170mm vs 175mm crank arms?



Peter Cole wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > I have bikes with 165, 170, 175, 180, 185, 190, 196, and 205mm cranks.
> > I can't feel a difference between the 165s and 170s, or between the
> > 185s and 190s, etc.
....
> > Now swiitching between my two most frequent choices of commuting bikes,
> > one of which has 185mm cranks and the other of which has 205mm cranks,
> > presents a noticeable change in feel at the pedals.
>
> Do you have strong preferences for crank length? If so, what do you find
> to be the big differences?

I like the feel of the longer cranks better, and I get the sense that I
can ride them for longer periods with less fatigue. The shorter ones
feel more "businesslike" due to the higher cadence they promote, but I
can't discern whether I ride any faster with them. Crank length would
probably not be enough of a factor to make me dislike a bike overall,
unless they were too long for the BB height and posed pedal clearance
problems.

I definitely put all my fastest miles-- by far-- on my 196mm Bullseye
cranks, but that was at least partly a matter of circumstance (that is,
they were on the bike I rode the most when I was fastest).

Chalo
 
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:13:19 -0500, Paul Hobson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 02:50:39 -0500, Paul Hobson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:09:41 -0900, "Andrew Lee"
>>>><whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:29:58 -0500, Peter Cole
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What I'm saying is that I'd like people who suggest crank length
>>>>>>doesn't matter to back up their suggestions by riding shorter cranks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>JT
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm interested in what you think about crank length because I have already
>>>>>seen some answers to your question - some people have said that they have
>>>>>ridden more than one crank length and some prefer the shorter or shortest of
>>>>>the range that they have tried, some don't prefer the shortest of the range
>>>>>that they have tried, and some have no preference. Do you have a point?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That people who suggest crank length doesn't matter back up their
>>>>suggestions by riding shorter cranks.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I just switched to shorter cranks (down to 165 from 175) and can't
>>>really tell a difference.
>>>
>>>You happy?
>>
>>
>> I will be when you switch back to 175s on your next bike.
>>
>
>I still ride both bikes regularly.

Cool.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:16:50 -0500, Paul Hobson <[email protected]> wrote:

>531Aussie wrote:
>> Paul Hobson Wrote:
>>
>>>I just switched to shorter cranks (down to 165 from 175) and can't
>>>really tell a difference.
>>>
>>>You happy?
>>>
>>
>> no difference???? Really???
>>
>>
>
>Not that I can tell. I mean, 1 cm compared to the length of my 5'10"
>(177.8 cm) body just ain't a whole lot. I have noticed better pedal
>clearance around turns, but I think that's all mental. I just get out
>and ride. As long as things don't hurt (they don't) and I get to where
>I'm going fast enough (still do) I'm happy.
>\\paul

I've got 170s and 175s on different bikes, I tend, and that's tend, to pedal a
slightly higher cadence in usually, that's usually, a slightly lower gear with
the 170s. Pretty much what one would expect.

Ron
 
RonSonic wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:16:50 -0500, Paul Hobson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>531Aussie wrote:
>>
>>>Paul Hobson Wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I just switched to shorter cranks (down to 165 from 175) and can't
>>>>really tell a difference.
>>>>
>>>>You happy?
>>>>
>>>
>>>no difference???? Really???
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Not that I can tell. I mean, 1 cm compared to the length of my 5'10"
>>(177.8 cm) body just ain't a whole lot. I have noticed better pedal
>>clearance around turns, but I think that's all mental. I just get out
>>and ride. As long as things don't hurt (they don't) and I get to where
>>I'm going fast enough (still do) I'm happy.
>>\\paul
>
>
> I've got 170s and 175s on different bikes, I tend, and that's tend, to pedal a
> slightly higher cadence in usually, that's usually, a slightly lower gear with
> the 170s. Pretty much what one would expect.

Went back and looked at the entire fleet. The bikes I mentioned are
both fixies with about the same ratio. The old (now beater) bike has
170 mm cranks, not 175 mm. The new bike has the 165 mm cranks. I can't
tell much a difference between those bikes. The 175 mm cranks are on
the road bike. I'd be an apples/oranges situation to compare those. I
mean, of course my cadence will be high on the road bike regardless of
the crank length. Who knows...
\\paul
 
pedal speed is what??

the extra 5mm gives extra leverage, if the frame allows for a sweet
spot to insert the 175
but lets speak of the 5mm in one specific gear combo
and refer to the effect on top and bottom combo-
does the extra 5mm reduce your frame/muscular effectiveness at the
bottom combo?
does the extra 5mm produce greater power-say climbing ability/speed-in
the top combo?
or is there a reduction on both with the extra 5mm
the idea i proposed was there's a frame factor to be dealt with-if too
tall or too short for the frame then the seat doesn't fall into a
middle position and then does not allow for adjusting the sweet spot to
the extra 5mm

what you say is true but maybe at a lower level of performance than
what the extra 5mm category falls to-
the faster spin develops into the same speed with less effort not less
effort with lower speeds
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> pedal speed is what??
>
> the extra 5mm gives extra leverage, if the frame allows for a sweet
> spot to insert the 175
> but lets speak of the 5mm in one specific gear combo
> and refer to the effect on top and bottom combo-
> does the extra 5mm reduce your frame/muscular effectiveness at the
> bottom combo?
> does the extra 5mm produce greater power-say climbing ability/speed-in
> the top combo?
> or is there a reduction on both with the extra 5mm
> the idea i proposed was there's a frame factor to be dealt with-if too
> tall or too short for the frame then the seat doesn't fall into a
> middle position and then does not allow for adjusting the sweet spot to
> the extra 5mm
>
> what you say is true but maybe at a lower level of performance than
> what the extra 5mm category falls to-
> the faster spin develops into the same speed with less effort not less
> effort with lower speeds

The biomechanics of bicycling are complicated and
incompletely understood. All agree that whatever
combination we use, we use all our power, and over the
short haul the components do not make much difference in
performance. Over the long haul, we will fatigue less with
a good fit. The best that any of us can do is read it all,
and keep tinkering.

--
Michael Press
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email protected]>,
pinnah <[email protected]> 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.
>

_ Well, you might want to get new cranks. I went from 175 to 165
and it definitely helped with knee pain a bit, but what pretty
much vanquished knee pain for me entirely was moving the cleats
all the way back on the shoe. I'd try that first before shelling
out for new cranks.

_ Look in the fitness Q/A section on www.cyclingnews.com for a
more detailed and complete explaination of cleat positioning
and knee pain. Where this puts the cleat is much futher back
than most standard methods.

_ I'm still mostly sticking with 165mm cramks on my bikes, but
when I ride the bike with longer cranks that caused me problems
in the past I now no longer have those problems.

_ Booker C. Bense



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

iQCVAwUBRAX2xWTWTAjn5N/lAQHA8QP/X2eYFCpSoXVYdZnzQ0gnP7pWknoVU2nN
c2AEHh/axkHP5Jgz72zmxD/69Ca8pjGHEJqdju30mDCavbtkIQRxtMYWMi1P0EaV
EcO2mEIKMSavAo8DAi047K8tmLLYjQurqU4iHDCqi/56KkBweF+lYbvpAyg3qlhJ
NXXEhudh12o=
=bdij
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
or to go in another direction - the extra 5mm may bring your
musculature into a lactate intolerant mode - this can be eliminated
with practice - see the alworth-carmichael-nye training manual
or as the posts below suggest, the extra leverage may be too extra for
the knee's articulations, but the spin just right
not only as stretch and impact but the element if you're older or
insufficient of squeezing the lube out of bursal spaces thus
increasing wear there also.
gotta try it right?
youbet! off to the 56 tooth ring
 
Post Cartesian Climate-bicycle commuting from the 17th century to the
21st
The scenarios that are laid out above present some of the difficulties
in presuming the ease in developing new articulations of space and
illustrate the absolute complexity that our language and processes of
engaging with the world leave us with. It suggests that we are lost,
but persistent in continuing forward in search of a modern clarity,
with tools and systems that are becoming extremely old. Dimensions
remain a useful and efficient method to articulate the scale and
relations with spaces but is wholly riddled with a mindset that does
not connect with our everyday experience of the world. However such
methods are still employed by architects and planners on
extraordinarily different scales to transform our street level
experience. Linearity is more of a part of our temporal environment
more than ever, as economics forms the structure for surviving and
apparently the means to move forward.
Consequently this can only be described as a Post Cartesian climate,
the opportunities for the multiple dimensional, non-gravitational,
light speed properties of the internet have yet to escape the
colonisation and conversion of cyberspace into the slow broadcast
medium where inert web sites store information ready for retrieval.
Perhaps as the new wave of software that acknowledges the network as a
non-hierarchical framework for organising our experiences, will enable
us to interface our 'maps' of the world to re-invent the present
and prevent us from getting lost.
behind the downs processional.: a search beyond google
beyond http://www.wordreference.com/definition/FROG or bicycle or

insightful (ah ****) sorni's comment on ???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
175mm driveside crank arm + 170mm left side crank arm
Replies
14
Views
522
Cycling Equipment
* * Chas
C
wardie2000
170mm Vs. 175mm
Replies
9
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
lumpy
lumpy
sixteenornumber
175mm crank ???
Replies
5
Views
1K
Cycling Equipment
dhk2
dhk2
teetopkram
172.5 vs. 175mm crank - knee tendinitis - need help
Replies
11
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
Wobbles
Wobbles
S
  • Locked
@campy 175mm Record 10sp crank bid at $97!!!
Replies
0
Views
705
Cycling Equipment
Stan Harmon
S
Top Bottom Back