Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 116 of 116
  1. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by dv8zen View Post
    Yes, more of a statement than a belief. Ride a cheap bike with the same technique as you ride a modern stiff bike, and you'll see what I mean. Care to challenge it with some science? Newton's First Law is a solid place to start, but I'm open to hearing some quantum theories which seem to contest such laws...
    A false statement. Youíre on your own with that one...never heard it before...and dont think I will again.

  2. #102
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,080
    Quote Originally Posted by RS VR6 View Post
    ^^I got thrown from a pedal strike from a Stumpjumper 650 demo when they came out a few years ago. I was pedaling through a large dip in the trail and when the suspension compressed...my pedal hit the ground and I got tossed. With bikes nowadays...I'd rather have that slight bit of a margin than not.

    I'm 5'8" with a 30 inseam and run 170 on all my bikes.
    I'm 5'8" with a 32" inseam, 175" seems to be the sweet spot for me. That being said, I get way more pedal strikes on my new Rocky Altitude than the old version...
    "We LOVE cows! They make trails for us.....

    And then we eat them."

  3. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation: EatsDirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by dv8zen View Post
    Yes, more of a statement than a belief. Ride a cheap bike with the same technique as you ride a modern stiff bike, and you'll see what I mean. Care to challenge it with some science? Newton's First Law is a solid place to start, but I'm open to hearing some quantum theories which seem to contest such laws...
    The "cheap bike" and "flexy parts" theory is backed by science?

  4. #104
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    Ride a bike with a 32 29er 120mm fork into 5-6" tall curb at 10 mph. Swap in a 36 set to the same travel a2c and do the same. Would you have any confidence that the bike with the 32 fork would even continue rolling when you hit it? You'd likely brace for possible OTB, wouldn't you, right? I guarantee the 36 will roll up it without even much of a stutter or loss of speed, with absolutely no need to brace.

    Now if you add in some cheap weight weenie handlebars, stem, weight weenie wheel, and deflate the tire by about 25%... do you think that all that additional flex when you hit the curb will not increase OTB risk, compared to having a stiff carbon bar, enduro-worthy wheel, firmer tire?

    Note, I said same geo, so weight distro's the same. Your technique can be more relaxed on a stiffer bike, right? I experienced this on classic 71/73 geo first, with a modern 71/73 HT just plowing straight lines through rougher stuff that I used to feel compelled to go around, since flexy parts bothered me. I could simply ask why you want stiffer parts in the first place, like a 34 or Pike over a 32. It's obvious, it's for confidence. A 32 isn't gonna break if you plow through a rock garden at high speed, but you'd feel like you might break yourself if you try to go through as fast as you did if you had a stiffer fork. Are you denying this?

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by dv8zen View Post
    Now if you add in some cheap weight weenie handlebars, stem, weight weenie wheel, and deflate the tire by about 25%... do you think that all that additional flex when you hit the curb will not increase OTB risk, compared to having a stiff carbon bar, enduro-worthy wheel, firmer tire?
    It would probably decrease the OTB risk for the same reason enduro and DH bikes have a raked out fork with longer travel; so the spring path or 'flex' is inline with the impact force and able to absorb more of the impact. It's the same reason you bend your arms and legs riding over roots & rocks, to try and keep the bike moving forward.

  6. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation: EatsDirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    It's the same reason you bend your arms and legs riding over roots & rocks, to try and keep the bike moving forward.
    According to our buddy that's just what they did "back in the day". Now you ride with more confidence.

    Spend more money and buy heavy/stiff parts and you won't go OTB!

  7. #107
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    It would probably decrease the OTB risk for the same reason enduro and DH bikes have a raked out fork with longer travel; so the spring path or 'flex' is inline with the impact force and able to absorb more of the impact. It's the same reason you bend your arms and legs riding over roots & rocks, to try and keep the bike moving forward.
    Anyone else support this? Or is he on his own?

    Brings up another question, is flex in crank arms beneficial? Detrimental? Has neither effect? Beliefs? Statements?

    Quote Originally Posted by EatsDirt View Post
    According to our buddy that's just what they did "back in the day". Now you ride with more confidence.


    Spend more money and buy heavy/stiff parts and you won't go OTB!

    You mean me and how I said riders back then countered flex by "getting low and behind the bars"?

    What's this confident riding you speak of? Do you mean getting low and behind the bars is confident riding? Or perhaps riding without need for such technique?

  8. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation: targnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,205
    Quote Originally Posted by dv8zen View Post
    Anyone else support this?

    Brings up another question, is flex in crank arms beneficial? Detrimental? Has neither effect? Beliefs? Statements?
    You can feel crank arm flex!?

    You are See-Fuu after all o_0

    Sent from my kltedv using Tapatalk
    "Mountain biking: the under-rated and drug-free antidepressant"

  9. #109
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by targnik View Post
    You can feel crank arm flex!?

    You are See-Fuu after all o_0

    Sent from my kltedv using Tapatalk
    Yes, I actually can. Can you not? I can feel a difference between Shimano XT crank and a SRAM carbon crank, for instance, in terms of solid power transfer. The ring may likely play a significant factor in making the Shimano feel more solid, both using brand matched rings.

    I recall a RF Ride crank with RF NW ring feeling less solid, despite having far more mass. Don't think the solid feeling is due to it being metal and having sharper feedback. Praxis shares a similar stiff feeling.

    Since people were talking about power and torque earlier, flex could be considered as wasteful. Flex stores energy that's returned in an undesirable manner.

  10. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by EatsDirt View Post
    Go get a road bike. Put on 170 cranks. Go climb, ride the flats, etc. Then with the same bike and gear ratio, put on 175 cranks and repeat. Report back.
    I'm 5'9" and recently switched from 172.5 to 170mm crank on my road bike. Raised my seat height to fit leg extention and my average speeds went up by 1mph for the same given effort. My right knee no longer hurts on hard tempo rides and my power stroke starts sooner from the top without my knees being so high.

    TdF riders also proved shorter cranks are faster because you can stay in a more aerodynamic position. Which has no real relevance for mtbing.

    Both my mtb and road bike are 170 now and I wouldn't touch another bike with anything longer.

    Crank length is all about fit first. If it stops pedal strikes for you then great but thats more of a technique issue. My first ride on the 170 cranks I had the worst OTB pedal strike I've ever had in 8 years.

  11. #111
    meatier showers
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    8,065
    Quote Originally Posted by dv8zen View Post
    Anyone else support this? Or is he on his own?
    I don't believe he's on his own, although I admit I haven't been paying close attention to this rather silly thread to know if I'm replying to the tangential spur that I think I am.

    I'm here to agree with the statement that OTB is caused by weight bias, not flexy parts.

    That's not to imply that I support the use of flexy parts. I've never used a crank in which I could detect flex, nor would I ever. I've detected frame flex through the BB shell/cranks plenty of times, though.
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  12. #112
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    Well, here's the quip I responded to:

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    One advantage of short stem/wide bars is that you can keep your body center of mass nearly the same as with long stem/short bars by keeping the effective reach the same but when you are applying force to the bars it's easier to lift the front end (you're more in a deadlift form with the short stem) and you're less likely to go OTB since the bars you're putting your weight on are further behind the front wheel.
    No change in geo (e.g. reach) nor center of mass. Relocating grips further behind the front wheel somehow makes Jeremy think that it makes the bike less likely to tip...

    I really see no significant difference. It moves the hands back, but does it really shift your weight back? Seems like it just makes you more upright, at least if you're a type that prefers to have your shoulders no further ahead of the elbows. This in turn makes your lower back in charge of keeping the core's weight off the bars, as opposed to the extension of the arms when in a more stretched out position.

    I don't see how a force from the bar affects tipping vs slipping when it's only different above the headset cups. It's like a force pulling the steerer forward, isn't it?

    To look at this in context, look at tallbikes. Which ones have OTB risks? I'd argue the ones that look unstable due to flex. Ever see one with a heavily cantilevered fork?

    How about being a bit more open minded? Just because it's a popular trend... what's there to lose from listening, rather than rejecting outright with prejudice/bias, going lalala false statement, never heard that before, [sarcastic statement: spend spend spend]. I can find numerous cases when it seemed to have gone too far. Shoulders forward of the elbows looks cramped and dangerous to me.

  13. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ladljon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    191

    Hmm

    hmm When I went with shorter cranks, no change in gearing needed...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 175's v 170's?? (for AM riding)-fullsizeoutput_540.jpg  


  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by dv8zen View Post
    I don't see how a force from the bar affects tipping vs slipping when it's only different above the headset cups.
    Then you don't understand the physics at all.

  15. #115
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    Then you don't understand the physics at all.
    Name:  B2D2liM.png
Views: 81
Size:  375.3 KB

    The stem and handlebar's primarily purpose is to turn the steerer. Bringing the hands closer to the body seemingly only makes this kid more likely to bash his face on the steering wheel. Do you rank perceived "OTB risk" second, and fit third?

    Also, flex is not the same as suspension travel and arm and leg bending. The suspension stabilizes the frame and your arms+legs stabilize your core--the frame and your core don't need to rise and fall with every bump or hole. Flex doesn't do this function, nor does it offer a level of absorption. Something needs to damp the flex, else it oscillates, and typically that's your body. The suspension stores and absorbs forces coming from a single vector. Any forces perpendicular to that vector will go through the chassis, such as aft and upward forces. The HA is part responsible for tuning this vector to deal with more of one or the other.

    On a road bike, which hand position is the least OTB prone? The flats, the hoods, the drops?

    175's v 170's?? (for AM riding)-x1719li.jpg

    Here's an exaggerated example showing how the concept of bringing hands behind the front wheel without changing anything else is flawed. I'm sure this guy will be less OTB prone if it had his bars far more forward, forcing him into a less upright position.

    I feel that the ideal bar/grip position, should he look to take on some rough terrain, will allow him to comfortably get low enough, that he can transfer his inertia to the bars through his shoulders. No hanging off the back; no pulling on the bars to stay on the bike. Ideally, he shouldn't need to grip the bars much at all, and not need much energy to maintain the low ready position.

    This is an example of someone with good fit and posture: Rider: Brian Lopes

    And attached is a example of a good posture, but with a cramped cockpit. Rider: Greg Minnaar
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Tell me when I'm wrong. Neg rep me. I will appreciate it, even if you don't explain why I'm wrong.

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ALimon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    154
    It's pretty well documented that shorter cranks don't reduce power outputs. Most riders would benefit from shorter arms. In a perfect world, it would be nice to see crank arm choices at 2.5 increments. Just because the bike industry makes a few sizes doesn't mean they are correct for you.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-13-2015, 11:57 AM
  2. crank lengths 175 vs 170
    By scottg07 in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 11-03-2014, 02:48 PM
  3. 175 mm X5 vs 170 mm X9
    By AndrwSwitch in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-26-2014, 01:46 PM
  4. do you have 170 mm or 175 mm cranks on your SS ?
    By lunna in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-08-2012, 04:49 PM
  5. Dilemma... 170 or 175?
    By CharleyGnarlyP290 in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-17-2012, 09:29 AM

Members who have read this thread: 331

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •