Recent Study-- pedal speed / crank length
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Recent Study-- pedal speed / crank length
Available, open access. My take on it is that you can specifically target one of the many variables involved but in the end the central nervous system apparently takes in all the variables and makes whatever adjustments it deems to be necessary)...
Effects of Pedal Speed and Crank Length on Pedaling Mechanics during Submaximal Cycling
PAUL RICHARD BARRATT1,2, JAMES C. MARTIN3, STEVE J. ELMER4, and THOMAS KORFF1
The 27% range of crank lengths evaluated in this investigation is substantially larger than the 6% range (165175 mm) typically available for adult bicycles, indicating that cyclists can change crank lengths without concern of changing their power production strategies. Furthermore, cyclists and triathletes wishing to adopt a more horizontal torso position to reduce aerodynamic drag could use shorter cranks to eliminate thigh to torso contact, which might compromise ventilation and/or power production. Cycling enthusiasts who have musculoskeletal impairments such as femoral-acetabular impingement or knee osteoarthritis might use shorter cranks to reduce maximum hip and knee flexion and thereby reduce the risk of symptomatic flare-ups triggered by larger joint angular excursions. Similarly, in rehabilitation settings...
PAUL RICHARD BARRATT1,2, JAMES C. MARTIN3, STEVE J. ELMER4, and THOMAS KORFF1
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 77
Bikes: 2018 Fuji Cross // 2014 Scott Addict 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Interesting! Guess it really does come down to do what feels best.
#3
Zoom zoom zoom zoom bonk
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 4,624
Bikes: Giant Defy, Trek 1.7c, BMC GF02, Fuji Tahoe, Scott Sub 35, Kona Rove, Trek Verve+2
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 551 Post(s)
Liked 722 Times
in
366 Posts
Oh, it's the cranks fault that my thigh hits my belly. All this time I've been blaming it on donuts.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 765
Bikes: Fitz randonneuse, Trek Superfly/AL, Tsunami SS, Bacchetta, HPV Speed Machine, Rans Screamer
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
It doesn't really say much, other than there is little risk in trying different lengths for sub maximal efforts. The method used a fixed output at a fixed RPM. Though the power was generated differently, there was no attempt at measuring either perceived stress, or performance over time.
I can generate 240 watts at 90rpm for a period of time on a wide variety of cranks also, but it would be torture at the low end of that range. I am very tall, and experience has proven clearly; I perform better and ride more comfortably on 200mm cranks. In extreme cases like me, crank length can make a dig difference.
People sometimes try to convince me that crank length makes no difference, but I notice they are not choosing 145mm cranks for themselves, which would be proportional to me on 175mm cranks.
I can generate 240 watts at 90rpm for a period of time on a wide variety of cranks also, but it would be torture at the low end of that range. I am very tall, and experience has proven clearly; I perform better and ride more comfortably on 200mm cranks. In extreme cases like me, crank length can make a dig difference.
People sometimes try to convince me that crank length makes no difference, but I notice they are not choosing 145mm cranks for themselves, which would be proportional to me on 175mm cranks.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Posts: 6,201
Bikes: ...a few.
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2010 Post(s)
Liked 408 Times
in
234 Posts
I notice when folks ask about what crank length they are usually deciding between 170 and 172.5 or 172.5 and 175. Such a minute difference does not make any difference. Obviously when it's 30 mm it's not the same thing.
#6
I'm doing it wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,875
Bikes: Rivendell Appaloosa, Rivendell Frank Jones Sr., Trek Fuel EX9, Kona Jake the Snake CR, Niner Sir9
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9742 Post(s)
Liked 2,812 Times
in
1,664 Posts
I got rid of knee pain going from a 172.5 mm crank to a 165 mm crank.
#7
- Soli Deo Gloria -
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 14,779
Bikes: 2018 Rodriguez Custom Fixed Gear, 2017 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2015 Bianchi Pista, 2002 Fuji Robaix
Mentioned: 235 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6844 Post(s)
Liked 736 Times
in
469 Posts
A small difference in crank length can make a big difference in bike fit.
Changing crank length means that the saddle has to be raised or lowered to compensate. This increases or decreases saddle to bar drop, moves the saddle for/aft compared to the pedals, etc. All of this impacts comfort, power and susceptibility to injury.
We all understand that a 1 mm difference in saddle height, front to back position or angle can have a huge impact in how a bike fits. The minimum change when swapping cranks is 250% greater.
-Tim-
Changing crank length means that the saddle has to be raised or lowered to compensate. This increases or decreases saddle to bar drop, moves the saddle for/aft compared to the pedals, etc. All of this impacts comfort, power and susceptibility to injury.
We all understand that a 1 mm difference in saddle height, front to back position or angle can have a huge impact in how a bike fits. The minimum change when swapping cranks is 250% greater.
-Tim-
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
I'm not sure what this study purports to show? Changing the torque arm and keeping power and RPM constant would seem to be a mechanical calculation.
Usually trained cyclists tend to higher cadences with shorter cranks, possibly in an effort to retain the same foot speed that they're accustomed to. It begs the question does that go away after training with shorter cranks?
Usually trained cyclists tend to higher cadences with shorter cranks, possibly in an effort to retain the same foot speed that they're accustomed to. It begs the question does that go away after training with shorter cranks?
#9
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,413
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 915 Post(s)
Liked 1,132 Times
in
488 Posts
Available, open access. My take on it is that you can specifically target one of the many variables involved but in the end the central nervous system apparently takes in all the variables and makes whatever adjustments it deems to be necessary)...
Effects of Pedal Speed and Crank Length on Pedaling Mechanics during Submaximal Cycling
PAUL RICHARD BARRATT1,2, JAMES C. MARTIN3, STEVE J. ELMER4, and THOMAS KORFF1
Effects of Pedal Speed and Crank Length on Pedaling Mechanics during Submaximal Cycling
PAUL RICHARD BARRATT1,2, JAMES C. MARTIN3, STEVE J. ELMER4, and THOMAS KORFF1
https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/pa...sktopMode=true
This is a companion piece to a paper by the same authors from a few years ago which looked at pedal speed and crank length during MAXIMAL cycling (that is, sprinting). In that paper, they looked at crank lengths from 150mm up to 190mm. That paper was, itself, a variation on a paper written by one of the co-authors (Jim Martin) in 2001 where he looked at maximal output over a range of crank lengths from 120mm up to 220mm. All three of these studies taken together are, as Jim Martin has said to me, "liberating." He concludes that they mean you can choose whatever crank length you want, that makes you feel best, for whatever reason you want, without fear that it will compromise your power. Basically, it means if you like your cranks and want to use them, you can tell everyone else to go to hell.
I like that kind of conclusion.
#10
Senior Member
Thread Starter
You should give a link:
https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/pa...sktopMode=true
... He concludes that they mean you can choose whatever crank length you want, that makes you feel best, for whatever reason you want, without fear that it will compromise your power. Basically, it means if you like your cranks and want to use them, you can tell everyone else to go to hell.
I like that kind of conclusion.
https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/pa...sktopMode=true
... He concludes that they mean you can choose whatever crank length you want, that makes you feel best, for whatever reason you want, without fear that it will compromise your power. Basically, it means if you like your cranks and want to use them, you can tell everyone else to go to hell.
I like that kind of conclusion.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 765
Bikes: Fitz randonneuse, Trek Superfly/AL, Tsunami SS, Bacchetta, HPV Speed Machine, Rans Screamer
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
...He concludes that they mean you can choose whatever crank length you want, that makes you feel best, for whatever reason you want, without fear that it will compromise your power. Basically, it means if you like your cranks and want to use them, you can tell everyone else to go to hell.
I like that kind of conclusion.
I like that kind of conclusion.
I read every study, opinion, video or whatever I could find. Open forums aside, all they could say for sure is that 2.5mm changes are meaningless for average riders with no biomechanical issues. They also warned about going too long, leading to overuse injuries. But "too long" is relative.
Leonard Zinn tried with multiple studies to show that crank length should be proportional, but failed. But the anecdotal preference of customers was almost universal praise for proportional. The best data suggests there is no optimal, but it can be wrong. If only we could convince manufacturers to make cranks in 5% increments in length, instead of 1.5%.
#12
Senior Member
Hrmm. You've now got me wondering if my cranks are too long lol! I've got my bars about level with saddle. However...when deep in the drops thigh to chest/stomach clearance becomes an issue. I have no gut to speak of...
A 5mm difference in crank length should give me a full 1cm additional clearance...I bet this would aleciate the issue. Maybe?
Who knows lol
A 5mm difference in crank length should give me a full 1cm additional clearance...I bet this would aleciate the issue. Maybe?
Who knows lol
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
I run 165mm at 5'11", from 172.5. Can't tell any difference, except I was able to change my position fairly significantly (more aggressive).
#14
Senior Member
I just switched from 175 to 172.5mm and I felt the difference immediately. To be honest, I probably couldn't explain what exactly felt different but my fit was way off to start with. I rode 40 miles with just changing the crank length and a swore I was going to swap back to the 175's. I then adjusted my saddle up a bit and slightly forward which made the next ride much better and finally adjusted my cleats by moving them back about 2-3mm which moved my foot forward to make my brain think my new shorter cranks were longer than the actually are. My ride yesterday after all adjustments felt quite good.
I was swapping out cranks as an upgrade so I wanted to experiment a little, here's an article I found from Cobb cycling that made me switch sizes Crank Length-Coming Full Circle | Bike Crank Lengths Shorten
I was swapping out cranks as an upgrade so I wanted to experiment a little, here's an article I found from Cobb cycling that made me switch sizes Crank Length-Coming Full Circle | Bike Crank Lengths Shorten
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
Agreed. I don't think it excludes the possibility that it could make a difference for some people either. In another thread, someone referred to one of those to say I was wrong to use 200mm cranks. That study did indicate the extreme high and low cranks rolled off a bit, but there was a wide range in the middle that worked fine. It did not try to correlate where that range fell in relation to leg length. It only makes sense that a tall rider would struggle more with very short cranks, and a short rider with very long cranks.
I read every study, opinion, video or whatever I could find. Open forums aside, all they could say for sure is that 2.5mm changes are meaningless for average riders with no biomechanical issues. They also warned about going too long, leading to overuse injuries. But "too long" is relative.
Leonard Zinn tried with multiple studies to show that crank length should be proportional, but failed. But the anecdotal preference of customers was almost universal praise for proportional. The best data suggests there is no optimal, but it can be wrong. If only we could convince manufacturers to make cranks in 5% increments in length, instead of 1.5%.
I read every study, opinion, video or whatever I could find. Open forums aside, all they could say for sure is that 2.5mm changes are meaningless for average riders with no biomechanical issues. They also warned about going too long, leading to overuse injuries. But "too long" is relative.
Leonard Zinn tried with multiple studies to show that crank length should be proportional, but failed. But the anecdotal preference of customers was almost universal praise for proportional. The best data suggests there is no optimal, but it can be wrong. If only we could convince manufacturers to make cranks in 5% increments in length, instead of 1.5%.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: RVA
Posts: 514
Bikes: 2013 Cannondale Synapse 6 Tiagra + 2016 Cannondale CAAD 12 Dura Ace
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm another convert. I went from 172.5 to 170mm and the difference was obvious. I tried 165 during my fit also, but I don't think I would like them all the time. Eventually I may get some 165's to play with, but my cadence went up by about 10rpm going down to 170s. Shorter cranks make it feel easier for me to spin faster with more clearance for my chest.
#17
Senior Member
We do? Do we all also understand that our bodily dimensions and range of motion of different joints change by way more than 1 mm not only day to day, but during the course of a single day and even a single ride? Not even taking the effects of different clothes (chamois thickness, the number of layers, etc.) or saddle wear and tear (padding compaction, sag, etc.).
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Lewisburg, TN
Posts: 1,356
Bikes: Mikkelsen custom steel, Santa Cruz Chameleon SS, old trek trainer bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
4 Posts
The switch from 172.5 to 175 was huge for me, and i can tell a big difference between the two. I'm pretty short, so 175 doesn't seem like it would work, but after 1 or two rides on a 175 and then going back to 172.5, the decision was easy for me. I have ridden 180's on an MTB a friend owned, and those were a little too long for me.
#19
Senior Member
I had 172.5s initially. Bought some cranks that were 175s. Didn't make any difference, apart from my knees touching my stomach when getting really low. Now I am on 165s and my knees never contact my body. Apart from that it is all the same. My cadence didn't change, didn't magically gain/lose power, etc.
#20
Senior Member
Also, I am sure that you could change my saddle position by far more than 1mm and I would never notice, but maybe that's just me.
#21
b*r*ly ridi*g
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 167
Bikes: Masi Evoluzione
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
For me , I tried a crank that was really too long, 180mm and it was great for a TT, but as someone here warned me years ago " never use long cranks for a long time". I didn't understand why, but what happened over time (for me ) is my Cadence went down the toilet.
As a big guy , Cadence is always an issue, and as one guy in my Club (Cat 2 road racer) said one day riding next to me, Jee'z dragan, I know your a big guy but you gotta spin". I looked down and was probably pedaling 50 to 60 pedal rev's per minute, this was on 177.5's on my road bike.
For me , 6 foot tall guy with 32" inseam 172.5 is perfect, but it's different for everybody. Whatever feels good and keeps your legs moving at a good speed is the right length. A someone else said, a 5mm difference can cause big fit issues , and IMHO if your fit is bad your power will not be good either.
Last edited by draganm; 09-05-17 at 11:21 AM.
#22
b*r*ly ridi*g
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 167
Bikes: Masi Evoluzione
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I had 172.5s initially. Bought some cranks that were 175s. Didn't make any difference, apart from my knees touching my stomach when getting really low. Now I am on 165s and my knees never contact my body. Apart from that it is all the same. My cadence didn't change, didn't magically gain/lose power, etc.
What is your body type if you don't mind me asking? I'm guessing lean with low body mass index and a naturally high cadence rider ?
#23
Senior Member
that is really interesting, (and unusual based on what others have posted ), to go from 175 to 165 with no change in cadence or perceived " feel".
What is your body type if you don't mind me asking? I'm guessing lean with low body mass index and a naturally high cadence rider ?
What is your body type if you don't mind me asking? I'm guessing lean with low body mass index and a naturally high cadence rider ?
#24
Senior Member
Thread Starter
that is really interesting, (and unusual based on what others have posted ), to go from 175 to 165 with no change in cadence or perceived " feel".
What is your body type if you don't mind me asking? I'm guessing lean with low body mass index and a naturally high cadence rider ?
What is your body type if you don't mind me asking? I'm guessing lean with low body mass index and a naturally high cadence rider ?
#25
b*r*ly ridi*g
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 167
Bikes: Masi Evoluzione
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I'm always a little jealous of guys who can do that, most of the guys in my club ride like that, about 90 rpm. They're Just zinging along , while I'm grinding and pushing and sweating buckets
I've gotten better though, today I was in the 70 up to 80 range, which is good for me, AND my knee's, hips, and beat up feet
Even in the 70s is considered spinning (whereas in the 60s is 'pushing') but compared to the pros who spin like tops in the 100s, if you're like me, even the 90s doesn't feel natural. Assuming a percent-change in crank length translated exactly to rpms, a 'spinner' going from 175 to 165mm cranks would still be spinning at a sub-80 cadence and might just gear down to get back to the 75 RPM if that is what felt most comfortable (which would translate to more power at a given RPM which is what you'd be hoping for and why for some, trying shorter cranks seems like a good bet). A 75 RPM'r can experience comfortably spinning like a pro (~90 RPM) but that takes going to, e.g., 145s.
The other bad thing about riding towards the anaerobic side of things is recovery takes a lot longer, at least for me.
It was in interesting experimenter though, and I urge people to play around if you feel like something isn't quite right. The 177.5 SRAM Red cranks I had, bought new for $250. and sold for $100., not the end of the world