Originally Posted by
cubewheels
Good example! I only have square end BB axle anyway so the crankset options are cheap, not a pain to try things out. Short crankarm is just good for performance and avoids toe strikes too. Hope to see more of them in the future.
Well I thought it was a good example. However, I was making a case for LONGER cranks. Much longer. Like over 200mm!! Elite athletes spin 170's at 120rpm and cruise at 25mph. You and I CANNOT do that. We are doing good to keep up 90rpm for any length of time and 60rpm and 70rpm is a common cadence among the untrained hordes of urban cyclists across the land.
Most of us in this thread are not 60rpm sloggers nor are we 120rpm Cat 3 rising starts. We inhabit a world of 80, 90, maybe 100rpm all purpose bicycle enthusiasts. Shorter cranks have no benefit for the cyclist that isn't prepared to work harder. They make the achievement of a more rapid spin POSSIBLE, not any easier! It takes training to make your feet go around (and keep going around) at high cadences It doesn't just happen by itself because you are using short(er) cranks!
Cadence is as much mental as it is physical. Cliimbing (the subject of this thread) is especially impacted by crank length. Why? Because rpm's MUST be lower when you are in climb mode. The average road bike does not have the kind of gears necessary for a moderate attainment cyclist to keep their spin up into the 80+ rpm range. It will very likely be down around 60rpm or less. That isn't the time to want shorter cranks.