Changing crankarm length

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by B, Sep 22, 2004.

  1. B

    B Guest

    I have always ridden 170 crankarms. I am about 5'7" and not long legged. I have
    a crank with 172.5 arms. Will I be able to notice a difference? Good or bad?
    B

    (remove clothes to reply)
     
    Tags:


  2. B wrote:

    > I have always ridden 170 crankarms. I am about 5'7" and not long legged. I have
    > a crank with 172.5 arms. Will I be able to notice a difference? Good or bad?


    I doubt you'll notice, but 172.5 is unlikely to be the best length for
    you (unless you like pedalling at low rpms).
     
  3. "Zog The Undeniable" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > B wrote:
    >
    > > I have always ridden 170 crankarms. I am about 5'7" and not long legged.

    I have
    > > a crank with 172.5 arms. Will I be able to notice a difference? Good or

    bad?
    >
    > I doubt you'll notice, but 172.5 is unlikely to be the best length for
    > you (unless you like pedalling at low rpms).


    We could be pretty close to the same measurements, not sure what your inseam
    is.
    I'm 5'8", 142 lbs. and went from the 170 mm crankarms to try out 172.5
    crankarms for a season. I decided to go back to the 170 mm length because I
    have a slightly smoother cadence with the shorter arms. I used to use lower
    rpm's when climbing and thought the 172.5's would be helpful, but this year
    I worked with my cadence from watching Lance's climbing techniques. I also
    have been training with a Polar HRM s720i and charting out my workouts and
    found I'm more efficient with a higher cadence and the shorter arms in the
    climbs. I've been able to consistently record lower heart rates and faster
    times.
    On the flats, my cadence is also smoother with the shorter crankarms.
    Food for thought, I know everyone is different and has to workout their own
    techniques.
    -tom
     
  4. Emily

    Emily Guest

    "B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > I have always ridden 170 crankarms. I am about 5'7" and not long legged. I

    have
    > a crank with 172.5 arms. Will I be able to notice a difference? Good or

    bad?
    > B


    I think you'll like 'em. I'm only 5'2" and switched from 165mm cranks to
    170s this year because I wanted to use a FSA Compact Carbon Pro crankset.
    My speed and hill-climbing ability improved, and my spinning is still plenty
    fast (folks in my bike club often comment on my fast cadence). No knee pain
    either, but I'm lucky that way. :)

    Enjoy!
    Emily
     
  5. [email protected]lothes (B) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > I have always ridden 170 crankarms. I am about 5'7" and not long legged. I have
    > a crank with 172.5 arms. Will I be able to notice a difference? Good or bad?
    > B
    >
    > (remove clothes to reply)


    *****************************************

    FWIW, I'm 6'1", with a 34" inseam and I ride 165mm on my fixed and
    170mm on my geared bike.

    Many years ago I rode with 180mm cranks for several years because that
    is what a theory that was popular at the time recommended. They
    seemed to be the cause of some knee pain and I never seemed to be able
    to 'spin' them very well.

    Lewis.

    ***************************
     
  6. belij-<< I have always ridden 170 crankarms. I am about 5'7" and not long
    legged. I have
    a crank with 172.5 arms. Will I be able to notice a difference? Good or bad?
    >><BR><BR>


    I just went from 170 back to 172.5 on my fixie and
    I couldn't tell the difference. Either will work for you.

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