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. 
 

 

Is It Fixed?

New crank set: Will it "fix" the problems?

Last week I mentioned that I had finally diagnosed the issues with my Tamland Two. The crank set rings had been on the bike for a decade (!) and it was cheaper to buy a complete crank set rather than buy two chain rings. However; the narrative in the comments was all about crank length as I mentioned that I had ordered a 170mm length crank set. 

Well, the crank set came in and I decided that maybe I should try just the crank set first.The chain measured good yet and the cassette was put on at the same time as the chain. If the chain rings were the issue, the skipping of the chain over the teeth would most likely be eliminated with the new crank set. 

After installation a short neighborhood test ride revealed nothing but smooth going. So, a longer gravel ride was in store, and it happened on Saturday. 

The good news? I had no issues. Yet.... I'm not 100% convinced and more riding will be necessary before I am ready to say this is fixed. However; I will say this new crank shifts really good and smoothly. Just from that standpoint alone the change was worth it. 

Soooooo..... What about that crank length? You know, I'm not sure there is anything there. Not that there couldn't be, but again - I need to ride the bike more. All I can say now is the bike worked the way it was supposed to work.

I don't have power meters nor any technical equipment which would let me know if the shorter crank was better or worse. Maybe I had a good day Saturday and felt okay, or maybe it was something else. Actually, it was something else. It was the heat and wind! I don't know if you can really hang your hat on a crank length thing. Sure, bio-mechanically your knees may be happier, or maybe you adapted. Humans are good at adapting, by the way. Really good at it. 

Whatever. I'll keep riding these for a while and see. Meanwhile, I'm a lot more excited about how the bike is working as far as the drive train goes. No doubt, you readers are a lot more interested in crank length. Well, judging from the last post on this you all were seemingly all about that life. 

Stay tuned....

When It Gets Old

Shimano FC-RS510 crank (Image courtesy of the internet)

 I think some of you who are regular readers here might recall that I had been having troubles with a wheel set which I had been using on my Tamland Two gravel bike. It is a carbon Irwin Cycles wheel set and I was having, what I thought was, issues with the free hub. As it seems to be turning out now, that is not the case.

Apologies to Irwin Cycles.

You might also recall how I had recently installed a DT Swiss hubbed Roval carbon wheel set on the Tamland Two, thinking that I had eliminated the issue with the free hub on the Irwin wheels, which, as it seems to be now, was not what was going on. 

I had been toying with the idea of blowing apart that Irwin rear wheel, getting a new rear hub, and relacing the new hub to the old carbon hoop. However; every time I picked up that wheel and spun the free hub it felt perfect. I happen to have two other Irwin wheels with similar rear hubs with a LOT less miles on them and they felt exactly the same. I also did not see any evidence of wear or damage inside the hub I suspected of causing my issues. So, I was reticent to blow up the wheel if it was still in good operable condition. 

And now I am happy I did not blow that wheel apart. 

Late into last week's ride I started to get similar "skipping" issues, but as I was feeling before with the Irwin wheels, it was now getting worse. I immediately knew I misdiagnosed the issue and I knew what was going on. 

My drive train was shot.

Specifically the crank chain rings. I thought about this as I shifted to the big ring for the remainder of the ride, and remembered that these chain rings were installed in late 2014! 

Doh! No wonder that small chain ring was allowing the chain to jump teeth! So, a complete swap of chain rings, chain, and cassette (although the cassette isn't all that old, I probably should swap it out), is in order. Time to research!

I found many times when a customer at the bike shops I used to haunt as a mechanic would need chain rings it was actually cheaper  to buy a crank set than it was to buy separate chain rings. Crazy, but true, and in my case, that still is true. I was able to source my preference in gearing, which is 46T/36T in a Shimano FC-RS510 crank for under 100 bucks. Two chain rings in those sizes would cost well over 100 bucks! Especially the Shimano ones which I would necessarily have to buy to fit the original Ultegra crank set on the Tamland. 

I also opted to try an experiment. The new fad is to go shorter on cranks. Now, I do not have any extenuating circumstances that would point me to using shorter cranks. No knee pains, nothing like that. So, maybe this won't matter, but I ordered 170mm cranks to try them out. Some folks rave about the shorter cranks and they have gone waaaay shorter with 165's or less. I'm not into radical changes because my belief is that minor changes can make huge differences. Let's take a "baby step" and see.... 

The RS-510's are a heavy crank set, since they are not made in the HollowTech manner, but are hot-forged aluminum and solid in nature. If the shorter cranks are 'meh!' or if I see no reasons to keep them on the bike, I will swap the chain rings to the older Ultegra crank set and donate the RS-510's to the Collective. I figure I am getting the arms for free anyway. 

So, are you a 'short crank' devotee?  N.Y. Roll already is singing the praises of shorter cranks, so I've heard a bit of The Hype. Let me know in the comments.

Crank-Crankity-Crank-Crank: Revisted

I'd run this crank on my Gen I Fargo for what? A decade?

 Last year one of my most read posts was one I did in January titled "Crank-Crankity-Crank-Crank". In my review of the most popular posts for 2021, it ranked #7. I said about it at the time: "This is a paean to the triple crank, on one hand, and a severe criticism of 1X drive trains on the other, all tied up at the end with a whimsical prediction for the future".

 Well, being a strong believer in triple crank sets, I am always on the lookout for them. We had a road bike, mind you, come in with a total mish-mash of parts on it down at the Collective. It was obvious that it was going to have to undergo a complete transformation, because, amongst other things, you simply do not put a MTB triple crankset on a road bike. 

Whilst tearing the bike down, I noted that the crankset was an XT from around the late 90's, maybe. 110 BCD, 5 bolt, square taper kind of gives it away as something not from this century. Anyway... As I took it off I noted that it was in great shape for such an old crank set. Maybe some marring due to bouncing around in various bins over the years, but no heel marks or snubbed crank ends like you'd expect to find on a well-loved MTB crankset that is around 25 years old. 

Huh! I'd forgotten that my old crankset was a 170mm!

Then I flipped it around looking it over. "Hmm....I wonder what the length is.....HOLD ON! 180mm?!!"

Yes, a super-rare 180mm triple crank from the halcyon days of 26"er MTB. How these escaped being converted into a single speed crankset, I will never know, but I am betting these were bought on close-out and then never put to use. Well, until they ended up on this 80's era Vitus! Ha ha! What a deal!

So, I purchased them from the Collective and brought the set home. At first I did not have a plan for them, but since they were square taper compatible, that led me in a certain direction.

I knew that my Gen I Fargo was overdue for a drive train maintenance. Everything was pretty old on it. The 9 speed chain was tired, the cassette, an old one from the late 00's, needed swapping. That old chain set I was using, a rare Deore cassette style with a square taper interface, (most of this series of Shimano crank sets were Octalink), had been in service for at least a decade. This better condition, XT 180mm armed crank set was a shoe-in to replace that old Deore one. Plus, the XT has the far more commonplace 110/74BCD pattern chainrings.

The XT crank is appealing for its more common chain ring sizes.

While that XT crank very well could be an 8 speed model, a 9 speed chain will work on it just fine. Well....for me it will. Your mileage may vary. I seem to get away with mismatched stuff far better than most. That's not a brag, it's a warning. I don't want anyone coming back here and blaming me for their mismatched components failure. So, don't do this...

Anyway, the main point here is that I had 170mm cranks and now I will have 180mm cranks. Many, many theories exist concerning crank length. I'm not doing this for anyone else's benefit, but I am sharing my experiences as I go along.  Once all the parts are replaced in my drive train, I'll let you all know how it goes. If you find crank length discussions interesting, well this could be for you.

The proof.

Another interesting nugget here is that the ring sizes are 48T/36T/26T. This replaces my 42T/36T/28T set up. I checked the chain length and while it goes into "big-big", it should really have one more link than the current, worn out chain has. Making a note here....

So, I'm going to end up with a wider range than I had before, and a longer crank by 10mm, which an old school touring jockey would tell you affects the gearing range too. Yeah..... That's over my head. If I had to guess I'd say longer = more gear inches/higher speed and shorter would = lower geared/slower speed. 

All I can say now is that a longer crank set articulates my legs more, makes for a slower cadence, and a more relaxed heart rate. That's just me maybe. I just notice this with my 180mm crank set single speed bikes, which I have three of, at least, maybe four. I also have one single speed set up with 170mm cranks and I can spin faster than all get-out on that bike. (Just rode that one two days ago)

As installed on the Gen I Fargo.

So, I have to source a good 9 speed cassette and a chain, then I'll be good to go. I'm excited to give a geared set up a whirl with 180mm cranks again. I had a similar set up on a 26"er back in the 1990's when I used to race MTB. I loved that set up and I am hoping it works out on the Fargo. 

I'm even more excited that my Fargo will be good to go in terms of drive train stuff for quite a while again. I probably should redo the brakes and get new pads installed, but that can wait as the brakes are okay right now. 

Interestingly, the stock gearing on the Fargo was similar to this old XT set up. That too was an XT crank, but a HollowTech one with a 104BCD four bolt set up. I still have that crankset, by the way. 

If you are thinking I have a 180mm triple crank in silver from earlier, you would be correct. That is the one that Steve Fuller gifted me this past Spring, so that one is destined for the upcoming Gryphon build, which probably won't happen now until next year. The Gryphon frames and forks have been pushed back to December now.  

Yes, I like my 180mm crank sets, but I use all lengths. Most of my gravel bikes stuff is 172.5, I have some 175mm arm stuff, and then the 170mm and 180mm stuff. Got any questions? let me know, otherwise, stay tuned....

Crank-Crankity-Crank-Crank: Revisted

I'd run this crank on my Gen I Fargo for what? A decade?

 Last year one of my most read posts was one I did in January titled "Crank-Crankity-Crank-Crank". In my review of the most popular posts for 2021, it ranked #7. I said about it at the time: "This is a paean to the triple crank, on one hand, and a severe criticism of 1X drive trains on the other, all tied up at the end with a whimsical prediction for the future".

 Well, being a strong believer in triple crank sets, I am always on the lookout for them. We had a road bike, mind you, come in with a total mish-mash of parts on it down at the Collective. It was obvious that it was going to have to undergo a complete transformation, because, amongst other things, you simply do not put a MTB triple crankset on a road bike. 

Whilst tearing the bike down, I noted that the crankset was an XT from around the late 90's, maybe. 110 BCD, 5 bolt, square taper kind of gives it away as something not from this century. Anyway... As I took it off I noted that it was in great shape for such an old crank set. Maybe some marring due to bouncing around in various bins over the years, but no heel marks or snubbed crank ends like you'd expect to find on a well-loved MTB crankset that is around 25 years old. 

Huh! I'd forgotten that my old crankset was a 170mm!

Then I flipped it around looking it over. "Hmm....I wonder what the length is.....HOLD ON! 180mm?!!"

Yes, a super-rare 180mm triple crank from the halcyon days of 26"er MTB. How these escaped being converted into a single speed crankset, I will never know, but I am betting these were bought on close-out and then never put to use. Well, until they ended up on this 80's era Vitus! Ha ha! What a deal!

So, I purchased them from the Collective and brought the set home. At first I did not have a plan for them, but since they were square taper compatible, that led me in a certain direction.

I knew that my Gen I Fargo was overdue for a drive train maintenance. Everything was pretty old on it. The 9 speed chain was tired, the cassette, an old one from the late 00's, needed swapping. That old chain set I was using, a rare Deore cassette style with a square taper interface, (most of this series of Shimano crank sets were Octalink), had been in service for at least a decade. This better condition, XT 180mm armed crank set was a shoe-in to replace that old Deore one. Plus, the XT has the far more commonplace 110/74BCD pattern chainrings.

The XT crank is appealing for its more common chain ring sizes.

While that XT crank very well could be an 8 speed model, a 9 speed chain will work on it just fine. Well....for me it will. Your mileage may vary. I seem to get away with mismatched stuff far better than most. That's not a brag, it's a warning. I don't want anyone coming back here and blaming me for their mismatched components failure. So, don't do this...

Anyway, the main point here is that I had 170mm cranks and now I will have 180mm cranks. Many, many theories exist concerning crank length. I'm not doing this for anyone else's benefit, but I am sharing my experiences as I go along.  Once all the parts are replaced in my drive train, I'll let you all know how it goes. If you find crank length discussions interesting, well this could be for you.

The proof.

Another interesting nugget here is that the ring sizes are 48T/36T/26T. This replaces my 42T/36T/28T set up. I checked the chain length and while it goes into "big-big", it should really have one more link than the current, worn out chain has. Making a note here....

So, I'm going to end up with a wider range than I had before, and a longer crank by 10mm, which an old school touring jockey would tell you affects the gearing range too. Yeah..... That's over my head. If I had to guess I'd say longer = more gear inches/higher speed and shorter would = lower geared/slower speed. 

All I can say now is that a longer crank set articulates my legs more, makes for a slower cadence, and a more relaxed heart rate. That's just me maybe. I just notice this with my 180mm crank set single speed bikes, which I have three of, at least, maybe four. I also have one single speed set up with 170mm cranks and I can spin faster than all get-out on that bike. (Just rode that one two days ago)

As installed on the Gen I Fargo.

So, I have to source a good 9 speed cassette and a chain, then I'll be good to go. I'm excited to give a geared set up a whirl with 180mm cranks again. I had a similar set up on a 26"er back in the 1990's when I used to race MTB. I loved that set up and I am hoping it works out on the Fargo. 

I'm even more excited that my Fargo will be good to go in terms of drive train stuff for quite a while again. I probably should redo the brakes and get new pads installed, but that can wait as the brakes are okay right now. 

Interestingly, the stock gearing on the Fargo was similar to this old XT set up. That too was an XT crank, but a HollowTech one with a 104BCD four bolt set up. I still have that crankset, by the way. 

If you are thinking I have a 180mm triple crank in silver from earlier, you would be correct. That is the one that Steve Fuller gifted me this past Spring, so that one is destined for the upcoming Gryphon build, which probably won't happen now until next year. The Gryphon frames and forks have been pushed back to December now.  

Yes, I like my 180mm crank sets, but I use all lengths. Most of my gravel bikes stuff is 172.5, I have some 175mm arm stuff, and then the 170mm and 180mm stuff. Got any questions? let me know, otherwise, stay tuned....