"Zog The Undeniable" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4151bcb6.0@entanet...
> 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
