| |
Main
Date: 07 May 2006 21:01:40
From: geepeetee
Subject: big chainwheel or shorter cranks?
|
Hi
I want to gear my 20" wheel recumbent up a bit. At the moment i have a 54t
chainwheel but to gain a bit more speed i would like a 60t but these dont
seem to be widely available. Reading various places an option seems to be
shortening the cranks, is this a real alternative or does it come a price?
cheers
Gary
--
Visit my websites at
www.justjents.co.uk
www.recumbent.50megs.com
|
|
| |
Date: 08 May 2006 18:57:17
From: Mike Causer
Subject: Re: big chainwheel or shorter cranks?
|
On Sun, 07 May 2006 21:01:40 +0100, geepeetee wrote:
> I want to gear my 20" wheel recumbent up a bit. At the moment i have a
> 54t chainwheel but to gain a bit more speed i would like a 60t but these
> dont seem to be widely available. Reading various places an option seems
> to be shortening the cranks, is this a real alternative or does it come a
> price?
It depends what is actually limiting your speed. If you're spinning out
at 120+ then you need a bigger chainwheel or smaller cogs at the back. If
you reach top speed at a cadence of less than 80, then use a *smaller*
chainwheel and train your legs to go faster -- shorter cranks might help
with this, but practice is really what you need.
You don't say if the cogs are still the ones from the 8-year-old child's
bike you based your 'bent on, but if they are you might find that an
adult's gear cluster with 11 or 12 tooth top is going to be better.
Mike
|
| | |
Date: 08 May 2006 23:53:59
From: geepeetee
Subject: Re: big chainwheel or shorter cranks?
|
Hi
No none of teh gears or brakes were retained. I have a54/13 combination at
the highest gear. You may be right, i may just need to train myself to use
a higher cadence, will stick at it
cheers
Gary
--
Visit my websites at
www.justjents.co.uk
www.recumbent.50megs.com
"Mike Causer" <mikec@firstnamelastname.com.invalid > wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.08.17.57.13.11463@firstnamelastname.com.invalid...
> On Sun, 07 May 2006 21:01:40 +0100, geepeetee wrote:
>
>> I want to gear my 20" wheel recumbent up a bit. At the moment i have a
>> 54t chainwheel but to gain a bit more speed i would like a 60t but these
>> dont seem to be widely available. Reading various places an option
>> seems
>> to be shortening the cranks, is this a real alternative or does it come a
>> price?
>
> It depends what is actually limiting your speed. If you're spinning out
> at 120+ then you need a bigger chainwheel or smaller cogs at the back. If
> you reach top speed at a cadence of less than 80, then use a *smaller*
> chainwheel and train your legs to go faster -- shorter cranks might help
> with this, but practice is really what you need.
>
> You don't say if the cogs are still the ones from the 8-year-old child's
> bike you based your 'bent on, but if they are you might find that an
> adult's gear cluster with 11 or 12 tooth top is going to be better.
>
>
> Mike
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2006 20:02:08
From: DougC
Subject: Re: big chainwheel or shorter cranks?
|
geepeetee wrote:
> Hi
>
> I want to gear my 20" wheel recumbent up a bit. At the moment i have a 54t
> chainwheel but to gain a bit more speed i would like a 60t but these dont
> seem to be widely available. Reading various places an option seems to be
> shortening the cranks, is this a real alternative or does it come a price?
>
> cheers
>
> Gary
>
54T is about the largest you will find on bicycles that use "normal"
26-27 inch rear wheels. Hostelshop sells Vuelta Alloy chainrings, up to
72T or so. You might need to switch your whole crankset/BB to put on one
that can take them, but there you go. ....Shorter cranks wouldn't do
what you wanted, I'd bet.
----
Also the problem with putting on a monster chainring is that then your
front derailleur may not be able to reach across all three chainrings
(or may not be able to reach across two, if you only had two to begin
with,,,,). If that's the case you might have to live with just two: a
52T or so and the big 60T.
-----
Also you might check your rear cluster and see if you can't get
something with a higher top end that way.
~~~~~
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2006 20:40:23
From: Zebee Johnstone
Subject: Re: big chainwheel or shorter cranks?
|
In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on Sun, 7 May 2006 21:01:40 +0100
geepeetee <geepeetee@gazeta.pl > wrote:
> Hi
>
> I want to gear my 20" wheel recumbent up a bit. At the moment i have a 54t
> chainwheel but to gain a bit more speed i would like a 60t but these dont
> seem to be widely available. Reading various places an option seems to be
> shortening the cranks, is this a real alternative or does it come a price?
How does that gear the bike up?
I shortened the cranks on mine because I have short legs. I think I
spin more than I would with longer ones, but I can't see how that
would be a result useful to you.
Zebee
|
| | |
Date: 07 May 2006 17:03:22
From: JW
Subject: Re: big chainwheel or shorter cranks?
|
On Sun, 07 May 2006 20:40:23 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> ... How does that gear the bike up?
See: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gain.html
I'm afraid that short cranks are just the latest magic pixie dust. They
fit in nicely with Rotor cranks, weird chainring shapes, etc. They ease
knee pain, increase top speed and cure cancer.
To get the kind of "development" the OP wants, I'm afraid (s)he will end
up resembling Laugh-In's Arte Johnson, perhaps minus the pratfall.
IMO, a geared hub is the only practical way to achieve reasonable gearing
with a 20" wheel.
Jim Wilson
Gainesville, FL
|
| | | |
Date: 08 May 2006 03:02:31
From: Gary Fritz
Subject: Re: Question about bike locks
|
Werehatrack <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net > wrote:
> No lock will stop a determined thief, and cable locks
> won't even slow down even a casual thief.
Got that right. My 10-yr-old had a cable lock on his bike, and lost the
key. I took a pair of diagonal cutters (a bit larger than standard, but
nothing industrial) and gnawed through the cable in about 10 minutes.
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 May 2006 04:28:58
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: Question about bike locks
|
"Gary Fritz" wrote: (clip) gnawed through the cable in about 10 minutes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not only that! Based on my own experience, I'll bet people walked by and
didn't even pay attention.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 May 2006 00:33:45
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: Question about bike locks
|
Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "Gary Fritz" wrote: (clip) gnawed through the cable in about 10 minutes.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Not only that! Based on my own experience, I'll bet people walked by and
> didn't even pay attention.
Why should anyone pay attention? There's nothing illegal about a guy
cutting through a bicycle lock/chain on a bike he owns.
If someone did pay attention, what should they do? Confront a potential
criminal who is holding all sorts of dangerous tools, etc.? Or call the
police, who won't get there until the guy is long gone?
--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 May 2006 03:17:47
From: Werehatrack
Subject: Re: Question about bike locks
|
On Tue, 09 May 2006 00:33:45 GMT, Victor Kan
<victor@usenet.NO_UCEloopdrive.net > wrote:
>Leo Lichtman wrote:
>> "Gary Fritz" wrote: (clip) gnawed through the cable in about 10 minutes.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Not only that! Based on my own experience, I'll bet people walked by and
>> didn't even pay attention.
>
>Why should anyone pay attention? There's nothing illegal about a guy
>cutting through a bicycle lock/chain on a bike he owns.
>
>If someone did pay attention, what should they do? Confront a potential
>criminal who is holding all sorts of dangerous tools, etc.? Or call the
>police, who won't get there until the guy is long gone?
Walk up to him in a 1950's British tropic-weight undress uniform, and
slap him with a fish. An halibut, to be precise.
What, you don't keep these implements at the ready at all times? No
excuse!
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
|
|
