Inspired by watching the video below along with some of the others in this series and from different content creators. FWIW I like Francis Cade's stuff - him and his crew seem like decent folk and his mate James (in the video below) seems to know his stuff..
Anyway, as most will probably be aware a "medium" road bike usually comes with 172.5mm cranks and 420mm wide bars. There appears to be a move towards shorter cranks now in many circles to "open up the hip angle" and reduce knee angularity; which is repeated in this video.
Bar width is also covered; the suggestion being that most bars are too wide and should be shoulder width for best comfort (wider can't help with aero either, I guess). I've always thought I had reasonably broad shoulders (rightly or wrongly) however using the measurement process shown in the video they're apparently around 380mm wide (effective); suggesting I'd benefit from a set of bars 40mm narrower than those commonly available on bikes "my size".
An interesting point is also made about most bikes being too large; suggested as being the result of effective frame sizes remaining the same over the years, but stems lengthening; meaning that for a given frame size a modern bike tends to be more suitable for a larger rider.
Some have postulated that a lot of the "set in stone" measurements such as bar width and crank length have little scientifically-valid basis, and given some of the other atrocities the cycling industry has bestowed upon its patrons in the past it wouldn't surprise me if these figures were essentially just pulled out of their arses
This position might be further supported by the relationship between crank length and rider height as specced by manufacturers. For example according to Boardman's specs for their latest SLR 8.9, male riders of height 170-179cm (mean 174.5cm) get a 170mm crank, while at the other end riders of 187-195cm (mean 191cm) get a 175mm crank. That's an increase in crank length of 2.9% to suit an increase in rider height of around 9.5%. Perhaps I'm over-simplying things, but surely you'd expect the ideal crank length to scale linearly with the rider size..?
Both my newer (2017, 2020), "medium" bikes have 172.5mm cranks and 420mm bars, yet ironically amid this "new" train of thought about crank length and bar width, my 33yr old Raleigh town hack has 165mm cranks and 380mm bars
Interestingly it seems that these trends are being noted, with the new Boardman stuff running slightly shorter cranks and narrower bars on their 2021 range.
So, what do we reckon about these changes; legit scientifically-led progress or just another aribtrary turn of the wheel to incentivise spending more on "better" gear?
More specifically, do people see merit in shorter cranks and narrower bars? I can appreciate the argument for both, however the bikes I have that differ in these ways are so different in others that I can't really make valid comparisons; irritating as that is. That said while having a short reach I should benefit from narrower bars, I certainly don't get on the Raleigh and feel it instantly fits me better than say my Boardman with its 40mm wider bars.
The Genesis does feel long, but then it has a lot of reach both on the bars and brake hoods and while I spend most of the time on the outside of the tops / a good bit back from the hoods, the extra reach comes in handy when chasing aero gains and they feel right when climbing out of the saddle..
Ultimately feck knows, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts
Anyway, as most will probably be aware a "medium" road bike usually comes with 172.5mm cranks and 420mm wide bars. There appears to be a move towards shorter cranks now in many circles to "open up the hip angle" and reduce knee angularity; which is repeated in this video.
Bar width is also covered; the suggestion being that most bars are too wide and should be shoulder width for best comfort (wider can't help with aero either, I guess). I've always thought I had reasonably broad shoulders (rightly or wrongly) however using the measurement process shown in the video they're apparently around 380mm wide (effective); suggesting I'd benefit from a set of bars 40mm narrower than those commonly available on bikes "my size".
An interesting point is also made about most bikes being too large; suggested as being the result of effective frame sizes remaining the same over the years, but stems lengthening; meaning that for a given frame size a modern bike tends to be more suitable for a larger rider.
Some have postulated that a lot of the "set in stone" measurements such as bar width and crank length have little scientifically-valid basis, and given some of the other atrocities the cycling industry has bestowed upon its patrons in the past it wouldn't surprise me if these figures were essentially just pulled out of their arses
This position might be further supported by the relationship between crank length and rider height as specced by manufacturers. For example according to Boardman's specs for their latest SLR 8.9, male riders of height 170-179cm (mean 174.5cm) get a 170mm crank, while at the other end riders of 187-195cm (mean 191cm) get a 175mm crank. That's an increase in crank length of 2.9% to suit an increase in rider height of around 9.5%. Perhaps I'm over-simplying things, but surely you'd expect the ideal crank length to scale linearly with the rider size..?
Both my newer (2017, 2020), "medium" bikes have 172.5mm cranks and 420mm bars, yet ironically amid this "new" train of thought about crank length and bar width, my 33yr old Raleigh town hack has 165mm cranks and 380mm bars
Interestingly it seems that these trends are being noted, with the new Boardman stuff running slightly shorter cranks and narrower bars on their 2021 range.
So, what do we reckon about these changes; legit scientifically-led progress or just another aribtrary turn of the wheel to incentivise spending more on "better" gear?
More specifically, do people see merit in shorter cranks and narrower bars? I can appreciate the argument for both, however the bikes I have that differ in these ways are so different in others that I can't really make valid comparisons; irritating as that is. That said while having a short reach I should benefit from narrower bars, I certainly don't get on the Raleigh and feel it instantly fits me better than say my Boardman with its 40mm wider bars.
The Genesis does feel long, but then it has a lot of reach both on the bars and brake hoods and while I spend most of the time on the outside of the tops / a good bit back from the hoods, the extra reach comes in handy when chasing aero gains and they feel right when climbing out of the saddle..
Ultimately feck knows, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts
.
