# Hey guys, look between my legs a second...[pics]



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

I got a hold of some extra-long cranks. They sure are long. I had to dig up a 125mm wide BB just so the arms would clear the chainstays. I'm told it's Oregon S.O.P., and who am I to rock the boat?

Behold: one...ninety...FIVE!


----------



## jss3918 (Jan 12, 2005)

*I am sad that*

I even opened up this tread with a title like that! Cool cranks, 195s, that must be like double stepping every staircase you come accross.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Whoa! Be sure to move your saddle forward and down.


----------



## screampint (Dec 10, 2001)

Yowza! That's very long! I think I'd be hitting rocks and such with cranks like that.


----------



## PinsNeedles (Aug 14, 2004)

*Hey Nat,*

Do they double as a kickstand  
Pretty cool, have you ridden them yet? 
I never thought I would have crank envy...
Jefe' (BOSSman)


----------



## hardtailhammerPAstyle (Jan 12, 2005)

*ummm*

what is the point/ advantage of ungodly long crankarms


----------



## SpinWheelz (May 3, 2004)

Who's gonna push 200? Anyone? Anyone?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

SpinWheelz said:



> Who's gonna push 200? Anyone? Anyone?


cross4 has 200's on his Karate monkey.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

shiggy said:


> Whoa! Be sure to move your saddle forward and down.


Done. I rotated the EBB so that the spindle sits on the top half, in order to gain more ground clearance, then adjusted the saddle accordingly.

Oregon...land of the odd bikes.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

PinsNeedles said:


> Do they double as a kickstand
> Pretty cool, have you ridden them yet?
> I never thought I would have crank envy...
> Jefe' (BOSSman)


Haw haw! I only got in a test lap out in the meadow and up the first climb on KGB. It felt different, as if I were a cartoon character trying to run from a stop. Roadrunner maybe? All legs. Or maybe like those lizards with the big earflaps that run on their hind legs.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

screampint said:


> Yowza! That's very long! I think I'd be hitting rocks and such with cranks like that.


Fortunately we only have six of them in central Oregon. I rotated the EBB upwards, which I think got me back to normal pedal ground clearance. I guess it'd also give me even greater clearance for log-overs and ledges etc.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

hardtailhammerPAstyle said:


> what is the point/ advantage of ungodly long crankarms


Ungodly torque!


----------



## Sideways (Feb 13, 2005)

hardtailhammerPAstyle said:


> what is the point/ advantage of ungodly long crankarms


They do a better job of flexing the whole bike than a lower gear and shorter cranks would.
That's my guess.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Sparty has 202s on a bike or two.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Nat said:


> Fortunately we only have six of them in central Oregon. I rotated the EBB upwards, which I think got me back to normal pedal ground clearance. I guess it'd also give me even greater clearance for log-overs and ledges etc.


What is cool, went you are standing on descents you have more butt-to-saddle clearance than with shorter cranks.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Nat said:


> Fortunately we only have six of them in central Oregon.


 If Central Oregon only has six rocks Western Oregon has about minus 50!


----------



## Objectionable Material (Sep 29, 2004)

Looks great Nat. 

I can finally almost say something intelligent in a thread that you've posted in. I'm no longer distracted by the cowbell. Its almost like I have a mind of my own again. 

Thanks.  Thanks for posting up about the Ron Jeremy length cranks. 

Peter


----------



## -Anomie- (Jan 16, 2005)

Are those Zinn cranks? I've wanted to hear what someone who owns them thinks of them. I thought about ordering some 190's for myself, but don't want to gamble 300+ bucks on an unknown (to me at least).


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

-Anomie- said:


> Are those Zinn cranks? I've wanted to hear what someone who owns them thinks of them. I thought about ordering some 190's for myself, but don't want to gamble 300+ bucks on an unknown (to me at least).


I'll report on them soon. I should be able to get a few hours on them within the next few weeks.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

*Nat.................*

Welcome to "Club 195." I've got two bikes with 195mm's and two more with 202mm's. Big cranks take some getting used to but once you discover their sweetness, you're hooked for good. (At least that's what my girlfriend from high school told me.)

Those Zinn cranks look SO cool! Nice score. Let's go stomp some big, steep hills.

--Sparty


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Nat said:


> I'll report on them soon. I should be able to get a few hours on them within the next few weeks.


Give yourself at least a month to adjust. Think "lift those knees!"


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

wow...effing huge


----------



## WadePatton (May 10, 1999)

There goes your frame warranty.  

Are you long of leg too? My 175's are looking a bit wussy now. hmmmmmm maybe 180's.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

DirtZilla said:


> There goes your frame warranty.
> 
> Are you long of leg too? My 175's are looking a bit wussy now. hmmmmmm maybe 180's.


My legs are disproportionately short actually. I've been using 180's but wanted something a touch longer, like 185-190. They're hard to find, so I took these 195's when I saw them.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

If you end up disliking them, please let me know. I'll take 'em off your hands.

Thanks, Nat.

--Davey



Nat said:


> My legs are disproportionately short actually. I've been using 180's but wanted something a touch longer, like 185-190. They're hard to find, so I took these 195's when I saw them.


----------



## sportsman (Mar 2, 2004)

Objectionable Material said:


> Looks great Nat.
> 
> I can finally almost say something intelligent in a thread that you've posted in. I'm no longer distracted by the cowbell. Its almost like I have a mind of my own again.
> 
> ...


i miss the cowbell already.....


----------



## OneGearGuy (Jun 15, 2004)

*Schwinggggg!!*

those look super cool. i use 180's on my SS and don't think i would ever go shorter again.
my question is about the BB... with the spacing so wide, are your knees under more stress? and does it flex the frame more? my reasoning is this; with extra length and width, you are putting that much more leverage against the frame tubes. maybe not enough to make a difference.
what BB do those cranks take?
thx and enjoy!


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Nat said:


> My legs are disproportionately short actually. I've been using 180's but wanted something a touch longer, like 185-190. They're hard to find, so I took these 195's when I saw them.


The man the inspired me to be a SSer was about your size and used 206 mm Bullseye cranks. Platform pedals and a 38 or 36 x 17 gear, too.
And he was in his mid 50s.


----------



## wolfy (Dec 21, 2004)

*speed*

The qusestion I have is how does such a long crank affect your gearing/speed? Meaning you have an assload more torque which is good, but with only one gear you can't spin as fast. So then I would think you'd want to gear up lowering your gear ratio which you can do with all that torque so that you can spin faster in the flats. Then you're back where you started from. But you guys probably don't sweat the speed I'm guessing.

I'm pretty happy with my 180s for now.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

shiggy said:


> Whoa! Be sure to move your saddle forward and down.


I understand moving it down, but why forward as well? KOPS?


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Fillet-brazed said:


> I understand moving it down, but why forward as well? KOPS?


Yup. I also ended up using a longer lower stem.


----------



## Juan Speeder (Jan 13, 2005)

shiggy said:


> Yup. I also ended up using a longer lower stem.


Nothing describes this better than long and low


----------



## SS4life (Oct 15, 2004)

Objectionable Material said:


> Looks great Nat.
> 
> I can finally almost say something intelligent in a thread that you've posted in. I'm no longer distracted by the cowbell. Its almost like I have a mind of my own again.
> 
> ...


Nat, bring back the cowbell!! I got to have more cowbell!


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

SS4life said:


> Nat, bring back the cowbell!! I got to have more cowbell!


Don't worry, Gene will be back. Right now I'm exploring the space of these extra-long getaway sticks. Once I don't feel like a Jesus lizard any more, he'll be back.


----------



## Kennetht638 (Apr 4, 2004)

It's a basilisk! The most badass of lizards because it can run on water.

So are you knocking yourself in the teeth with your knees on every pedal stroke? That just looks insane.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

OneGearGuy said:


> those look super cool. i use 180's on my SS and don't think i would ever go shorter again.
> my question is about the BB... with the spacing so wide, are your knees under more stress? and does it flex the frame more? my reasoning is this; with extra length and width, you are putting that much more leverage against the frame tubes. maybe not enough to make a difference.
> what BB do those cranks take?
> thx and enjoy!


I think the Q factor is about the same as it was before. These are retro-style cranks without the low-profile shape that modern cranks have, so even though they necessitated a 125mm BB, the pedal distance isn't that far apart.

I rode for about 2.5 hours today and didn't notice any unusual knee stress. I didn't notice any frame flex either.


----------



## OneGearGuy (Jun 15, 2004)

Nat said:


> I think the Q factor is about the same as it was before. These are retro-style cranks without the low-profile shape that modern cranks have, so even though they necessitated a 125mm BB, the pedal distance isn't that far apart.
> 
> I rode for about 2.5 hours today and didn't notice any unusual knee stress. I didn't notice any frame flex either.


that is great news on both counts, Nat! keep us informed, and see if they feel like second nature to you afer about a month (shiggy should know). i would love to see how they feel without making the comittment first... maybe i can ask around my neck of the woods. sometimes bigger is just better.  a pair of bigger wheels and a set of bigger cranks- gee, that's not too phallic!


----------



## sparrow (Dec 30, 2003)

*Longer Cranks = more seat/butt clearance? Wha...?*



shiggy said:


> What is cool, went you are standing on descents you have more butt-to-saddle clearance than with shorter cranks.


Wha...? as you do forward splits, longer cranks pushing your feet further apart, you get LESS seat to butt clearance! Just imagine a gymnast or cheerleader doing forwad splits in slow-motion (um, nice mental image) and they get lower to the ground. So I'd surmise longer cranks equal less butt to saddle clearance, eh? What am I missing here? The lower seat height used with longer cranks is negated by the wider foot spacing lowering your butt back down to the seat when standing on descents....


----------



## screampint (Dec 10, 2001)

*Thread hi-jack!*

What are you doing in here? Shouldn't you be in the Two Headed Rolling Devices Forum?

Are you and the Stoker going to be here for FFTF? Danielle will be 7 next week! Can you believe it!?


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

I have some little used 185 TA's to trade for those 195's. I never got to really using the longer cranks a lot, the '05 Fisher 29"ers is a great opportunity to do it without going custom, due to the lower BB drop.
I always feel like I'm tied to my seat, even standing on the pedals, I hardly have butt-seat clearance. I should be able to ride 200+ with my legs, I can only imagine what that would do for my technical riding. Bunny hops, trials-like bumpy trails, hmmm...


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Cloxxki said:


> I have some little used 185 TA's to trade for those 195's. I never got to really using the longer cranks a lot, the '05 Fisher 29"ers is a great opportunity to do it without going custom, due to the lower BB drop.
> I always feel like I'm tied to my seat, even standing on the pedals, I hardly have butt-seat clearance. I should be able to ride 200+ with my legs, I can only imagine what that would do for my technical riding. Bunny hops, trials-like bumpy trails, hmmm...


Switching to PM mode...


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

sparrow said:


> Wha...? as you do forward splits, longer cranks pushing your feet further apart, you get LESS seat to butt clearance! Just imagine a gymnast or cheerleader doing forwad splits in slow-motion (um, nice mental image) and they get lower to the ground. So I'd surmise longer cranks equal less butt to saddle clearance, eh? What am I missing here? The lower seat height used with longer cranks is negated by the wider foot spacing lowering your butt back down to the seat when standing on descents....


Nope. I know this from personal experience. You get more clearance.


----------



## sparrow (Dec 30, 2003)

*Butt/seat clearance and longer cranks...*



shiggy said:


> Nope. I know this from personal experience. You get more clearance.


I still don't see it. Just saddle up on your bike, place your left foot on the front axle, put your other foot on the back axle (about, oh say a 250mm crank simulation), gotta push my seat down to the bottom just to clear it.

Now, stand just on the bare bottom bracket spindle (simulating a 1mm crank) and my butt to seat clearance is much much greater.

Just stand in your socks on a linoleum floor, slide your feet apart front to back. As your 'cranks' get longer, your butt gets lower. No getting around that.

What am I missing here? Really, makes no sense to me. There's gotta be someone that sees my point? Anyone....? But still long cranks are fine by me.

Hey Screampint. Most likely down there the first week of May, not sure. It's been so warm here all summer that I am busier than I can handle. Odd. Hope to sneakaway. Tandem forums could indeed be a lonely place.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

sparrow said:


> I still don't see it. Just saddle up on your bike, place your left foot on the front axle, put your other foot on the back axle (about, oh say a 250mm crank simulation), gotta push my seat down to the bottom just to clear it.
> 
> Now, stand just on the bare bottom bracket spindle (simulating a 1mm crank) and my butt to seat clearance is much much greater.
> 
> ...


Your butt gets lower either way. You could calculate the actual amount using the Pythagorean theorem (if you _really_ wanted to). Use your leg length as the hypotenuse.


----------



## sparrow (Dec 30, 2003)

*Trigonometry?*



Nat said:


> Your butt gets lower either way. You could calculate the actual amount using the Pythagorean theorem (if you _really_ wanted to). Use your leg length as the hypotenuse.


If I recall, that Pythagreus was a mean drunk. Thanks Nat, bringing back the cowbell soon?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

sparrow said:


> If I recall, that Pythagreus was a mean drunk. Thanks Nat, bringing back the cowbell soon?


Gene might be appearing again soon. I rode today and yesterday, and although I haven't given it enough time, I think 195mm cranks may be too long for my 29" inseam.


----------



## sparrow (Dec 30, 2003)

*195s for 29" inseam....*



Nat said:


> Gene might be appearing again soon. I rode today and yesterday, and although I haven't given it enough time, I think 195mm cranks may be too long for my 29" inseam.


I've used 170, 175, and 180mm cranks and never could tell a difference, just using the cranks that fell into my lap or were the right price. SO, I've just never given the super long cranks (well, 190+ lengths) a look as they don't seem to pop up for next to nothing.

At some point you gotta notice, maybe 195 is there for you! But I'd imagine a few more miles and some comparison will tell.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

We are talking about a 10-30 mm change between the pedals here. Not a 250-1000 mm change.

Stand with one foot 14" in front of the other (measure toe to toe). Then move them 15" apart.

Can you feel a difference?

The change in height at the hips is nearly too small to measure. Much less than the amount the saddle is lowered for the longer cranks (5-12mm). You are over thinking this.


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

When I lower my seat (as it slips on me AGAIN), my technical game improves a lot, hops get better thanks to the seat/butt clearance, etc, but my seated pedaling makes me slow. Longer cranks, providing not overly long to spin properly and not stike the ground every other pedal stroke, should be mostly an advantage. 
I believe your favorite RPM or gearing will change proportionate to the crank length change. 5% longer cranks => 5% larger gearing, 5% lower RPM.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Cloxxki said:


> When I lower my seat (as it slips on me AGAIN)


Have you tried rubbing gymnastics or rock climbing chalk on the seatpost? It does a pretty good job of preventing it from slipping.


----------

