We aren't you and we cant see you, so we can't really give you a firm answer. Many people have experimented with longer cranks (including me), but there appears to be no scientifically determined evidence to suggest that there is a gain or loss in performance from changing crank length in small increments. Usually this is becasue no bike fitting parameter can be changed in isolation from other parameters.Originally Posted by beyeker .
I am switching to compact cranks for some upcoming ultra distance events. What are the drawbacks of switching from a 172.5 mm crank length to 175 mm? I know longer length means more leverage but is it going to kill my knees or hips to switch?
same reason for me but on Ultegra, twice ! one time for a 53/39 and the second time for a 50/34, just two days ago...Originally Posted by 531Aussie .
I reckon I woulda been just as happy with 170s, but my local shop had deals on 172.5 Dura-Ace cranks, so.....
Ha! Very probably. Yep, from what I gather, 172.5 is the most ubiquitous length (or at least it was for a long time), perhaps just ahead of 170.Originally Posted by vspa . ..
i guess stores tend to sell less of the 172,5 so then they put them on sale ??
I agree with this! I know a guy who spent $800 for a pro fit plus the recommended goodies and he came out worse in the end, I've known others who came out worse too, I would venture to guess in the 40 years of riding about 1/2 came out worse and the other 1/2 came out better, in other words a flip of coin if it works or not. I have 9 bikes and not one is exactly the same as another, and I can ride any one bike and not be wishing I took a different bike, and none have ever been pro fitted, I've done my own dialing in. I think a lot of fit issues are psychological, but that's just me, I guess if your a pro rider then it may be necessary to get the exact ultimate position for performance, but their fittings are a far cry from the **** we get at LBS's, and they get theirs for free including the parts we don't get that luxury. You can get plenty of fit help right off the internet without resorting to some expensive pro fit. And of all the people you would think should have a pro fit is me, I raced Cat 3 level for 5 years never got a pro fit; I'm now 58, in other words older then dirt to most of you, I rarely see someone my age riding, you would think with age comes problems and such problems need a pro fit to help with...nope.Originally Posted by An old Guy .
I think many people give too much importance to an "ideal" fit. A fit that is close enough is sufficient.
we have here an active number of master riders who compite every sunday, from your age and more !Originally Posted by Froze .
I rarely see someone my age riding, you would think with age comes problems and such problems need a pro fit to help with...nope.
Where I live older people don't ride much, and the ones I do see are pedaling along at 8mph on a comfort bike. There are only a handful of older riders around here that are any good at riding.Originally Posted by vspa .
we have here an active number of master riders who compite every sunday, from your age and more !
proper fit is something i don't miss after leaving competitive cycling, in those days a 1/2 centimeter change seemed outrageous and you even risked injuries for such a small change,
the more you trained on the bike the more fragile your legs were,
When I first started riding and racing it was mostly on ill fitting bikes that often weren't setup right and in the first several years probably got through 3 or 4 differently setups with no issues. These days after many years of riding and racing seems like saddle height/for-aft or handlebar height adjustments in the region of mere mm's can set me up for injury, even if minor (mostly lower back and glute/hamstring related stuff). Knees and anterior leg musculature never really had any probs. The more hard riding, the more cemented my position became.Originally Posted by vspa .
we have here an active number of master riders who compite every sunday, from your age and more !
proper fit is something i don't miss after leaving competitive cycling, in those days a 1/2 centimeter change seemed outrageous and you even risked injuries for such a small change,
the more you trained on the bike the more fragile your legs were,
Interesting observation. One day I would like to test some 172.5's on my current setup to see if I can feel a diff - having been on 170's since day one. At 5'9" it seems I could go either way. Seemingly suited for sprinting and my penchant for higher rpms (I avg'd 104cadence in my last flat TT), the move up has always seemed more of a curiosity than a neccesity.Originally Posted by alienator .
I went from 172.5 to 175mm cranks because I felt "confined" in my cadence. Yeah, that's a completely subjective observation, but I did feel a bit more "free" on 175mm cranks. I think I could even live with 172.5mm cranks. That doesn't prove anything though. It's entirely possible that someone could have engraved "175" on some 172.5mm cranks and told me that I was on 175's........and that, maybe, could have made my cadence feel better. That's the beauty of subjective observation and the result of the human body being such a crappy sensor.
Note that I edited my comment to amend the "could even live with 172.5 cranks" to "could even live with 177.5 cranks". I apparently had a 5mm transient.danfoz said:Interesting observation. One day I would like to test some 172.5's on my current setup to see if I can feel a diff - having been on 170's since day one. At 5'9" it seems I could go either way. Seemingly suited for sprinting and my penchant for higher rpms (I avg'd 104cadence in my last flat TT), the move up has always seemed more of a curiosity than a neccesity.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.