"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fufbtc$c3q$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chalo Colina wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Why would shorter cranks (for a given rider) being ideal on a
re***bent
>>> compared to an upright be a shortcoming?
>>
>> It's not the absolute crank length, it's the (implied) relative
>> inability to deal with varying loads and speeds by cranking slower or
>> faster.
>>
>> If A.K. has to use closely spaced gears to cope with short cranks, and
>> short cranks to cope with feet-forward riding position, that seems
>> like a shortcoming. Everyone from little kids on their first bikes
>> to Olympic champions on incredibly exotic track machines seems to be
>> able to pedal slower to go slower, faster to go faster.
>>
> The reasoning behind the short cranks is to reduce the minimum angle at
> the knee (with a fully extended leg having an angle of about 180°) while
> pedaling.
>
> Most re***bent riders can deal with a fair range of cadences [1], but
> doing the equivalent of leg presses while climbing is NOT the proper
> technique.
Just gear down some and spin more for heaven's sakes. This is not rocket
science.
[...]
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
