Average crank length on a 58cm frame?

[Billx]

I'm thinking a 175 mm crank is more appropriate for someone with a 33 inch inseam riding a 58cm
frame rather than the 170 mm crank I see on 56cm frames. Does that sound right?

 

[Mikeyankee]

I use 172.5's myself; 170's on the fixed gear. Can hardly feel the difference.

Mike Yankee

(Address is munged to thwart spammers. To reply, delete everything after "com".)

 

[Lawrence Fieman]

"BillX" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I'm thinking a 175 mm crank is more appropriate for someone with a 33 inch inseam riding a 58cm
> frame rather than the 170 mm crank I see on 56cm frames. Does that sound right?
>
This is debatable. One good start point to figure crank length is:
http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm

Regards, Larry

 

[Paul Kopit]

On 11 Apr 2003 01:20:06 GMT, [email protected] (MikeYankee) wrote:

>I use 172.5's myself; 170's on the fixed gear. Can hardly feel the difference.
>

Piick a bike. I have 2 with 170s, 1 with 172.5 and 1 with 175. I'm 5' 9" with a slacks inseam of 31"
and I don't notice any difference between the lengths.

 

[Lewis Campbell]

I have a 34" inseam and, after switching from 170mm to 180mm, I found that I seemed to get sore
knees, especially early in the season.

About 3 years ago, I switched to 165mm and have had NO knee problems.

Although my website shows only my recumbents, I am actually riding an upright with the 165mm cranks.

Lewis.

http://tinyurl.com/8vvh

......................

"BillX" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I'm thinking a 175 mm crank is more appropriate for someone with a 33 inch inseam riding a 58cm
> frame rather than the 170 mm crank I see on 56cm frames. Does that sound right?

 

[Qui Si Parla Ca]

ibrunning-<< I'm thinking a 175 mm crank is more appropriate for someone with a 33 inch inseam
riding a 58cm frame rather than the 170 mm crank I see on 56cm frames. Does that sound right?

Put three people in a room and ask about crank length, get foir opinions...I think a 172.5mm would
be what we would suggest. Probably the same for somebody riding a '56cm' frameset as well...GENERAL
rule of thumb...

If you 'see' 170mm cranks on 56cm framesets/bikes, that's another problem of 'bikes outta
boxes'...and the 'suit' that specs them.

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Bruce Jackson]

"BillX" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> I'm thinking a 175 mm crank is more appropriate for someone with a 33 inch inseam riding a 58cm
> frame rather than the 170 mm crank I see on 56cm frames. Does that sound right?

I have a 34" inseam and diferent crank length calculators have suggested everything from 165-190mm
length cranks.

I've been riding 170mm cranks for almost 30 years and they have always worked for me so that's what
I always choose. I think you'll adapt to whatever size crank you have within reason.

One interesting thing came up the other day. I always have been most comfortable with my seat not
very far back. Even with steep seat tube angles like 74 degrees I push my seat forward at least to
the mid-point on the rails. All the guys I used to race with did the opposite, they pushed the seat
as far back as it could go. Several "experts" learning of my liking to get over the pedals commented
that this is an indication that I'm using too long cranks and should try something shorter. Who
knows, perhaps even 170mm cranks are too long for me.

Bruce
--
Bruce Jackson - Sr. Systems Programmer - DMSP, a M/A/R/C Group company

 

[Steve Palincsar]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:44:16 -0400, Jon Isaacs wrote:

>>Piick a bike. I have 2 with 170s, 1 with 172.5 and 1 with 175. I'm 5' 9" with a slacks inseam of
>>31" and I don't notice any difference between the lengths.
>
> I think the difference's may be noticeable but unimportant. I have a set o 152s that are
> definitely noticeable. The studies seem to show that even over much broad ranges crank length is
> not a relevent factor in power output or efficiency.
>
> Bottom line is that the difference between a 170 and a 175 is less than a quarter of an inch,
> about 3%. So ride what you like.

Except in the case of one who has suffered a permanent knee injury. 30+ years of bicycling
literature is quite clear on this: people with damaged knees should stay away from long cranks.