Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Click the "Create Account" button now to join.

To disable ads, please log-in.

Shop at TeamEstrogen.com for women's cycling apparel.

Results 1 to 15 of 17

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chicago suburbs
    Posts
    1,222
    Thanks for the feedback, ladies! I'm glad to hear that, for the most part, the difference between 170 & 172.5 would be minimal. I'm not at all concerned about going from a triple to a double...as my Cervelo (that I'm selling) is a compact double, so I know what to expect. As I stated in my original post...I would only consider doing this swap, if I could do it for under $100. I don't want to sink a ton of money into a "temporary" bike. Especially since I'm actively looking for a new bike, so I'd rather put my hard-earned dollars towards that.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,414
    Perhaps it's my imagination, but I have a bike with 170s and a bike with 172.5s, and I do feel like I notice the difference. I can ride both without pain or issues, but I feel like I have a little more power with the longer cranks, while I spin a little more easily with the shorter cranks.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Concord, MA
    Posts
    13,394
    I've said this before, but when I bought my current bike, the LBS owner tried to switch me from 165s to 170s. I said OK, I would try the 170s. Within one ride, I knew I hated them. I felt like I was struggling to turn the cranks and pushing much harder than I ever did, no matter what gear I was in (the bikes had the same gearing). In theory, the LBS owner said the longer cranks would "unleash the power he knew I had in me," which I suspect was just a crock. I am a spinner; I always have been. I didn't start out trying to be this way, or train any special way, but it's what I feel comfortable with. In fact, I can barely stand on the bike and only do very rarely.
    On a group ride a couple of weeks ago someone asked me how I trained to get such a high cadence. I replied that it's just the natural way I ride (and I don't think an average cadence of 80-85) is that high.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,315
    It's really personal preference.

    My legs are very sensitive to any changes in fit, down to mere millimeters. I had a really hard time finding the right saddle position when I got my first bike. After much agonizing over fit, the LBS noticed that the cranks were 175mm. My bike's specs were for 172.5mm. So, since the bike was built wrong from the factory, they swapped out the cranks. Any knee strain or discomfort I had been having was gone.

    I know plenty of people who absolutely do not notice a 2.5mm difference between cranks.

    Aside from comfort issues, longer cranks will help you apply more torque to the cranks (one reason some use longer cranks for TTs).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    So Cal.
    Posts
    501
    Crank length is, as Crankin pointed out, as much a function of how one rides, their modus operandi, as it is due to leg length or femur size or whatever. I too am a spinner, and typically crank my little legs on my 165s at 90~95rpm and it feels quite normal on the road bike and I rarely stand or mash. I used to have 162.5 arms on a previous bike and I felt a difference going to 165. Small but not imperceptible to me, and if felt right. Maybe if I were a masher, a torquer, I would want 167.5 or 170 like I use on the MTB. Remember, it's 2.5mm further out in all directions- your leg will come up higher, go down lower, and move forward and backwards 2.5mm further out from center.
    Tzvia- rollin' slow...
    Specialized Ruby Expert/mens Bontrager Inform RXL
    Specialized SWorks Safire/mens Bontrager Inform RL
    Giant Anthem-W XT-XTR/mens Bontrager Inform RXL
    Fuji Newest 3 commuter/mens Bontrager Inform RL
    Novara E.T.A commuter/mens Bontrager Inform RL

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chicago suburbs
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by tzvia View Post
    Crank length is, as Crankin pointed out, as much a function of how one rides, their modus operandi, as it is due to leg length or femur size or whatever. I too am a spinner, and typically crank my little legs on my 165s at 90~95rpm and it feels quite normal on the road bike and I rarely stand or mash. I used to have 162.5 arms on a previous bike and I felt a difference going to 165. Small but not imperceptible to me, and if felt right. Maybe if I were a masher, a torquer, I would want 167.5 or 170 like I use on the MTB. Remember, it's 2.5mm further out in all directions- your leg will come up higher, go down lower, and move forward and backwards 2.5mm further out from center.
    Hmmm...that's an interesting point you make there. I'm wondering if a change in crank size would also warrant a change in height or fore/aft of my saddle? Any thoughts on this?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    14,498
    Quote Originally Posted by nscrbug View Post
    Hmmm...that's an interesting point you make there. I'm wondering if a change in crank size would also warrant a change in height or fore/aft of my saddle? Any thoughts on this?
    Fore/aft unlikely, height yes. If you set your saddle height based on your knee angle at the bottom of the pedal stroke, it will have to come down by 2.5 mm if you're switching to a crank that's 2.5 mm longer. Conversely, if you set your saddle height based on your knee angle at the top of the pedal stroke (as my knees require), then it will have to come up by 2.5 mm to preserve the same angle.
    Speed comes from what you put behind you. - Judi Ketteler

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •