After the testing I did with Frank Day on his icranks, seems I need to spend the time to find the best crank length fit for me.
Shorter the cranks, the more aero I should be able to get. But, concerned about all the big hills I race. So, really do not want to go to a triple. Has anyone used a 46/30 setup? I hear one can get 96mm spiders now which support 46/30 rings.
I love to try new stuff, especially when I know so many say some of this stuff I do makes it impossible for me to race well. :o)
I have a bike set up with triple 52/39/30 as well as a compact ring that I switch between 50,46,36 and 34. I see where on a very very short crank a 46/30 might work but I would still think you would spin out on down hill sections. I would think a better setup would be a more traditional 50/34 with a wide 11-28 or 11-32 11spd cassette or 11-28 10spd. You will get very little in the way of extra gearing using a 30 ring if you have the ability to go 34-32. The 50 should come in useful when faced with descents or tailwinds. I actually really like the triple because I live in an area prone to heavy winds and its nice to have both a tight gear spacing to adjust to slight changes in wind direction and a wide rang to deal with both head and tail winds. However for most people I would agree the triple doesn’t offer much of an advantage over a compact with a wide cassette.
I currently have a 50/34 11/32 setup. Works well in hills I do up to 16%.
When Frank Day did testing on my yesterday on the Velotron with his icranks, we changed the cranks from
200, to 175 to 145. Was amazing in the aero position the shorter the cranks, the easier the aero felt!!
I really could care less about spinning out on downhills. I have had plenty of coaches tell me after 30 mph, better to just
let the legs rest. Plus, much faster scares the hell out of me anyways.
Very seldom am I ever in the 50/11 for any length of time. I guess with a good tail wind, but I do not get that much.
I also think I am finding shorter cranks are helping my running, which some have suggested.
So just having fun trying to play with new ideas rather than just the same old same old. But if I go shorter, I just want to make sure I can get up hills like Donner and Tahoe staying seated. I can do this with my 200mm cranks and gearing. I will have to see on a 96mm spider, is a 46 the largest, and 30. Wonder is one can do a 48/32?
I am just wanting to stay away from a triple if I can. I also thought about the new 11 speed stuff, but then I have to change way too much stuff and cost more money that I want to do.
I see this all the time, but it still makes me chuckle. Drastic changes in equipment choice (in this case gearing and crank length) aren’t going to make any real difference (which is your weak link judging by your splits). You can’t compensate for a weak engine by changing a couple of fancy bits on the bike. The solution is to go out and ride your bike.
That said, there is a very small aero gain when going with a shorter crank. If I were you I’d simply go to a shorter crank and keep your current gearing (although it’s unnecessarily low for 99.9% of courses).
Does not make sense for me to train on 175 but race on 200’s. But, that is what I am doing now.
I have tried to improve the engine. I ride like 140 miles a week now, which for me is a lot.
I just love to ask the what if questions. At the end of the day, my genetics may not cut it for fast biking.
Guess I am lucky on my running.
Just trying to understand if technically, this could be done and if anyone has tried. On ST you always get the inputs
from folks who have never tried things which is why I love to hear from folks who have tried things, like this, and did
they stay with it? The negatives?
What fun would it be if there were not opportunities for trying new things. This has been the backbone of our sport, which is why I love it. Look what folks thought about aerobars when they first were used, or wetsuits.
There is no advantage to training and racing on different crank lengths. In fact, I’d go so far and say that it’s detrimental. When I do training blocks for big events (12hr and 24hr TTs), I always use the same setup as I would to race as it gets you in the habit of holding the position on the road (which can’t be replicated on a trainer) and it helps to iron out any kinks.
140 miles a week isn’t enough on the road, and means nothing on a trainer. You should really aim for 20 hours a week on the road. If you don’t have time then do proper trainer work including lots of 2x20, pyramid intervals, sprint intervals, etc. as just sitting and spinning doesn’t really achieve anything.
You’re tall and skinny, a TTers dream build. The only thing stopping you from a stonking bike split is that you’re concentrating on kit rather than hard graft.
I’m all for new innovations, but I’d rather concentrate on becoming the best cyclist I can by working hard rather than trying to eek out tiny gains a la Nik Bowdler.
I agree, I sure am not training and racing on 2 different setups other than I did not want to spend the money. I also wanted some data before I tried something other than 200’s on my race bike. So I agree with you.
I agree I do not have the mental focus at the moment for that kind of cyclying effort. Going to 25 hours a week for the IM was taking aware more from my family, and on the edge of getting hurt.
I keep saying I am going to train with roodies, but have yet to find the pull to get off my butt. I remember Steve Smith telling me the way to get faster on the bike it so ride with faster bikers. I agree, just have been lasy so far.
I am a techno nerd, so I love to tinker with the toys.
Even though my bike could be much better, it still is not that bad. Luckily my run at the moment makes up for my lack of cycling.
What I really am trying to do as a good engineer is just ask What if stuff. So if I do make changes, I have tried to think about pro and cons before I do something.
Thanks for the inputs. Wish I could find a way to get focused on the bike. Thanks
You’re tall and skinny, a TTers dream build. The only thing stopping you from a stonking bike split is that you’re concentrating on kit rather than hard graft.
I’m a noob…why is that?
(I’m 6’4", and when I’m done losing weight, I’m pretty slim, so I’m excited to hear that…)
My latest bike has an XTR 44-30 985 crank with an ultegra di2 front derailleur and a Medium cage di2 ultegra rear derailleur with a 11-32 cassette.Yes I am old (63) and heavy (195lb-6 feet)and this gearing works great for me .your top speed is limited to about 48 km but this is fast enough for me.A short crank results in Higher effective gearing (don’t ask me why),but short cranks will make hill climbing more difficult.Hope this is helpful-
.
This is why I want to play with the balance of aero vs what I like doing hills. Even though my 200’s seem nuts to most,
my results still are pretty good, for me.
But I would like to now try 175 with my 50/34 11/32 and see what happens. I really like the 200’s on the 15% hills but if I can help my run off the bike a little, I want to just see what happens.
But it might be worth even lower gearing to get more aero, but I need to take one small step at a time and see what happens.
So what is your crank length? You height? Wow, 44-30. Could you have done a 46-30? What size spider is this? 96mm?
Crank link is 175-44 is the biggest chain ring in the XTR narrow q factor crank.When using the DI2 road front derailleur shifting may not be great with more than a 4 tooth difference9no good with 44-28)
.
The correct way to choose gear ratios is the following: Determine optimal power for race (so you don’t blow up), measure weight of cyclist + bike, determine maximum grade you expect to race on, determine preferred cadence, and last, do physics. Crank length is only relevant in so much as it effects your preferred cadence. Given that you own multiple velotron trainers I’m sure you can handle all this.
If you’re just asking if it’s practical to install such a thing I have no comment.
Is it possible to use a longer cage derailleur (such as mountain bike RDs) so you can use 11-34 or 11-36? I vaguely remember a friend of mine buying a setup to do a long nasty climb that would give him less than a 1:1 ratio. I believe his easiest gear would have been 34/36.
The existing mountain bike derailleur I bought for my 11/32 to use at IMLT works for a 11-34 or 11-36. I know one person who did put on the 11-34. But you lose the 16 gear, and my bike
shop just did not feel good about that much chain slack or something.
This is why I am looking to modify the front which was already changed from a 53/39 to 50/34. Just did not know you could get a 33 110mm gear.
So yep, I would love the 34/36 but trying to see if I can get a 32/32 to work.
I basically do all my bike training on my trainer.
3 days a week, 1 hour spin L2.
3 to 4 days a week, the Martis/Brockway part of IMLT, 14.23 miles, up to 16-18% hill grade.
So zero intervals.
I used to try and do some 2/10/L4, but my right knee just will not let me hold it, so the IMLT course has been more mentally fun.
My first 2 bikes in races seemed strong for me. Sunday I race the same course I have done for years so assuming we do not
have killer head winds, will see how my time is.
Just like I cannot seem to swim hard on my own, I cannot seem to push hard at intervals on the trainer on my own. I am just
trying to get to the starting lines healthy and 95% trained.