BICYCLES

We all know Hunter.

 

I wouldn't say I "know" him --- but he's somewhat local to me, and might have gotten a parcel or two with some familiar logos on the box...

 

A long stem puts your hands further in front of the front wheel contact patch. If you imagine lines drawn from your hands (on the bars) to the centre of the patch you can see the arcs inscribed by forces applied at your hands during a turn become longer as your stem length increases. So longer arcs are required from your hands as the stemlength increases. Steering becomes slower. The opposite happens with shorter stems up to the point where your hands are exactly parallel to the centre of the contact patch. The steering would feel faster and faster until it is (too) twitchy.

So smaller frames are more rigid but if you need a very long stem to make it fit your bike becomes slower to steer even if its wheelbase is shorter than that of a longer frame. I think an integrated stem is more aero and may be able to shorten the head tube a bit and make the frame a bit stiffer, without your having to achieve that with a shorter frame/longer stem approach.

 

Hunter Allen and Andrew Coggan did a very nice write-up on current power meters in their book "Training and Racing with a Power Meter".

The PowerTap P1 appears to be a good power metering system. The fact that it uses a LOOK Keo pedal design is also a positive thing. I've used Ultegra, Keo and SpeedPlay Zero and though I favour the Zero for its overall performance, I find the Keo the most solid platform of the 3. The tiny Zero would not have any space to accommodate a power sensor/transmitter. You have to make space for the hardware. Having it in your pedals is not as nasty as having it all over your crankset. FWIW, I use an iBike Newton.

It's very useful to monitor power output for training.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

That's probably correct in theory but it actually doesn't work like that in practice. In practice, the shorter the stem, the harder it is to turn the bars because the lever is too short. Longer stems are a little more responsive because the lever is much longer. Shorter stems have more stability and longer stems are more responsiveness.

The reality of the situation, however, is that very little steering is done with input to the bars. Most of it is done by leaning, especially at speed. You need some input to the bars but most of it is done via weight change and distribution. Balance is the key with stem length.

Regardless of all of that, stem length is largely overblown. Just about every male rider rides something between a 100mm and 130mm stem; well within the range of proper balance on most bicycles and there is not as much handling difference within that range as one would think.

FWIW, I rode with 120mm and 130mm stems my entire career on bikes that were largely "average" sized: 54cm and 56cm equivalents.

 

I agree stem length doesn't affect steering (for fast riders) when they are leaning in a turn. However, you must be going fast enough to lean a bike or else you fall over. You also have to be able to set up for a corner before you can lean into it. For instance when you have to avoid a crash happening immediately in front of you while everyone is barreling along in a peleton, you must quickly steer away from disaster using your handlebars. There's no other way. I'm sure you've had a few of those heart-stopping moments during your racing career.

The other occasions on the road when you steer with your hands are naturally when you are not moving that fast; not fast enough to permit leaning into a turn. Again this can happen in a race, for instance, when you are climbing or during the first part of a race when everyone in the peleton is just warming up before the first challenge. And then there are times on a training ride when you are just goofing around with your buddies on a slower section. Of course, slow riders also use their bars all the time.

On the track, where you are an expert, I think you will agree it is dangerous to lean, when you ride up the banks. You steer and power up the banks using the bars.

Finally, I would generally agree that 100 to 120 mm stems are normal for most male riders on properly-fitted frames (the 10° white Easton stem on my winter bike is 120). However, since you ride 54/56cm frames (older style sizing system) you must have unusually longer arms and/or trunk for your leg length to comfortably use a 130 mm stem.

 

A couple of things.

1) I'll attach a pic of me in a road race. I believe that is a 130mm stem on that bike. It's a few years ago so I can't remember for sure. It's definitely not less than 120mm. I am pretty average height and build. You can judge for yourself.

2) yes, you absolutely can't get away from some handlebar movement but let's think about this for a minute. If a handlebar is turned all the way to the left or right, how fast can a bicycle go? The answer is zero miles per hour. Any movement to that 100% left or right causes a deduction in speed, no matter how subtle. As a result, a rider wants a bike to pointed as straight as possible as much as possible. This all makes sense. But how does it apply in the real world? Well, remember a few posts back where I said that for the track, it's important to have a short wheelbase, especially for Six Day racing where the tracks are really small, like Ghent which is 166m and banked 58 degrees. The shorter the wheelbase, the easier the bike can go around the banking with no steering input at all. Track bikes are made to move all over the track with very little or no steering input unless at very low speeds (like a walking pace in a match sprint). Again, the reality is tha you don't "steer and power up the banks using the bars" at all. You do it with balance and leaning, particularly at speed. I can tell you that at race speeds, even the slightest steering input to the bars can have dire consequences.

It's late and I'm typing on a phone so I'll end there but I'll leave you with this note:

Once someone really learns to ride properly at speed in a pack, they understand that steering is actually done through the saddle, not the bars.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Yep, that's (at least) 130 mm and 17° to boot. I agree you look correctly-fitted on your bike; it's just that 130 is on the long side and not too many people can make it work for them. In the "old days", everybody wanted to slap on the longest Cinelli stems they could use... and then they started using MTB style stems with 6° angles but that's another story.

Your comments are much appreciated, especially since they come from someone with such enviable experience, ability and skills. So please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to be contrarian. Your comments about riding at speed are quite correct and I am also not saying anyone should steer from the handlebars when riding at speed (when they can safely lean instead) but IMO no racer, even top pros, can avoid situations when they are no longer riding at speed.

I was a category 3 rider for a while and I trained, learned from very good riders, racers, ex-racers from Belgium, Holland and Denmark when I was young enough to have time for bikes. I also have good first-hand experience about bike setups because it was normal to build our own bikes and wheels.

Steering from the bars is important when you have to react very quickly. I've had people crash right in front of me at race speeds and everyone had to steer in a split second to save themselves (and their gear). One cannot just lean to avoid such crashes. You brake hard and steer with the bars.

I also ride some track but of course, nothing like you. I agree with you about the design of track bikes and how small steep velodromes dramatically accentuate steering input. The Ghent oval must have pretty abrupt corners. These small ovals are typical for 6-day events which historically were professional endurance novelty events more geared towards morbid spectators who wanted to see (bet) which riders would succumbed to physical and mental exhaustion. There were a lot of nasty crashes. Nowadays they remain big money big spectator events in some European countries but these small oval events are not part of today's UCI (amateur) sporting venues. So it's important to note I am referring to larger tracks used to host UCI events.

I remember attending a training camp at the Montreal Olympics velodrome over 35 years ago. It was my first experience of a top level indoor track with steep banking and I clipped my pedal on the boards when I leaned into the track to maneuver up as I transitioned a corner. That was a 250m track and even though it was on the gentler side it was probably close to the 42° norm in the corners so no surprise what happened. BTW, I was also riding on a '60s 6-day bike and it had a high BB, regular track Campy cranks. Luckily I just slid down without anyone running into me but from that day on I learned to never lean into the track. Nowadays, on another 250m UCI-legal velodrome, I intuitively counter steer, accelerate and just get a better workout on my arms and legs in the process.

 

I don't think that you're being contrarian. You're applying conventional wisdom to the whole thing and, like most things in life, when you are forced to look deeper, it becomes evident that things aren't always so simple. I was blessed to have some of the best coaches on the planet who made me look at every aspect of being a successful bicycle racer and my regular training partner (and still close friend) was Jonathan Vaughters. We would debate bicycle philosophy non-stop on five hour rides. I had a lot of deep thinking and discussion from which to form my opinion, as well as experience. I don't expect others to agree with everything I say but I hope that it inspires good thinking.

Velodromes: from a 250m (current standard) at 45 deg banking (Los Angeles is 46 deg and 48 deg) to something as ridiculous as Ghent, the curve for the length is roughly proportional for all of the major tracks. I did a World Cup in Manchester - at some point, I'll share of the story of my assigned practice time with the GB team pursuit team - and that's the "straightest" riding 250m I've ever been on. Why? It's made for TP records. That's not an accident. The issue is when you have a track that's too long or short for the curve/angle and rides like crap but that's another story.

Let's discuss track bikes. Everyone uses 7cm bb drops for road bikes for most sizes. It's good and it works and even though you scrape pedals, you rarely plant pedals. On a track, you not only have to worry about scraping pedals but you have to worry about falling off. I used to use 4.5 cm bb drops as was common for sprinters. But I was a road racer and did road racery track events: TP, points race, scratch race, madison. The high BB didn't suit me that much and it left me uncomfortable at times. Then one day, I was on a ride with Tom Kellogg and we were talking about this. He told me to come by his shop the next day. I did and we sat down and he drew up the ideal track geometry for me. The drop? 5 3/4 cm. Wasn't that too low, I asked? He said I could take that to any track in the world and right before I would be going to slow to hit a pedal, I would fall off the track. I used that geometry right up until I had to change to the Look 496 in late 2011. I rode three bikes with that geometry (a Litespeed, and two Parlees) all over the world at countless tracks and Tom was absolutely right every time.

At US national madison championships in L.A. in 2009 (I lost the gold medal by one point and it haunts me to this day because I screwed up after lapping the field solo) I was riding relief at the balustrade behind Ben Jacques-Mayne when we went into the steeper of the two L.A. corners and we were going super slow waiting for our partners in the breakaway to come around (although we were one lap up) and I knew that we were going dangerously slow. He was on the Pinarello montello or whatever the aero bike was. It was a road TT bike that Pinarello converted to track and I think the BB was super low. Then I watched as his pedal hit and his back wheel lost traction and he plummeted to the bottom of the track. I thanked Tom Kellogg in my head a hundred times that day.

Anyways, the point is that there are multiple parts necessary for good geometry on the track and, like everything else, it's not simple.

As far as cranks, track cranks experience relatively little torque compared to road cranks because rpm is key - so power, not torque - and there is no penalty of extra weight so the crank/bb set up is a little older school, although I don't think anyone uses square taper any more.

For the road, weight and power transfer still remain the key to BB/crank choice but because gearing and q-factor are issues, it's not as cut and dry as you might think.

 

My best cycling buddy was the perennial TT Champion of Ontario... we used to talk about women on our long rides but that's another story. Yes, you were very lucky to have great coaches. Nowadays, I seldom have enough time to put my gear together for a ride!

Velodromes with gentle straights that are "too long" will result in rather abrupt corners with steep banking. The Milton Velodrome where I ride has 42° banking.

A 45 mm BB drop must have felt very tippy, difficult to ride smoothly with. I don't recall what BB drop was on my first track bike but it was comfortable. It was a well-known bike, written up in a book on bikes, previously ridden very successfully by a famous 6-day rider. The name of the bike was BRANCA; Columbus PS tubing, heavy, very stiff. It was a beautiful machine but I sold it to a friend when I got a real job. My current Electron Pro track bike has a 55 mm BB drop so I guess that meets with your approval.

Yes, at least you got silver! Would have been nada if you had crashed like Ben did.

I faintly recall the square taper Campy track cranks on the BRANCA were shorter than 170. FWIW, I use a pair of expensive Super Record 165 mm crank arms on my DOGMA 2, an experiment.

 

I have eight national championship silver medals, with half of those coming in the newer Olympic format US national championships. I have only one national title. Maybe one day I will look back on it all and be happy with all of those silvers but unfortunately, I know which ones were golds that I screwed up and which ones were silver that I earned.

It sounds dumb but I have a silver to Taylor Phinney when he was reigning World Champion. That was a properly earned silver. I can't say the same for all of them.

Anyways, at the end of the day I am not known as any special cyclist. I am forgotten just like many, many others. I have fond memories, some trophies and medals, but really all that's left are the valuable lessons that cycling taught me that I have carried with me to my following chapters in life.

As far as track cranks, 165 was the "standard" but lots of the road racers used 170mm on the track. Other than a season where I experimented with 165mm and one where I tried 170mm, I have always used 167.5mm. An odd size and something that was hard to find but I found that the most comfortable for me was 167.5mm on the track and 170mm on the road and I didn't deviate once I settled on that.

Interestingly enough, since we are talking about crank size, Jonathan (who is very slightly taller than I am) used 175mm on his road bike and 177.5mm on his TT bike. I jumped on his tt bike to see what his set up was like and I couldn't pedal right because the cranks were so long for me.

 

I love vintage bikes, so much character, and usually have good stories to go along with them.


Just picked up a one owner late 70s Fuji s10-s, to add to my collection. The lady I purchased it from, her boyfriend in college bought it for her, as campus was 1.5 miles away. She rode the bike all throughout college, and years after. Her then boyfriend is now her husband. She cannot ride anymore, so they let go of it.

I love stories like this, gives the bike a soul, vs a hunk of metal I have no attachment to.


The little things in life....
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

More leverage for bigger gears was his opinion. He rode a 55x11 which I guarantee would not only make me slow but my legs would fall off halfway through. I used to TT the fast flat sections in a 53x14 and only went bigger if there was a downhill or really strong tailwind.

Fwiw, I don't think that a crank in crank length makes any meaningful difference in aero.

 

I tried them and hated them. I really think they vary by rider and pedaling style and rpm. I don't think that Sky would let anyone ride them in a race that mattered if they didn't know for a fact that it made a different, no matter how minute, with the rider in question. I don't know if David brailsford is still the guy there but the stuff he used to share with me was really interesting. And I know I didn't get to hear the good stuff.

 

My mother's health took a nasty turn the other day. Luckily for both of us, she's feeling much better today.

Speaking of mothers, it would really have made my day if my fairy godmother had granted me my wish of 2 extra inches of lower appendage. At 5'7" and 30" inseam I've always faced a bit of a challenge shopping for jeans and fitting new bikes. According to the 9.5% height method (Obree) of calculating crank arm length I really should be using 161.7 mm crank arms but good luck finding 160 mm cranks these days. 165 mm Campy crank arms for my road bike were the best I could come up with.

My small Electron Pro came with 170 mm Miche Primato cranks even though Miche does make Primato 165 mm. I was just a bit miffed at the time but now that you have pressed the point I've ordered a set from Velodrome Shop.

 

Rotor style chainrings often cause the chain to rub against the front derailleur cage.

 

Zinn does custom cranks, extra long & extra short. I have 200mm.

Zinn Cycles::custom bicycle cranks :: extra Long bike cranks :: short bicycle cranks | Zinn Cycles website

 

Thanks for the link. There are some shorter/longer crankset makers out there as I recall when I was researching the subject. However, most tend to cater to taller riders who need longer crank arms. Zinn's offerings for the road and track also focus on longer crank arms.

The other thing I had to keep in mind was that any replacement crankset would have to work with the chain rings I have on my road and track bikes. For me, 165 mm cranks would seem to be the limit of practicality and luckily both Campagnolo and Miche offer 165 mm cranksets.

For riders with very long legs, longer cranks would help but the bike frames need to have BB drops that are not too deep or else the longer crank arms may cause the pedals to catch the pavement more easily when the rider leans and pedals through a corner.

 

Yes, talk to your frame builder to account for the BB change necessary to accommodate the longer than average crank length. If you're going this far, they better know what you are trying to do & what they should be doing to make it work. I find it highly annoying how the component companies act like 2 more cm of crank length is mission unpossible.

Zinn does short too, he doesn't discriminate short or tall. How about that, somebody building what you want & making it fit you, not the other way around.

 

More suffering today! (I'm the guy in the BMC jersey). 7'500 ft, 75 miles.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

That looks neat.