Recommendation for crank length

MT said:

I apologize for posting this question for the kajillionth time on this NG--
I'm just under 6'0", inseam 32, and ride a 56cm frame, and am buying a new
group for my road bike.
I've ridden 172.5 cranks, and am wondering about going to 175's, which seem
more the standard for my size on off-road bikes.
Advantages/disadvantages?

I believe we've all agreed here that it's merely taste. If
you think 2.5mm (about a spoke's width) makes a difference
then by all means get the new cranks. Won't hurt a thing.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

A Muzi said:

MT said:

I apologize for posting this question for the kajillionth time on this
NG--
I'm just under 6'0", inseam 32, and ride a 56cm frame, and am buying a
new
group for my road bike.
I've ridden 172.5 cranks, and am wondering about going to 175's, which
seem
more the standard for my size on off-road bikes.
Advantages/disadvantages?

I believe we've all agreed here that it's merely taste. If you think
2.5mm (about a spoke's width) makes a difference then by all means get
the new cranks. Won't hurt a thing.

But think of all the extra ROTATING WEIGHT and increased aerodynamic
drag when longer cranks are used! 😉

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

MT said:

I'm just under 6'0", inseam 32, and ride a 56cm frame, and am buying

a new

Quoted message said:

group for my road bike.
I've ridden 172.5 cranks, and am wondering about going to 175's,

which seem

Quoted message said:

more the standard for my size on off-road bikes.
Advantages/disadvantages?

Since you mention that you ride a 56 cm frame, I'll point out that the
difference between the two cranks you mentioned is the difference in
proportion between a 56 cm frame and a 56.8 cm frame. If that sort of
difference matters to you, maybe you should give it a try.

I wouldn't bother spending any significant amount of money on the
experiment, but if you are changing cranks or bikes anyway, why not?

I know I would not be able to distinguish between them. I can barely
tell any difference between 170mm cranks and 180mm.

Chalo Colina

Chalo said:

I know I would not be able to distinguish between them. I can
barely tell any difference between 170mm cranks and 180mm.

Not surprising, as the 10 mm difference is going to be taken up in
three joints- the hip, knee and ankle. If the difference was taken up
in only one joint, such as the knee, you might have a better chance of
noticing.

That said, I did experience severe knee pain when I went from 175 to
180 mm cranks. I'm not sure what specifically was the issue, but
changing back to 175s has mostly resolved the problem- but I still get
the same pain almost three years later if I try to sit cross-legged
for even 30 seconds and then try to walk. So whatever I did seems to
be somewhat chronic, even though my knee no longer hurts when cycling,
climbing stairs or walking or doing any other mostly normal activity.
The MD had no explanation and X rays were normal.

MT said:

I apologize for posting this question for the kajillionth time on

this NG--

Quoted message said:

I'm just under 6'0", inseam 32, and ride a 56cm frame, and am buying

a new

Quoted message said:

group for my road bike.
I've ridden 172.5 cranks, and am wondering about going to 175's,

which seem

Quoted message said:

more the standard for my size on off-road bikes.
Advantages/disadvantages?

Thanks
Mark

I am the same size and have used both crank lengths and in all honesty
I can't feel any difference.

Tom Sherman said:

But think of all the extra ROTATING WEIGHT and increased aerodynamic
drag when longer cranks are used! 😉

Actually it's the same. Usually the only difference is where the pedal hole is
drilled.

Matt O.

jms said:

I am the same size and have used both crank lengths and in all honesty
I can't feel any difference.

I can tell when I'm on 170s (I usually ride 175s) but that doesn't mean it
matters.

Matt O.

From: "Matt O'Toole"

Quoted message said:

I can tell when I'm on 170s (I usually ride 175s) but that doesn't mean it
matters.

I went to 165's (from 172.5) for road while living near a track, in the
interest of riding the same length all the time. Surprise, surprise, the usual
post-ride knee soreness went away-- IOW, not a result I was looking for or
expecting. FWIW, I rode a bike with 165's twenty-odd years ago, and liked them,
but regulations prohibited road use at the time <g> (thank you Dr. Martin). I
"always wanted to try" some 165's on the road, glad I sort of accidentally did.
Much better personally, plus it gives the know-it-all's something to [censored]
about occasionally-- my handlebar width and stem length are all completely
wrong, too, tsk tsk, but provide something to talk about while the miles go by.

Those who can just hop on anything and ride, more power to you. Life is easier
that way. I'll stick with the shorties, thanks! --TP

Quoted message said:

I am the same size and have used both crank lengths and in all honesty
I can't feel any difference.

I'm 5'5" and notice a difference when running 175s (XC) on my MTB instead of
my usual 170 (urban jumps)... my legs feel less comfortable on the 175s. It
feels like I'm dipping up and down a little more, but no pain issues.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

A shy person said:

I apologize for posting this question for the kajillionth time on this NG--
I'm just under 6'0", inseam 32, and ride a 56cm frame, and am buying a new
group for my road bike.
I've ridden 172.5 cranks, and am wondering about going to 175's, which seem
more the standard for my size on off-road bikes.
Advantages/disadvantages?

See: http://sheldonbrown.com/cranks

Sheldon "Not Too Long" Brown
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Give a man a fire, and he will stay warm for a day. |
| Set a man on fire, he stays warm for the rest of his life. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

Matt O'Toole said:

Actually it's the same. Usually the only difference is where the pedal hole is
drilled.

Only on a few cranks where the manufacturers are too cheap to use a
different forging. I have a set of Dotek 165mm cranks which are 170mm
with the pedal hole in the "wrong" place. I understand Specialized do
this on some of theirs too.

Tom Paterson said:

Those who can just hop on anything and ride, more power to you. Life is easier
that way. I'll stick with the shorties, thanks! --TP

Yup, I'm 5'11" and all my bikes have 165s. I just like them and,
similarly, I get sore knees with 170s or (God forbid) 175s. Shimano
don't make 165mm MTB cranksets - except XTR - but there's always
Stronglight et al. It's not a problem for roadie cranks.

From: Zog The Undeniable

Quoted message said:

Shimano
don't make 165mm MTB cranksets - except XTR - but there's always
Stronglight et al. It's not a problem for roadie cranks.

Unless you want to use Campagnolo. At least I haven't found anything shorter
than 170's advertised anywhere. --TP

MT said:

I apologize for posting this question for the kajillionth time on this NG--
I'm just under 6'0", inseam 32, and ride a 56cm frame, and am buying a new
group for my road bike.
I've ridden 172.5 cranks, and am wondering about going to 175's, which seem
more the standard for my size on off-road bikes.
Advantages/disadvantages?

Thanks
Mark

If you really want to experiment, you might want to read the following :

http://cranklength.info/

http://www.nettally.com/palmk/crankset.html

As well as anything else you can find.

I would imagine that a change of 2.5mm will be unnoticeable.

Personally, I went from 175 to 190 cranks recently and it was the single
biggest improvement in comfort I've ever had, with my knees feeling much
better after a ride than previously.

Other people have found the opposite 🙂

YMMV, as may your leg length.

Pete

Quoted message said:

A Muzi said:

MT wrote: I apologize for posting this question for the kajillionth
time on this NG-- I'm just under 6'0", inseam 32, and ride a 56cm
frame, and am buying a new group for my road bike. I've ridden 172.5
cranks, and am wondering about going to 175's ...

I believe we've all agreed here that it's merely taste. If
you think 2.5mm (about a spoke's width) makes a difference
then by all means get the new cranks. Won't hurt a thing.

This is good advice, but I might add that one's taste may depend more
on the frameset and the riding style than on the size of the rider.
For example, if you happen to have a bicycle with a low BB shell and
you take sharp leaning (e.g. criterium) turns, and you end up with
pedal-strikes or shoe-strikes, then a shorter crank may be an economic
necessity.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

Quoted message said:

A Muzi said:

MT wrote: I apologize for posting this question for the kajillionth
time on this NG-- I'm just under 6'0", inseam 32, and ride a 56cm
frame, and am buying a new group for my road bike. I've ridden

172.5

Quoted message said:

cranks, and am wondering about going to 175's ...

I believe we've all agreed here that it's merely taste. If
you think 2.5mm (about a spoke's width) makes a difference
then by all means get the new cranks. Won't hurt a thing.

This is good advice, but I might add that one's taste may depend more
on the frameset and the riding style than on the size of the rider.
For example, if you happen to have a bicycle with a low BB shell and
you take sharp leaning (e.g. criterium) turns, and you end up with
pedal-strikes or shoe-strikes, then a shorter crank may be an economic
necessity.

In a similar vein, if you're someone for which Q-factor is important,
having a longer crankset might aggravate a Q-factor problem at the 12
o'clock upstroke. In that case a longer crank might necessitate a
better (e.g. lower Q-factor) crank, which in turn might lessen pedal
or shoe strikes during leans.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

Quoted message said:

Matt O'Toole said:

Actually it's the same. Usually the only difference is where the
pedal hole is
drilled.

Zog The Undeniable said:

Only on a few cranks where the manufacturers are too cheap to use a
different forging. I have a set of Dotek 165mm cranks which are 170mm
with the pedal hole in the "wrong" place. I understand Specialized do
this on some of theirs too.

That's now common practice. Where's the harm?

A couple grams versus a lower price seems a good tradeoff to
me. (premium cranks are not made that way) A crank that
sells for $20 instead of $25 by using that technique shows,
IMHO, good design.

Similarly, for 2005, few AH stems are 1" specific. Using a
sleeve when needed lowers costs (as opposed to double
inventory) and hasn't much downside beyond those
unimportant-to-most-cyclists-including-me couple of grams.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Quoted message said:

From: Zog The Undeniable

Quoted message said:

Shimano
don't make 165mm MTB cranksets - except XTR - but there's always
Stronglight et al. It's not a problem for roadie cranks.

Tom Paterson said:

Unless you want to use Campagnolo. At least I haven't found anything shorter
than 170's advertised anywhere. --TP

Not all that unusual where women shop!
Road 130mm rings on 160mm Cyclone:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/cranx.html

Tour 110/74 rings on 165 Sugino
http://www.yellowjersey.org/cranx2.html

For single ring cranks, 165 is the standard.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

From: A Muzi

[165 crank]

Quoted message said:

Not all that unusual where women shop!

Understood, thanks for info. But Campagnolo?

Quoted message said:

For single ring cranks, 165 is the >standard.

Campy track, double chainring bolts, 42 (or 41) smallest inner...? --TP