Go Back   Cycling Forums » Other Stuff » Other Groups » rec.bicycles.tech » rec.bicycles.tech archive
rec.bicycles.tech archive This forum is a gateway to the rec.bicycles.tech usenet newsgroup. Any posts you make in this forum will be propagated to usenet.
Please read our USENET FAQ before using this section!













? 175 vs. 172.5 crank arm length

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-10.-2003
Mmcs
 
Posts: n/a
Default ? 175 vs. 172.5 crank arm length

What is the significance to my training/general riding of pedaling two different bikes one with 175
and the other with 172.5 length crank arms?
  #2  
Old 03-10.-2003
Sheldon Brown
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ? 175 vs. 172.5 crank arm length

A shy person askked:

> What is the significance to my training/general riding of pedaling two different bikes one with
> 175 and the other with 172.5 length crank arms?

Precious little. The bike with longer cranks will provide a 1.4% lower gain ratio in a given
sprocket combination, so for the same gear it would climb a wee bit better, but not top out as fast.
Since you presumably have the option of changing gears, this difference, small as it is, becomes
utterly insignificant in practice.

The longer cranks will require you to bend your knee a bit farther for each stroke, possibly leading
to knee problems that a shorter crank might not cause, but, again, this difference is so small it
really doesn't matter.

Sheldon "Long Legs, Short Cranks" Brown +---------------------------------------------------------+
| We can be knowledgeable with other men's knowledge, | but we cannot be wise with other men's
| wisdom. | -- Michel de Montaigne |
+---------------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton,
Massachusetts Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts
shipped Worldwide http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
  #3  
Old 03-11.-2003
Ted Bennett
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ? 175 vs. 172.5 crank arm length

> What is the significance to my training/general riding of pedaling two different bikes one with
> 175 and the other with 172.5 length crank arms?

None at all.

But you will get other opinions. Ignore them, for I am right.

--
Ted Bennett Portland OR
  #4  
Old 03-11.-2003
A Muzi
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ? 175 vs. 172.5 crank arm length

"MMCS" <econorama@attbi.com> wrote in message news:BA92A7AE.9D72%econorama@attbi.com...
> What is the significance to my training/general riding of pedaling two different bikes one with
> 175 and the other with 172.5 length crank arms?

Lost in the noise. There will most likely be many more noticeable differences between any two given
bikes than the 2.5mm crank length.

--
Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971
  #5  
Old 03-11.-2003
Sergio Servadio
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ? 175 vs. 172.5 crank arm length

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, MMCS wrote:
> What is the significance to my training/general riding of pedaling two different bikes one with
> 175 and the other with 172.5 length crank arms?

No difference, provided your knees bend equally well.

Then, here is my own story about crank lengths. I have always used 170mm cranks and I was very upset
to find out that the, still beautiful, used Record pair I had picked up at a shop were 170 and
172.5, respectively. After going back to the shop the seller acknowledged the mismatch and quite
honestly said: 'That's not right. I'll do my best to try to find a good mating pair for you'
(not been able, thus far). Let me add that he is the MOST experienced mechanic, racer himself
upon a time, you can imagine.

Recently I had considered getting those cranks back and install them, differring lengths
notwithstanding. After all, my left knee is much better that the other one and I know it can bend
more and better. I consulted a good friend of mine, an experienced cyclist too, and he said: 'I
wholeheartedly advice you not to'.

Funny how different people would behave differently and suggest so different approches!

Who has got two 170mm cranks for me, anyhow? I would be satisfied with just the spiders, of course.

Sergio Pisa
  #6  
Old 03-11.-2003
Jay Beattie
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ? 175 vs. 172.5 crank arm length

"Sheldon Brown" <captbike@sheldonbrown.com> wrote in message
news:3E6D55B5.4030707@sheldonbrown.com...
> A shy person askked:
>
> > What is the significance to my training/general riding of pedaling
two
> > different bikes one with 175 and the other with 172.5 length crank
arms?
>
> Precious little. The bike with longer cranks will provide a 1.4%
lower
> gain ratio in a given sprocket combination, so for the same gear it would climb a wee bit
> better, but not top out as fast. Since you presumably have the option of changing gears, this
> difference, small
as
> it is, becomes utterly insignificant in practice.

> The longer cranks will require you to bend your knee a bit farther for each stroke, possibly
> leading to knee problems that a shorter crank might not cause, but, again, this difference is so
> small it really doesn't matter.

I know we always trade the same links (with the same equivocal studies) when this issue comes up,
but is there really no good science on crank length? It would seem to me that the range-of-motion
problem you raise would at least get some attention if it really does have the potential for causing
injury. -- Jay Beattie.
  #7  
Old 03-11.-2003
Tim McNamara
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ? 175 vs. 172.5 crank arm length

In article <v6sdftcq6q53a8@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

> "Sheldon Brown" <captbike@sheldonbrown.com> wrote in message
> news:3E6D55B5.4030707@sheldonbrown.com...
> > A shy person askked:
> >
> > > What is the significance to my training/general riding of pedaling two different bikes one
> > > with 175 and the other with
> > > 172.5 length crank arms?
> >
> > Precious little. The bike with longer cranks will provide a 1.4% lower gain ratio in a given
> > sprocket combination, so for the same gear it would climb a wee bit better, but not top out as
> > fast. Since you presumably have the option of changing gears, this difference, small as it is,
> > becomes utterly insignificant in practice.
>
> > The longer cranks will require you to bend your knee a bit farther for each stroke, possibly
> > leading to knee problems that a shorter crank might not cause, but, again, this difference is so
> > small it really doesn't matter.
>
> I know we always trade the same links (with the same equivocal studies) when this issue comes up,
> but is there really no good science on crank length? It would seem to me that the range-of-motion
> problem you raise would at least get some attention if it really does have the potential for
> causing injury. -- Jay Beattie.

IIRC the length cranks need to be before causing such an acute bend as to risk knee problems (in an
otherwise healthy knee) is really big. Where did I read that... maybe in the Hinault book? The size
mentioned- wherever I read it- was like 210 mm; and I would imagine that this would be proportional
to the leg length. With my 91 cm inseam, I should be able to ride 180s with no problem. I have a set
in the basement that I need to mount on a bike and see how they are.
  #8  
Old 03-11.-2003
Andy Coggan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ? 175 vs. 172.5 crank arm length

"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message news:v6sdftcq6q53a8@corp.supernews.com...

> I know we always trade the same links (with the same equivocal studies) when this issue comes up,
> but is there really no good science on crank length?

I don't know of anything equivocal about the studies of Martin et al. - and those are essentially
the only true scientific studies of the topic that I am aware of (in part because I never got my
senior honor's thesis published).

Andy Coggan
  #9  
Old 03-12.-2003
Jay Beattie
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ? 175 vs. 172.5 crank arm length

"Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sSwba.16125$gF3.1424268@newsrea....earthlink.net...
> "Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
> news:v6sdftcq6q53a8@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > I know we always trade the same links (with the same equivocal
studies)
> > when this issue comes up, but is there really no good science on
crank
> > length?
>
> I don't know of anything equivocal about the studies of Martin et
al. - and
> those are essentially the only true scientific studies of the topic
that I
> am aware of (in part because I never got my senior honor's thesis published).

Do you have a link (if there is one). -- Jay Beattie.
  #10  
Old 03-12.-2003
Andy Coggan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ? 175 vs. 172.5 crank arm length

"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message news:v6vbqvepfh9veb@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:sSwba.16125$gF3.1424268@newsrea....earthlink.net...
> > "Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
> > news:v6sdftcq6q53a8@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > I know we always trade the same links (with the same equivocal
> studies)
> > > when this issue comes up, but is there really no good science on
> crank
> > > length?
> >
> > I don't know of anything equivocal about the studies of Martin et
> al. - and
> > those are essentially the only true scientific studies of the topic
> that I
> > am aware of (in part because I never got my senior honor's thesis published).
>
> Do you have a link (if there is one). -- Jay Beattie.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...PubMed&list_ui
ds=12183473&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...PubMed&list_ui
ds=11990729&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...PubMed&list_ui
ds=11417428&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...PubMed&list_ui
ds=10828327&dopt=Abstract

Bottom line: alterations in crank length within (and even beyond) the normal range used by
cyclists has no significant effect on either maximal power or submaximal efficiency. Factors other
than performance (e.g., ground clearance, comfort) should therefore take precedence when selecting
crank length.

Andy Coggan
  #11  
Old 03-12.-2003
Bluto
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ? 175 vs. 172.5 crank arm length

MMCS <econorama@attbi.com> wrote"

> What is the significance to my training/general riding of pedaling two different bikes one with
> 175 and the other with 172.5 length crank arms?

Almost nil. 1.4% difference in the pedaling circle diameter. It boggles my mind that parts
manufacturers will offer 170mm, 172.5mm, and 175mm cranks, but no 160mm or 190mm cranks.

Maybe they save costs by making them all the same size and just stamping them with different
dimensions-- I am sure no rider could distinguish the difference in a blind test. I'd lay
money on it.

Chalo Colina
  #12  
Old 03-13.-2003
Ted Bennett
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ? 175 vs. 172.5 crank arm length

> > What is the significance to my training/general riding of pedaling two different bikes one with
> > 175 and the other with 172.5 length crank arms?
>
> Almost nil. 1.4% difference in the pedaling circle diameter. It boggles my mind that parts
> manufacturers will offer 170mm, 172.5mm, and 175mm cranks, but no 160mm or 190mm cranks.
>
> Maybe they save costs by making them all the same size and just stamping them with different
> dimensions-- I am sure no rider could distinguish the difference in a blind test. I'd lay
> money on it.
>
> Chalo Colina

You are a cynical man, Chalo. But you are likely right in this case.

However (ah, I love that word), you can get short cranks from the cute little world of kids' bikes,
and long cranks have been made by Bullseye, if memory serves.

There is an exception to the idea that crank length doesn't matter and is not noticeable: for fixed
gear bikes, where 5mm can make a significant difference in how far you can lean in a turn before you
suffer a pedal strike. And suffer is the right word here.

--
Ted Bennett Portland OR
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:44 PM.
Translated to other languages supported by vB Enterprise Translator 3.2.2
Powered by: vBulletin Copyright © 2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright © 2001 - 2009 cyclingforums.com

Automatic Translations (Powered by Powered by Google):
Bulgarian Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Finnish French German Italian Japanese Korean Norwegian Polish Portuguese Spanish Swedish