I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs are
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the 175's.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs are
I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the 175's.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.
Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1 inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t be making a hell of a difference.
I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs are
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the 175's.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.longer legs than I have to it ought to fit her well.
When I got home some woman wanted to buy my Basso Lotto frameset. So I'm taking the wife out to dinner. That woman lives in San Francisco and is taller than I am. And she seemed to know bicycles. So she knew what she wanted and being a woman she had
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs are
I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the 175's.
I meant 0.2" . If you don't believe that to be a lot, lift your seat post by that amount and try to ride.So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1 inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t be making a hell of a difference.
Lou
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 3:52:49 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:s. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs are
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the 175'
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1 inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t be making a hell of a difference.
LouI meant 0.2" . If you don't believe that to be a lot, lift your seat post by that amount and try to ride.
On 11/4/2023 5:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs are
I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the 175's.
longer legs than I have to it ought to fit her well.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.
When I got home some woman wanted to buy my Basso Lotto frameset. So I'm taking the wife out to dinner. That woman lives in San Francisco and is taller than I am. And she seemed to know bicycles. So she knew what she wanted and being a woman she had
I raise an eyebrow at the idea of feeling 2.5mm crank length
difference. Unlikely.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:35:43 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:175's. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 3:52:49 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the
shoes or socks.So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1 inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t be making a hell of a difference.
It is 2.5 mm difference, that is 0.1”. If I raise my saddle 2.5 mm I will notice that in the beginning but it will not make a hell of a difference and after 10 minutes I will be used to it. It is the same difference you feel when wearing differentLouI meant 0.2" . If you don't believe that to be a lot, lift your seat post by that amount and try to ride.
LouLou, that is 2.5 mm at the bottom and lifting your leg another 2.5 mm at the top. that is a 5 mm difference in the crank throw. As I said, if you think that is nothing TRY lifting your saddle height by almost half an inch.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 8:08:25 AM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:s. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs are
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:35:43 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 3:52:49 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote: >>>> On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: >>>>> I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the 175'
shoes or socks.It is 2.5 mm difference, that is 0.1”. If I raise my saddle 2.5 mm I will notice that in the beginning but it will not make a hell of a difference and after 10 minutes I will be used to it. It is the same difference you feel when wearing differentI meant 0.2" . If you don't believe that to be a lot, lift your seat post by that amount and try to ride.Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1 inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t be making a hell of a difference.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.
Lou
Lou, that is 2.5 mm at the bottom and lifting your leg another 2.5 mm at the top. that is a 5 mm difference in the crank throw. As I said, if you think that is nothing TRY lifting your saddle height by almost half an inch.
Lou
On 11/5/2023 10:49 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:175's. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 8:08:25 AM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:35:43 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 3:52:49 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote: >>>> On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: >>>>> I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the
shoes or socks.It is 2.5 mm difference, that is 0.1”. If I raise my saddle 2.5 mm I will notice that in the beginning but it will not make a hell of a difference and after 10 minutes I will be used to it. It is the same difference you feel when wearing differentI meant 0.2" . If you don't believe that to be a lot, lift your seat post by that amount and try to ride.Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1 inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t be making a hell of a difference.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.
Lou
Total diameter 5mm, about 3/16" (not 'half an inch'=8/16").Lou, that is 2.5 mm at the bottom and lifting your leg another 2.5 mm at the top. that is a 5 mm difference in the crank throw. As I said, if you think that is nothing TRY lifting your saddle height by almost half an inch.
Lou
In testing at USOC, athletes not only could not tell which
length cranks were fitted, and did not notice mismatched
lengths, but performance did not change with crank length
(for values of 165mm through 175mm).
--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 10:01:53 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:175's. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs
On 11/5/2023 10:49 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 8:08:25 AM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:35:43 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 3:52:49 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: >>>>>>> I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the
shoes or socks.It is 2.5 mm difference, that is 0.1”. If I raise my saddle 2.5 mm I will notice that in the beginning but it will not make a hell of a difference and after 10 minutes I will be used to it. It is the same difference you feel when wearing differentI meant 0.2" . If you don't believe that to be a lot, lift your seat post by that amount and try to ride.Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1 inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t be making a hell of a difference.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.
Lou
Total diameter 5mm, about 3/16" (not 'half an inch'=8/16").Lou, that is 2.5 mm at the bottom and lifting your leg another 2.5 mm at the top. that is a 5 mm difference in the crank throw. As I said, if you think that is nothing TRY lifting your saddle height by almost half an inch.
Lou
In testing at USOC, athletes not only could not tell which
length cranks were fitted, and did not notice mismatched
lengths, but performance did not change with crank length
(for values of 165mm through 175mm).
Andrew, that is pure bullshit. Rather than reading the propaganda of someone else try this yourself. I rode 175's forever and my knees always hurt for the first half hour of riding until they warmed up and loosened. The second I changed to 172.5 thatwent entirely away. If you really believe the USOC by all means ride some 175's and then change to 165's and see if there's no difference.
As for the crank length - you are correct but I feel it plainly. Or painfully. Today my legs have pain from cramping last night. And this was a flat ride.
On 11/5/2023 12:19 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:175's. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 10:01:53 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/5/2023 10:49 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 8:08:25 AM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote: >>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:35:43 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 3:52:49 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the
different shoes or socks.It is 2.5 mm difference, that is 0.1”. If I raise my saddle 2.5 mm I will notice that in the beginning but it will not make a hell of a difference and after 10 minutes I will be used to it. It is the same difference you feel when wearingI meant 0.2" . If you don't believe that to be a lot, lift your seat post by that amount and try to ride.Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1 inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t be making a hell of a difference.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.
Lou
Total diameter 5mm, about 3/16" (not 'half an inch'=8/16").Lou, that is 2.5 mm at the bottom and lifting your leg another 2.5 mm at the top. that is a 5 mm difference in the crank throw. As I said, if you think that is nothing TRY lifting your saddle height by almost half an inch.
Lou
In testing at USOC, athletes not only could not tell which
length cranks were fitted, and did not notice mismatched
lengths, but performance did not change with crank length
(for values of 165mm through 175mm).
went entirely away. If you really believe the USOC by all means ride some 175's and then change to 165's and see if there's no difference.Andrew, that is pure bullshit. Rather than reading the propaganda of someone else try this yourself. I rode 175's forever and my knees always hurt for the first half hour of riding until they warmed up and loosened. The second I changed to 172.5 that
The study you cited really seems to say other than what you're interpreting it to be: "Power produced with the 145- and 170-mm cranks was significantly (P < 0.05) greater than that produced with the 120- and 220-mm cranks" and "These data suggest thatAs for the crank length - you are correct but I feel it plainly. Or painfully. Today my legs have pain from cramping last night. And this was a flat ride.Others cannot repeat that experience for those values: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11417428/
Extreme crank lengths (outside of the common 165~175) do matter.
Personally I ride 165 and 170 fixed and 167.5 and 172 free
but can't say one is better than another or even different
in any noticeable way. I'm reasonably sure I could not feel
a pea under a mattress either. YMMV.
--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
In testing at USOC, athletes not only could not tell which
length cranks were fitted, and did not notice mismatched
lengths, but performance did not change with crank length
(for values of 165mm through 175mm).
Am Sun, 5 Nov 2023 12:01:50 -0600 schrieb AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>:
In testing at USOC, athletes not only could not tell whichPerhaps. But I don't see wy I shouldn't select the best fitting length
length cranks were fitted, and did not notice mismatched
lengths, but performance did not change with crank length
(for values of 165mm through 175mm).
if there is a choice. In addition, not everybody is an athlete and
young. Performance isn't the only criterium.
I built my wifes bike with a 160 mm crank, mine using a 172.5 mm one. I definitively noticed the difference, while test riding her bike. That's
a 12.5mm difference though, not just 2.5mm.
--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 11:18:11 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:175's. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs
On 11/5/2023 12:19 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 10:01:53 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/5/2023 10:49 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 8:08:25 AM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:35:43 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 3:52:49 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the
different shoes or socks.It is 2.5 mm difference, that is 0.1”. If I raise my saddle 2.5 mm I will notice that in the beginning but it will not make a hell of a difference and after 10 minutes I will be used to it. It is the same difference you feel when wearingI meant 0.2" . If you don't believe that to be a lot, lift your seat post by that amount and try to ride.Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1 inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t be making a hell of a difference.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.
Lou
went entirely away. If you really believe the USOC by all means ride some 175's and then change to 165's and see if there's no difference.Total diameter 5mm, about 3/16" (not 'half an inch'=8/16").Lou, that is 2.5 mm at the bottom and lifting your leg another 2.5 mm at the top. that is a 5 mm difference in the crank throw. As I said, if you think that is nothing TRY lifting your saddle height by almost half an inch.
Lou
In testing at USOC, athletes not only could not tell which
length cranks were fitted, and did not notice mismatched
lengths, but performance did not change with crank length
(for values of 165mm through 175mm).
Andrew, that is pure bullshit. Rather than reading the propaganda of someone else try this yourself. I rode 175's forever and my knees always hurt for the first half hour of riding until they warmed up and loosened. The second I changed to 172.5 that
Others cannot repeat that experience for those values:
As for the crank length - you are correct but I feel it plainly. Or painfully. Today my legs have pain from cramping last night. And this was a flat ride.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11417428/
Extreme crank lengths (outside of the common 165~175) do matter.
Personally I ride 165 and 170 fixed and 167.5 and 172 free
but can't say one is better than another or even different
in any noticeable way. I'm reasonably sure I could not feel
a pea under a mattress either. YMMV.
The study you cited really seems to say other than what you're interpreting it to be: "Power produced with the 145- and 170-mm cranks was significantly (P < 0.05) greater than that produced with the 120- and 220-mm cranks" and "These data suggest thatpedal speed (which constrains muscle shortening velocity) and pedaling rate (which affects muscle excitation state) exert distinct effects that influence muscular power during cycling."
It also suggests that 170 mm are good for "most adults" whereas at 6'4" I'm hardly in the category of "average".
On 11/5/2023 2:42 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:the 175's. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 11:18:11 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/5/2023 12:19 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 10:01:53 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/5/2023 10:49 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 8:08:25 AM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:35:43 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 3:52:49 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin
different shoes or socks.It is 2.5 mm difference, that is 0.1”. If I raise my saddle 2.5 mm I will notice that in the beginning but it will not make a hell of a difference and after 10 minutes I will be used to it. It is the same difference you feel when wearingI meant 0.2" . If you don't believe that to be a lot, lift your seat post by that amount and try to ride.Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1 inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t be making a hell of a difference.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.
Lou
that went entirely away. If you really believe the USOC by all means ride some 175's and then change to 165's and see if there's no difference.Total diameter 5mm, about 3/16" (not 'half an inch'=8/16").Lou, that is 2.5 mm at the bottom and lifting your leg another 2.5 mm at the top. that is a 5 mm difference in the crank throw. As I said, if you think that is nothing TRY lifting your saddle height by almost half an inch.
Lou
In testing at USOC, athletes not only could not tell which
length cranks were fitted, and did not notice mismatched
lengths, but performance did not change with crank length
(for values of 165mm through 175mm).
Andrew, that is pure bullshit. Rather than reading the propaganda of someone else try this yourself. I rode 175's forever and my knees always hurt for the first half hour of riding until they warmed up and loosened. The second I changed to 172.5
that pedal speed (which constrains muscle shortening velocity) and pedaling rate (which affects muscle excitation state) exert distinct effects that influence muscular power during cycling."The study you cited really seems to say other than what you're interpreting it to be: "Power produced with the 145- and 170-mm cranks was significantly (P < 0.05) greater than that produced with the 120- and 220-mm cranks" and "These data suggestOthers cannot repeat that experience for those values:
As for the crank length - you are correct but I feel it plainly. Or painfully. Today my legs have pain from cramping last night. And this was a flat ride.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11417428/
Extreme crank lengths (outside of the common 165~175) do matter.
Personally I ride 165 and 170 fixed and 167.5 and 172 free
but can't say one is better than another or even different
in any noticeable way. I'm reasonably sure I could not feel
a pea under a mattress either. YMMV.
It also suggests that 170 mm are good for "most adults" whereas at 6'4" I'm hardly in the category of "average".
120mm to 170mm is a very significant length difference. Can
we agree on that?
And yes, for significant (+41.66%) crank length difference,
efficiency differences were found.
170mm to 172.5mm is a scant 1.47% variance. meh.
--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Am Sun, 5 Nov 2023 12:01:50 -0600 schrieb AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>:
In testing at USOC, athletes not only could not tell whichPerhaps. But I don't see wy I shouldn't select the best fitting length
length cranks were fitted, and did not notice mismatched
lengths, but performance did not change with crank length
(for values of 165mm through 175mm).
if there is a choice. In addition, not everybody is an athlete and
young. Performance isn't the only criterium.
I built my wifes bike with a 160 mm crank, mine using a 172.5 mm one. I definitively noticed the difference, while test riding her bike. That's
a 12.5mm difference though, not just 2.5mm.
--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen
Am Sun, 5 Nov 2023 12:01:50 -0600 schrieb AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>:
In testing at USOC, athletes not only could not tell which
length cranks were fitted, and did not notice mismatched
lengths, but performance did not change with crank length
(for values of 165mm through 175mm).
Perhaps. But I don't see wy I shouldn't select the best fitting length
if there is a choice. In addition, not everybody is an athlete and
young. Performance isn't the only criterium.
I built my wifes bike with a 160 mm crank, mine using a 172.5 mm one. I definitively noticed the difference, while test riding her bike. That's
a 12.5mm difference though, not just 2.5mm.
On 11/5/2023 2:54 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 5 Nov 2023 12:01:50 -0600 schrieb AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>:
In testing at USOC, athletes not only could not tell which
length cranks were fitted, and did not notice mismatched
lengths, but performance did not change with crank length
(for values of 165mm through 175mm).
Perhaps. But I don't see wy I shouldn't select the best fitting length
if there is a choice. In addition, not everybody is an athlete and
young. Performance isn't the only criterium.
I built my wifes bike with a 160 mm crank, mine using a 172.5 mm one. I definitively noticed the difference, while test riding her bike. That's
a 12.5mm difference though, not just 2.5mm.
Yes, whatever you prefer for any reason or for no reason.I quoted an article earlier that showed that small differences in crank length seemed to make quite measurable loadings on different joints. I am a more active than normal rider and I don't seem to have any trouble with my joints but the muscles
I'm not advising here.
That said, it was a conversation with Mr Brandt some twenty
years ago which piqued my curiosity about real world effects
of our small crank increments (1.5% roughly) compared to
rider population variance in leg length. What few tests
there are find output differences fr extreme crank length
variance (as one would expect) but not within our normal
2.5mm window.
https://bikepacking.com/gear/crank-length-test/
--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
On 11/5/2023 10:49 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 8:08:25 AM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:35:43 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:Lou, that is 2.5 mm at the bottom and lifting your leg another 2.5 mm at
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 3:52:49 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: >>>>>> I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings >>>>>> on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth >>>>>> are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).It is 2.5 mm difference, that is 0.1”. If I raise my saddle 2.5 mm I
I meant 0.2" . If you don't believe that to be a lot, lift your seatTwo inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1 inch. Stop
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small
ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed >>>>>> chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA
cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't >>>>>> bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to >>>>>> a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the 175's. Well THAT sure
reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the
cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a
little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from >>>>>> riding with shingles. But my legs are TIRED. And the guys I was with >>>>>> kept pulling away from me pretty fast and it was hell to accelerate to catch them.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a >>>>>> hell of a difference.
using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift the decimal
point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t be making a hell of a difference.
Lou
post by that amount and try to ride.
will notice that in the beginning but it will not make a hell of a
difference and after 10 minutes I will be used to it. It is the same
difference you feel when wearing different shoes or socks.
Lou
the top. that is a 5 mm difference in the crank throw. As I said, if you
think that is nothing TRY lifting your saddle height by almost half an inch.
Total diameter 5mm, about 3/16" (not 'half an inch'=8/16").
In testing at USOC, athletes not only could not tell which
length cranks were fitted, and did not notice mismatched
lengths, but performance did not change with crank length
(for values of 165mm through 175mm).
On 11/4/2023 5:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs are
I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the 175's.
longer legs than I have to it ought to fit her well.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.
When I got home some woman wanted to buy my Basso Lotto frameset. So I'm taking the wife out to dinner. That woman lives in San Francisco and is taller than I am. And she seemed to know bicycles. So she knew what she wanted and being a woman she had
I raise an eyebrow at the idea of feeling 2.5mm crank length
difference. Unlikely.
On 11/5/2023 2:54 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 5 Nov 2023 12:01:50 -0600 schrieb AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>:
In testing at USOC, athletes not only could not tell which
length cranks were fitted, and did not notice mismatched
lengths, but performance did not change with crank length
(for values of 165mm through 175mm).
Perhaps. But I don't see wy I shouldn't select the best fitting length
if there is a choice. In addition, not everybody is an athlete and
young. Performance isn't the only criterium.
I built my wifes bike with a 160 mm crank, mine using a 172.5 mm one. I
definitively noticed the difference, while test riding her bike. That's
a 12.5mm difference though, not just 2.5mm.
Yes, whatever you prefer for any reason or for no reason.
I'm not advising here.
That said, it was a conversation with Mr Brandt some twenty
years ago which piqued my curiosity about real world effects
of our small crank increments (1.5% roughly) compared to
rider population variance in leg length. What few tests
there are find output differences fr extreme crank length
variance (as one would expect) but not within our normal
2.5mm window.
https://bikepacking.com/gear/crank-length-test/
Am Sun, 5 Nov 2023 15:23:02 -0600 schrieb AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>:
On 11/5/2023 2:54 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 5 Nov 2023 12:01:50 -0600 schrieb AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>: >>
In testing at USOC, athletes not only could not tell which
length cranks were fitted, and did not notice mismatched
lengths, but performance did not change with crank length
(for values of 165mm through 175mm).
Perhaps. But I don't see wy I shouldn't select the best fitting length
if there is a choice. In addition, not everybody is an athlete and
young. Performance isn't the only criterium.
I built my wifes bike with a 160 mm crank, mine using a 172.5 mm one. I >> definitively noticed the difference, while test riding her bike. That's >> a 12.5mm difference though, not just 2.5mm.
Yes, whatever you prefer for any reason or for no reason.It's not just preferences or about wether we notice differences or not.
- Efficiency isn't the main and only criterium. We are old and insofar
our muscles, ligaments and joints aren't as adaptable anymore
- In the end, it depends on the leg length and the angle between
maximum and minimum extension that the knee joint, ligaments and the
muscles still allow. That's what we were told during a bike fitting
- Smartypants advice on the internet, which mainly comes from tall,
young cyclists or is aimed at them, is rather misleading
I'm not advising here.Me neither, as far as the decision for a certain crank length is
concerned. But I advise against generalizing from reports you cited
above.
That said, it was a conversation with Mr Brandt some twenty
years ago which piqued my curiosity about real world effects
of our small crank increments (1.5% roughly) compared to
rider population variance in leg length. What few tests
there are find output differences fr extreme crank length
variance (as one would expect) but not within our normal
2.5mm window.
https://bikepacking.com/gear/crank-length-test/This is almost as far from what what I'd consider the relevant point, in
our case. They are measuring and comparing FTP for varying crank lengths
for a singe person, Dave, over a range of crank lengths between 145 cm
and 175 cm, noticing that he could addapt from his road bike crank (175
cm) to a 145 cm crank, after a while, after some training doing a mostly offroad trail ride. That doesn't tell anything about whether an older,
much smaller and less strong person could - or should - adapt in the opposite direction, say, from 160 cm to a 175 cm crank length. We both
are much shorter, having a much shorter inseam. I've installed a 172.5
cm crank on my new bike, because I'm used to that for decades of regular riding, but reduced my wifes crank a little bit, from 165 mm to 160 mm, because our new bikes have a much shorter minimum unfolding than the now thirteen-year-old racing bikes and because I could easily reduce that
even more by just replacing the front chainring by a smaller one.
Speaking about Jobst, he was a tall person, as far as I remember. As
much as I appreciated Jobst's many insights, even he was not always able
to think outside his box and abstract from his physical abilities and preferences. He was active in the German language newsgroup
de.rec.fahrrad, too, between 1993 and 1999, but somewhat lost interest, later.
--Jobst was 198 cm tall and rode this ridiculous 65 or 66 cm bike. As far as I could see the very idea of considering modifying his riding to accommodate those of the absolute beginners he attracted to his rides through these groups never crossed his mind
Thank you for observing all safety precautions
On 11/4/2023 6:52 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs are
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the 175's.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.
Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1 inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t be making a hell of a difference.
I shouldn't pile on, but: A two inch difference in crank link would be
VERY obvious visually. That fact should have brought Tom to his senses.
On 2023-11-05, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:s. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs are
On 11/4/2023 6:52 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: >>> I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the 175'
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.
Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1 inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t be making a hell of a difference.
I shouldn't pile on, but: A two inch difference in crank link would be VERY obvious visually. That fact should have brought Tom to his senses.
Well, obviously (to me) he meant 2 millimeters...just a typo of which I make so many.
On 2023-11-05, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:s. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs are
On 11/4/2023 6:52 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: >>> I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the 175'
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.
Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1 inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t be making a hell of a difference.
I shouldn't pile on, but: A two inch difference in crank link would be VERY obvious visually. That fact should have brought Tom to his senses.
Well, obviously (to me) he meant 2 millimeters...just a typo of which I make so many.
But anyway, I went from 170 to 175's and subjectively they felt much more open to me and I've since standardized on them. I've never tried 180 or
177.
Being a big galoot, I don't spin all that fast, but I'm not a masher, either.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 8:16:16 PM UTC+1, pH wrote:175's. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs
On 2023-11-05, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/4/2023 6:52 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: >>> I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the
between these cranks when the saddle height is set in the bottom dead center which is 2 times 2.5 mm = 5 mm = 5/25.4 = 0.2 in Mickey Mouse units AKA inch.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.
Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1 inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t be making a hell of a difference.
I shouldn't pile on, but: A two inch difference in crank link would be VERY obvious visually. That fact should have brought Tom to his senses.
Well, obviously (to me) he meant 2 millimeters...just a typo of which I makeIf it is so critical as Tom says the difference between 175 mm and 172.5 mm cranks is 2.5 mm and not 2 mm. Even for an Usian that is not that difficult. But what Tom meant, if I understand him correctly, is the height difference in top dead center
so many.
Lou
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:38:43 PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 8:16:16 PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
On 2023-11-05, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:If it is so critical as Tom says the difference between 175 mm and
On 11/4/2023 6:52 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:Well, obviously (to me) he meant 2 millimeters...just a typo of
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: >> > >>> I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain
rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower
but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even
though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the
small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a
105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the
FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so
I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot
that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the
175's. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in
the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed
on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not
any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my
legs are TIRED. And the guys I was with kept pulling away from
me pretty fast and it was hell to accelerate to catch them.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it
made a hell of a difference.
Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1
inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift
the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t
be making a hell of a difference.
I shouldn't pile on, but: A two inch difference in crank link would be >> > > VERY obvious visually. That fact should have brought Tom to his senses. >> > >
which I make
so many.
172.5 mm cranks is 2.5 mm and not 2 mm. Even for an Usian that is
not that difficult. But what Tom meant, if I understand him
correctly, is the height difference in top dead center between these
cranks when the saddle height is set in the bottom dead center which
is 2 times 2.5 mm = 5 mm = 5/25.4 = 0.2 in Mickey Mouse units AKA
inch.
Lou
Andrew just quoted some studies that were somewhat misleading. While
they SAID that crank arm length didn't effect power output it was sort
of covered up that crank arm length changed the pedal speed and so you
had to correct your cadence to achieve the same power. In Andrew's
reference there were other references to "studies" that said the same
thing. Now maybe you can easily change your cadence at where you make
your maximum power easily but wait until you're 79 before you tell me
that it doesn't make any difference.
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse
system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic
and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and
forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the English
system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the
modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary
system from.
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math
skills. But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make
it easy to work with.
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the Englishsystem. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary system from.
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math skills.
But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make it easy to work with.
Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:38:43 PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 8:16:16 PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
On 2023-11-05, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:If it is so critical as Tom says the difference between 175 mm and
On 11/4/2023 6:52 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:Well, obviously (to me) he meant 2 millimeters...just a typo of
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain
rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower
but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even
though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the
small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a
105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the
FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so
I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot
that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the
175's. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in
the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed
on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not
any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my
legs are TIRED. And the guys I was with kept pulling away from
me pretty fast and it was hell to accelerate to catch them.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it
made a hell of a difference.
Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1
inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift
the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t
be making a hell of a difference.
I shouldn't pile on, but: A two inch difference in crank link would be
VERY obvious visually. That fact should have brought Tom to his senses.
which I make
so many.
172.5 mm cranks is 2.5 mm and not 2 mm. Even for an Usian that is
not that difficult. But what Tom meant, if I understand him
correctly, is the height difference in top dead center between these
cranks when the saddle height is set in the bottom dead center which
is 2 times 2.5 mm = 5 mm = 5/25.4 = 0.2 in Mickey Mouse units AKA
inch.
Lou
Andrew just quoted some studies that were somewhat misleading. While
they SAID that crank arm length didn't effect power output it was sort
of covered up that crank arm length changed the pedal speed and so you
had to correct your cadence to achieve the same power. In Andrew's reference there were other references to "studies" that said the same thing. Now maybe you can easily change your cadence at where you make
your maximum power easily but wait until you're 79 before you tell me
that it doesn't make any difference.
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey MouseThe English stopped using their traditional units for technical purposes quite some time ago, so it seems at least defensible to call inches "American" units. Mickey, after all, was invented here.
system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic
and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and
forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the English
system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the
modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary
system from.
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math skills. But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't makeOne inch is currently equal to *exactly* 25.4 mm, by definition. There
it easy to work with.
are no primary standards for English units.
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 13:55:24 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunichsystem. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary system from.
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the English
<https://www.metricmetal.com/history-of-the-metric-system/>
1957: The U.S. Army and Marine Corps adopted the metric system. Used
as the basis for their weapons and equipment.
NASA is all metric after the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed due to a
mixup of units. <https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/>
Unfortunately, the USAF still uses a mixture of units from both the
imperial and metric systems.
1988: Congress passed the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. This
act called for all federal government agencies to use the metric
system for business by the end of 1992.
The US medical system is all metric.
US motor vehicles are all metric.
US packaged foods are marked in both imperial and metric, but are increasingly bought and sold in metric units.
IBM PC based computers and descendents are a mixture. The two main
hardware threads are M3 and 6-32 UNC.
More:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States>
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math skills.
That doesn't seem to be working well for your arithmetic abilities.
But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make it easy to work with.
Neither does Pi = 3.1415 etc or any of the other conversion factors in
common use. Fortunately, the government arrived to help simplify
things:
"Indiana Pi Bill"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill>
On 11/6/2023 4:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:English system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary system from.
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 13:55:24 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the
<https://www.metricmetal.com/history-of-the-metric-system/>
1957: The U.S. Army and Marine Corps adopted the metric system. Used
as the basis for their weapons and equipment.
NASA is all metric after the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed due to a
mixup of units. <https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/>
Unfortunately, the USAF still uses a mixture of units from both the imperial and metric systems.
1988: Congress passed the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. This
act called for all federal government agencies to use the metric
system for business by the end of 1992.
The US medical system is all metric.
US motor vehicles are all metric.
US packaged foods are marked in both imperial and metric, but are increasingly bought and sold in metric units.
IBM PC based computers and descendents are a mixture. The two main hardware threads are M3 and 6-32 UNC.
More:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States>
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math skills.
That doesn't seem to be working well for your arithmetic abilities.
But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make it easy to work with.
Neither does Pi = 3.1415 etc or any of the other conversion factors in common use. Fortunately, the government arrived to help simplify
things:
"Indiana Pi Bill"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill>
Regarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a
large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that
government buildings henceforth shall be of metric
dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changed
anything except to add a software function so their plotters
could make metric versions of their usual plans, e.g, a 36
inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:08:20 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:English system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary system from.
On 11/6/2023 4:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 13:55:24 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the
Regarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a
<https://www.metricmetal.com/history-of-the-metric-system/>
1957: The U.S. Army and Marine Corps adopted the metric system. Used
as the basis for their weapons and equipment.
NASA is all metric after the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed due to a
mixup of units.
<https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/>
Unfortunately, the USAF still uses a mixture of units from both the
imperial and metric systems.
1988: Congress passed the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. This
act called for all federal government agencies to use the metric
system for business by the end of 1992.
The US medical system is all metric.
US motor vehicles are all metric.
US packaged foods are marked in both imperial and metric, but are
increasingly bought and sold in metric units.
IBM PC based computers and descendents are a mixture. The two main
hardware threads are M3 and 6-32 UNC.
More:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States>
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math skills.
That doesn't seem to be working well for your arithmetic abilities.
But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make it easy to work with.
Neither does Pi = 3.1415 etc or any of the other conversion factors in
common use. Fortunately, the government arrived to help simplify
things:
"Indiana Pi Bill"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill>
large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that
government buildings henceforth shall be of metric
dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changed
anything except to add a software function so their plotters
could make metric versions of their usual plans, e.g, a 36
inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
The metric system was INVENTED by an Englishman who I suppose thought the common man too stupid to use the English system and would rather use things evenly divisible by 10. That the English really didn't fall for that was shown by the way the Frenchdecided to use it and the rest of Europe followed in their footsteps. Bonaparte was not particularly intelligent about anything other than taking advantage of the failings of others. So it seems that it was passed on to all of the French. By what metric
Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:38:43?PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 8:16:16?PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
On 2023-11-05, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:If it is so critical as Tom says the difference between 175 mm and
On 11/4/2023 6:52 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:Well, obviously (to me) he meant 2 millimeters...just a typo of
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36?PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: >>> > >>> I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain
rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower
but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even
though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the
small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a
105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the
FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so
I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot
that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the
175's. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in
the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed
on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not
any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my
legs are TIRED. And the guys I was with kept pulling away from
me pretty fast and it was hell to accelerate to catch them.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it
made a hell of a difference.
Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1
inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift
the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm cant
be making a hell of a difference.
I shouldn't pile on, but: A two inch difference in crank link would be >>> > > VERY obvious visually. That fact should have brought Tom to his senses. >>> > >
which I make
so many.
172.5 mm cranks is 2.5 mm and not 2 mm. Even for an Usian that is
not that difficult. But what Tom meant, if I understand him
correctly, is the height difference in top dead center between these
cranks when the saddle height is set in the bottom dead center which
is 2 times 2.5 mm = 5 mm = 5/25.4 = 0.2 in Mickey Mouse units AKA
inch.
Lou
Andrew just quoted some studies that were somewhat misleading. While
they SAID that crank arm length didn't effect power output it was sort
of covered up that crank arm length changed the pedal speed and so you
had to correct your cadence to achieve the same power. In Andrew's
reference there were other references to "studies" that said the same
thing. Now maybe you can easily change your cadence at where you make
your maximum power easily but wait until you're 79 before you tell me
that it doesn't make any difference.
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse
system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic
and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and
forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the English
system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the
modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of
measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary
system from.
The English stopped using their traditional units for technical purposes >quite some time ago, so it seems at least defensible to call inches >"American" units. Mickey, after all, was invented here.
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math
skills. But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make
it easy to work with.
One inch is currently equal to *exactly* 25.4 mm, by definition. There
are no primary standards for English units.
On 11/6/2023 5:29 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:English system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary system from.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:08:20 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/6/2023 4:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 13:55:24 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the
Regarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a
<https://www.metricmetal.com/history-of-the-metric-system/>
1957: The U.S. Army and Marine Corps adopted the metric system. Used
as the basis for their weapons and equipment.
NASA is all metric after the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed due to a
mixup of units.
<https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/>
Unfortunately, the USAF still uses a mixture of units from both the
imperial and metric systems.
1988: Congress passed the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. This >>> act called for all federal government agencies to use the metric
system for business by the end of 1992.
The US medical system is all metric.
US motor vehicles are all metric.
US packaged foods are marked in both imperial and metric, but are
increasingly bought and sold in metric units.
IBM PC based computers and descendents are a mixture. The two main
hardware threads are M3 and 6-32 UNC.
More:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States>
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math skills.
That doesn't seem to be working well for your arithmetic abilities.
But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make it easy to work with.
Neither does Pi = 3.1415 etc or any of the other conversion factors in >>> common use. Fortunately, the government arrived to help simplify
things:
"Indiana Pi Bill"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill>
large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that
government buildings henceforth shall be of metric
dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changed
anything except to add a software function so their plotters
could make metric versions of their usual plans, e.g, a 36
inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
decided to use it and the rest of Europe followed in their footsteps. Bonaparte was not particularly intelligent about anything other than taking advantage of the failings of others. So it seems that it was passed on to all of the French. By what metricThe metric system was INVENTED by an Englishman who I suppose thought the common man too stupid to use the English system and would rather use things evenly divisible by 10. That the English really didn't fall for that was shown by the way the French
Our modern culture incorporates Sumerian root base-12
systems, decimal and others (360 degree geometry and
astronomy). There's no inherent 'better' beyond familiarity
in most cases. But you have to admit there are real
conveniences in metric, such as tap drill sizes (dia minus
advancement) and wrench sizes (10x advancement). Try that in
British Whitworth or SAE (which replaced National and
Unified and before that Sellers and...). At least metric is
a bit more stable now that French metric has died and left
DIN and JIS dominant.
Had you grown up using stone rather than pounds you would
view them as normal and familiar. Ditto kilos.
Being immersed in bicycles, an American dimensioned lathe
and a lot of 60 year old autos, I can slip easily between
systems. I cook in a mix of both systems where applicable,
doesn't make trouble at all. That's not different from a
22mm diameter cam specified to a -9 degree open (mixed
systems again)
Would the world be more orderly with a universal system?
Probably. But that's not where we live. Deal with it.
--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:53:38 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:English system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary system from.
On 11/6/2023 5:29 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:08:20 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/6/2023 4:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 13:55:24 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the
decided to use it and the rest of Europe followed in their footsteps. Bonaparte was not particularly intelligent about anything other than taking advantage of the failings of others. So it seems that it was passed on to all of the French. By what metricRegarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a
<https://www.metricmetal.com/history-of-the-metric-system/>
1957: The U.S. Army and Marine Corps adopted the metric system. Used >>>>> as the basis for their weapons and equipment.
NASA is all metric after the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed due to a
mixup of units.
<https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/>
Unfortunately, the USAF still uses a mixture of units from both the
imperial and metric systems.
1988: Congress passed the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. This >>>>> act called for all federal government agencies to use the metric
system for business by the end of 1992.
The US medical system is all metric.
US motor vehicles are all metric.
US packaged foods are marked in both imperial and metric, but are
increasingly bought and sold in metric units.
IBM PC based computers and descendents are a mixture. The two main
hardware threads are M3 and 6-32 UNC.
More:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States>
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math skills.
That doesn't seem to be working well for your arithmetic abilities.
But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make it easy to work with.
Neither does Pi = 3.1415 etc or any of the other conversion factors in >>>>> common use. Fortunately, the government arrived to help simplify
things:
"Indiana Pi Bill"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill>
large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that
government buildings henceforth shall be of metric
dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changed
anything except to add a software function so their plotters
could make metric versions of their usual plans, e.g, a 36
inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
The metric system was INVENTED by an Englishman who I suppose thought the common man too stupid to use the English system and would rather use things evenly divisible by 10. That the English really didn't fall for that was shown by the way the French
Our modern culture incorporates Sumerian root base-12
systems, decimal and others (360 degree geometry and
astronomy). There's no inherent 'better' beyond familiarity
in most cases. But you have to admit there are real
conveniences in metric, such as tap drill sizes (dia minus
advancement) and wrench sizes (10x advancement). Try that in
British Whitworth or SAE (which replaced National and
Unified and before that Sellers and...). At least metric is
a bit more stable now that French metric has died and left
DIN and JIS dominant.
Had you grown up using stone rather than pounds you would
view them as normal and familiar. Ditto kilos.
Being immersed in bicycles, an American dimensioned lathe
and a lot of 60 year old autos, I can slip easily between
systems. I cook in a mix of both systems where applicable,
doesn't make trouble at all. That's not different from a
22mm diameter cam specified to a -9 degree open (mixed
systems again)
Would the world be more orderly with a universal system?
Probably. But that's not where we live. Deal with it.
Well, that's what we're doing isn't it? What is a 1.37" x 24 threads? Combined with a left and and a right hand thread. THAT is the most common BB standard and works quite well.
" Mickey, after all, was invented here." ???
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:20:42 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:circumference of the earth at latitude zero and not something entirely out of sync with the world like the exact number of red wavelength of light.
One inch is currently equal to *exactly* 25.4 mm, by definition. There
are no primary standards for English units.
That does NOT set the length of an inch but rather the length of a meter. While the 1826 or whatever English system was founded as some sort of local lengths and measures, the US system evolved into lengths compatible with astronomical data such as the
On 2023-11-05, Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:s. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my legs are
On 11/4/2023 6:52 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: >>>> I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the 175'
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it made a hell of a difference.
Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1 inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t be making a hell of a difference.
I shouldn't pile on, but: A two inch difference in crank link would be
VERY obvious visually. That fact should have brought Tom to his senses.
Well, obviously (to me) he meant 2 millimeters...just a typo of which I make so many.
But anyway, I went from 170 to 175's and subjectively they felt much more open to me and I've since standardized on them. I've never tried 180 or
177.
Being a big galoot, I don't spin all that fast, but I'm not a masher,
either.
Regarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that government buildings henceforth
shall be of metric dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changed anything except
to add a software function so their plotters could make metric versions
of their usual plans, e.g, a 36 inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
The metric system was INVENTED by an Englishman ...
Our modern culture incorporates Sumerian root base-12 systems, decimal
and others (360 degree geometry and astronomy). There's no inherent
'better' beyond familiarity in most cases. But you have to admit there
are real conveniences in metric, such as tap drill sizes (dia minus advancement) and wrench sizes (10x advancement). Try that in British Whitworth or SAE (which replaced National and Unified and before that
Sellers and...). At least metric is a bit more stable now that French
metric has died and left DIN and JIS dominant.
Had you grown up using stone rather than pounds you would view them as
normal and familiar. Ditto kilos.
Being immersed in bicycles, an American dimensioned lathe and a lot of
60 year old autos, I can slip easily between systems. I cook in a mix of
both systems where applicable, doesn't make trouble at all. That's not different from a 22mm diameter cam specified to a -9 degree open (mixed systems again)
Would the world be more orderly with a universal system? Probably. But
that's not where we live. Deal with it.
On Mon, 06 Nov 2023 17:20:38 -0500, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:38:43?PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 8:16:16?PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
On 2023-11-05, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:If it is so critical as Tom says the difference between 175 mm and
On 11/4/2023 6:52 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:Well, obviously (to me) he meant 2 millimeters...just a typo of
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36?PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: >>>> > >>> I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain
rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower
but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even
though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the
small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a
105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the
FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so
I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot
that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the
175's. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in
the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed
on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not
any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my
legs are TIRED. And the guys I was with kept pulling away from
me pretty fast and it was hell to accelerate to catch them.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it
made a hell of a difference.
Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1
inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift
the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t >>>> > >> be making a hell of a difference.
I shouldn't pile on, but: A two inch difference in crank link would be >>>> > > VERY obvious visually. That fact should have brought Tom to his senses.
which I make
so many.
172.5 mm cranks is 2.5 mm and not 2 mm. Even for an Usian that is
not that difficult. But what Tom meant, if I understand him
correctly, is the height difference in top dead center between these
cranks when the saddle height is set in the bottom dead center which
is 2 times 2.5 mm = 5 mm = 5/25.4 = 0.2 in Mickey Mouse units AKA
inch.
Lou
Andrew just quoted some studies that were somewhat misleading. While
they SAID that crank arm length didn't effect power output it was sort
of covered up that crank arm length changed the pedal speed and so you
had to correct your cadence to achieve the same power. In Andrew's
reference there were other references to "studies" that said the same
thing. Now maybe you can easily change your cadence at where you make
your maximum power easily but wait until you're 79 before you tell me
that it doesn't make any difference.
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse
system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic
and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and
forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the English
system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the
modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of
measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary
system from.
The English stopped using their traditional units for technical purposes >>quite some time ago, so it seems at least defensible to call inches >>"American" units. Mickey, after all, was invented here.
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math
skills. But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make
it easy to work with.
One inch is currently equal to *exactly* 25.4 mm, by definition. There
are no primary standards for English units.
" Mickey, after all, was invented here." ???
I even did a google search and according to the Cambridge Dictionary -
which I believe is as "British" as it is possible to be "Mickey" has
two meanings
Mickey - a drug added to a drink, especially an alcoholic drink, in
order to make the person who drinks it unconscious:
or
Mickey - take the mickey/mick (out of someone)
UK informal, to laugh at someone and make them seem silly, in a funny
or unkind way:
I assume that you are using the later sense (:-)
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:20:42 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:38:43 PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:The English stopped using their traditional units for technical purposes
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 8:16:16 PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
On 2023-11-05, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:If it is so critical as Tom says the difference between 175 mm and
On 11/4/2023 6:52 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:Well, obviously (to me) he meant 2 millimeters...just a typo of
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain
rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower
but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even
though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the
small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a
105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the
FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so
I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot
that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the
175's. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in
the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed
on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not
any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my
legs are TIRED. And the guys I was with kept pulling away from
me pretty fast and it was hell to accelerate to catch them.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it
made a hell of a difference.
Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1
inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift
the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t
be making a hell of a difference.
I shouldn't pile on, but: A two inch difference in crank link would be
VERY obvious visually. That fact should have brought Tom to his senses.
which I make
so many.
172.5 mm cranks is 2.5 mm and not 2 mm. Even for an Usian that is
not that difficult. But what Tom meant, if I understand him
correctly, is the height difference in top dead center between these
cranks when the saddle height is set in the bottom dead center which
is 2 times 2.5 mm = 5 mm = 5/25.4 = 0.2 in Mickey Mouse units AKA
inch.
Lou
Andrew just quoted some studies that were somewhat misleading. While
they SAID that crank arm length didn't effect power output it was sort
of covered up that crank arm length changed the pedal speed and so you
had to correct your cadence to achieve the same power. In Andrew's
reference there were other references to "studies" that said the same
thing. Now maybe you can easily change your cadence at where you make
your maximum power easily but wait until you're 79 before you tell me
that it doesn't make any difference.
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse
system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic
and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and
forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the English
system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the
modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of
measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary
system from.
quite some time ago, so it seems at least defensible to call inches
"American" units. Mickey, after all, was invented here.
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor mathOne inch is currently equal to *exactly* 25.4 mm, by definition. There
skills. But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make
it easy to work with.
are no primary standards for English units.
That does NOT set the length of an inch but rather the length of a
meter. While the 1826 or whatever English system was founded as some
sort of local lengths and measures, the US system evolved into lengths compatible with astronomical data such as the circumference of the
earth at latitude zero and not something entirely out of sync with the
world like the exact number of red wavelength of light.
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2023 17:20:38 -0500, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:38:43?PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 8:16:16?PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
On 2023-11-05, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:If it is so critical as Tom says the difference between 175 mm and
On 11/4/2023 6:52 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:Well, obviously (to me) he meant 2 millimeters...just a typo of
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36?PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain
rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower
but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even
though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the
small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a
105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the
FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so >>>>> > >>> I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot
that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the
175's. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in
the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed >>>>> > >>> on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not
any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my >>>>> > >>> legs are TIRED. And the guys I was with kept pulling away from >>>>> > >>> me pretty fast and it was hell to accelerate to catch them.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it
made a hell of a difference.
Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1
inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift >>>>> > >> the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm cant >>>>> > >> be making a hell of a difference.
I shouldn't pile on, but: A two inch difference in crank link would be
VERY obvious visually. That fact should have brought Tom to his senses.
which I make
so many.
172.5 mm cranks is 2.5 mm and not 2 mm. Even for an Usian that is
not that difficult. But what Tom meant, if I understand him
correctly, is the height difference in top dead center between these >>>>> cranks when the saddle height is set in the bottom dead center which >>>>> is 2 times 2.5 mm = 5 mm = 5/25.4 = 0.2 in Mickey Mouse units AKA
inch.
Lou
Andrew just quoted some studies that were somewhat misleading. While
they SAID that crank arm length didn't effect power output it was sort >>>> of covered up that crank arm length changed the pedal speed and so you >>>> had to correct your cadence to achieve the same power. In Andrew's
reference there were other references to "studies" that said the same
thing. Now maybe you can easily change your cadence at where you make
your maximum power easily but wait until you're 79 before you tell me
that it doesn't make any difference.
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse
system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic
and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and
forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the English
system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the
modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of >>>> measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary
system from.
The English stopped using their traditional units for technical purposes >>>quite some time ago, so it seems at least defensible to call inches >>>"American" units. Mickey, after all, was invented here.
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math
skills. But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make
it easy to work with.
One inch is currently equal to *exactly* 25.4 mm, by definition. There >>>are no primary standards for English units.
" Mickey, after all, was invented here." ???
I even did a google search and according to the Cambridge Dictionary -
which I believe is as "British" as it is possible to be "Mickey" has
two meanings
Mickey - a drug added to a drink, especially an alcoholic drink, in
order to make the person who drinks it unconscious:
or
Mickey - take the mickey/mick (out of someone)
UK informal, to laugh at someone and make them seem silly, in a funny
or unkind way:
I assume that you are using the later sense (:-)
You're serious! I was talking about the mouse.
On 11/6/2023 4:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:English system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary system from.
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 13:55:24 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the
<https://www.metricmetal.com/history-of-the-metric-system/>
1957: The U.S. Army and Marine Corps adopted the metric system. Used
as the basis for their weapons and equipment.
NASA is all metric after the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed due to a
mixup of units. <https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/>
Unfortunately, the USAF still uses a mixture of units from both the imperial and metric systems.
1988: Congress passed the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. This
act called for all federal government agencies to use the metric
system for business by the end of 1992.
The US medical system is all metric.
US motor vehicles are all metric.
US packaged foods are marked in both imperial and metric, but are increasingly bought and sold in metric units.
IBM PC based computers and descendents are a mixture. The two main hardware threads are M3 and 6-32 UNC.
More:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States>
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math skills.
That doesn't seem to be working well for your arithmetic abilities.
But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make it easy to work with.
Neither does Pi = 3.1415 etc or any of the other conversion factors in common use. Fortunately, the government arrived to help simplify
things:
"Indiana Pi Bill"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill>
Regarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a
large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that
government buildings henceforth shall be of metric
dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changed
anything except to add a software function so their plotters
could make metric versions of their usual plans, e.g, a 36
inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and forth.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 10:55:26?PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:Mickey Mouse units? So who is the guy that doesn't know how to move
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and forth.
Who wrote 2" and meant 0.2" converting from millimeters to
Lou
On 11/6/2023 5:29 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:English system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary system from.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:08:20?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/6/2023 4:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 13:55:24 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the
decided to use it and the rest of Europe followed in their footsteps. Bonaparte was not particularly intelligent about anything other than taking advantage of the failings of others. So it seems that it was passed on to all of the French. By what metricRegarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a
<https://www.metricmetal.com/history-of-the-metric-system/>
1957: The U.S. Army and Marine Corps adopted the metric system. Used
as the basis for their weapons and equipment.
NASA is all metric after the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed due to a
mixup of units.
<https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/>
Unfortunately, the USAF still uses a mixture of units from both the
imperial and metric systems.
1988: Congress passed the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. This
act called for all federal government agencies to use the metric
system for business by the end of 1992.
The US medical system is all metric.
US motor vehicles are all metric.
US packaged foods are marked in both imperial and metric, but are
increasingly bought and sold in metric units.
IBM PC based computers and descendents are a mixture. The two main
hardware threads are M3 and 6-32 UNC.
More:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States>
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math skills.
That doesn't seem to be working well for your arithmetic abilities.
But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make it easy to work with.
Neither does Pi = 3.1415 etc or any of the other conversion factors in >>>> common use. Fortunately, the government arrived to help simplify
things:
"Indiana Pi Bill"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill>
large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that
government buildings henceforth shall be of metric
dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changed
anything except to add a software function so their plotters
could make metric versions of their usual plans, e.g, a 36
inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
The metric system was INVENTED by an Englishman who I suppose thought the common man too stupid to use the English system and would rather use things evenly divisible by 10. That the English really didn't fall for that was shown by the way the French
Our modern culture incorporates Sumerian root base-12
systems, decimal and others (360 degree geometry and
astronomy). There's no inherent 'better' beyond familiarity
in most cases. But you have to admit there are real
conveniences in metric, such as tap drill sizes (dia minus
advancement) and wrench sizes (10x advancement). Try that in
British Whitworth or SAE (which replaced National and
Unified and before that Sellers and...). At least metric is
a bit more stable now that French metric has died and left
DIN and JIS dominant.
Had you grown up using stone rather than pounds you would
view them as normal and familiar. Ditto kilos.
Being immersed in bicycles, an American dimensioned lathe
and a lot of 60 year old autos, I can slip easily between
systems. I cook in a mix of both systems where applicable,
doesn't make trouble at all. That's not different from a
22mm diameter cam specified to a -9 degree open (mixed
systems again)
Would the world be more orderly with a universal system?
Probably. But that's not where we live. Deal with it.
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 17:53:33 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:.
That said, I'm simply not in favor of more attempts at globalization.
Just as I favor personal individualism, I also favor national
individualism.
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 12:08:20 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:English system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary system from.
On 11/6/2023 4:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 13:55:24 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the
My error should be 914mm sorry.Regarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a
<https://www.metricmetal.com/history-of-the-metric-system/>
1957: The U.S. Army and Marine Corps adopted the metric system. Used
as the basis for their weapons and equipment.
NASA is all metric after the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed due to a
mixup of units.
<https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/>
Unfortunately, the USAF still uses a mixture of units from both the
imperial and metric systems.
1988: Congress passed the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. This
act called for all federal government agencies to use the metric
system for business by the end of 1992.
The US medical system is all metric.
US motor vehicles are all metric.
US packaged foods are marked in both imperial and metric, but are
increasingly bought and sold in metric units.
IBM PC based computers and descendents are a mixture. The two main
hardware threads are M3 and 6-32 UNC.
More:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States>
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math skills.
That doesn't seem to be working well for your arithmetic abilities.
But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make it easy to work with.
Neither does Pi = 3.1415 etc or any of the other conversion factors in
common use. Fortunately, the government arrived to help simplify
things:
"Indiana Pi Bill"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill>
large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that
government buildings henceforth shall be of metric
dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changed
anything except to add a software function so their plotters
could make metric versions of their usual plans, e.g, a 36
inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
Then the window didn't fit.
Lou
On 11/6/2023 6:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Regarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a
large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that
government buildings henceforth shall be of metric
dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changed
anything except to add a software function so their
plotters could make metric versions of their usual plans,
e.g, a 36 inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
Or maybe 914mm?
At this point, changing building materials over to truly
metric dimensions would be extremely difficult.
Canada is officially metric but uses a hodgepodge of the two
systems.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 10:55:26 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
common, so when we get parts from the USA with dimension in Mickey Mouse units we get dimension tolerances of 0.004 or even worse fractions. Retarded system.Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and forth.Who wrote 2" and meant 0.2" converting from millimeters to Mickey Mouse units? So who is the guy that doesn't know how to move the decimal point? Tell me. Why did you even convert 5 mm to Mickey Mouse units? In my business tolerances of 0.1 mm are very
LouI did move the decimal correctly. I simply had a typo on the decimal point so that you could complain about it. I will be more careful in the future so that I put a zero in front of fractions so that you can complain even more about the missing decimal
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 12:08:20 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:English system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary system from.
On 11/6/2023 4:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 13:55:24 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the
<https://www.metricmetal.com/history-of-the-metric-system/>
1957: The U.S. Army and Marine Corps adopted the metric system. Used
as the basis for their weapons and equipment.
NASA is all metric after the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed due to a
mixup of units. <https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/>
Unfortunately, the USAF still uses a mixture of units from both the imperial and metric systems.
1988: Congress passed the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. This act called for all federal government agencies to use the metric
system for business by the end of 1992.
The US medical system is all metric.
US motor vehicles are all metric.
US packaged foods are marked in both imperial and metric, but are increasingly bought and sold in metric units.
IBM PC based computers and descendents are a mixture. The two main hardware threads are M3 and 6-32 UNC.
More:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States>
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math skills.
That doesn't seem to be working well for your arithmetic abilities.
But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make it easy to work with.
Neither does Pi = 3.1415 etc or any of the other conversion factors in common use. Fortunately, the government arrived to help simplify
things:
"Indiana Pi Bill"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill>
There appears to be the problem with your use of English again Lou. Andrew was making a point and not trying to be accurate in his conversion. You seem to be in an argumentative mood lately. Is this because you haven't adapted to retirement yet? It doesRegarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a
large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that
government buildings henceforth shall be of metric
dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changedThen the window didn't fit.
anything except to add a software function so their plotters
could make metric versions of their usual plans, e.g, a 36
inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
Lou
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 11:33:58 AM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:My toolbox for work on larger items like cars has metric on one side and SI on the other. I might add that on ALL of the English sports cars I owned (which was a lot) they all used SI except I think the MGTC which I seem to remember used Whitworth.
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 17:53:33 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:.
.
That said, I'm simply not in favor of more attempts at globalization.Yes every state their own units, like in the old days. Californian feet, Florida feet etc. etc. Succes and buy a bigger toolbox.
Just as I favor personal individualism, I also favor national individualism.
Lou, don't start me on sheet metal and wire gauges.
On 11/6/2023 9:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/6/2023 6:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Regarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a
large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that
government buildings henceforth shall be of metric
dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changed
anything except to add a software function so their
plotters could make metric versions of their usual plans,
e.g, a 36 inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
Or maybe 914mm?
At this point, changing building materials over to truly
metric dimensions would be extremely difficult.
Canada is officially metric but uses a hodgepodge of the two
systems.
USAF has tooling parts and hardware in great profusion
worldwide which is why US aircraft will not be metric any
time soon.
--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7:28:25 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/6/2023 9:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/6/2023 6:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:USAF has tooling parts and hardware in great profusion
Regarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a
large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that
government buildings henceforth shall be of metric
dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changed
anything except to add a software function so their
plotters could make metric versions of their usual plans,
e.g, a 36 inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
Or maybe 914mm?
At this point, changing building materials over to truly
metric dimensions would be extremely difficult.
Canada is officially metric but uses a hodgepodge of the two
systems.
worldwide which is why US aircraft will not be metric any
time soon.
--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Only a mechanical engineer would think that the world should cast away tooling and start anew.
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 1:03:51 AM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:English system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary system from.
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 12:08:20 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/6/2023 4:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 13:55:24 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the
<https://www.metricmetal.com/history-of-the-metric-system/>
1957: The U.S. Army and Marine Corps adopted the metric system. Used as the basis for their weapons and equipment.
NASA is all metric after the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed due to a mixup of units. <https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/>
Unfortunately, the USAF still uses a mixture of units from both the imperial and metric systems.
1988: Congress passed the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. This act called for all federal government agencies to use the metric system for business by the end of 1992.
The US medical system is all metric.
US motor vehicles are all metric.
US packaged foods are marked in both imperial and metric, but are increasingly bought and sold in metric units.
IBM PC based computers and descendents are a mixture. The two main hardware threads are M3 and 6-32 UNC.
More:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States>
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math skills.
That doesn't seem to be working well for your arithmetic abilities.
But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make it easy to work with.
Neither does Pi = 3.1415 etc or any of the other conversion factors in common use. Fortunately, the government arrived to help simplify things:
"Indiana Pi Bill"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill>
does take time.Regarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a
large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that
government buildings henceforth shall be of metric
dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changedThen the window didn't fit.
anything except to add a software function so their plotters
could make metric versions of their usual plans, e.g, a 36
inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
LouThere appears to be the problem with your use of English again Lou. Andrew was making a point and not trying to be accurate in his conversion. You seem to be in an argumentative mood lately. Is this because you haven't adapted to retirement yet? It
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 4:55:21 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:English system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary system from.
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 1:03:51 AM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 12:08:20 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/6/2023 4:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 13:55:24 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the
<https://www.metricmetal.com/history-of-the-metric-system/>
1957: The U.S. Army and Marine Corps adopted the metric system. Used as the basis for their weapons and equipment.
NASA is all metric after the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed due to a mixup of units. <https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/>
Unfortunately, the USAF still uses a mixture of units from both the imperial and metric systems.
1988: Congress passed the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. This
act called for all federal government agencies to use the metric system for business by the end of 1992.
The US medical system is all metric.
US motor vehicles are all metric.
US packaged foods are marked in both imperial and metric, but are increasingly bought and sold in metric units.
IBM PC based computers and descendents are a mixture. The two main hardware threads are M3 and 6-32 UNC.
More: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States>
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math skills.
That doesn't seem to be working well for your arithmetic abilities.
But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make it easy to work with.
Neither does Pi = 3.1415 etc or any of the other conversion factors in
common use. Fortunately, the government arrived to help simplify things:
"Indiana Pi Bill"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill>
does take time.Regarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a
large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that
government buildings henceforth shall be of metric
dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changedThen the window didn't fit.
anything except to add a software function so their plotters
could make metric versions of their usual plans, e.g, a 36
inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
LouThere appears to be the problem with your use of English again Lou. Andrew was making a point and not trying to be accurate in his conversion. You seem to be in an argumentative mood lately. Is this because you haven't adapted to retirement yet? It
It was a joke. My retirement last 3 weeks then I was asked if I would come back for half a year. I was happy to do that. Man, double income and free coffee ;-)Good for you. I am now getting job offers via these recruiters and FINALLY they have stopped asking for a degree and instead are asking for experience only. I doubt that I will go back to work since they all seem to be located in areas simply too far to
Lou
On Mon, 06 Nov 2023 22:19:01 -0500, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2023 17:20:38 -0500, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:38:43?PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 8:16:16?PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
On 2023-11-05, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:If it is so critical as Tom says the difference between 175 mm and >>>>>> 172.5 mm cranks is 2.5 mm and not 2 mm. Even for an Usian that is
On 11/4/2023 6:52 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:Well, obviously (to me) he meant 2 millimeters...just a typo of
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36?PM UTC+1, Tom
Kunich wrote:
I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain >>>>>> > >>> rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower
but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even >>>>>> > >>> though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the
small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a >>>>>> > >>> 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the >>>>>> > >>> FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so >>>>>> > >>> I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot
that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the >>>>>> > >>> 175's. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in >>>>>> > >>> the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed >>>>>> > >>> on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not >>>>>> > >>> any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my >>>>>> > >>> legs are TIRED. And the guys I was with kept pulling away from >>>>>> > >>> me pretty fast and it was hell to accelerate to catch them.
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it
made a hell of a difference.
Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1
inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift >>>>>> > >> the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm can’t >>>>>> > >> be making a hell of a difference.
I shouldn't pile on, but: A two inch difference in crank
link would be
VERY obvious visually. That fact should have brought Tom to
his senses.
which I make
so many.
not that difficult. But what Tom meant, if I understand him
correctly, is the height difference in top dead center between these >>>>>> cranks when the saddle height is set in the bottom dead center which >>>>>> is 2 times 2.5 mm = 5 mm = 5/25.4 = 0.2 in Mickey Mouse units AKA
inch.
Lou
Andrew just quoted some studies that were somewhat misleading. While >>>>> they SAID that crank arm length didn't effect power output it was sort >>>>> of covered up that crank arm length changed the pedal speed and so you >>>>> had to correct your cadence to achieve the same power. In Andrew's
reference there were other references to "studies" that said the same >>>>> thing. Now maybe you can easily change your cadence at where you make >>>>> your maximum power easily but wait until you're 79 before you tell me >>>>> that it doesn't make any difference.
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse
system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic >>>>> and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and
forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the English
system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the
modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of >>>>> measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary
system from.
The English stopped using their traditional units for technical purposes >>>>quite some time ago, so it seems at least defensible to call inches >>>>"American" units. Mickey, after all, was invented here.
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math
skills. But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make >>>>> it easy to work with.
One inch is currently equal to *exactly* 25.4 mm, by definition. There >>>>are no primary standards for English units.
" Mickey, after all, was invented here." ???
I even did a google search and according to the Cambridge Dictionary -
which I believe is as "British" as it is possible to be "Mickey" has
two meanings
Mickey - a drug added to a drink, especially an alcoholic drink, in
order to make the person who drinks it unconscious:
or
Mickey - take the mickey/mick (out of someone)
UK informal, to laugh at someone and make them seem silly, in a funny
or unkind way:
I assume that you are using the later sense (:-)
You're serious! I was talking about the mouse.
I think I may have missed a beat there somewhere. I had assumed that
you, who I assume to be British, had claimed to have invented
Mickey... something, and as the Mouse was invented in the U.S. by
USians it must be some other "Mickey".
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2023 22:19:01 -0500, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2023 17:20:38 -0500, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:38:43?PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 8:16:16?PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
On 2023-11-05, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:If it is so critical as Tom says the difference between 175 mm and >>>>>>> 172.5 mm cranks is 2.5 mm and not 2 mm. Even for an Usian that is >>>>>>> not that difficult. But what Tom meant, if I understand him
On 11/4/2023 6:52 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:Well, obviously (to me) he meant 2 millimeters...just a typo of >>>>>>> > which I make
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:31:36?PM UTC+1, Tom
Kunich wrote:
I was under the impression that you could use 11 speed chain >>>>>>> > >>> rings on 12 speed chains (I know that the chain is narrower >>>>>>> > >>> but the teeth are tapered and should force themselves on even >>>>>>> > >>> though it might wear itself narrower).
That didn't work so well, the large ring worked OK but the >>>>>>> > >>> small ring danced across the top of the teeth. So I ordered a >>>>>>> > >>> 105 12 speed chainset to replace the 11 speed FSA.
There was another problem. I got the frame complete with the >>>>>>> > >>> FSA cranks and the bearing were like new and it spun easily so >>>>>>> > >>> I didn't bother to look at it. Well, it was a 175. I forgot >>>>>>> > >>> that I changed to a 172.5 because it was so hard to spin the >>>>>>> > >>> 175's. Well THAT sure reminded me. So not only was I stuck in >>>>>>> > >>> the large ring, but the cranks were too long. My average speed >>>>>>> > >>> on today's flat ride was a little slower than normal but not >>>>>>> > >>> any more than I might expect from riding with shingles. But my >>>>>>> > >>> legs are TIRED. And the guys I was with kept pulling away from >>>>>>> > >>> me pretty fast and it was hell to accelerate to catch them. >>>>>>> > >>>
So even though it was only 2" difference in crank length it >>>>>>> > >>> made a hell of a difference.
Two inch difference? It is 2.5 mm difference that is 0.1
inch. Stop using those Mickey Mouse units so you can just shift >>>>>>> > >> the decimal point instead of fractions or factors. 2.5 mm cant >>>>>>> > >> be making a hell of a difference.
I shouldn't pile on, but: A two inch difference in crank
link would be
VERY obvious visually. That fact should have brought Tom to
his senses.
so many.
correctly, is the height difference in top dead center between these >>>>>>> cranks when the saddle height is set in the bottom dead center which >>>>>>> is 2 times 2.5 mm = 5 mm = 5/25.4 = 0.2 in Mickey Mouse units AKA >>>>>>> inch.
Lou
Andrew just quoted some studies that were somewhat misleading. While >>>>>> they SAID that crank arm length didn't effect power output it was sort >>>>>> of covered up that crank arm length changed the pedal speed and so you >>>>>> had to correct your cadence to achieve the same power. In Andrew's >>>>>> reference there were other references to "studies" that said the same >>>>>> thing. Now maybe you can easily change your cadence at where you make >>>>>> your maximum power easily but wait until you're 79 before you tell me >>>>>> that it doesn't make any difference.
Also we might comment that the metric system is the Mickey Mouse
system designed to be used by people that can't use simple arithmetic >>>>>> and have even a hard time moving the decimal point back and
forth. This is NOT "the American System" but the English
system. Britannia did more than rule the waves - they invented the >>>>>> modern scientific method and it was all based on the English system of >>>>>> measurement. Though God only knows where they got their monetary
system from.
The English stopped using their traditional units for technical purposes >>>>>quite some time ago, so it seems at least defensible to call inches >>>>>"American" units. Mickey, after all, was invented here.
I use the metric system occasionally to humor people with poor math >>>>>> skills. But knowing that one inch is equal to 2.54xxx cm doesn't make >>>>>> it easy to work with.
One inch is currently equal to *exactly* 25.4 mm, by definition. There >>>>>are no primary standards for English units.
" Mickey, after all, was invented here." ???
I even did a google search and according to the Cambridge Dictionary - >>>> which I believe is as "British" as it is possible to be "Mickey" has
two meanings
Mickey - a drug added to a drink, especially an alcoholic drink, in
order to make the person who drinks it unconscious:
or
Mickey - take the mickey/mick (out of someone)
UK informal, to laugh at someone and make them seem silly, in a funny
or unkind way:
I assume that you are using the later sense (:-)
You're serious! I was talking about the mouse.
I think I may have missed a beat there somewhere. I had assumed that
you, who I assume to be British, had claimed to have invented
Mickey... something, and as the Mouse was invented in the U.S. by
USians it must be some other "Mickey".
I was born and raised in the US, and have only visited the UK once.
On 11/6/2023 9:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/6/2023 6:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Regarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a
large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that
government buildings henceforth shall be of metric
dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changed
anything except to add a software function so their
plotters could make metric versions of their usual plans,
e.g, a 36 inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
Or maybe 914mm?
At this point, changing building materials over to truly
metric dimensions would be extremely difficult.
Canada is officially metric but uses a hodgepodge of the two
systems.
USAF has tooling parts and hardware in great profusion
worldwide which is why US aircraft will not be metric any
time soon.
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 09:28:21 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 11/6/2023 9:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/6/2023 6:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Regarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a
large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that
government buildings henceforth shall be of metric
dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changed
anything except to add a software function so their
plotters could make metric versions of their usual plans,
e.g, a 36 inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
Or maybe 914mm?
At this point, changing building materials over to truly
metric dimensions would be extremely difficult.
Canada is officially metric but uses a hodgepodge of the two
systems.
USAF has tooling parts and hardware in great profusion
worldwide which is why US aircraft will not be metric any
time soon.
Well they could do what the Army did and re label the .223 Remington
as a 5.56mm (:-)
We would then be using a 6.35mm wrench instead of a 1/4in and a 12.7mm instead of a 1/2in, and so on.
On 11/7/2023 4:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 09:28:21 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:We've previously discussed the full airliner which left
On 11/6/2023 9:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/6/2023 6:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Regarding legislation. I asked a customer (president of a
large builder) about the Clinton era stipulation that
government buildings henceforth shall be of metric
dimensions. I wondered if his suppliers conformed.
He laughed. When he stopped he said they hadn't changed
anything except to add a software function so their
plotters could make metric versions of their usual plans,
e.g, a 36 inch window is marked as 901mm and so on.
Or maybe 914mm?
At this point, changing building materials over to truly
metric dimensions would be extremely difficult.
Canada is officially metric but uses a hodgepodge of the two
systems.
USAF has tooling parts and hardware in great profusion
worldwide which is why US aircraft will not be metric any
time soon.
Well they could do what the Army did and re label the .223 Remington
as a 5.56mm (:-)
We would then be using a 6.35mm wrench instead of a 1/4in and a 12.7mm
instead of a 1/2in, and so on.
Birmingham with a new windshield and a few handfuls of the
wrong bolts. The windshield popped out once it pressurized,
sucked the pilot halfway out and only by luck didn't kill
anyone.
https://simpleflying.com/british-airways-flight-5390/
My toolbox for work on larger items like cars has metric on one side and SI on the other. I might add that on ALL of the English sports cars I owned (which was a lot) they all used SI except I think the MGTC which I seem to remember used Whitworth.
Tom Kunich wrote:
My toolbox for work on larger items like cars has metric on one side and SI on the other. I might add that on ALL of the English sports cars I owned (which was a lot) they all used SI except I think the MGTC which I seem to remember used Whitworth.
Metric and SI are basically the same, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units
Henk
I am now getting job offers via these recruiters...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 76:56:08 |
| Calls: | 6,695 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,228 |
| Messages: | 5,347,344 |
| Posted today: | 2 |