Coker and 125mm cranks

Well, I put on my shorties on my Bigg’un and was not impressed. The max speed and max ‘maintainable’ speed wasn’t noticably faster…maybe, but hard to tell.

However, the low speed handling sucked!

Kudos to whoever uses sub 150’s on their Coker, but I’m gonna leave them at 150

I think either Roger Davies or David Stone (who both ride shorter cranks on cokers), said that it takes some time to learn to ride with them before you get any advantage. Roger also said that max possible speed doesn’t go as much as average.

Having seen Roger riding with them, I suspect that there is some serious speed advantage to be gained by short cranks, so might be worth learning if you’re looking for speed.

Joe

125 mm cranks on a 36 is the same ‘ratio’ as having about 84 mm cranks on a 24.

4.92 inch cranks:36 inch wheel = 13%
13% of 24 inches = 3.27 inches = 83mm.

I have 89mm cranks on my 24 and find it challenging!

Riding a Coker on 125s is easily achievable, but you lose out enormously in handling and control. Braking is a problem. that means you tend to approach road junctions, crowds, gateways, etc. more slowly. Acceleration and deceleration take time out of your ride.

So on 125s, a Coker tends to have a higher maximum speed (subject to fear override!) and a higher cruising speed, but a slower journey time on anything but smooth level tarmac.

Practise on 125s, then enjoy riding on 150s! A coker is not a versatile machine. The more versatile you can make a Coker by skillful riding, the more versatile you could make any other machine, so the differential will always be there. 150s or even 170s make a Coker more useable. 125s are fun, but at the expense of useability.

After all, who wants an impractical unicycle?:smiley:

John Stone usually says that it takes about 50 miles to get used to a new crank length. I’m sure it’s worth it to stick with the 125s for that long, just as a useful experiment.

I’ve seen him idle my Coker with 125s on it, for several minutes, using only about 5 feet of room, talking all the while!

RE: Coker and 125mm cranks

I got my first Coker in early 1999. I ride several miles a day on it,
mostly on sidewalks in our county. The first year I stayed with the
standard 6-inch cranks. During the last two years I’ve used 5-inch
exclusively. Shorter cranks offer a much smoother ride.

The down side is the loss of torque. This is more critical on steep
downhill paths than uphill. I had to build up leg strength to power
over the hills in my neighborhood, which was easy enough. But downhill
can be scary if the wheel is accelerating and I don’t have the torque to
slow it down. That’s where a brake, when carefully used, comes in
handy.

-John
john@unicycle.com

-----Original Message-----
From: rsu-admin@unicycling.org [mailto:rsu-admin@unicycling.org] On
Behalf Of joemarshall
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 12:26 PM
To: rsu@unicycling.org
Subject: Re: Coker and 125mm cranks

I think either Roger Davies or David Stone (who both ride shorter cranks
on cokers), said that it takes some time to learn to ride with them
before you get any advantage. Roger also said that max possible speed
doesn’t go as much as average.

Having seen Roger riding with them, I suspect that there is some serious
speed advantage to be gained by short cranks, so might be worth learning
if you’re looking for speed.

Joe


joemarshall - dumb blonde

joemarshall’s Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/1545
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/23411



rec.sport.unicycling mailing list -
www.unicycling.org/mailman/listinfo/rsu

Alright, you guys got me. I’ll keep them on for a while and check them out.

:sunglasses:

I know that on a 24" it took me a couple of days to properly get used to 150mm cranks. I must say, now It’d take a lot of convincing me to save up and change to 170mm ones.

Is that meant to only apply to Cokers?

I’m really missing out on riding big wheels. The biggest I’ve ever ridden is my 24"!

Thanks,
Andrew

You are definetly missing out! I can’t believe how much I love this thing! I thought it would ‘just be neat’

Not saying everyone has to own one, but you certainly need to try one!

Re: Coker and 125mm cranks

Any change in crank length (especially as dramatic is 150->125) needs quite
a bit of mileage before you should judge, say 100 miles. I’ve only ridden
with 125s a couple of times and it feels really smooth and nice on flat
ground, but I prefer 140s for all around riding, and 152 or longer for steep
stuff, and 175 for insane offroad.

If you didn’t like the 125s, I suggest trying 100 miles on 140s. I recommend
the Dotek 140 aluminum cranks you can now get for $20 at
http://www.unicycle.com/Shopping/shopexd.asp?id=617

—Nathan

“Sofa” <Sofa.in9zb@timelimit.unicyclist.com> wrote in message
news:Sofa.in9zb@timelimit.unicyclist.com
>
> Well, I put on my shorties on my Bigg’un and was not impressed. The max
> speed and max ‘maintainable’ speed wasn’t noticably faster…maybe, but
> hard to tell.
>
> However, the low speed handling sucked!
>
> Kudos to whoever uses sub 150’s on their Coker, but I’m gonna leave them
> at 150

Re: Coker and 125mm cranks

Greetings

In message “Re: Coker and 125mm cranks”,
Nathan Hoover wrote…
>Any change in crank length (especially as dramatic is 150->125) needs quite
>a bit of mileage before you should judge, say 100 miles. I’ve only ridden
>with 125s a couple of times and it feels really smooth and nice on flat
>ground, but I prefer 140s for all around riding,

That agrees 100% with my own experience, and I suspect it is true for the majority
of riders.

>and 152 or longer for steep
>stuff, and 175 for insane offroad.
>
>If you didn’t like the 125s, I suggest trying 100 miles on 140s. I recommend
>the Dotek 140 aluminum cranks you can now get for $20 at
>http://www.unicycle.com/Shopping/shopexd.asp?id=617
>
>—Nathan
>
>“Sofa” <Sofa.in9zb@timelimit.unicyclist.com> wrote in message
>news:Sofa.in9zb@timelimit.unicyclist.com
>>
>> Well, I put on my shorties on my Bigg’un and was not impressed. The max
>> speed and max ‘maintainable’ speed wasn’t noticably faster…maybe, but
>> hard to tell.
>>
>> However, the low speed handling sucked!
>>
>> Kudos to whoever uses sub 150’s on their Coker, but I’m gonna leave them
>> at 150
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>rec.sport.unicycling mailing list - www.unicycling.org/mailman/listinfo/rsu
>

Stay on top, Jack Halpern
Executive Director for International Development
International Unicycling Federation, Inc.
Website: http://www.kanji.org

Re: Coker and 125mm cranks

Mikefule wrote…
>
>125 mm cranks on a 36 is the same ‘ratio’ as having about 84 mm cranks
>on a 24.
>
>4.92 inch cranks:36 inch wheel = 13%
>13% of 24 inches = 3.27 inches = 83mm.
>
>I have 89mm cranks on my 24 and find it challenging!
>
>Riding a Coker on 125s is easily achievable, but you lose out enormously
>in handling and control. Braking is a problem. that means you tend to

I personally agree with this though I think it depends on the person. Roger Davies
I believe handles Cokers very well even with 125s.

>approach road junctions, crowds, gateways, etc. more slowly.
>Acceleration and deceleration take time out of your ride.
>
>So on 125s, a Coker tends to have a higher maximum speed (subject to
>fear override!) and a higher cruising speed, but a slower journey time
>on anything but smooth level tarmac.
>
>Practise on 125s, then enjoy riding on 150s!

You forgot something very important. 140s (5.5") cranks can offer the best
of both world. For me, it give mes good control, braking and maneuvering,
lets me climb rather steep hiolls, and the speed is still reaosnable. I believe
that for many people the 140s are a good all-round length

>A coker is not a versatile
>machine. The more versatile you can make a Coker by skillful riding,
>the more versatile you could make any other machine, so the differential
>will always be there. 150s or even 170s make a Coker more useable.
>125s are fun, but at the expense of useability.
>
>After all, who wants an impractical unicycle?:smiley:
>
>
>–
>Mikefule - Roland Hope School of Unicycling
>
>It certainly wears this one…
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mikefule’s Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/879
>View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/23411
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>rec.sport.unicycling mailing list - www.unicycling.org/mailman/listinfo/rsu
>

Regards, Jack Halpern
President, The CJK Dictionary Institute, Inc.
http://www.cjk.org Phone: +81-48-473-3508

Hmmm,

Does anyone want to anser this?

Is it easier to adjust to longer cranks or shorter cranks on the same unicycle?

Re: Coker and 125mm cranks

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:33:22 -0600, The Munieer
<The.Munieer.j62db@timelimit.unicyclist.com> wrote:

>Is it easier to adjust to longer cranks or shorter cranks on the same
>unicycle?

Assuming that by ‘easier to adjust’ you mean ‘quicker to mount and
ride confidently after the swap’, I find it easier to adjust going
from shorter to longer cranks, because longer cranks give better
control anyway. (IMHO)

Mentally getting over the fact that you have lost some speed when
going to the larger cranks may take more time depending on the person.

Klaas Bil - Newsgroup Addict

“661, neighbourhood of the Beast”

Re: Coker and 125mm cranks

Jack wrote…

> I personally agree with this though I think it depends on the person.
Roger Davies
> I believe handles Cokers very well even with 125s.

I think the only time I have ridden 125 cranks is when I have ridden other
peoples Cokers, I ride 110 cranks. I went straight from 150 cranks to 110
cranks on the Minnesota Ride as much for a joke and have never looked back.

When using the Coker for Muni I have tried swapping cranks and have tried
170, 150 and 140s; of which I definitely prefer the 150mm for most off road.
I found the 170mm too big to allow for the smooth riding and speed that you
still need on some bits of an off-road course; although they do really help
with power.

Cheers

Roger