Compact Crank vs Semi-Compact
Comments
-
MikeBrew wrote:I binned a gem of a pun involving the Flying Gurnard, for fear it might go over peoples heads.... :arrow:
(More altitude gain than a ride along the south coast......)
Best pun of the thread so far.
4.5 stars. Would read again.0 -
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The FrogmouthCatfish is feline rather tetchy about it's name, so please don't rib it....0
-
you losers0
-
the playing mantis wrote:you losers
Don't you come in here stirring the chum.
Chainsets...........>............fish. How did that happen? I blame that Trumpetfish Brian.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Pinno wrote:the playing mantis wrote:you losers
Don't you come in here stirring the chum.
Chainsets...........>............fish. How did that happen? I blame that Trumpetfish Brian.
you lot love carping on about small fry, the debate is a load of codswallop. as for seemingly posting on this plaice in this thread in the wee small hours of the weekend smelt a bit fishy0 -
Not bad, Cod do Batter, if those have been done before forgive as i cane be RS'd trawling through that lot againthe playing mantis wrote:Pinno wrote:the playing mantis wrote:you losers
Don't you come in here stirring the chum.
Chainsets...........>............fish. How did that happen? I blame that Trumpetfish Brian.
you lot love carping on about small fry, the debate is a load of codswallop. as for seemingly posting on this plaice in this thread in the wee small hours of the weekend smelt a bit fishyAll lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
the playing mantis wrote:you losers
Bit belligerent ..Who do you think you are anyway , Marlin Hagler ?...0 -
Hark at you perched up there carping on“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
I see that the smell in here is luring the dog fish...seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
-
Ah.... The Gibberfish* talkers eh ?
*it's on the list !0 -
marcusjb wrote:bompington wrote:
52/42 X 12-21. It's the only way, unless you want to pedal everywhere at 6mph on a 62X9 single speed, at a cadence of 11½.Webboo wrote:Despite reading all 13 pages and joining in. I'm still not clear which has more street cred 52 X 36 and a 11 to 28 or 50 X 34 and a 11 to 25. I want my bike to look right even if I don't.
52/42 is fine for less-able riders for sure.
Real men ride a setup like this - I know triples are not ever so cool, but an 80/73/53 one is pretty unique:
Miles (his real name) is a proponent of ultra low cadence for distance much like milemuncher. Whatevs. I rode a 1200km event on 71" fixed last year and had a hoot as I flapped my legs around.
I'm betting this Miles guy is trying to sell this kind of stuff and promote his low cadence training routines. Which of course he will sell to you. And he most likely has all kinds of scientific proof to back it all up. Just a guess on my part.0 -
marcusjb wrote:bompington wrote:
52/42 X 12-21. It's the only way, unless you want to pedal everywhere at 6mph on a 62X9 single speed, at a cadence of 11½.Webboo wrote:Despite reading all 13 pages and joining in. I'm still not clear which has more street cred 52 X 36 and a 11 to 28 or 50 X 34 and a 11 to 25. I want my bike to look right even if I don't.
52/42 is fine for less-able riders for sure.
Real men ride a setup like this - I know triples are not ever so cool, but an 80/73/53 one is pretty unique:
Miles (his real name) is a proponent of ultra low cadence for distance much like milemuncher. Whatevs. I rode a 1200km event on 71" fixed last year and had a hoot as I flapped my legs around.
Now that is what I call serious gear inches. How many links are in that chain?0 -
I think I'd be more curious about how much knee cartilage he'd needlessly destroyed...0
-
MikeBrew wrote:I think I'd be more curious about how much knee cartilage he'd needlessly destroyed...
Yes, I did think that the whole benefit of cycling as opposed to an impact sport like running was because it is a fluid motion which for example encourages the bodies production of cortisone and exercises the CV system in a way that other sports don't.
I coach Table Tennis. Half of the patrons are runners. I think some of them thought they would have the fitness and speed edge when they 'signed' up. However, during the warm up and stretching sessions, the are as stiff as ironing boards and more often than not, they have a joint (or two) strapped up. Quick they are not.
I doubt any of them will be running beyond their mid fifties. Cyclists however... well, some of them...
The example above is the exception, not the rule.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
MikeBrew wrote:I think I'd be more curious about how much knee cartilage he'd needlessly destroyed...
None, would be my guess. The pedalling technique of a high gear / low cadence rider is very different to that of a leg flapper. Personally speaking, I have the longest cranks I can find, and I'm fitted to the bike, to allow me to use the whole of my leg, with the load being applied equally by hip, knee, and ankle. It does look odd, to those who are unaccustomed to it, but if you get it right, it's a bit like a fighter, who trains to use his whole body, behind a punch, rather than just poking his arm out, or the difference in a heel striker, rather than a ball of foot striker, in running. There aren't many heel striking 100 m sprinters, there aren't many ball of foot striking Marathon runners.0 -
Well rather than guessing at all, why don't you do some intelligent research around the subject. If you do that and still choose to furbar your own joints, that's your business. However, it's extremely dogmatic, irresponsible and (sorry to have to say it but..) downright stupid of you to attempt to propagate such absolute twaddle on a beginners forum where it could harm others, were they dafty enough to take such ill conceived ideas seriously.
Also in reply to your derisive made up term "leg flappers", a term no doubt born out of frustration that your own neurology and physiology aren't adaptive to a high cadence technique, I have a term for you with a bit more tenure in the real world. "Gum Flappers" : people who talk a lot without first engaging their brains,....0 -
At the risk of doing a maccavity, here's the first link I came up with... from someone who seems to know a bit about knees...
http://www.kneeclinic.info/knee_sports_ ... ycling.php
"Generally using shorter cranks keeps pedal speed up and knee stress down. Too long crank arms increase forces on the entire knee, but patellar and quadriceps tendons are most affected."0 -
If you are positioned / fitted badly.briantrumpet wrote:At the risk of doing a maccavity, here's the first link I came up with... from someone who seems to know a bit about knees...
http://www.kneeclinic.info/knee_sports_ ... ycling.php
"Generally using shorter cranks keeps pedal speed up and knee stress down. Too long crank arms increase forces on the entire knee, but patellar and quadriceps tendons are most affected."0 -
MikeBrew wrote:Well rather than guessing at all, why don't you do some intelligent research around the subject. If you do that and still choose to furbar your own joints, that's your business. However, it's extremely dogmatic, irresponsible and (sorry to have to say it but..) downright stupid of you to attempt to propagate such absolute twaddle on a beginners forum where it could harm others, were they dafty enough to take such ill conceived ideas seriously.
Also in reply to your derisive made up term "leg flappers", a term no doubt born out of frustration that your own neurology and physiology aren't adaptive to a high cadence technique, I have a term for you with a bit more tenure in the real world. "Gum Flappers" : people who talk a lot without first engaging their brains,....
I'm speaking from a little thing called 'experience' no guess work involved. Years and years of 'experience'.
Your post is making you appear as a very insecure little person indeed. I'm sure you're not, it's just the impression I get from the pathetic attempted insulting nature of the sad sounding little posts you seem to insist on making.0 -
At last 20 pages, will it take 30 to get the answer. I hope so.
0 -
Ah, so personal anecdote trumps science. Fine. That rules out any rational debate. At least we know.Milemuncher1 wrote:I'm speaking from a little thing called 'experience' no guess work involved. Years and years of 'experience'.0 -
There is a guy in my old cycling club who was renowned for using big gears, insisted that I needed a twelve sprocket when I rode my first time trial a three up with him. Didn't need it as the other guy kept getting dropped.Milemuncher1 wrote:MikeBrew wrote:Well rather than guessing at all, why don't you do some intelligent research around the subject. If you do that and still choose to furbar your own joints, that's your business. However, it's extremely dogmatic, irresponsible and (sorry to have to say it but..) downright stupid of you to attempt to propagate such absolute twaddle on a beginners forum where it could harm others, were they dafty enough to take such ill conceived ideas seriously.
Also in reply to your derisive made up term "leg flappers", a term no doubt born out of frustration that your own neurology and physiology aren't adaptive to a high cadence technique, I have a term for you with a bit more tenure in the real world. "Gum Flappers" : people who talk a lot without first engaging their brains,....
I'm speaking from a little thing called 'experience' no guess work involved. Years and years of 'experience'.
Your post is making you appear as a very insecure little person indeed. I'm sure you're not, it's just the impression I get from the pathetic attempted insulting nature of the sad sounding little posts you seem to insist on making.
Anyhow my point is he's had to have his leg amputated.
Nothing to do with big gears mind, his leg wouldn't heal after an accident.0 -
Can you just point out where it says that?Milemuncher1 wrote:
If you are positioned / fitted badly.briantrumpet wrote:At the risk of doing a maccavity, here's the first link I came up with... from someone who seems to know a bit about knees...
http://www.kneeclinic.info/knee_sports_ ... ycling.php
"Generally using shorter cranks keeps pedal speed up and knee stress down. Too long crank arms increase forces on the entire knee, but patellar and quadriceps tendons are most affected."0 -
Here's what FSA say:
"Longer cranks can make it harder to sprint, as it’s harder to maintain leverage for as much of each revolution as with shorter cranks. In other words, it’s harder to pedal smoothly. They also straighten your knee at the bottom of the stroke and force it into your chest at the top, which can lead to pain and injury in knees and hips. Your lower back may also suffer."
But, hey, what do they know? Obviously they have no experience of bikes or cyclists.0 -
Again, channeling the spirit of mmcavity:
http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/quest ... -road-bike
I've already scanned it for fish-based puns, and there aren't any...0 -
Milemuncher1 wrote:MikeBrew wrote:I think I'd be more curious about how much knee cartilage he'd needlessly destroyed...
None, would be my guess. The pedalling technique of a high gear / low cadence rider is very different to that of a leg flapper. Personally speaking, I have the longest cranks I can find, and I'm fitted to the bike, to allow me to use the whole of my leg, with the load being applied equally by hip, knee, and ankle. It does look odd, to those who are unaccustomed to it, but if you get it right, it's a bit like a fighter, who trains to use his whole body, behind a punch, rather than just poking his arm out, or the difference in a heel striker, rather than a ball of foot striker, in running. There aren't many heel striking 100 m sprinters, there aren't many ball of foot striking Marathon runners.
In the nicest possible way, this is absolute nonsense.0 -
This 'debate' is rather like the testimony of a lifelong heavy smoker who's lived to a ripe old age suggesting that it's the smoking that's made her healthy, just like the adverts said...
0
