smashndash

Here’s the “secret formula” for crank length. It depends not just on your inseam, but also your tibia length and, to a certain extent, your hip mobility, your bike fit and your riding style. You can have the shortest legs in the world, but if you’re all femur, no tibia, you can accommodate very long cranks. It’s a bit more complex than that once you factor in ankle mobility, but that’s the general gist. Hopefully you can visualize why. It wasn’t like 170s were horrible. 165s were just better and allow me to breathe with a nearly flat back. And I suspect they would be better for most people around my height if there weren’t so many myths about how shorter cranks will destroy your power. My friend got a bike fit that costs $300. He’s 5’ 5” with incredibly short legs (slams the seatpost on a 49) and the fitter said 170s were optimal for him. It’s absurd because the guy is forced to ride with his legs bowed outwards and his bars practically at seat height despite easily being cat 4 or even 3 material. He’s getting 165s soon, though.

I have a set of R7000 50/34 170s sitting in my garage. Unused chainrings but the crank arms have cosmetic wear. I guess I should list them on craigslist at some point but ofc if anyone wants them they can dm me.