Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

700 v. 650 (v. 24" !?)... this is interesting!
Quote | Reply
Well... to add to the 700 versus 650 debate, I thought I'd throw this one in: Paula Newby Fraser just won the Keauhou Kona Triathlon Half-Ironman on a bike with 24" wheels! (http://www.pchsports.com/news.htm - scroll down).

And no fancy Conti Competitions or Tufo Lites... relatively heavy Gommitalia Frescias on almost 10-year-old wheels!

I'm hearing the mumblings about the "motor" and "not the wheels" again...

___________________________________



http://irondad06.blogspot.com/

http://irondad.blogspot.com/




Quote Reply
Re: 700 v. 650 (v. 24" !?)... this is interesting! [IronDad] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
By what it says on the site it looks like a clever way to find/promote a bike sponsor. ..

I remember her racing in Zofingen with that setup, 1993? :-)



Paulo

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com
Quote Reply
Re: 700 v. 650 (v. 24" !?)... this is interesting! [smartasscoach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"By what it says on the site it looks like a clever way to find/promote a bike sponsor."

i wouldn't jump to that conclusion. paula has ALWAYS been less likely than other pros to accept sponsorships from companies that make technical products. she's usually been without bike, wheel or wetsuit sponsors, namely for any product in which she might want to make a change. that's been the case for most of her career.

she was up here, along with donna phelan, riding with us for just short of a week. she is trying ALL of her former bikes, 700c, dual 26", and dual 24", to see what she thinks is best for her. she brought up the hamilton (dual 24"). she rides if very well. but i think she'd be just as good on the dual 26". there is one interesting thing about that dual 24". with the drop-center cranks her Q-factor is huge. very wide. i wonder whether it's not a power transfer issue, something i think she's probably not thought about.

but i think she might get the same sort of benefit by canting her shoes. i haven't broached that subject with her yet.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: 700 v. 650 (v. 24" !?)... this is interesting! [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"with the drop-center cranks her Q-factor is huge. very wide"

Dan... pardon my ignorance, but what does that mean?

I understand Q-factor is how wide apart your feet are (or how far from center or the bottom bracket each foot is), but not sure what "drop-center cranks" are, or how it relates to Q-factor.

___________________________________



http://irondad06.blogspot.com/

http://irondad.blogspot.com/




Quote Reply
Re: 700 v. 650 (v. 24" !?)... this is interesting! [IronDad] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
imagine that each crank arm has a second, smaller arm bolted into the pedal eye. that second lever (only about half as long as the crank arm) spins around the pedal eye 360 degrees, and the pedal is affixed to the other end of this second mini crank arm.

this means that the crank is about 50% longer at the bottom of the pedal stroke, but only half as long at the top. at 3 o'clock and again at 9 o'clock the crankarms are parallel to the ground, of course, but these little mini extensions are perpendicular to the ground. they're ALWAYS vertical, regardless of where they are during the pedal stroke.

to allow for this, the bike is made with the bottom bracket higher, the amount higher equal to the length of the mini crank arm extensions.

some people think these sorts of cranks don't really do anything, because they simply serve to lower the pedal circle closer to the ground relative to the bottom bracket -- but the pedaling circle is still the same circle. others think there is an advantage, i suppose by allowing the rider to gain a mechanical advantage over the crank by engaging the major muscles earlier as you're coming over the top.

either way, this second crankarm has to fit somewhere. it is the same width as the main crankarm, and goes inbetween the crank and the pedal. this forces the rider's Q to be more than 2cm wider than it otherwise would be.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: 700 v. 650 (v. 24" !?)... this is interesting! [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I was looking at the pictures from the race (http://www.photoaccess.com/...;Gallery=ACE4172679D ) and I was wondering why her pedal spindle looked so long and bottom bracket looked high. That would explain it, then.

Looking at the pictures I also noticed unusual looking aerobars. What were they?

___________________________________



http://irondad06.blogspot.com/

http://irondad.blogspot.com/




Quote Reply
Re: 700 v. 650 (v. 24" !?)... this is interesting! [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is she still riding Lubanski's pedals?

Dre'
Quote Reply
Re: 700 v. 650 (v. 24" !?)... this is interesting! [Dr. Dre'] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
pedals. don't know. handlebars. they were one piece as i remember, with a flat, aero shaped base bar. i seem to remember that the XLab was very similar to a profile bar at the time. but i don't remember at the moment. i think it was one of those old profile 1pc bars. i didn't ask, and didn't look closely.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply