I"m just lookin’ into gettin’ me some more cranks for my torker, should I get 102mm, 127mm, or 150mm. I’m looking into using this unicycle as a freestyle unicycle, what’s your suggestion, I have a 20 inch wheel, that I put a white kenda on (I got it at Harmons) and a kh saddle, so basically all that’s left of the torker is the seatpost, frame,rim hub, spokes, and cranks. ok so that’s more than I though. but what do y’all think?
thanks!
-Jonathan Ware-
or, should i just buy a new wheelset… it’s only 40 bucks and my hub might be “rounded” by now, considering that my cranks are loose when they are tightened on all the way… I don’t know what to do!! because it will come with a wheel and tube and all I want is the rim, spokes, hub, and cranks!! maybe unicycle.com will do something special for me…
I’ll look into that
-Jonathan Ware-
I use my 20 for tricks. I’m no freestyle expert, but I can ride backwards, idle one-footed, ride one-footed and do a couple of other basic tricks, and I perform in crowded areas on it. I use 110mm cranks, and find they give good control and reasonable ground clearance. (And a nice turn of speed.)
I have a Yuni freestyle and it has 102s on it. I haven’t ridden with any other length on it though so I don’t know. As of right now the only “trick” I can do is one-foot idle. I’m working on riding backwards and stomach-on-seat.
Anyway, I like my 102s and they’ll probably help me get to the basketball court I want to practice at in the summer faster.
Nikki
personally I prefer 114’s over 102’s, but they dont seem to be availible anymore. but if I had to choose between 102’s and 125’s… no contest. 102’s all the way.
Re: crank size
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:49:45 -0600, bagpiperboy
<bagpiperboy.kpeqd@timelimit.unicyclist.com> wrote:
>I"m just lookin’ into gettin’ me some more cranks for my torker, should
>I get 102mm, 127mm, or 150mm. I’m looking into using this unicycle as a
>freestyle unicycle, what’s your suggestion, I have a 20 inch wheel,
I’m not a freestyle expert but 150 mm for a 20" wheel is unworldly
long. 127 sounds good for skills that involve a lot of acceleration
like idling, backspins etc. 102 mm might be better for ‘flowing’
skills. 110 could be the best compromise but since you don’t have that
length available, I’d suggest try 127 first.
Klaas Bil - Newsgroup Addict
It is physically impossible for pigs to look up into the sky.
I just switched from 127s to 102s. My overall impression is ‘WoW!’ I thought it would take a while to recover and be able to do all my current skills. That took no more than the time to do the skills. The only thing I had to try a few times was one foot idle with my non-dominant foot. The first thing I tried was riding one foot. I thought wow this feels real weird, but if I sit up straight it gets easier. Then I noticed that I was able to do circles of at least the same diameter, maybe smaller. Then the big notice: I was doing this with my non-dominant foot, no wonder it feels weird.
Overall turning is easier, hopping and hoptwisting are way easier, but it still might be easier to learn skills on the 127s through level 5. Level 6 and up will probably benefit from using 102s.
For ‘normal’ unicycling and freestyle on a smooth flat surface, 110s or 102s should be OK for most people. If you’re good enough to do the skills, you’re probably good enough to cope with the shorter cranks.
BUT, in my constant quest for a fuller understanding of the effects of changes of crank length, I have recently hit upon the similarity to a ‘cam’ action catch. You know the sort of catch you get on photographers’ flight cases? Similar to the catches on metal bracelets for watches.
These cam catches work like this: the ‘lever’ starts more or less flush to the surface. You move it out towars perpendicular and it presents more and more resistance as it tightens, then suddenly it passes the point of no return and flicks into the closed position. The harder it is to pull the catch out to half way, the more suddenly and forcefully it snaps into the closed position.
Now, I think there’s a similarity with unicycle pedals and cranks. Picture the scene: you ride forwards fast, then try to stop. You put back pressure on the rising pedal. All being well, you stop it at or slightly before the horizontal.
But if you don’t… then the pedal reaches the point of no return. Your foot is pushing down against the rising pedal, then suddenly it’s pushing down WITH the pedal which has passed over top dead centre. The effect is that the uni suddenly shoots out from under you, and you can fall backwards - which can be nasty. A similar effect can happen with freemounting, if you start with the back pedal too high. It’s noticeably more ‘frisky’ with short cranks.
I reckon that the shorter the crank, the more likely it is that in a sudden braking manoeuvre (or just idling, etc.) the pedal will pass the point of no return and ‘snap’ over the top and shoot the uni away from you.
The effect on riding is this: you feel like you have more or less the same degree of control as if you had longer cranks UNTIL you need to make a sudden powerful adjustment to speed or direction. Then suddenly you have lots less control. A graph of ‘control’ (if such a thing could be drawn) would show a much sharper discontinuity at the point of no return for short cranks, compared to long ones.
And then there’s the effect on hills. Here there are measureable mathematical considerations, as the point of contact between the tyre and the ground moves backwards (downhills) or forwards (uphills). There is an absolute limit to control of descent/ascent when the point of contact between tyre and ground moves further from the axle than the length of the crank. However, with a shorter crank, not only is this point reached more quickly, but slight changes in the steepness of the incline represent bigger percentages of the crank length, so changes in the level of control are more sudden.
I’d go for the 110s. 
Re: crank size
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:49:45 -0600, bagpiperboy
<bagpiperboy.kpeqd@timelimit.unicyclist.com> wrote:
>I"m just lookin’ into gettin’ me some more cranks for my torker, should
>I get 102mm, 127mm, or 150mm. I’m looking into using this unicycle as a
>freestyle unicycle, what’s your suggestion, I have a 20 inch wheel,
I’m not a freestyle expert but 150 mm for a 20" wheel is unworldly
long. 127 sounds good for skills that involve a lot of acceleration
like idling, backspins etc. 102 mm might be better for ‘flowing’
skills. 110 could be the best compromise but since you don’t have that
length available, I’d suggest try 127 first.
Klaas Bil - Newsgroup Addict
It is physically impossible for pigs to look up into the sky.
hmmm… sound good, I think I’ll go for the 102’s if unicycle.com calls me back. I’ve jut about got uni-spins down!!
-Jonathan Ware-
thanks for the input max, I look up to you
Re: crank size
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:45:48 -0600, Mikefule
<Mikefule.krugn@timelimit.unicyclist.com> wrote:
>And then there’s the effect on hills. Here there are measureable
>mathematical considerations, as the point of contact between the tyre
>and the ground moves backwards (downhills) or forwards (uphills). There
>is an absolute limit to control of descent/ascent when the point of
>contact between tyre and ground moves further from the axle than the
>length of the crank. However, with a shorter crank, not only is this
>point reached more quickly, but slight changes in the steepness of the
>incline represent bigger percentages of the crank length, so changes in
>the level of control are more sudden.
An interesting thought but maybe no absolute truth? I can understand
it if you put all of your weight on the front pedal. But what if you
put MORE than that on the pedal, by pulling on the seat handle? As
long as your centre of gravity is (on average) above the contact
point, and you can crank the wheel around, you should continue going
uphill. Or am I mistaken?
Klaas Bil - Newsgroup Addict
"Canada is an Indian word meaning ““Big Village””. "
Just having changed from 127s to 102s, I have a half cocked opinion that I am willing to blurt out without much thought. I think you are right that there is a point of no return, where you just loose it. I have found it often in the last few days.
The thing is, I remember the same problem when switching from 150s. What happens is that you have sore legs for a week or so and then your muscles build up and you are able to overcome the greater forces that are required.
Within reason, shorter cranks should offer benefits. First, the greater mechanical advantage, the ratio of wheel radius to crank length, implies greater resistance, which builds muscle.
The ability to apply greater forces also means that the range of forces you can apply to the pedal is greater, so it should be easier to choose the amount of force, and the error, if any, in the force applied will have less of an effect, so overall control should increase.
There are probably other benefits. Bigger muscles and more control are enough for now.
I think there’s an optimal length of crank for each rider. It takes into account his/her leg length, weight and level of ability.
If the cranks are longer than optimal, there is more leverage, and more control on down hill sections, but at the expense of speed and fine steering control.
If the cranks are shorter than optimal, there is less leverage, more speed, but less fine control of stopping, idling and so on.
For me, the ideal crank length may be around 125 - 150 mm. I have good control down to about 110 mm. 102s are a bit dodgy in some circumstances, and 89s are hit and miss. 170s are too much like hard work except on really extreme terrain - and I think then I’d be better reducing the wheel size and putting 150s on.
But for the point about shorter cranks building muscle power and developing more control: at any given level of ability, you will usually find that short cranks give less fine control than medium ones (ther terms being relative). But it IS a good idea to train or practise on cranks a size or two too small, then the same riding/skills will be easier on the normal cranks.