Old 01-15-24, 12:43 AM
  #11  
Sapper69
Brisvegas roadie
 
Sapper69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2023
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 70

Bikes: 2013 Trek Domane 6.9 (SRAM Red 10-speed), 2007 Wilier Triestina Mortirolo (SRAM Red 22), 2013 Pinarello FP Uno (Shimano Ultegra 11-speed), 2009 Fuji Roubaix Pro (Shimano 105 10-speed), 2008 Colnago Extreme-C (dream build, under construction!)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked 21 Times in 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Garthr
There have been riders on shorter cranks for performance reasons since they've bee around. I started riding 150mm cranks with a mid-foot position some ten years ago or so, I can't remember exactly. I'm 74" tall with 36.5" floor to crotch bone and my largest foot measures 11-7/8 inches, a size 14. I'm at this point as riding up to 185mm cranks didn't equate to better use of what power I do have. Theory is one thing, riding is another. I often hear "longer cranks = more leverage" repeated but that doesn't make sense to me in practice, actually riding. I've also moved my saddle much more forward, about 40mm from where it once was. Just because you're "however you identify yourself" doesn't mean short cranks can't work for you, and I have no physical limitations. This just feels right for me. The best way I describe what I experience I found in this article : https://biketestreviews.com/cranklength/

Some parts that I related to ..




Really though you gotta read the whole article to get the context.
Thank you. Yes, this is the same sort of material I've been reading. In my mind, I held onto the "longer cranks = better leverage for climbing" logic, when in fact as this article points out, it's the leverage of the entire drive train that counts.
Sapper69 is offline