Following Up

Image courtesy of BMC Bikes

Last week a couple of posts drew a lot of attention, commentary, and thought-provoking statements. I thought it would be good to follow up on a few things I noted in the comments and maybe put a bow on those two posts for the time being.

First, the posts. The first one I'll link to was the "Current Carbon Gravel Bike Design - What I Would Change" post. The second was the "Road Bike Trends Toward "All-Road" Territory".

Second - You folks who commented. You do know this is on the internet, right? I mean, polite, thoughtful discussions just do not happen on the internet, or so we are led to believe. Ha! So, thank you for being the good people you are. I truly appreciate the decorum and great discussion your comments brought to the posts linked here. 

Okay, so with this said, I wanted to react to a few points made in the comments which I may delve into further in a subsequent post. The first being crank length. I found it interesting that a few of you touched on the aerodynamic aspects of shorter vs longer cranks. This is something which doesn't get spoken about enough. Position on the bike being tangentially important here as well. I say this because longer cranks were used in the past with time trial bikes, so I think crank length is less important to body position on the bike for the finely tuned athlete. 

Image courtesy of SRAM

Obviously there is a dissenting opinion regarding shorter crank arms for riders which was brought up as well. Leonard Zinn, who has done a lot of research into crank length and bicycle riders has a formula which might point to longer crank arms as being bio-mechanically better for you. 

According to Zinn's formula I should be riding 181mm cranks. Ironically I have used 180mm cranks off and on for many years. Most recently on my "Ride For Jacob" last Summer. (Link to my gear review where I discuss what I thought about 180mm cranks)

Another interesting side-point was made in the road bikes becoming gravel bikes post. It had to do with perspectives of riders being different based upon their primary riding style and bike choice before transitioning over to gravel bikes. 

I find this is a valid way to think about gravel riders currently. However; this won't be so easily delineated when riders start on gravel bikes and go into adulthood/age with gravel bikes. I think this is starting now, to be honest. 

At some point, a drop bar bicycle with fatter tires won't be "gravel" or "road", it will just be an all-around bike with drop bars. This has already happened with 29"ers. Back 20 years ago you were riding a 29"er MTB or a "mountain bike" which was understood to be a 26"er, but no one said "twenty-sixer" then. Eventually 29"ers became "mountain bikes". Almost no one calls these bikes 29"ers anymore if they are under 30 years old. 

Once "gravel bikes" become just another bicycle, I think those who grew up on them will not perceive gravel bicycles as having to be "more road" or "more MTB" anymore. 

Okay, those are some initial thoughts I had after the comments on those two posts. Let me know iof you have any further thoughts as well.