Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Fitting Your Bike
Reload this Page >

Crank length

Notices
Fitting Your Bike Are you confused about how you should fit a bike to your particular body dimensions? Have you been reading, found the terms Merxx or French Fit, and don’t know what you need? Every style of riding is different- in how you fit the bike to you, and the sizing of the bike itself. It’s more than just measuring your height, reach and inseam. With the help of Bike Fitting, you’ll be able to find the right fit for your frame size, style of riding, and your particular dimensions. Here ya’ go…..the location for everything fit related.

Crank length

Old 07-04-21, 01:02 AM
  #1  
tungsten
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
tungsten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 134

Bikes: 1962 Cinelli Mod. "B" / 1988 Bailey 531c / '92 Rocky Vertex / Obed Baseline / CroMag Wideangle/

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Crank length

Inseam cm x 1.25 + 65 = really?
tungsten is offline  
Old 07-04-21, 06:17 AM
  #2  
AnthonyG
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,109
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3400 Post(s)
Liked 403 Times in 273 Posts
Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
Inseam cm x 1.25 + 65 = really?
No. Not really.

There is a range of crank sizes that will work for someone. I prefer just making a straight percentage calculation in a range from x 0.19 which is short to 0.216 which is quite long. If you want to ride in an aero position then shorter is better. You would have to be a freak to be able to get a good aero position with x 0.216 cranks yet apparently it works for some.
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 07-04-21, 10:38 AM
  #3  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 26,045
Mentioned: 209 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14407 Post(s)
Liked 2,409 Times in 1,795 Posts
Originally Posted by AnthonyG View Post
No. Not really.

There is a range of crank sizes that will work for someone. I prefer just making a straight percentage calculation in a range from x 0.19 which is short to 0.216 which is quite long. If you want to ride in an aero position then shorter is better. You would have to be a freak to be able to get a good aero position with x 0.216 cranks yet apparently it works for some.
The longer the cranks, the lower the saddle. But, also the more risk of encroaching on the belly.

In general I'm happy with a bit longer cranks, but despite more leverage, the longer rotation circle means there is no free energy.
CliffordK is online now  
Old 07-04-21, 10:44 AM
  #4  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 17,644

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3016 Post(s)
Liked 933 Times in 707 Posts
I use inseam in inches X 5.5. Seems to work well except for very tall riders where standard BB heights won't allow proper crank lengths.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 07-04-21, 10:21 PM
  #5  
tungsten
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
tungsten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 134

Bikes: 1962 Cinelli Mod. "B" / 1988 Bailey 531c / '92 Rocky Vertex / Obed Baseline / CroMag Wideangle/

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Formula above has me on 166.8mm. I have been reading* about longer cranks increasing sheer forces on the knee, and advantages of opening up the hip angle w/shorter cranks.
I think there may also be some benefits w/above as it relates to aging.
Am putting 170's on my rides. Not a big diff from 172.5 on the rd bike but substantive coming from 175 on the mtn. bike.

* https://bikedynamics.co.uk/FitGuidecranks.htm
tungsten is offline  
Old 07-05-21, 09:21 AM
  #6  
Iride01
Hits [ENTER] b4 thinking
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 8,237

Bikes: '20 Tarmac Disc Comp '91, '78 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3246 Post(s)
Liked 1,836 Times in 1,303 Posts
What's on your bike right now? Do they bother you? Crank length calculations are bunk. You power output and cadence and riding conditions will determine what length of crank you might like.
Iride01 is online now  
Old 07-06-21, 10:38 AM
  #7  
tungsten
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
tungsten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 134

Bikes: 1962 Cinelli Mod. "B" / 1988 Bailey 531c / '92 Rocky Vertex / Obed Baseline / CroMag Wideangle/

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by Iride01 View Post
Crank length calculations are bunk..
Really? So someone 5'2" should be riding 177.5's?
I've had knee issues long ago due to overuse and not stretching and more recently job related imobility stuff but going into retirement and now having the time to ride every day I figure anything I can do to minimize wear and tear on body is a no brainer.
tungsten is offline  
Old 07-06-21, 11:41 AM
  #8  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 17,644

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3016 Post(s)
Liked 933 Times in 707 Posts
Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
Really? So someone 5'2" should be riding 177.5's?
I've had knee issues long ago due to overuse and not stretching and more recently job related imobility stuff but going into retirement and now having the time to ride every day I figure anything I can do to minimize wear and tear on body is a no brainer.
Well, Pantani at 5'8" did ride 180mm in the mountains, but we might allow that he's a special case. I have a 6'7" riding buddy who rides 175mm, so it is to some extent all over the place. But most folks find that 5.5 formula I posted is good. By that formula, my wife rides 151mm and likes that. I ride 170 and 175 and don't notice the difference. The formula says 165 for me.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 07-06-21, 02:58 PM
  #9  
Iride01
Hits [ENTER] b4 thinking
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 8,237

Bikes: '20 Tarmac Disc Comp '91, '78 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3246 Post(s)
Liked 1,836 Times in 1,303 Posts
Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
Really? So someone 5'2" should be riding 177.5's?
I've had knee issues long ago due to overuse and not stretching and more recently job related imobility stuff but going into retirement and now having the time to ride every day I figure anything I can do to minimize wear and tear on body is a no brainer.
No.

No matter what the height or inseam a person has, they should ride the crank length that gives them what they want.

I'd be on 174.5 mm cranks in your formula. Several years ago I tried to run 170 mm cranks but had an annoyance behind the back side of my knee. Tried real hard to like them for 4 full months but finally swapped back to the 165 mm cranks I seem to do best on. Every time I get on a bike with longer cranks I feel like I'm thrashing about and get tired quickly if nothing else.

I've got a 87.6 cm inseam.

At best, formulas for crank length might tell you the most length you should consider. But not what you should get or start at.

5' 2" with a 90 cm inseam? Wow.
Iride01 is online now  
Old 07-06-21, 04:02 PM
  #10  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 26,045
Mentioned: 209 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14407 Post(s)
Liked 2,409 Times in 1,795 Posts
Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
Really? So someone 5'2" should be riding 177.5's?
I've had knee issues long ago due to overuse and not stretching and more recently job related imobility stuff but going into retirement and now having the time to ride every day I figure anything I can do to minimize wear and tear on body is a no brainer.
I personally like a little longer cranks. And believe that I'm happier with my legs going through a full and open movement rather than spinning in tiny circles.

The more riding I do, the better the knees feel. And, I've had times when I had been off the bike for a bit, and on the feet too much. And, a 10+ mile ride was vital for recuperation.

But, everything within reason. So your hypothetical 5'2 rider should probably be looking at much shorter cranks than someone 5'10, or > 6'.

Nonetheless, there may not be a formula that would take any rider and give their exact specs.

Perhaps there would also be some training the body to one's own bike.

So, say a bike fitter does a bunch of test on two younger 5'10" newbies, and decided 165 gave peak power for both of them. But, instead, they're sent home with one set of 157 cranks, and the other with 180 cranks. Send them out to ride 5000 miles. Then retest for power output. Will the tests all show the different riders still need the 165 cranks, or will they have habituated to what was on their bike? My guess is the riders would tend towards what they were training with.
CliffordK is online now  
Likes For CliffordK:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.