Crank arm length
#26
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11
Bikes: Several, all old steel things.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
5 Posts
As some others have asserted, 165's will definitely be better for you than 175's given your stature and leg length. I'm shorter than you are and ride even shorter cranks, and that choice was originally made to save my knees. It worked. I found though that shorter cranks made the overall fit of the bike feel better, and helped to enable a higher cadence which is also good for your knees. Just make sure that you pick cranks that will permit ring choices providing a wide gear range, particularly if you're intending to haul much of a load.
#27
Full Member
175 might work for you but expect to make some bike fit adjustments over time to find what works.
I'm 5'11" and have 170, 172.5 and 175 cranks. For a few years I was in the "makes no difference" crowd. But the past year I notice, probably due to injuries and age. With the 175 cranks it's really easy to develop knee strain either from the saddle being too low for the knee angle at top of stroke, or lower back/hip pain from hyperextension with the leg fully extended. I still have and use 172.5 cranks but prefer 170.
If I was 5'6" with a 30" inseam, I wouldn't get 175 cranks. I'd go for 170, 172.5 at most, maybe even shorter if I could find 165 or shorter.
When I first tried 170 cranks they felt less efficient. My leg didn't seem to be working as much. But in fact I was consistently faster and less fatigued during and after rides.
I'm 5'11" and have 170, 172.5 and 175 cranks. For a few years I was in the "makes no difference" crowd. But the past year I notice, probably due to injuries and age. With the 175 cranks it's really easy to develop knee strain either from the saddle being too low for the knee angle at top of stroke, or lower back/hip pain from hyperextension with the leg fully extended. I still have and use 172.5 cranks but prefer 170.
If I was 5'6" with a 30" inseam, I wouldn't get 175 cranks. I'd go for 170, 172.5 at most, maybe even shorter if I could find 165 or shorter.
When I first tried 170 cranks they felt less efficient. My leg didn't seem to be working as much. But in fact I was consistently faster and less fatigued during and after rides.
#28
Full Member
Ah yes, the hill I'm likely to die on. I'll skip the complaining and just support the OP's decision to go with 165mm cranks; his knees will thank him. Sugino makes a very pretty (and rather expen$ive) crank in a variety of short lengths, the XD600T. Also, here's a discussion of the topic from a PT/bike fitter.
#29
Happy banana slug
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Arcata, California, U.S., North America, Earth, Saggitarius Arm, Milky Way
Posts: 3,695
Bikes: 1984 Araya MB 261, 1992 Specialized Rockhopper Sport, 1993 Hard Rock Ultra, 1994 Trek Multitrack 750, 1995 Trek Singletrack 930
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1533 Post(s)
Liked 1,528 Times
in
916 Posts
To be fair, at 6'4" you're used to short cranks, not long ones. Very different experience from us short people.
Likes For Korina:
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,410
Bikes: 2017 Specialized Allez Sprint Comp
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 850 Post(s)
Liked 344 Times
in
247 Posts
Anyone over 6’ tall saying crank length doesn’t matter? I heartily agree - there is no known benefit to going with longer cranks. Go as short as you reasonably please.
Likes For smashndash:
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,094
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 1,290 Times
in
743 Posts
It is easier for a person with longer legs to get used to a shorter crank, and be fine with them, than for a person with shorter legs to ride a bike with long cranks. The person with short legs can have issues with their hips and knees with the longer cranks, whereas the person with the longer legs will not.
Likes For phughes: