170mm vs 175mm crank arms?

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by pinnah, Feb 20, 2006.

  1. pinnah

    pinnah Guest

    Any pointers to FAQs or web sites that discuss the merits of longer or
    shorter crank arms would be greatly appreciated.

    I'm 6'2", 180lb and a non-racing rider. My current gearing is a 46/36/26
    triple with a 12-28 8 speed rear cluster. I'm in my mid 40s and have aging
    knees. On rides under 2 hours, I generally keep a cadance in the low to
    mid 90s. Day long rides rarely see my cadance under 80.

    Back in the day, I used to ride 170mm cranks like nearly everybody else. I
    even used them on a coast/coast ride back in the 80s. In the mid 90s, a new
    bike came with the current 175 triple crank.

    I seem to get more knee pain cycling these days, but then, I get more knee
    pain on stairs, walking, hiking and skiing. So, I clearly don't want to
    rush to judgement.

    Guidance on the pros/cons of the crank lengths would be appreciated.

    Thanks
     
    Tags:


  2. I have had people say that going to longer cranks caused them knee
    pain, however Mr. Press is right, your knee pain may be caused by any
    number of other things. If you ride a fixed bike then you want to have
    short crank arms so your toe dosn't hit the wheel when you turn, but in
    all other cases I suggest for people to stick with what they have
    always ridden. How long have you been riding this new bike? If it's
    brand new (less then 30 days or 300 miles) I'd see if the dealer you
    got it from would trade you crank arms, or give you a deal on a 170,
    but you may still get used to it. I'm 6' 2" and my road bike has 175s
    on it.
    -Tim
     
  3. only1gear

    only1gear Guest

    Some good information here:
    http://www.zinncycles.com/cranks.aspx
    There have also been some tech articles published on VeloNews.com on
    the subject.

    There are some good arguments for crank lengths based upon leg length.
    Like most things there is no perfect answer. My personal experiences
    have been such that I have better acceleration on a shorter crank and I
    can TT and climb better on longer cranks.

    Greg
     
  4. 531Aussie

    531Aussie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,606
    Likes Received:
    137
    longer cranks definitely increase knee flexion through the top of the stroke, and thisis compounded by having to lower the seat for the extra length.

    If you're not particularly interested in riding as fast as you can, maybe stick to the 170s, otherwise, at your height, I'd be suggesting 180s!!! :)
     
  5. pinnah wrote:
    > Any pointers to FAQs or web sites that discuss the merits of longer or
    > shorter crank arms would be greatly appreciated.
    >
    > I'm 6'2", 180lb and a non-racing rider. My current gearing is a 46/36/26
    > triple with a 12-28 8 speed rear cluster. I'm in my mid 40s and have aging
    > knees. On rides under 2 hours, I generally keep a cadance in the low to
    > mid 90s. Day long rides rarely see my cadance under 80.
    >
    > Back in the day, I used to ride 170mm cranks like nearly everybody else. I
    > even used them on a coast/coast ride back in the 80s. In the mid 90s, a new
    > bike came with the current 175 triple crank.
    >
    > I seem to get more knee pain cycling these days, but then, I get more knee
    > pain on stairs, walking, hiking and skiing. So, I clearly don't want to
    > rush to judgement.
    >
    > Guidance on the pros/cons of the crank lengths would be appreciated.
    >
    > Thanks


    As others have pointed out, longer cranks increase the range of motion
    for the knees. This could be unpleasant if you are already experiencing
    knee pain on stairs. I personally have found long cranks to be very
    comfortable and I feel they allow me to get a better position on the
    bike. I am 6'3" and have long-ish legs. I use 195mm cranks. Long cranks
    make the range of motion larger, but they allow you to generate the
    same power with less pedal force for a given cadence. Some people say,
    "just change gears", but it isn't that simple. Since you are already
    using a low cadence, you are probably not comfortable with a higher
    cadence which would use less force.

    If the pain problem comes from using too high a force on the pedals,
    you can either use a lower gear and higher cadence to get the same
    speed without so much force being applied to you knees, but may not be
    comfortable due to the higher muscle contaction speeds need to pedal at
    a higher cadence. Or you could go with longer cranks which would allow
    you to keep your cadence and let you get the same speed with less force
    on the pedals and knees.

    But if you have pain almost all the time, maybe you need orthodics to
    compensate for being knock-kneed or something.

    Here is some fun stuff on cranklength:
    http://www.cranklength.info/
    http://www.nettally.com/palmk/crankset.html

    I love my 195's but unless you have other reasons to go long, I'd stick
    with 175's if I were you and work on a higher cadence. Maybe 180, but
    anything longer than 175 is hard to find and not cheap.

    Joseph
     
  6. Robert

    Robert Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > pinnah wrote:
    >
    >>Any pointers to FAQs or web sites that discuss the merits of longer or
    >>shorter crank arms would be greatly appreciated.
    >>
    >>I'm 6'2", 180lb and a non-racing rider. My current gearing is a 46/36/26
    >>triple with a 12-28 8 speed rear cluster. I'm in my mid 40s and have aging
    >>knees. On rides under 2 hours, I generally keep a cadance in the low to
    >>mid 90s. Day long rides rarely see my cadance under 80.
    >>
    >>Back in the day, I used to ride 170mm cranks like nearly everybody else. I
    >>even used them on a coast/coast ride back in the 80s. In the mid 90s, a new
    >>bike came with the current 175 triple crank.
    >>
    >>I seem to get more knee pain cycling these days, but then, I get more knee
    >>pain on stairs, walking, hiking and skiing. So, I clearly don't want to
    >>rush to judgement.
    >>
    >>Guidance on the pros/cons of the crank lengths would be appreciated.
    >>
    >>Thanks

    >
    >
    > As others have pointed out, longer cranks increase the range of motion
    > for the knees. This could be unpleasant if you are already experiencing
    > knee pain on stairs. I personally have found long cranks to be very
    > comfortable and I feel they allow me to get a better position on the
    > bike. I am 6'3" and have long-ish legs. I use 195mm cranks. Long cranks
    > make the range of motion larger, but they allow you to generate the
    > same power with less pedal force for a given cadence. Some people say,
    > "just change gears", but it isn't that simple. Since you are already
    > using a low cadence, you are probably not comfortable with a higher
    > cadence which would use less force.
    >
    > If the pain problem comes from using too high a force on the pedals,
    > you can either use a lower gear and higher cadence to get the same
    > speed without so much force being applied to you knees, but may not be
    > comfortable due to the higher muscle contaction speeds need to pedal at
    > a higher cadence. Or you could go with longer cranks which would allow
    > you to keep your cadence and let you get the same speed with less force
    > on the pedals and knees.
    >
    > But if you have pain almost all the time, maybe you need orthodics to
    > compensate for being knock-kneed or something.
    >
    > Here is some fun stuff on cranklength:
    > http://www.cranklength.info/
    > http://www.nettally.com/palmk/crankset.html
    >
    > I love my 195's but unless you have other reasons to go long, I'd stick
    > with 175's if I were you and work on a higher cadence. Maybe 180, but
    > anything longer than 175 is hard to find and not cheap.
    >
    > Joseph
    >


    Hi,

    Last summer I switched from 172,5 to 177,5 cranks. Jury's still out as
    to whether I can handle them or not. Findings, using the longer cranks:

    - After much experimentation decided to *not* lower saddle, though move
    it forward 1 cm, and use a 130mm stem instead of 120mm.

    - My ideal cadence was around 105 on the 172,5 cranks, and is now about
    95 on the longer ones. Fine.

    - Climbing is much better on the 177,5's

    - Have not noticed increased tendency for pedal scrape on ground but I
    don't ever lean the bike so much and pedal at the same time. Colnago
    road frame so I'm kind of cautious anyhow due to low BB.

    - Toe to front wheel overlap as usual but the consequences of that are
    very mild, compared with what some people write on this NG

    - No problem with knee pain. In fact, doing a spinning session on 170
    cranks tends to cause me more knee problems than my long cranks do.
    Greater leg extension does not automatically increase risk of knee pain,
    as long as cleats are at correct angle. To avoid stress on knees, I
    abandoned floating cleats quite a while ago and use fixed angle (Campag)
    cleats.

    - Only disadvantage is a tendency for lower back (top of pelvis) pain.
    Appears to be due to overextension of buttock muscle at top of stroke,
    despite me keeping seat high, causing pelvis to pitch slightly upward.
    I'm now on a program to stretch out my unusually short hamstrings, to
    prevent my pelvis from rotating. Preliminary results seem to be
    favourable though. I'll know more by the time the (northern) summer
    comes around.

    My measurements: 178 cm with 85cm inseam (5' 10", with 33.5" inseam).

    /Robert
     
  7. Robert wrote:
    > [email protected] wrote:
    > > pinnah wrote:
    > >
    > >>Any pointers to FAQs or web sites that discuss the merits of longer or
    > >>shorter crank arms would be greatly appreciated.
    > >>
    > >>I'm 6'2", 180lb and a non-racing rider. My current gearing is a 46/36/26
    > >>triple with a 12-28 8 speed rear cluster. I'm in my mid 40s and have aging
    > >>knees. On rides under 2 hours, I generally keep a cadance in the low to
    > >>mid 90s. Day long rides rarely see my cadance under 80.
    > >>
    > >>Back in the day, I used to ride 170mm cranks like nearly everybody else. I
    > >>even used them on a coast/coast ride back in the 80s. In the mid 90s, a new
    > >>bike came with the current 175 triple crank.
    > >>
    > >>I seem to get more knee pain cycling these days, but then, I get more knee
    > >>pain on stairs, walking, hiking and skiing. So, I clearly don't want to
    > >>rush to judgement.
    > >>
    > >>Guidance on the pros/cons of the crank lengths would be appreciated.
    > >>
    > >>Thanks

    > >
    > >
    > > As others have pointed out, longer cranks increase the range of motion
    > > for the knees. This could be unpleasant if you are already experiencing
    > > knee pain on stairs. I personally have found long cranks to be very
    > > comfortable and I feel they allow me to get a better position on the
    > > bike. I am 6'3" and have long-ish legs. I use 195mm cranks. Long cranks
    > > make the range of motion larger, but they allow you to generate the
    > > same power with less pedal force for a given cadence. Some people say,
    > > "just change gears", but it isn't that simple. Since you are already
    > > using a low cadence, you are probably not comfortable with a higher
    > > cadence which would use less force.
    > >
    > > If the pain problem comes from using too high a force on the pedals,
    > > you can either use a lower gear and higher cadence to get the same
    > > speed without so much force being applied to you knees, but may not be
    > > comfortable due to the higher muscle contaction speeds need to pedal at
    > > a higher cadence. Or you could go with longer cranks which would allow
    > > you to keep your cadence and let you get the same speed with less force
    > > on the pedals and knees.
    > >
    > > But if you have pain almost all the time, maybe you need orthodics to
    > > compensate for being knock-kneed or something.
    > >
    > > Here is some fun stuff on cranklength:
    > > http://www.cranklength.info/
    > > http://www.nettally.com/palmk/crankset.html
    > >
    > > I love my 195's but unless you have other reasons to go long, I'd stick
    > > with 175's if I were you and work on a higher cadence. Maybe 180, but
    > > anything longer than 175 is hard to find and not cheap.
    > >
    > > Joseph
    > >

    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > Last summer I switched from 172,5 to 177,5 cranks. Jury's still out as
    > to whether I can handle them or not. Findings, using the longer cranks:
    >
    > - After much experimentation decided to *not* lower saddle, though move
    > it forward 1 cm, and use a 130mm stem instead of 120mm.
    >
    > - My ideal cadence was around 105 on the 172,5 cranks, and is now about
    > 95 on the longer ones. Fine.
    >
    > - Climbing is much better on the 177,5's
    >
    > - Have not noticed increased tendency for pedal scrape on ground but I
    > don't ever lean the bike so much and pedal at the same time. Colnago
    > road frame so I'm kind of cautious anyhow due to low BB.
    >
    > - Toe to front wheel overlap as usual but the consequences of that are
    > very mild, compared with what some people write on this NG
    >
    > - No problem with knee pain. In fact, doing a spinning session on 170
    > cranks tends to cause me more knee problems than my long cranks do.
    > Greater leg extension does not automatically increase risk of knee pain,
    > as long as cleats are at correct angle. To avoid stress on knees, I
    > abandoned floating cleats quite a while ago and use fixed angle (Campag)
    > cleats.
    >
    > - Only disadvantage is a tendency for lower back (top of pelvis) pain.
    > Appears to be due to overextension of buttock muscle at top of stroke,
    > despite me keeping seat high, causing pelvis to pitch slightly upward.
    > I'm now on a program to stretch out my unusually short hamstrings, to
    > prevent my pelvis from rotating. Preliminary results seem to be
    > favourable though. I'll know more by the time the (northern) summer
    > comes around.
    >
    > My measurements: 178 cm with 85cm inseam (5' 10", with 33.5" inseam).
    >
    > /Robert


    That is interesting. You are pretty close to the 20.8% proportion. Is
    that coincidence, or by design? What is your seat height? I found that
    109% of inseam is very nice for pedal-spindle-seat when using
    proportional cranks. This works out to more or less the same as the
    regular seat height suggestions for normal cranks, and slightly lower
    for long cranks. I also found that with the knee-over-spindle position
    worked out much better for me with proportional cranks than it had on
    short ones. Fore-aft cleat position is also something to take into
    consideration.

    If you have tight hamstrings, you may have been able to get away with
    it with the shorter cranks, but the longer ones make it more apparent.
    Sounds like you can't touch yor toes. How low can you go? The few times
    I have been spinning I found the stationary position of the bike while
    standing to be rather disconcerting with funny sideward forces. Maybe
    that has something to do with your discomfort more than the 170's?

    Joseph
     
  8. Robert

    Robert Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Robert wrote:
    >
    >>[email protected] wrote:
    >>
    >>>pinnah wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Any pointers to FAQs or web sites that discuss the merits of longer or
    >>>>shorter crank arms would be greatly appreciated.
    >>>>
    >>>>I'm 6'2", 180lb and a non-racing rider. My current gearing is a 46/36/26
    >>>>triple with a 12-28 8 speed rear cluster. I'm in my mid 40s and have aging
    >>>>knees. On rides under 2 hours, I generally keep a cadance in the low to
    >>>>mid 90s. Day long rides rarely see my cadance under 80.
    >>>>
    >>>>Back in the day, I used to ride 170mm cranks like nearly everybody else. I
    >>>>even used them on a coast/coast ride back in the 80s. In the mid 90s, a new
    >>>>bike came with the current 175 triple crank.
    >>>>
    >>>>I seem to get more knee pain cycling these days, but then, I get more knee
    >>>>pain on stairs, walking, hiking and skiing. So, I clearly don't want to
    >>>>rush to judgement.
    >>>>
    >>>>Guidance on the pros/cons of the crank lengths would be appreciated.
    >>>>
    >>>>Thanks
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>As others have pointed out, longer cranks increase the range of motion
    >>>for the knees. This could be unpleasant if you are already experiencing
    >>>knee pain on stairs. I personally have found long cranks to be very
    >>>comfortable and I feel they allow me to get a better position on the
    >>>bike. I am 6'3" and have long-ish legs. I use 195mm cranks. Long cranks
    >>>make the range of motion larger, but they allow you to generate the
    >>>same power with less pedal force for a given cadence. Some people say,
    >>>"just change gears", but it isn't that simple. Since you are already
    >>>using a low cadence, you are probably not comfortable with a higher
    >>>cadence which would use less force.
    >>>
    >>>If the pain problem comes from using too high a force on the pedals,
    >>>you can either use a lower gear and higher cadence to get the same
    >>>speed without so much force being applied to you knees, but may not be
    >>>comfortable due to the higher muscle contaction speeds need to pedal at
    >>>a higher cadence. Or you could go with longer cranks which would allow
    >>>you to keep your cadence and let you get the same speed with less force
    >>>on the pedals and knees.
    >>>
    >>>But if you have pain almost all the time, maybe you need orthodics to
    >>>compensate for being knock-kneed or something.
    >>>
    >>>Here is some fun stuff on cranklength:
    >>>http://www.cranklength.info/
    >>>http://www.nettally.com/palmk/crankset.html
    >>>
    >>>I love my 195's but unless you have other reasons to go long, I'd stick
    >>>with 175's if I were you and work on a higher cadence. Maybe 180, but
    >>>anything longer than 175 is hard to find and not cheap.
    >>>
    >>>Joseph
    >>>

    >>
    >>Hi,
    >>
    >>Last summer I switched from 172,5 to 177,5 cranks. Jury's still out as
    >>to whether I can handle them or not. Findings, using the longer cranks:
    >>
    >>- After much experimentation decided to *not* lower saddle, though move
    >>it forward 1 cm, and use a 130mm stem instead of 120mm.
    >>
    >>- My ideal cadence was around 105 on the 172,5 cranks, and is now about
    >>95 on the longer ones. Fine.
    >>
    >>- Climbing is much better on the 177,5's
    >>
    >>- Have not noticed increased tendency for pedal scrape on ground but I
    >>don't ever lean the bike so much and pedal at the same time. Colnago
    >>road frame so I'm kind of cautious anyhow due to low BB.
    >>
    >>- Toe to front wheel overlap as usual but the consequences of that are
    >>very mild, compared with what some people write on this NG
    >>
    >>- No problem with knee pain. In fact, doing a spinning session on 170
    >>cranks tends to cause me more knee problems than my long cranks do.
    >>Greater leg extension does not automatically increase risk of knee pain,
    >>as long as cleats are at correct angle. To avoid stress on knees, I
    >>abandoned floating cleats quite a while ago and use fixed angle (Campag)
    >>cleats.
    >>
    >>- Only disadvantage is a tendency for lower back (top of pelvis) pain.
    >>Appears to be due to overextension of buttock muscle at top of stroke,
    >>despite me keeping seat high, causing pelvis to pitch slightly upward.
    >>I'm now on a program to stretch out my unusually short hamstrings, to
    >>prevent my pelvis from rotating. Preliminary results seem to be
    >>favourable though. I'll know more by the time the (northern) summer
    >>comes around.
    >>
    >>My measurements: 178 cm with 85cm inseam (5' 10", with 33.5" inseam).
    >>
    >>/Robert

    >
    >
    > That is interesting. You are pretty close to the 20.8% proportion. Is
    > that coincidence, or by design? What is your seat height? I found that
    > 109% of inseam is very nice for pedal-spindle-seat when using
    > proportional cranks. This works out to more or less the same as the
    > regular seat height suggestions for normal cranks, and slightly lower
    > for long cranks. I also found that with the knee-over-spindle position
    > worked out much better for me with proportional cranks than it had on
    > short ones. Fore-aft cleat position is also something to take into
    > consideration.
    >
    > If you have tight hamstrings, you may have been able to get away with
    > it with the shorter cranks, but the longer ones make it more apparent.
    > Sounds like you can't touch yor toes. How low can you go? The few times
    > I have been spinning I found the stationary position of the bike while
    > standing to be rather disconcerting with funny sideward forces. Maybe
    > that has something to do with your discomfort more than the 170's?
    >
    > Joseph
    >


    Hi Joseph,

    Okay, let's measure, based on my 85 cm inseam. Seat to centre of bottom
    bracket (taking into account ca. 3 mm compression of the padding on
    Sella Italia SLR) is 75,5 cm. Adding 17,8 cm for crank gives 93,3 cm,
    seat to centre of pedal spindle (I note that the sole of my shoe stops
    ca. 2 cm short of the centre of the pedal spindle due to cleat etc. but
    we'll conveniently forget that issue).

    I see what you're getting at - this is just under 110% of inseam. You
    mention a ratio of 1,09 which I do remember from somewhere - why?

    This crank length / inseam length ratio of 20,8% I read about as being
    the famous Gallic Coincidence Factor. My ratio is just under 20,9 but I
    didn't go there by design, it just happened: I simply already had 172,5
    cranks, wanted longer, felt it would be a waste to go just 2,5 mm more
    to 175, so I went one size further, to 177,5. Hardly scientific but this
    way I knew that if this 177,5 test failed, then I could go out and buy
    175 Record Carbon with a very clear conscience ;-) What I didn't expect
    was to like the 177,5's so much.

    Interesting, your comment about cleat position. Mine are slightly
    towards the ball of the foot (yes, Susanne Ljungskog lives 20 km up the
    road from here and her weird cleat positions have been tried by a few
    living in the area).

    Touching toes. How right you are, I can't do it. But now that I've
    worked on it for a month, I can comfortably get within 10 cm (4 in) of
    the floor with my fingertips. Give me a month more and I should be able
    to just graze the floor. Yes I think you're right, the short hamstrings
    have been shown up pretty harshly by the longer cranks.

    Spinning - you could be right, but another think I forgot is that I use
    MTB shoes on a spinning cycle, since the pedals are SPD, allowing lots
    of float, which my knees hate. So, good point, it's not necessarily the
    overly short crank causing my knees to hurt.

    Sounds as if you have a fair bit of experience on bike fit and how crank
    length affects it. BTW how did you get hold of a set of 195 cranks?

    /Robert
     
  9. Robert wrote:
    > [email protected] wrote:
    > > Robert wrote:
    > >
    > >>[email protected] wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>pinnah wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>Any pointers to FAQs or web sites that discuss the merits of longer or
    > >>>>shorter crank arms would be greatly appreciated.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>I'm 6'2", 180lb and a non-racing rider. My current gearing is a 46/36/26
    > >>>>triple with a 12-28 8 speed rear cluster. I'm in my mid 40s and have aging
    > >>>>knees. On rides under 2 hours, I generally keep a cadance in the low to
    > >>>>mid 90s. Day long rides rarely see my cadance under 80.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Back in the day, I used to ride 170mm cranks like nearly everybody else. I
    > >>>>even used them on a coast/coast ride back in the 80s. In the mid 90s, a new
    > >>>>bike came with the current 175 triple crank.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>I seem to get more knee pain cycling these days, but then, I get more knee
    > >>>>pain on stairs, walking, hiking and skiing. So, I clearly don't want to
    > >>>>rush to judgement.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Guidance on the pros/cons of the crank lengths would be appreciated.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Thanks
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>As others have pointed out, longer cranks increase the range of motion
    > >>>for the knees. This could be unpleasant if you are already experiencing
    > >>>knee pain on stairs. I personally have found long cranks to be very
    > >>>comfortable and I feel they allow me to get a better position on the
    > >>>bike. I am 6'3" and have long-ish legs. I use 195mm cranks. Long cranks
    > >>>make the range of motion larger, but they allow you to generate the
    > >>>same power with less pedal force for a given cadence. Some people say,
    > >>>"just change gears", but it isn't that simple. Since you are already
    > >>>using a low cadence, you are probably not comfortable with a higher
    > >>>cadence which would use less force.
    > >>>
    > >>>If the pain problem comes from using too high a force on the pedals,
    > >>>you can either use a lower gear and higher cadence to get the same
    > >>>speed without so much force being applied to you knees, but may not be
    > >>>comfortable due to the higher muscle contaction speeds need to pedal at
    > >>>a higher cadence. Or you could go with longer cranks which would allow
    > >>>you to keep your cadence and let you get the same speed with less force
    > >>>on the pedals and knees.
    > >>>
    > >>>But if you have pain almost all the time, maybe you need orthodics to
    > >>>compensate for being knock-kneed or something.
    > >>>
    > >>>Here is some fun stuff on cranklength:
    > >>>http://www.cranklength.info/
    > >>>http://www.nettally.com/palmk/crankset.html
    > >>>
    > >>>I love my 195's but unless you have other reasons to go long, I'd stick
    > >>>with 175's if I were you and work on a higher cadence. Maybe 180, but
    > >>>anything longer than 175 is hard to find and not cheap.
    > >>>
    > >>>Joseph
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>Hi,
    > >>
    > >>Last summer I switched from 172,5 to 177,5 cranks. Jury's still out as
    > >>to whether I can handle them or not. Findings, using the longer cranks:
    > >>
    > >>- After much experimentation decided to *not* lower saddle, though move
    > >>it forward 1 cm, and use a 130mm stem instead of 120mm.
    > >>
    > >>- My ideal cadence was around 105 on the 172,5 cranks, and is now about
    > >>95 on the longer ones. Fine.
    > >>
    > >>- Climbing is much better on the 177,5's
    > >>
    > >>- Have not noticed increased tendency for pedal scrape on ground but I
    > >>don't ever lean the bike so much and pedal at the same time. Colnago
    > >>road frame so I'm kind of cautious anyhow due to low BB.
    > >>
    > >>- Toe to front wheel overlap as usual but the consequences of that are
    > >>very mild, compared with what some people write on this NG
    > >>
    > >>- No problem with knee pain. In fact, doing a spinning session on 170
    > >>cranks tends to cause me more knee problems than my long cranks do.
    > >>Greater leg extension does not automatically increase risk of knee pain,
    > >>as long as cleats are at correct angle. To avoid stress on knees, I
    > >>abandoned floating cleats quite a while ago and use fixed angle (Campag)
    > >>cleats.
    > >>
    > >>- Only disadvantage is a tendency for lower back (top of pelvis) pain.
    > >>Appears to be due to overextension of buttock muscle at top of stroke,
    > >>despite me keeping seat high, causing pelvis to pitch slightly upward.
    > >>I'm now on a program to stretch out my unusually short hamstrings, to
    > >>prevent my pelvis from rotating. Preliminary results seem to be
    > >>favourable though. I'll know more by the time the (northern) summer
    > >>comes around.
    > >>
    > >>My measurements: 178 cm with 85cm inseam (5' 10", with 33.5" inseam).
    > >>
    > >>/Robert

    > >
    > >
    > > That is interesting. You are pretty close to the 20.8% proportion. Is
    > > that coincidence, or by design? What is your seat height? I found that
    > > 109% of inseam is very nice for pedal-spindle-seat when using
    > > proportional cranks. This works out to more or less the same as the
    > > regular seat height suggestions for normal cranks, and slightly lower
    > > for long cranks. I also found that with the knee-over-spindle position
    > > worked out much better for me with proportional cranks than it had on
    > > short ones. Fore-aft cleat position is also something to take into
    > > consideration.
    > >
    > > If you have tight hamstrings, you may have been able to get away with
    > > it with the shorter cranks, but the longer ones make it more apparent.
    > > Sounds like you can't touch yor toes. How low can you go? The few times
    > > I have been spinning I found the stationary position of the bike while
    > > standing to be rather disconcerting with funny sideward forces. Maybe
    > > that has something to do with your discomfort more than the 170's?
    > >
    > > Joseph
    > >

    >
    > Hi Joseph,
    >
    > Okay, let's measure, based on my 85 cm inseam. Seat to centre of bottom
    > bracket (taking into account ca. 3 mm compression of the padding on
    > Sella Italia SLR) is 75,5 cm. Adding 17,8 cm for crank gives 93,3 cm,
    > seat to centre of pedal spindle (I note that the sole of my shoe stops
    > ca. 2 cm short of the centre of the pedal spindle due to cleat etc. but
    > we'll conveniently forget that issue).
    >
    > I see what you're getting at - this is just under 110% of inseam. You
    > mention a ratio of 1,09 which I do remember from somewhere - why?
    >
    > This crank length / inseam length ratio of 20,8% I read about as being
    > the famous Gallic Coincidence Factor. My ratio is just under 20,9 but I
    > didn't go there by design, it just happened: I simply already had 172,5
    > cranks, wanted longer, felt it would be a waste to go just 2,5 mm more
    > to 175, so I went one size further, to 177,5. Hardly scientific but this
    > way I knew that if this 177,5 test failed, then I could go out and buy
    > 175 Record Carbon with a very clear conscience ;-) What I didn't expect
    > was to like the 177,5's so much.
    >
    > Interesting, your comment about cleat position. Mine are slightly
    > towards the ball of the foot (yes, Susanne Ljungskog lives 20 km up the
    > road from here and her weird cleat positions have been tried by a few
    > living in the area).
    >
    > Touching toes. How right you are, I can't do it. But now that I've
    > worked on it for a month, I can comfortably get within 10 cm (4 in) of
    > the floor with my fingertips. Give me a month more and I should be able
    > to just graze the floor. Yes I think you're right, the short hamstrings
    > have been shown up pretty harshly by the longer cranks.
    >
    > Spinning - you could be right, but another think I forgot is that I use
    > MTB shoes on a spinning cycle, since the pedals are SPD, allowing lots
    > of float, which my knees hate. So, good point, it's not necessarily the
    > overly short crank causing my knees to hurt.
    >
    > Sounds as if you have a fair bit of experience on bike fit and how crank
    > length affects it. BTW how did you get hold of a set of 195 cranks?
    >
    > /Robert


    I too arrived at the 109% by trial and error. My pedal/shoe combo is
    slightly lower than the 2cm you speak of. Perhaps this accounts for the
    109-110 discrepancy! It was afterwards that I found reference to it
    elsewhere. (Can't find the link!) I originally had 170 way back in the
    day. On my first real bike I got 177.5's after doing calculations from
    Greg LeMond's book. I used the 177.5 for many years. I also had a set
    of 180's I used to use in TT's. After a while I ended up using the
    180's all the time. Fast forward 10 years. I got a new bike and it had
    175's. I would have like 180's but it was a pre-built bike. After a
    while the 175's just didn't feel right. So I checked around and was
    intrigued by the 20.8% idea. Eventually I decided to go for it and
    ordered some 195's from http://www.hscycle.com/ and it was the best
    cycling related purchase I ever made.

    I know what you mean about wobbly MTB cleats. I don't suffer pain from
    them, but I like the solid feel of road pedals better too. Sounds like
    you are making progress on the limberness. Don't forget the rest of
    your body too! Becoming a professional contortionist is perhaps a bit
    much, but some other stretches are probably a good idea too.

    What sort of cleat position does Susanne Ljungskog use?

    Joseph
    PS: I'm in Norway, perhaps I'll see you at a turritt sometime!
     
  10. Robert

    Robert Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Robert wrote:
    >
    >>[email protected] wrote:
    >>
    >>>Robert wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>[email protected] wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>pinnah wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Any pointers to FAQs or web sites that discuss the merits of longer or
    >>>>>>shorter crank arms would be greatly appreciated.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>I'm 6'2", 180lb and a non-racing rider. My current gearing is a 46/36/26
    >>>>>>triple with a 12-28 8 speed rear cluster. I'm in my mid 40s and have aging
    >>>>>>knees. On rides under 2 hours, I generally keep a cadance in the low to
    >>>>>>mid 90s. Day long rides rarely see my cadance under 80.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Back in the day, I used to ride 170mm cranks like nearly everybody else. I
    >>>>>>even used them on a coast/coast ride back in the 80s. In the mid 90s, a new
    >>>>>>bike came with the current 175 triple crank.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>I seem to get more knee pain cycling these days, but then, I get more knee
    >>>>>>pain on stairs, walking, hiking and skiing. So, I clearly don't want to
    >>>>>>rush to judgement.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Guidance on the pros/cons of the crank lengths would be appreciated.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Thanks
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>As others have pointed out, longer cranks increase the range of motion
    >>>>>for the knees. This could be unpleasant if you are already experiencing
    >>>>>knee pain on stairs. I personally have found long cranks to be very
    >>>>>comfortable and I feel they allow me to get a better position on the
    >>>>>bike. I am 6'3" and have long-ish legs. I use 195mm cranks. Long cranks
    >>>>>make the range of motion larger, but they allow you to generate the
    >>>>>same power with less pedal force for a given cadence. Some people say,
    >>>>>"just change gears", but it isn't that simple. Since you are already
    >>>>>using a low cadence, you are probably not comfortable with a higher
    >>>>>cadence which would use less force.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>If the pain problem comes from using too high a force on the pedals,
    >>>>>you can either use a lower gear and higher cadence to get the same
    >>>>>speed without so much force being applied to you knees, but may not be
    >>>>>comfortable due to the higher muscle contaction speeds need to pedal at
    >>>>>a higher cadence. Or you could go with longer cranks which would allow
    >>>>>you to keep your cadence and let you get the same speed with less force
    >>>>>on the pedals and knees.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>But if you have pain almost all the time, maybe you need orthodics to
    >>>>>compensate for being knock-kneed or something.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Here is some fun stuff on cranklength:
    >>>>>http://www.cranklength.info/
    >>>>>http://www.nettally.com/palmk/crankset.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>>I love my 195's but unless you have other reasons to go long, I'd stick
    >>>>>with 175's if I were you and work on a higher cadence. Maybe 180, but
    >>>>>anything longer than 175 is hard to find and not cheap.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Joseph
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Hi,
    >>>>
    >>>>Last summer I switched from 172,5 to 177,5 cranks. Jury's still out as
    >>>>to whether I can handle them or not. Findings, using the longer cranks:
    >>>>
    >>>>- After much experimentation decided to *not* lower saddle, though move
    >>>>it forward 1 cm, and use a 130mm stem instead of 120mm.
    >>>>
    >>>>- My ideal cadence was around 105 on the 172,5 cranks, and is now about
    >>>>95 on the longer ones. Fine.
    >>>>
    >>>>- Climbing is much better on the 177,5's
    >>>>
    >>>>- Have not noticed increased tendency for pedal scrape on ground but I
    >>>>don't ever lean the bike so much and pedal at the same time. Colnago
    >>>>road frame so I'm kind of cautious anyhow due to low BB.
    >>>>
    >>>>- Toe to front wheel overlap as usual but the consequences of that are
    >>>>very mild, compared with what some people write on this NG
    >>>>
    >>>>- No problem with knee pain. In fact, doing a spinning session on 170
    >>>>cranks tends to cause me more knee problems than my long cranks do.
    >>>>Greater leg extension does not automatically increase risk of knee pain,
    >>>>as long as cleats are at correct angle. To avoid stress on knees, I
    >>>>abandoned floating cleats quite a while ago and use fixed angle (Campag)
    >>>>cleats.
    >>>>
    >>>>- Only disadvantage is a tendency for lower back (top of pelvis) pain.
    >>>>Appears to be due to overextension of buttock muscle at top of stroke,
    >>>>despite me keeping seat high, causing pelvis to pitch slightly upward.
    >>>>I'm now on a program to stretch out my unusually short hamstrings, to
    >>>>prevent my pelvis from rotating. Preliminary results seem to be
    >>>>favourable though. I'll know more by the time the (northern) summer
    >>>>comes around.
    >>>>
    >>>>My measurements: 178 cm with 85cm inseam (5' 10", with 33.5" inseam).
    >>>>
    >>>>/Robert
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>That is interesting. You are pretty close to the 20.8% proportion. Is
    >>>that coincidence, or by design? What is your seat height? I found that
    >>>109% of inseam is very nice for pedal-spindle-seat when using
    >>>proportional cranks. This works out to more or less the same as the
    >>>regular seat height suggestions for normal cranks, and slightly lower
    >>>for long cranks. I also found that with the knee-over-spindle position
    >>>worked out much better for me with proportional cranks than it had on
    >>>short ones. Fore-aft cleat position is also something to take into
    >>>consideration.
    >>>
    >>>If you have tight hamstrings, you may have been able to get away with
    >>>it with the shorter cranks, but the longer ones make it more apparent.
    >>>Sounds like you can't touch yor toes. How low can you go? The few times
    >>>I have been spinning I found the stationary position of the bike while
    >>>standing to be rather disconcerting with funny sideward forces. Maybe
    >>>that has something to do with your discomfort more than the 170's?
    >>>
    >>>Joseph
    >>>

    >>
    >>Hi Joseph,
    >>
    >>Okay, let's measure, based on my 85 cm inseam. Seat to centre of bottom
    >>bracket (taking into account ca. 3 mm compression of the padding on
    >>Sella Italia SLR) is 75,5 cm. Adding 17,8 cm for crank gives 93,3 cm,
    >>seat to centre of pedal spindle (I note that the sole of my shoe stops
    >>ca. 2 cm short of the centre of the pedal spindle due to cleat etc. but
    >>we'll conveniently forget that issue).
    >>
    >>I see what you're getting at - this is just under 110% of inseam. You
    >>mention a ratio of 1,09 which I do remember from somewhere - why?
    >>
    >>This crank length / inseam length ratio of 20,8% I read about as being
    >>the famous Gallic Coincidence Factor. My ratio is just under 20,9 but I
    >>didn't go there by design, it just happened: I simply already had 172,5
    >>cranks, wanted longer, felt it would be a waste to go just 2,5 mm more
    >>to 175, so I went one size further, to 177,5. Hardly scientific but this
    >>way I knew that if this 177,5 test failed, then I could go out and buy
    >>175 Record Carbon with a very clear conscience ;-) What I didn't expect
    >>was to like the 177,5's so much.
    >>
    >>Interesting, your comment about cleat position. Mine are slightly
    >>towards the ball of the foot (yes, Susanne Ljungskog lives 20 km up the
    >>road from here and her weird cleat positions have been tried by a few
    >>living in the area).
    >>
    >>Touching toes. How right you are, I can't do it. But now that I've
    >>worked on it for a month, I can comfortably get within 10 cm (4 in) of
    >>the floor with my fingertips. Give me a month more and I should be able
    >>to just graze the floor. Yes I think you're right, the short hamstrings
    >>have been shown up pretty harshly by the longer cranks.
    >>
    >>Spinning - you could be right, but another think I forgot is that I use
    >>MTB shoes on a spinning cycle, since the pedals are SPD, allowing lots
    >>of float, which my knees hate. So, good point, it's not necessarily the
    >>overly short crank causing my knees to hurt.
    >>
    >>Sounds as if you have a fair bit of experience on bike fit and how crank
    >>length affects it. BTW how did you get hold of a set of 195 cranks?
    >>
    >>/Robert

    >
    >
    > I too arrived at the 109% by trial and error. My pedal/shoe combo is
    > slightly lower than the 2cm you speak of. Perhaps this accounts for the
    > 109-110 discrepancy! It was afterwards that I found reference to it
    > elsewhere. (Can't find the link!) I originally had 170 way back in the
    > day. On my first real bike I got 177.5's after doing calculations from
    > Greg LeMond's book. I used the 177.5 for many years. I also had a set
    > of 180's I used to use in TT's. After a while I ended up using the
    > 180's all the time. Fast forward 10 years. I got a new bike and it had
    > 175's. I would have like 180's but it was a pre-built bike. After a
    > while the 175's just didn't feel right. So I checked around and was
    > intrigued by the 20.8% idea. Eventually I decided to go for it and
    > ordered some 195's from http://www.hscycle.com/ and it was the best
    > cycling related purchase I ever made.
    >
    > I know what you mean about wobbly MTB cleats. I don't suffer pain from
    > them, but I like the solid feel of road pedals better too. Sounds like
    > you are making progress on the limberness. Don't forget the rest of
    > your body too! Becoming a professional contortionist is perhaps a bit
    > much, but some other stretches are probably a good idea too.
    >
    > What sort of cleat position does Susanne Ljungskog use?
    >
    > Joseph
    > PS: I'm in Norway, perhaps I'll see you at a turritt sometime!
    >


    Susanne has the cleat very far back, so that the axle is closer to the
    centre of the foot, not at all under the ball of the foot. I'm sure
    there's an interview about this somewhere but I haven't been able to
    find one. Idea is to reduce the amount of energy being used up by the
    calf muscles which in themselves don't really add that much to the power
    equation.

    Norway - where? I'm in Göteborg, so I do Hisingen Runt,
    Nationaldagsloppet, Mjörn Runt, Vättern Rundan.

    But up there you have some amazing annual mountain race that goes for
    about 450 km and takes some 18 or so hours to do?

    /Robert
     
  11. pinnah wrote:
    > Any pointers to FAQs or web sites that discuss the merits of longer or
    > shorter crank arms would be greatly appreciated.
    >
    > I'm 6'2", 180lb and a non-racing rider. My current gearing is a 46/36/26
    > triple with a 12-28 8 speed rear cluster. I'm in my mid 40s and have aging
    > knees. On rides under 2 hours, I generally keep a cadance in the low to
    > mid 90s. Day long rides rarely see my cadance under 80.
    >
    > Back in the day, I used to ride 170mm cranks like nearly everybody else. I
    > even used them on a coast/coast ride back in the 80s. In the mid 90s, a new
    > bike came with the current 175 triple crank.
    >
    > I seem to get more knee pain cycling these days, but then, I get more knee
    > pain on stairs, walking, hiking and skiing. So, I clearly don't want to
    > rush to judgement.
    >
    > Guidance on the pros/cons of the crank lengths would be appreciated.



    Put three people in a room and ask about crank length, get 4 opinions.
    GENERALLY, longer cranks, assuming your fit is OK, will make your knees
    more painful than shorter cranks. I think 170s are great for most
    people. But longer than necessary cranks, like 11t cogs and big
    chainrings, they seem to be more based on ego than mechanics.

    You will lose nothing with 170mm cranks. Matybe some points at the
    coffee shop before the ride, with your smarty ass buddies, with 175
    cranks, but I think 170s would be fine. Get a fit first, make sure your
    saddle fore-aft and height and cleat position is right first, then loo
    at 170s.
     
  12. only1gear

    only1gear Guest

    I beg to differ, and this is based on my own experience as well as
    others.

    Put a guy on two different cranks and he will go faster on the longer
    crank. Period.
     
  13. Robert

    Robert Guest

    Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
    > pinnah wrote:
    >
    >>Any pointers to FAQs or web sites that discuss the merits of longer or
    >>shorter crank arms would be greatly appreciated.
    >>
    >>I'm 6'2", 180lb and a non-racing rider. My current gearing is a 46/36/26
    >>triple with a 12-28 8 speed rear cluster. I'm in my mid 40s and have aging
    >>knees. On rides under 2 hours, I generally keep a cadance in the low to
    >>mid 90s. Day long rides rarely see my cadance under 80.
    >>
    >>Back in the day, I used to ride 170mm cranks like nearly everybody else. I
    >>even used them on a coast/coast ride back in the 80s. In the mid 90s, a new
    >>bike came with the current 175 triple crank.
    >>
    >>I seem to get more knee pain cycling these days, but then, I get more knee
    >>pain on stairs, walking, hiking and skiing. So, I clearly don't want to
    >>rush to judgement.
    >>
    >>Guidance on the pros/cons of the crank lengths would be appreciated.

    >
    >
    >
    > Put three people in a room and ask about crank length, get 4 opinions.
    > GENERALLY, longer cranks, assuming your fit is OK, will make your knees
    > more painful than shorter cranks. I think 170s are great for most
    > people. But longer than necessary cranks, like 11t cogs and big
    > chainrings, they seem to be more based on ego than mechanics.
    >
    > You will lose nothing with 170mm cranks. Matybe some points at the
    > coffee shop before the ride, with your smarty ass buddies, with 175
    > cranks, but I think 170s would be fine. Get a fit first, make sure your
    > saddle fore-aft and height and cleat position is right first, then loo
    > at 170s.
    >


    Peter, I agree with you in principle, that the most important is a good
    fit w.r.t. all other parameters, before crank length. But my choosing
    5mm longer cranks did not cause me any more knee problems, despite the
    fact that my knees are very sensitive as regards e.g. saddle height and
    cleat angle.

    In fact, the knees feel better since I can use a slightly lower force on
    the pedals for the same speed. So I would be opposed to any
    generalisation that longer cranks would tend to cause more knee trouble.

    Cheers, Robert
     
  14. Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
    > pinnah wrote:
    > > Any pointers to FAQs or web sites that discuss the merits of longer or
    > > shorter crank arms would be greatly appreciated.
    > >
    > > I'm 6'2", 180lb and a non-racing rider. My current gearing is a 46/36/26
    > > triple with a 12-28 8 speed rear cluster. I'm in my mid 40s and have aging
    > > knees. On rides under 2 hours, I generally keep a cadance in the low to
    > > mid 90s. Day long rides rarely see my cadance under 80.
    > >
    > > Back in the day, I used to ride 170mm cranks like nearly everybody else. I
    > > even used them on a coast/coast ride back in the 80s. In the mid 90s, a new
    > > bike came with the current 175 triple crank.
    > >
    > > I seem to get more knee pain cycling these days, but then, I get more knee
    > > pain on stairs, walking, hiking and skiing. So, I clearly don't want to
    > > rush to judgement.
    > >
    > > Guidance on the pros/cons of the crank lengths would be appreciated.

    >
    >
    > Put three people in a room and ask about crank length, get 4 opinions.


    At least 4!

    > GENERALLY, longer cranks, assuming your fit is OK, will make your knees
    > more painful than shorter cranks. I think 170s are great for most


    To me the advantage of proportinal cranks in a nutshell is I get to
    keep a low cadence which I like and I don't have to push as hard on the
    pedals to acheive a given speed with a given cadence as I would with
    shorter cranks. This comes at the expense of having a larger range of
    motion than if I used shorter cranks. But to me this is no expense.
    Smaller folks on 170's and other "normal" length cranks have no problem
    with the range of motion those require, so why shouldn't taller folks
    be just as comfortable with the same range of motion? Using cranks that
    are way too long and cause extreme range of motion may be painful, but
    that's not what I am suggesting. I'm talking about everyone using
    proportional cranks such that everyone gets more or less the same range
    of motion.

    > people. But longer than necessary cranks, like 11t cogs and big
    > chainrings, they seem to be more based on ego than mechanics.
    >
    > You will lose nothing with 170mm cranks. Matybe some points at the
    > coffee shop before the ride, with your smarty ass buddies, with 175
    > cranks, but I think 170s would be fine. Get a fit first, make sure your
    > saddle fore-aft and height and cleat position is right first, then loo
    > at 170s.


    If someone can get comfortable with 170's and are comfortable with the
    required cadence/force ratio, they should by all means use them. But I
    think many people who have trouble getting a comfortable position may
    be overlooking how crank length may be able to help them get a
    comfortable fit. Particularly if they are large. That isn't to say all
    tall folks need long cranks, but it shouldn't be overlooked as a
    possibility. As I recall you are a large guy, yet you have been able to
    get a good comfortable effective position on shorter cranks. I too am
    large and have only been able to get comfortable on longer proportinal
    cranks. Like you said, 4 opinions! ;-)

    Joseph
     
  15. i'm 6'4" so i could use 175s (as is written) but have 170s as stock
    stuff-
    i enjoy spinning ala alworth-carmichael-nye and the 175 wil rduce spin?
    and change the effective top tube length!! which is also stock and way
    too short for long distance power where my upper thighs rub on the seat
    so I get a longer tube!!
    ahbutbutbut-i get an increase in compressed rear thigh muscles-which
    could be a total bummer!
    maybe the question relates to spin rates and frame suitability
    and watch those exp[letive deleted curbs
     
  16. [email protected] wrote:
    > i'm 6'4" so i could use 175s (as is written) but have 170s as stock
    > stuff-
    > i enjoy spinning ala alworth-carmichael-nye and the 175 wil rduce spin?
    > and change the effective top tube length!! which is also stock and way
    > too short for long distance power where my upper thighs rub on the seat
    > so I get a longer tube!!
    > ahbutbutbut-i get an increase in compressed rear thigh muscles-which
    > could be a total bummer!
    > maybe the question relates to spin rates and frame suitability
    > and watch those exp[letive deleted curbs


    Longer cranks won't MAKE you reduce your spin, but you may find you use
    a lower cadence. My theory is that your body defines "spin" more by the
    force you apply to the pedals than the speed at which you do so. So if
    you spin because the low pedal force is what you like, you get the same
    low pedal force with a lower cadence, so your body may settle into that
    lower cadence, having found a pedal force that is comfortable. Pedal
    speed is still the same for a given power because of the larger circle.

    Joseph
     
  17. only1gear wrote:
    > I beg to differ, and this is based on my own experience as well as
    > others.
    >
    > Put a guy on two different cranks and he will go faster on the longer
    > crank. Period.


    Differ all you want. A longer crank won't make you faster,
    automatically.

    I rode twice on what I thought were 175 cranks on a bicycle i borrowed
    and 'felt' like I was so much faster, until I discovered they were
    172.5,

    By saying the above, in isolation, means anybody, regardless of
    physical perportions, would benefit from longer cranks....not true in
    any way.
     
  18. In article <[email protected]>, Qui
    si parla Campagnolo ([email protected]) wrote:
    >
    > only1gear wrote:
    > > I beg to differ, and this is based on my own experience as well as
    > > others.
    > >
    > > Put a guy on two different cranks and he will go faster on the longer
    > > crank. Period.

    >
    > Differ all you want. A longer crank won't make you faster,
    > automatically.
    >
    > I rode twice on what I thought were 175 cranks on a bicycle i borrowed
    > and 'felt' like I was so much faster, until I discovered they were
    > 172.5,
    >
    > By saying the above, in isolation, means anybody, regardless of
    > physical perportions, would benefit from longer cranks....not true in
    > any way.


    A mate of mine once rode a hundred miles across The Netherlands and did
    not notice until the next morning, when fitting the Monster Chainring
    for the flying 200m event, that he had a 170 on one side and a 180 on
    the other.

    FWIW, the current trend on the Dark Side is for short cranks. Devotees
    thereof swear that they improve performance. Can't quite see it meself,
    and unwilling to shell out for three, four or five new pairs of cranks,
    so will stick with what I've got.

    --
    Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
    I am Wan, for I am pursued by the Army of Plums.
     
  19. only1gear

    only1gear Guest

    We can agree to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion so long as
    it counts as on of the "four" you mentioned.

    :)

    G
     
Loading...
Loading...