Trek Crank Length

In article <[email hidden]>,

Garrison Hilliard said:

Shorter crank arms make for quicker spinning, longer crank arms make for better hillclimbing (via
increased leverage)... or, at least. that's the common wisdom. I've never really noticed that the
crank lengths made that big of a difference in either casre.

Thats what I have been told all these years. But who really knows until maybe you have tried them?

My MTB¹s and Hybrids have 175 crank arms.

My Lemond roadie has 172.5¹s

I can¹t really tell the difference. Both are comforable.

HAND

--
³Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness³

- Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution

Agree, though I have standardized on 175's on both road and mountain bikes. Track riders are a different story they as I'm sure you know spin at some pretty high cadences and thus prefer the shorter cranks. (I'm gonna hafta get over to the Velodrome one of these days and try it for my self...)

😄

Garrison Hilliard said:

Shorter crank arms make for quicker spinning, longer crank arms make for better hillclimbing (via
increased leverage)... or, at least. that's the common wisdom. I've never really noticed that the
crank lengths made that big of a difference in either casre.

Crank length *should* be related to your thigh length to ensure your knee articulates through a
sensible angle. Unfortunately most manufacturers (and retailers) set a premium on anything other
than 170mm or 175mm. I'd love some 165mm MTB cranks but Shimano only make XTR ones, which are about
the price of a cheap foreign holiday.

Garrison Hilliard said:

Shorter crank arms make for quicker spinning, longer crank arms make for better hillclimbing (via
increased leverage)... or, at least. that's the common wisdom. I've never really noticed that the
crank lengths made that big of a difference in either casre.

Well I think crank is this:

campagnolo.com03 REguranitura.jpgOpen ↗

and a crank-arm is this:

classicrendezvous.comPMP crk ad.htmOpen ↗

and a crank-arm-lever is this:

classicrendezvous.comRarest pics3.htmOpen ↗

# Crank:

# 1 : a bent part of an axle or shaft or an arm keyed at right angles to the end of a shaft by which
# circular motion is imparted to or received from the shaft or by which reciprocating motion is
# changed into circular motion or vice versa

This is like all the rest of popular embellished speech, where there are no roads but roadways, it
doesn't rain, we have rain storms or worse, rain storm systems moving through our area. All this
seems to IMPACT on understanding instead of affecting it?

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Garrison Hilliard said:

Shorter crank arms make for quicker spinning, longer crank arms make for better hillclimbing
(via increased leverage)... or, at least. that's the common wisdom. I've never really noticed
that the crank lengths made that big of a difference in either casre.

Well I think crank is this:

campagnolo.com03 REguranitura.jpgOpen ↗

and a crank-arm is this:

classicrendezvous.comPMP crk ad.htmOpen ↗

and a crank-arm-lever is this:

classicrendezvous.comRarest pics3.htmOpen ↗

# Crank:

# 1 : a bent part of an axle or shaft or an arm keyed at right angles to the end of a shaft by
# which circular motion is imparted to or received from the shaft or by which reciprocating
# motion is changed into circular motion or vice versa

This is like all the rest of popular embellished speech, where there are no roads but roadways, it
doesn't rain, we have rain storms or worse, rain storm systems moving through our area. All this
seems to IMPACT on understanding instead of affecting it?

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Dear Jobst,

If you're not careful, you might wind up being thought of as a crank on the subject.

Crankily,

Carl Fogel

"Garrison Hilliard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Shorter crank arms make for quicker spinning, longer crank arms make for better hillclimbing (via
increased leverage)... or, at least. that's the common wisdom.

Gears are there for leverage adjustments. Using shorter cranks for spin defeats the object.

Andrew Bradley

Zog The Undeniable <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Crank length *should* be related to your thigh length to ensure your knee articulates through a
sensible angle.

Minor point, but leg length would be a better (and easier) measure for "standardising" knee angles.

For a given leg length, linking crank-length to thigh-length tends to standardise hip angles.

According to my calculations if you link 2 great pearls/myths: KOPS and "cranks proportional to
femurs", everybody's thighs end up doing very nearly the same thing in relation to an upper body
inclined at a given angle to the ground (ankling idiosyncrasies aside).

This approach would tend to standardise the "aerodynamic tuck" situation (while leaving the knees to
their own devices) and is used by a good few bike fitters. Not sure this is their rationale, though.

Andrew Bradley

Quoted message said:

This is like all the rest of popular embellished speech, where there are no roads but roadways, it
doesn't rain, we have rain storms or

At a time of year when rain and snow are likely, how would you uniquely describe heavy rain
accompanied by high winds and thick cloud cover?
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!

At high RPM's I can tell the difference between my 172's and my 168's, so I imagine, although I
never spin that high for that long on a Mtn bike, that my 175's are not for spinning.

For road riding, spinning to me is over 110Rpms, 90 is crusing and 105 is in the grove, 120 to 130
is to train or strain.

HTH

JeffP....

"Andrew Bradley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Garrison Hilliard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shorter crank arms make for quicker spinning, longer crank arms make for

better hillclimbing (via increased leverage)... or, at least. that's the common wisdom.

Quoted message said:

Gears are there for leverage adjustments. Using shorter cranks for spin defeats the object.

Andrew Bradley

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Quoted message said:

"Andrew Bradley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Garrison Hilliard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shorter crank arms make for quicker spinning, longer crank arms make for

better hillclimbing (via increased leverage)... or, at least. that's the common wisdom.

Quoted message said:

Gears are there for leverage adjustments. Using shorter cranks for spin defeats the object.

_ But you can spin faster if you don't have to bend your knees as much. I am definitely more
comfortable on 165's than 175's at higher RPM's. Use gears to adjust force, crank length to make
your knee's happy. I think there is some arguement to using shorter cranks for touring as it's
easier to make many small steps rather than many bit ones. You do need to make your gears smaller if
you use shorter cranks to avoid overstressing your knees.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBP/7rOmTWTAjn5N/lAQGbugP/eGOb5y/Mzz8OdgQIw9ZdRovvdNO9yaOx
qv8tnTmQVPYeQOSUWFYm6h75t1HJI3RP6kBpk2oWrm6UL7rMOSURGOExPdN4alWw

p/FTGjf2P7k= =YNvW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

David Damerell said:

Quoted message said:

This is like all the rest of popular embellished speech, where there are no roads but roadways,
it doesn't rain, we have rain storms or

Quoted message said:

At a time of year when rain and snow are likely, how would you uniquely describe heavy rain
accompanied by high winds and thick cloud cover?

Probably as "heavy rain", "heavy snow". If it is accompanied by strong winds it would be a storm or
blizzard, but a rain storm system it is not. These terms are used to sound important. They have been
thrown around this winter often although we have had no strong winds or snow in the SF bay area.
It's a verbal rain storm system grouppo set with great impact.

Have you noticed that the word "majority" has died. It is only used as "overwhelming/vast majority"
both versions meaning "most" but then that is much to plain. Language is going to the dogs. Today
people don't even wince at "for who the bell tolls" or "who do you ask".

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Have you noticed that the word "majority" has died. It is only used as "overwhelming/vast
majority" both versions meaning "most" but then that is much to plain. Language is going to the
dogs. Today people don't even wince at "for who the bell tolls" or "who do you ask".

Yes, woe is I. I mean, woe is the vast majority of we.

Stella

Quoted message said:

This is like all the rest of popular embellished speech, where there are no roads but roadways, it
doesn't rain, we have rain storms or worse, rain storm systems moving through our area. All this
seems to IMPACT on understanding instead of affecting it?

If we don't use hyperbolic methodologies, we will never be able to insure that our effectations will
impact positively!

--
R.

<> Richard Brockie "Categorical statements <> The tall blond one. always cause trouble." <>
[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

If we don't use hyperbolic methodologies, we will never be able to insure that our effectations
will impact positively!

Why can't the English learn to speak? (And now I duck under the desk, knowing that the poster
considers himself British and most definitely not English, a distinction lost on most...)

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗

"Richard Brockie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is like all the rest of popular embellished speech, where there are no roads but roadways,
it doesn't rain, we have rain storms or worse, rain storm systems moving through our area. All
this seems to IMPACT on understanding instead of affecting it?

If we don't use hyperbolic methodologies, we will never be able to insure that our effectations
will impact positively!

--
R.

<> Richard Brockie "Categorical statements <> The tall blond one. always cause trouble." <>
[email hidden]

"JeffP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

At high RPM's I can tell the difference between my 172's and my 168's, so I imagine, although I
never spin that high for that long on a Mtn bike, that my 175's are not for spinning.

For road riding, spinning to me is over 110Rpms, 90 is crusing and 105 is in the grove, 120 to 130
is to train or strain.

What do you think spinning is about?

Andrew Bradley

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Gears are there for leverage adjustments. Using shorter cranks for spin defeats the object.

_ But you can spin faster if you don't have to bend your knees as much. I am definitely more
comfortable on 165's than 175's at higher RPM's.

But what's the objective of "higher RPM's" in the first place? What advantage is gained by using a
shorter crank with a lower gear?

Quoted message said:

Use gears to adjust force, crank length to make your knee's happy.

Precisely, so what's the point about RPM's?

Quoted message said:

I think there is some arguement to using shorter cranks for touring as it's easier to make many
small steps rather than many bit ones.

But you are not "making steps" on a bike in the normal sense. Although similar muscle groups and
joint angles may be used as compared with, say, walking uphill, loads-wise the activities are very
different.

Andrew Bradley

"Andrew Bradley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"JeffP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At high RPM's I can tell the difference between my 172's and my 168's,

so I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

imagine, although I never spin that high for that long on a Mtn bike,

that my

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

175's are not for spinning.

For road riding, spinning to me is over 110Rpms, 90 is crusing and 105

is in the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

grove, 120 to 130 is to train or strain.

What do you think spinning is about?

Andrew Bradley

Pretty much like every other subject - if you can quantify, then you have to have a higher personal
best (or like resting pulses, near to zero), and then you can brag about how the wimps of the world
don't have a clue. Excessive levels of tesosterone supplements abound in this newsgroup....

--

Bonne route,

Sandy Paris FR

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Gears are there for leverage adjustments. Using shorter cranks for spin defeats the object.
>

_ But you can spin faster if you don't have to bend your knees as much. I am definitely more
comfortable on 165's than 175's at higher RPM's.

But what's the objective of "higher RPM's" in the first place? What advantage is gained by using a
shorter crank with a lower gear?

Quoted message said:

Use gears to adjust force, crank length to make your knee's happy.

Precisely, so what's the point about RPM's?

Quoted message said:

I think there is some arguement to using shorter cranks for touring as it's easier to make many
small steps rather than many bit ones.

But you are not "making steps" on a bike in the normal sense. Although similar muscle groups and
joint angles may be used as compared with, say, walking uphill, loads-wise the activities are very
different.

For most people, increasing the cadence in a lower gear will improve their cycling performance
because it causes less muscle fatigue. This is true whether you measure performance as going faster
in a race, or just being less tired at the end of a long recreational ride. How "fast" is a fast
cadence varies significantly between people, but is usually somewhere between 80 and 100 rpm, with
many people using 90. Mine is slightly lower: around 85.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

"Andrew Bradley" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

But you are not "making steps" on a bike in the normal sense. Although similar muscle groups and
joint angles may be used as compared with, say, walking uphill, loads-wise the activities are very
different.

How so?