceptical, but this doesn't sound realistic.

Nothing against short cranks btw. In fact I would say I'm an advocate of them, but claiming a 3 mph speed improvement is in dreamland (As are the speeds you are quoting!)
PeteHski is offline  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 05-12-22, 03:24 AM
  #108  
Banned.
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 17 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
Okay, for the sake of argument lets say the bikes are equal and you are in a full-on TT position

28 mph, 120 lb rider, clincher road tyres, aerobar = 322W
25 mph, 130 lb rider, clincher road tyres, aerobar = 239W

So that's still a difference of 83W that you are attributing to shorter cranks. (even though they are completely different bikes at different times)

Anyone who races will know that 3 mph is a huge difference that you are not going to realise simply by changing your crank length 20 mm. Maybe you were just a LOT fitter? If you really were holding 28 mph for any signficant amount of time on an mtb, while weighing 120 lb, that would put your FTP at roughly 6 W/kg. Call me sceptical, but this doesn't sound realistic.

Nothing against short cranks btw. In fact I would say I'm an advocate of them, but claiming a 3 mph speed improvement is in dreamland (As are the speeds you are quoting!)
Are you sure it's 6 w/kg? I don't think I actually make that power to weight ratio. Maybe there's some headwind involved or the many vehicles give some draft even though they're traveling at lot faster. I tend to ride this long flat course early in the morning and it's beside a lake. I choose early morning to avoid any wind but I suppose the vehicles maybe providing some draft.

I get muscle soreness sooner with 170mm crank. When I'm pacing a zone 4 effort, I back off whenever I feel my legs getting sore. I have tried raising my saddle a little bit with 170mm crank but only made the situation worse causing saddle soreness and knee pain.
couldwheels is offline  
Old 05-12-22, 03:49 AM
  #109  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,780
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4574 Post(s)
Liked 5,112 Times in 3,156 Posts
Originally Posted by couldwheels
Are you sure it's 6 w/kg? I don't think I actually make that power to weight ratio. Maybe there's some headwind involved or the many vehicles give some draft even though they're traveling at lot faster. I tend to ride this long flat course early in the morning and it's beside a lake. I choose early morning to avoid any wind but I suppose the vehicles maybe providing some draft.

I get muscle soreness sooner with 170mm crank. When I'm pacing a zone 4 effort, I back off whenever I feel my legs getting sore. I have tried raising my saddle a little bit with 170mm crank but only made the situation worse causing saddle soreness and knee pain.
Well I'm pretty sure you would have to be putting out well north of 300W to cruise at a genuine 28 mph (that's the speed pro road racers ride solo on £20k bikes) and you weighed 54.4 kg. So that's at least 5.5 W/kg i.e. world pro level power/weight ratio. You might get there with a massive tailwind, but otherwise no chance unless you are Philippo Ganna!
PeteHski is offline  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 05-12-22, 06:46 AM
  #110  
Banned.
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 17 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
Well I'm pretty sure you would have to be putting out well north of 300W to cruise at a genuine 28 mph (that's the speed pro road racers ride solo on £20k bikes) and you weighed 54.4 kg. So that's at least 5.5 W/kg i.e. world pro level power/weight ratio. You might get there with a massive tailwind, but otherwise no chance unless you are Philippo Ganna!
I'm still slower than local athletes going the same route so maybe the draft we're getting is that good.

Otherwise, the 150mm does make difference to me. With 170mm crank, I feel the "burn" in my legs and back off the effort and slow down.
couldwheels is offline  
Old 05-12-22, 10:00 AM
  #111  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,780
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4574 Post(s)
Liked 5,112 Times in 3,156 Posts
Originally Posted by couldwheels
I'm still slower than local athletes going the same route so maybe the draft we're getting is that good.

Otherwise, the 150mm does make difference to me. With 170mm crank, I feel the "burn" in my legs and back off the effort and slow down.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting 150 mm cranks don't make a difference. I'm just questioning your "numbers", which are frankly too good to be true. Have you got any recorded evidence (i.e. Strava) of one of these 28 mph sustained efforts on your vintage mtb with worn tyres?
PeteHski is offline  
Old 05-12-22, 12:23 PM
  #112  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,600

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3917 Post(s)
Liked 1,973 Times in 1,408 Posts
Originally Posted by couldwheels
I'm still slower than local athletes going the same route so maybe the draft we're getting is that good.

Otherwise, the 150mm does make difference to me. With 170mm crank, I feel the "burn" in my legs and back off the effort and slow down.
This section of the thread is quite odd. One should have realized that the "burn" is caused by one's muscles consuming carbohydrates at an increased rate: the tech is here: https://fiercetraining.net/lactic-ac...-muscles-burn/

The whole point of training is to increase the rate at which carbs are burned, i.e. producing more power. If one doesn't have a power meter, leg sensations are a good guide. You want your legs to burn. That's the whole point of training: to get stronger and faster and be able to hold higher power for longer. That requires cellular level adaptations, and we only adapt under stress. I.e. more stress is good, sought after in fact. I tell beginning riders that cycling is actually all about climbing hills, because that's where it's easy to generate more power and thus cause more muscle damage - the whole point.

So if your legs don't hurt with the 150s but do with the 170s, it's simple: you're putting out less power, not more. If you're riding along on the flat and other riders are passing you, that means you're not even going fast enough to get on their draft. If you're doing 28, you're passing everyone who's not a pro. Time to get some instrumentation. More information is better. A simple start is a Garmin and a heart rate monitor strap. You can upload the Garmin to one of several websites which save and analyze your information.

OTOH, if you are more comfortable riding shorter cranks at lower speeds and you obviously like that, continue as you are. Just try to be more aware of why you are more comfortable and be happy with that.
__________________
Results matter

Last edited by Carbonfiberboy; 05-12-22 at 12:28 PM.
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 05-12-22, 10:48 PM
  #113  
Banned.
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 17 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
This section of the thread is quite odd. One should have realized that the "burn" is caused by one's muscles consuming carbohydrates at an increased rate: the tech is here: https://fiercetraining.net/lactic-ac...-muscles-burn/

The whole point of training is to increase the rate at which carbs are burned, i.e. producing more power. If one doesn't have a power meter, leg sensations are a good guide. You want your legs to burn. That's the whole point of training: to get stronger and faster and be able to hold higher power for longer. That requires cellular level adaptations, and we only adapt under stress. I.e. more stress is good, sought after in fact. I tell beginning riders that cycling is actually all about climbing hills, because that's where it's easy to generate more power and thus cause more muscle damage - the whole point.

So if your legs don't hurt with the 150s but do with the 170s, it's simple: you're putting out less power, not more. If you're riding along on the flat and other riders are passing you, that means you're not even going fast enough to get on their draft. If you're doing 28, you're passing everyone who's not a pro. Time to get some instrumentation. More information is better. A simple start is a Garmin and a heart rate monitor strap. You can upload the Garmin to one of several websites which save and analyze your information.

OTOH, if you are more comfortable riding shorter cranks at lower speeds and you obviously like that, continue as you are. Just try to be more aware of why you are more comfortable and be happy with that.
I actually keep just before I get soreness. Lactic threshold, is it? I throw in short intervals where my legs feel the burn and then back off a little bit to recover but keeping above z3 effort.

It does have something to do with fit. If I lower my seat (too low setting), I feel the burn sooner even at lower cadence. I doubt I'm making more power because the seat is set too low.

At the correct seat height, my legs is bent significantly more at the top of the stroke with 170 mm. There's a difference of 40mm the top pedal distance between 170 and 150mm cranks.

The feel is almost similar to setting your seat too low if using 170mm at the correct seat height compared to 150mm.
couldwheels is offline  
Old 05-13-22, 11:28 AM
  #114  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,600

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3917 Post(s)
Liked 1,973 Times in 1,408 Posts
Originally Posted by couldwheels
I actually keep just before I get soreness. Lactic threshold, is it? I throw in short intervals where my legs feel the burn and then back off a little bit to recover but keeping above z3 effort.

It does have something to do with fit. If I lower my seat (too low setting), I feel the burn sooner even at lower cadence. I doubt I'm making more power because the seat is set too low.

At the correct seat height, my legs is bent significantly more at the top of the stroke with 170 mm. There's a difference of 40mm the top pedal distance between 170 and 150mm cranks.

The feel is almost similar to setting your seat too low if using 170mm at the correct seat height compared to 150mm.
Most of that is just training effect. You get better at what you do. It's hard to tell what's going on when one switches back and forth. The best is simply to get one's numbers, i.e. crank/leg proportions, knee angle at top and bottom, and hip angle at the top, hands on hoods. Any bike fitter can help you get those angles in line with what works best. Then you train using that fit. There are bike fit contraptions used by a few fitters where the fitter can change all the elements of a fit and see with which fit a rider can produce the most power at some single heart rate. However that doesn't really work because it doesn't take efficiency into account, i.e. will that fit still be faster after 3 hours of steady hard riding? It's complicated.

I took a look at ebay and see that one can buy a Garmin 800 for about $50. I'm still using one I bought in '12. You'd also need the companion speed and cadence sensor and a Garmin heart rate strap and transmitter. It's way, way worth the money to have real time numbers in front of you which tell you what you're doing. When I ride by heart rate, I watch my heart rate and cadence, nothing else really. I might glance at time, distance, speed, or gradient, but just a glance. I ride by HR and cadence and try not to notice speed, because it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter how fast you are, it only matters if you're working at the effort you want to be at for best results.

But moving on to your concerns. Yes, "the burn" is commonly said to be due to lactate build-up in the muscles, though lactate has actually nothing to do with it. It's a limiter for effort, whatever it is (it's actually hydrogen ions), because your muscles eventually choke on the lowered pH: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30382520/

To address this issue, the most favored method is to do over-under intervals. You make them burn, then back off until they don't, bring the effort back up again, etc.
https://www.trainerroad.com/blog/ove...s-for-success/
https://www.strava.com/training-plan...ining-glossary

Leg hurt more with 170mm? Probably an issue with stretching and being undertrained. Stretch every morning, these stretches:
IT Band pain (during ride)
To train the legs up a bit, the best thing I've found is full depth (ass to grass) barbell squats, 3 sets of 12, enough weight on the last set that you can't do 12. Fix you right up - well, make you really sore until you get used to it. Twice a week. Start off with no weight at all. See youtube. I did my sets yesterday.

In any case, accurate instruments will have you sorting it all out in no time. For cadence, get used to doing 90 on the flat and 80 climbing.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Likes For Carbonfiberboy:
Old 05-13-22, 05:41 PM
  #115  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 454 Post(s)
Liked 1,080 Times in 455 Posts
I posted on this thread awhile back. I run 165mm cranks on my gravel bike and 175mm crank arms on my road bike. I'm 5'7" and regularly do heavy barbell squats, deadlifts and daily stretching. I mainly hill climb on both bikes, but ride differently on each bike. My gravel bike does seated trail climbs at low gear. With the shorter cranks it's nice just to control speed with high/low cadence. With my road bike which I use for paved road hill climbing, I stay in the big chainring and ride out of saddle, where the longer crank arms help with the extra torque. In this case I monitor my heart rate and know when I'm hitting my limit.

Honestly I think crank arms are more dependent on your ride style and the conditions you ride in. The body can adapt with proper training and conditioning.
jonathanf2 is offline  
Likes For jonathanf2:
Old 05-13-22, 07:40 PM
  #116  
Banned.
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 17 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
Most of that is just training effect. You get better at what you do. It's hard to tell what's going on when one switches back and forth. The best is simply to get one's numbers, i.e. crank/leg proportions, knee angle at top and bottom, and hip angle at the top, hands on hoods. Any bike fitter can help you get those angles in line with what works best. Then you train using that fit. There are bike fit contraptions used by a few fitters where the fitter can change all the elements of a fit and see with which fit a rider can produce the most power at some single heart rate. However that doesn't really work because it doesn't take efficiency into account, i.e. will that fit still be faster after 3 hours of steady hard riding? It's complicated.

I took a look at ebay and see that one can buy a Garmin 800 for about $50. I'm still using one I bought in '12. You'd also need the companion speed and cadence sensor and a Garmin heart rate strap and transmitter. It's way, way worth the money to have real time numbers in front of you which tell you what you're doing. When I ride by heart rate, I watch my heart rate and cadence, nothing else really. I might glance at time, distance, speed, or gradient, but just a glance. I ride by HR and cadence and try not to notice speed, because it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter how fast you are, it only matters if you're working at the effort you want to be at for best results.

But moving on to your concerns. Yes, "the burn" is commonly said to be due to lactate build-up in the muscles, though lactate has actually nothing to do with it. It's a limiter for effort, whatever it is (it's actually hydrogen ions), because your muscles eventually choke on the lowered pH: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30382520/

To address this issue, the most favored method is to do over-under intervals. You make them burn, then back off until they don't, bring the effort back up again, etc.
https://www.trainerroad.com/blog/ove...s-for-success/
https://www.strava.com/training-plan...ining-glossary

Leg hurt more with 170mm? Probably an issue with stretching and being undertrained. Stretch every morning, these stretches:
IT Band pain (during ride)
To train the legs up a bit, the best thing I've found is full depth (ass to grass) barbell squats, 3 sets of 12, enough weight on the last set that you can't do 12. Fix you right up - well, make you really sore until you get used to it. Twice a week. Start off with no weight at all. See youtube. I did my sets yesterday.

In any case, accurate instruments will have you sorting it all out in no time. For cadence, get used to doing 90 on the flat and 80 climbing.
I have actually become a lot better indoor training with too low saddle. You're right about the "training effect". I won't recommend this training style ofc. I only did it because the crank on the trainer is quite short compared to my outdoor bike - have to make the top pedal position the same between the short crank trainer and my outdoor bike by lowering the saddle on the short crank trainer.

It did result to big improvement on the outdoor bike. I went faster by more than 10% on climbs without burning my legs.

I'll keep a lookout for the Garmin 800, sounds cheap enough thanks! Won't be soon as big maintenance spending is coming up on tires, brake pads, chain, disc rotors, etc.

I spend 5 minutes on stretching, 10 minutes warmup. No more weighed strength training for me at least for this year. I have hurt my core muscles a few times and set me back a week each time! Weighed training was terrific if I didn't hurt my back! I think my back muscles have atrophied a bit for being a couch potato most of my life before I took cycling. I'm trying to build core muscle strength slowly with body-weight core exercises and ofc, low cadence, high resistance drills on the trainer.
couldwheels is offline  
Old 05-13-22, 10:13 PM
  #117  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,600

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3917 Post(s)
Liked 1,973 Times in 1,408 Posts
Originally Posted by couldwheels
I have actually become a lot better indoor training with too low saddle. You're right about the "training effect". I won't recommend this training style ofc. I only did it because the crank on the trainer is quite short compared to my outdoor bike - have to make the top pedal position the same between the short crank trainer and my outdoor bike by lowering the saddle on the short crank trainer.

It did result to big improvement on the outdoor bike. I went faster by more than 10% on climbs without burning my legs.

I'll keep a lookout for the Garmin 800, sounds cheap enough thanks! Won't be soon as big maintenance spending is coming up on tires, brake pads, chain, disc rotors, etc.

I spend 5 minutes on stretching, 10 minutes warmup. No more weighed strength training for me at least for this year. I have hurt my core muscles a few times and set me back a week each time! Weighed training was terrific if I didn't hurt my back! I think my back muscles have atrophied a bit for being a couch potato most of my life before I took cycling. I'm trying to build core muscle strength slowly with body-weight core exercises and ofc, low cadence, high resistance drills on the trainer.
I agree with jonathanf2 up there. My wife has 151mm cranks on our tandem and 165mm on her trainer bike. She doesn't really notice the difference and she's 73. My proper size cranks would be 165, but all my singles have 170s and the tandem 175s. It's all fine. You're right about the high effort low cadence work. It helps a lot. IMO a good bit of training time can be usefully spent riding outside the envelope. So another very useful thing you can do is very high cadence work, like 115-120 rpm, or however fast you can pedal without bouncing, in a very low gear so you don't get your HR too high and just pedal like crazy for as long as your legs can take it, like up to 40'. I do that once a week starting in the fall and until February. But any time is good.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Likes For Carbonfiberboy:
Old 05-13-22, 11:01 PM
  #118  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2022
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 13

Bikes: 2004 Iron Horse Warrior Special Edition , 90s Jamis Aurora , 1990 Shogun Metro AT

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 7 Times in 5 Posts
IMHO an oval chainring that maximizes your power is probably the best power gain in the grand scheme of things.
GarageAlwaysFul is offline  
Likes For GarageAlwaysFul:
Old 05-14-22, 09:34 AM
  #119  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 454 Post(s)
Liked 1,080 Times in 455 Posts
Originally Posted by GarageAlwaysFul
IMHO an oval chainring that maximizes your power is probably the best power gain in the grand scheme of things.
I'm curious about this. Since I do almost all climbing, I've read about the possible gains with oval chainrings. I'd most likely want to try it out replacing my small chainring on my gravel bike first. Though I notice Absolute Black makes oval big chainrings as well. Paired with my longer crank arms, would there be advantages when out of saddle climbing? Also how would my flat riding be affected?
jonathanf2 is offline  
Old 05-15-22, 11:28 AM
  #120  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,600

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3917 Post(s)
Liked 1,973 Times in 1,408 Posts
Originally Posted by GarageAlwaysFul
IMHO an oval chainring that maximizes your power is probably the best power gain in the grand scheme of things.
Or maybe not: https://www.bikefitadviser.com/blog/oval-chainrings
Also:
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 05-15-22, 11:02 PM
  #121  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2022
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 13

Bikes: 2004 Iron Horse Warrior Special Edition , 90s Jamis Aurora , 1990 Shogun Metro AT

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 7 Times in 5 Posts
oh snap OR NOT. Could definitely see it as a placebo, when I had mine it was on a Specialized Sirrus that my buddy has now but that was my first ever 700c. I come from the land of dirt, and I had never felt such efficiency before, especially since my dual suspension is like 33+ pounds. I like to think my mid 2000s Iron Horse is just conditioning me for my lighter bikes, but anyways, I thought I could fly on that thing mainly because of the oval chainring. Now that I know that steel is real, I might say a well made 700c steel bike is likely more compelling that a slightly differently shaped chainring.

But then again....
GarageAlwaysFul is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.