Bike porn

but no mention of the tyre logo/vale misalignment faux pas! getting slack, guys.
(looks good, what are the wheels? sram s60s? needs white hoods imo)

On a bike that nice, we suddenly ignore such things.

Huge ratio?

Problem?

I still believe

This is one of the cases where your touching faith in mythology places you at no disadvantage to those who favour science.

While I agree with your statement that the rider will get used to whatever crank length they have and there is no mechanical efficiency as long as gain ratio is constant I still believe there would be an optimum length for the rider based on how their body has been formed (muscles, height, leg length etc,.) and the different RPMs involved. Even if that optimum is just for comfort.

Again, probably so little difference that it is not an optimum worth trying to achieve with so many others factors to worry about.

I'm with you on this. I run 165s on nearly everything, as I'm short. My SS MTB has 175s, which I love for the use. But I could'nt see myself being 100% comfortable with 175 on the road. I'm probably an extreme example though.

Nah, I use 167.5mm on my fixed and 175mm on my MTB too.
The 167.5mm are easier to spin with my dodgey knee (I can spin at a good speed without excessive movement) and the 175mm give me more leverage for sudden maneuvers at a lower cadence.
Although tbh I should probably be using 170mm on fixed.
And I'm 6'1"!

For a range of crank lengths far wider than the narrow 165-180 range usually offered/used, there is no significant difference in biomechanical efficiency if gain ratio is held constant. See here for the most recent mainstream discussion of the matter.

cheers i checked an explanation on sheldon but this is much clearer. saves me spending on a 175mm crank now

Possibly a repost but i believe leggings are still considered en vogue.

i raise you laser nipples

This is one of the cases where your touching faith in mythology places you at no disadvantage to those who favour science.

Thanks, I knew it would happen one day. I may start getting into religion next such is my disregard for all things scientific.

I'm with you on this. I run 165s on nearly everything, as I'm short. My SS MTB has 175s, which I love for the use. But I could'nt see myself being 100% comfortable with 175 on the road. I'm probably an extreme example though.

Doesn't it vary depending on the frame - bb height, geometry etc?

Doesn't it vary depending on the frame - bb height, geometry etc?

Considering the saddle to centre of bottom bracket height is the same, the only thing affecting the path your legs travel is crank length

Who coffee'd in your piss?

Just noticed that you nerged me for that. Wtf for?

Dick move

Considering the saddle to centre of bottom bracket height is the same, the only thing affecting the path your legs travel is crank length

Yes sorry - duh

You need to lower your saddle a touch with longer cranks. This in combination with your knees coming up higher, can be uncomfortable when leant forward*.

(*if you're a flexible midget like me)

Just noticed that you nerged me for that. Wtf for?

Dick move

Poor baby

crouching tiger

Amazing paintjob.

Bbb!

huh?

big beaut bikes:)

oh sorry, of course!

stem and bars