How much am I likely to notice 2.5mm difference in crankset length between bikes?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,541
Bikes: Bianchi Volpe, ANT 3-speed roadster, New Albion Privateer singlespeed, Raleigh One Way singlespeed, Raleigh Professional "retro roadie" rebuild, 198? Fuji(?) franken-5-speed, 1937 Raleigh Tourist, 1952 Raleigh Sports, 1966 Raleigh Sports step-through
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 248 Post(s)
Liked 27 Times
in
18 Posts
How much am I likely to notice 2.5mm difference in crankset length between bikes?
To clarify the posting title: I'm 5'6"ish, and normally ride 170mm cranksets. I have a build I'm planning with a frame I've been offered for free, and some other parts I've been given by other people, and the crankset I've been offered is 172.5mm. I'm fairly particular about my saddle position, but I'm no racer - I just use the bike as my everyday transportation.
If it makes any difference, this frame I'll be using is substantially taller than I usually ride (58cm vintage Shogun 300 with a horizontal TT, vs. my modern sloping-top tube bikes that range from 48-53cm in their nominal sizes). I can stand over the TT with feet flat on the ground, and the TT is short enough that I can comfortably reach the bars, while the frame height brings them easily to the desired height (unlike a 54ish cm vintage Panasonic frame I have, where the TT is quite long, and I need a tall stem with short reach to ride it)
EDIT: For reference, here's a bike with a frame near identical to the one I'll be using (in size, anyway)...I can ride it set up as shown, but this one has 170mm cranks. I'd probably drop the saddle maybe 1/4" if I was gonna ride it for more than a couple miles:
For comparison, here are my current bikes (note the tall/short stem on the Panasonic on the bottom in the second picture):
If it makes any difference, this frame I'll be using is substantially taller than I usually ride (58cm vintage Shogun 300 with a horizontal TT, vs. my modern sloping-top tube bikes that range from 48-53cm in their nominal sizes). I can stand over the TT with feet flat on the ground, and the TT is short enough that I can comfortably reach the bars, while the frame height brings them easily to the desired height (unlike a 54ish cm vintage Panasonic frame I have, where the TT is quite long, and I need a tall stem with short reach to ride it)
EDIT: For reference, here's a bike with a frame near identical to the one I'll be using (in size, anyway)...I can ride it set up as shown, but this one has 170mm cranks. I'd probably drop the saddle maybe 1/4" if I was gonna ride it for more than a couple miles:
For comparison, here are my current bikes (note the tall/short stem on the Panasonic on the bottom in the second picture):
Last edited by agmetal; 01-15-16 at 11:41 AM.
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,541
Bikes: Bianchi Volpe, ANT 3-speed roadster, New Albion Privateer singlespeed, Raleigh One Way singlespeed, Raleigh Professional "retro roadie" rebuild, 198? Fuji(?) franken-5-speed, 1937 Raleigh Tourist, 1952 Raleigh Sports, 1966 Raleigh Sports step-through
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 248 Post(s)
Liked 27 Times
in
18 Posts
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3450 Post(s)
Liked 420 Times
in
289 Posts
What is your inseam without shoes?
If your legs are long enough then you could use either crankset without noticing that much difference, particularly since your not racing. If however 170mm ranks are at your absolute limit then 2.5mm will make a difference. I'm of the view that most people are on bikes with cranks that are too long for them which makes bike riding more uncomfortable than it should be. Then again, how far do you ride?
Anthony
If your legs are long enough then you could use either crankset without noticing that much difference, particularly since your not racing. If however 170mm ranks are at your absolute limit then 2.5mm will make a difference. I'm of the view that most people are on bikes with cranks that are too long for them which makes bike riding more uncomfortable than it should be. Then again, how far do you ride?
Anthony
#5
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,541
Bikes: Bianchi Volpe, ANT 3-speed roadster, New Albion Privateer singlespeed, Raleigh One Way singlespeed, Raleigh Professional "retro roadie" rebuild, 198? Fuji(?) franken-5-speed, 1937 Raleigh Tourist, 1952 Raleigh Sports, 1966 Raleigh Sports step-through
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 248 Post(s)
Liked 27 Times
in
18 Posts
What is your inseam without shoes?
If your legs are long enough then you could use either crankset without noticing that much difference, particularly since your not racing. If however 170mm ranks are at your absolute limit then 2.5mm will make a difference. I'm of the view that most people are on bikes with cranks that are too long for them which makes bike riding more uncomfortable than it should be. Then again, how far do you ride?
Anthony
If your legs are long enough then you could use either crankset without noticing that much difference, particularly since your not racing. If however 170mm ranks are at your absolute limit then 2.5mm will make a difference. I'm of the view that most people are on bikes with cranks that are too long for them which makes bike riding more uncomfortable than it should be. Then again, how far do you ride?
Anthony
I do at least 12-13 miles a day, at least 5 days a week. Most single-day mileage is 80ish, but I've done over 160 in a weekend before.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3450 Post(s)
Liked 420 Times
in
289 Posts
Why does "without shoes" matter, if I'm not riding barefoot? I have no issue with the 170s, and I do remember feeling that the crankset on my old Raleigh Sports felt short, and that was closer to 165.
I do at least 12-13 miles a day, at least 5 days a week. Most single-day mileage is 80ish, but I've done over 160 in a weekend before.
I do at least 12-13 miles a day, at least 5 days a week. Most single-day mileage is 80ish, but I've done over 160 in a weekend before.
Your the one asking for advice. Its not my issue. If you want good advise then we need good information.
Anthony
#7
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,541
Bikes: Bianchi Volpe, ANT 3-speed roadster, New Albion Privateer singlespeed, Raleigh One Way singlespeed, Raleigh Professional "retro roadie" rebuild, 198? Fuji(?) franken-5-speed, 1937 Raleigh Tourist, 1952 Raleigh Sports, 1966 Raleigh Sports step-through
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 248 Post(s)
Liked 27 Times
in
18 Posts
I wasn't trying to be rude, it just doesn't make sense to me. I don't know offhand, and am not in a convenient place to measure. I typically wear pants with a 30" inseam, but I ride with rather thick-soled shoes (Dr. Marten's 1460s) on wide platform pedals.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hampton Roads VA
Posts: 1,787
Bikes: '07 Trek 520, '09 Gary Fisher Triton, '04 Trek 8000, '85 Trek 500, '84 Trek 610, '85 Trek 510, '88 Trek 660, '92 Trek 930, Trek Multitrack 700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I doubt I would notice a 1/10". There are too many variables; frame geometry, saddle design and material, flat or clip side of pedal, bike shorts or jeans, sandals or work boots etc.
__________________
"When I hear another express an opinion, which is not mine, I say to myself, He has a right to his opinion, as I to mine; why should I question it. His error does me no injury, and shall I become a Don Quixot to bring all men by force of argument, to one opinion? If a fact be misstated, it is probable he is gratified by a belief of it, and I have no right to deprive him of the gratification."
T. Jefferson
"When I hear another express an opinion, which is not mine, I say to myself, He has a right to his opinion, as I to mine; why should I question it. His error does me no injury, and shall I become a Don Quixot to bring all men by force of argument, to one opinion? If a fact be misstated, it is probable he is gratified by a belief of it, and I have no right to deprive him of the gratification."
T. Jefferson
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3450 Post(s)
Liked 420 Times
in
289 Posts
I recommend that crank length should be between 20 to 21.5% of inseam. Its not a hard and fast rule and there is a range of lengths that suits most people. Doing a quick and rough calculation, guessing an actual inseam of 31" then I calculate that 170mm cranks are at the top of your ideal range. I think you would be better staying with 170mm. Would you feel a huge difference from an extra 2.5mm?
On the shorter rides I doubt that it would make much difference but on the longer rides I suspect that it would start effecting your comfort.
Anthony
On the shorter rides I doubt that it would make much difference but on the longer rides I suspect that it would start effecting your comfort.
Anthony
Last edited by AnthonyG; 01-15-16 at 11:53 PM.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 7,639
Bikes: 61 Bianchi Specialissima 71 Peugeot G50 7? P'geot PX10 74 Raleigh GranSport 75 P'geot UO8 78? Raleigh Team Pro 82 P'geot PSV 86 P'geot PX 91 Bridgestone MB0 92 B'stone XO1 97 Rans VRex 92 Cannondale R1000 94 B'stone MB5 97 Vitus 997
Mentioned: 146 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 49 Times
in
31 Posts
I don't notice going from 175 to 172.5. Don't think I have any bikes with 170. But I'm not sure, I pay no attention to crank length and don't even remember what length is on each bike. 2.5 mm is only 1/10". That's a very small amount. My saddle heights vary by more than that. Heck, the thickness of my short pads probably varies by more than that.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,719
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 258 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
^...while I agree on it not being a big deal for me either, top of stroke to bottom is 2/10" and that may be noticeable to some folk. It's about crank rotational diameter, not height to the saddle.
#12
Senior Member
I'm about 5'7" and I used to have 170 mm cranks on all my bikes, but I put 165mm cranks on a bike and found that either there is no difference, or that I amm better with the shorter cranks ie. I can spin better, I think. I know someone who claims that he can tell the difference between 170mm and 171mm cranks, but I doubt it. I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between 165mm and 175mm cranks.
TA has a sizing chart that showed my optimum size crank as 167.5. They and SunXCD are the only ones making that length, I believe.
Can you staddle a 58cm frame? If so, you must have very long legs for somenoe your height.
TA has a sizing chart that showed my optimum size crank as 167.5. They and SunXCD are the only ones making that length, I believe.
Can you staddle a 58cm frame? If so, you must have very long legs for somenoe your height.
#13
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,603
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3917 Post(s)
Liked 1,973 Times
in
1,408 Posts
I have 170mm cranks on all my bikes, except for 175mm captain's cranks on our tandem. I notice mostly that it's harder to pedal when really low, but it's no big deal. I'm so used to swapping back and forth now that I hardly notice it at all anymore. It certainly doesn't cause a problem. I've done 15 hour saddle-time rides with both crank lengths, always tiring but no issues. My inseam is so short that I theoretically should be riding 165s, but bikes don't come stock that way, oh well.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#16
Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If it is free or a good deal try it and see if you notice. I think some people are more sensitive than others. I am the same height as you and have 3 bikes with 170mm and 2 with 175mm cranks. To be honest I dont really notice a difference. I have done centuries on both and put in consecutive long days. I am also very much a spinner if you are a masher it may make a bigger difference to your knees.
#17
Senior Member
The difference is 2.5mm. That's it. Will your body experience the difference. Doubtful. I have many bikes and have 3 different length cranks on them, and honestly, I perceive absolutely no difference at all between them. They all feel the same as far as torque and spin go. There just is not any real significant difference in the feel. None.
#18
Senior Member
The reason I put 165mm cranks on one of my bikes was that I converted it to 650B and the botom bracket was lowered and I figured shorter cranks would give me better clearance and reduce the chance of pedal strike. As I mentioned above, I either don't notice the difference, or I prefer the shorter cranks. Or maybe it is just that I prefer the bike.
Shorter cranks also might lessen the amount of toe overlap with the front wheel or fender; for some cyclists this is an issue.
Shorter cranks also might lessen the amount of toe overlap with the front wheel or fender; for some cyclists this is an issue.
#19
Full Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: PA, USA
Posts: 213
Bikes: Emonda SLR, Salsa Warbird carbon
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It seems to me that the only place you'd notice is on very steep climbs where you're in your lowest gear and struggling to turn the cranks. Then a longer crank might be beneficial.
#20
Senior Member
However will you be able to really perceive the difference? I dare say not, and can honestly say my personal experience is that I never have felt a difference.
#21
Full Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: PA, USA
Posts: 213
Bikes: Emonda SLR, Salsa Warbird carbon
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Well, I've never had the chance to compare two difference crank lengths with all other variables being equal, but since the change is down in the 1-2% range I agree it would be hard to perceive.
#22
Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Kansas
Posts: 32
Bikes: 2016 Cannonade Synapse Carbon disc 105; 1987 Trek 400T Elance; 1997 Trek 850 Mt Track
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
My road bike has 170 mm crank arms; the mountain bike has 175 mm. Frankly, I cannot tell any difference.
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
yes
To clarify the posting title: I'm 5'6"ish, and normally ride 170mm cranksets. I have a build I'm planning with a frame I've been offered for free, and some other parts I've been given by other people, and the crankset I've been offered is 172.5mm. I'm fairly particular about my saddle position, but I'm no racer - I just use the bike as my everyday transportation.
If it makes any difference, this frame I'll be using is substantially taller than I usually ride (58cm vintage Shogun 300 with a horizontal TT, vs. my modern sloping-top tube bikes that range from 48-53cm in their nominal sizes). I can stand over the TT with feet flat on the ground, and the TT is short enough that I can comfortably reach the bars, while the frame height brings them easily to the desired height (unlike a 54ish cm vintage Panasonic frame I have, where the TT is quite long, and I need a tall stem with short reach to ride it)
EDIT: For reference, here's a bike with a frame near identical to the one I'll be using (in size, anyway)...I can ride it set up as shown, but this one has 170mm cranks. I'd probably drop the saddle maybe 1/4" if I was gonna ride it for more than a couple miles:
For comparison, here are my current bikes (note the tall/short stem on the Panasonic on the bottom in the second picture):
If it makes any difference, this frame I'll be using is substantially taller than I usually ride (58cm vintage Shogun 300 with a horizontal TT, vs. my modern sloping-top tube bikes that range from 48-53cm in their nominal sizes). I can stand over the TT with feet flat on the ground, and the TT is short enough that I can comfortably reach the bars, while the frame height brings them easily to the desired height (unlike a 54ish cm vintage Panasonic frame I have, where the TT is quite long, and I need a tall stem with short reach to ride it)
EDIT: For reference, here's a bike with a frame near identical to the one I'll be using (in size, anyway)...I can ride it set up as shown, but this one has 170mm cranks. I'd probably drop the saddle maybe 1/4" if I was gonna ride it for more than a couple miles:
For comparison, here are my current bikes (note the tall/short stem on the Panasonic on the bottom in the second picture):
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Nashville TN
Posts: 180
Bikes: 2011 Giant Seek 1, 1995 Mongoose Alta, 2002 Raleigh M80, 2014 Scott Metrix 40, 1999 Trek 820
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I have used 170 and 175 and I can tell a difference. I think I can tell a difference with 172.5 even. With the smaller crank I can spin better.
#25
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Carmel, IN
Posts: 41
Bikes: Fuji SST, Kestrel Talon Road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That video focuses mostly on performance - I'm much more interested in noticeable differences in fit, because I have 4 bikes with the same crank length that are set up to fit more-or-less the same, and I'm wondering if I'd notice the difference in length, all else being equal (obviously my saddle height would probably drop slightly)
Since you don't plan on racing, I highly recommend going back to the 170mm because it doesn't require as much conditioning to turn it comfortably. You'll also be at a higher cadence which won't fatigue the muscles of the hip and leg as easily.
I wrote a post discussing the differences of crank length. I think you'll find a lot of the information helpful.
Eat Sleep Train Smart - Personal Training & Coaching Official Blog: Crank Arm Length: Everything You Need To Know