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

Shorter Cranks for Climbing

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.

Shorter Cranks for Climbing

Old 10-06-21, 05:02 PM
  #51  
Crang
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
My wife has a 27" inseam and rides 151mm cranks. In the universe where we all ride cranks according to leg length, you'd be on 155mm.


yeah my wife is 3.5" shorter than me and our seat positions on the same bike are identical. My reach is significantly longer though.
Crang is offline  
Old 10-15-21, 12:06 PM
  #52  
jonathanf2
Full Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 469

Bikes: '17 105 2x11 Sprint CF Comp / '21 GRX400 2x10 Poseidon X

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked 402 Times in 200 Posts
I just wanted to bump this thread and see if any shorter riders (5"8" and under) actually go with longer cranks? I find 170mm to work well on my road bike to give me better sprints on the flats and climbs and I like 165mm on my gravel bike where I can do seated climbs at higher cadence. I was thinking of trying 172.5mm or 175mm to get additional torque on my road bike or would I risk more toe strike by doing so? Curious to hear opinions, thanks!
jonathanf2 is offline  
Old 10-15-21, 12:19 PM
  #53  
Moisture
Drip, Drip.
 
Moisture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,568

Bikes: Trek Verve E bike, Felt Doctrine 4 XC, Opus Horizon Apex 1

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1029 Post(s)
Liked 185 Times in 157 Posts
Originally Posted by jonathanf2 View Post
I just wanted to bump this thread and see if any shorter riders (5"8" and under) actually go with longer cranks? I find 170mm to work well on my road bike to give me better sprints on the flats and climbs and I like 165mm on my gravel bike where I can do seated climbs at higher cadence. I was thinking of trying 172.5mm or 175mm to get additional torque on my road bike or would I risk more toe strike by doing so? Curious to hear opinions, thanks!
Have you measured your cycling inseam? You can probably go up to 172.5, although I would stick to 165-170.
Moisture is offline  
Likes For Moisture:
Old 10-15-21, 05:20 PM
  #54  
AnthonyG
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3442 Post(s)
Liked 416 Times in 286 Posts
Originally Posted by jonathanf2 View Post
I just wanted to bump this thread and see if any shorter riders (5"8" and under) actually go with longer cranks? I find 170mm to work well on my road bike to give me better sprints on the flats and climbs and I like 165mm on my gravel bike where I can do seated climbs at higher cadence. I was thinking of trying 172.5mm or 175mm to get additional torque on my road bike or would I risk more toe strike by doing so? Curious to hear opinions, thanks!
The problem with the notion that longer cranks give you more torque is that our legs need to travel through a 360 degree motion of muscle and joint movements, and while you may get more torque at the 9-3 position you also get less torque at the 12-6 position. Shorter cranks smooth out the torque delivery rather than reducing it.
When moving from longer cranks to shorter cranks its quite important to move your saddle BACK, as well as up in order to maximise the torque from the shorter cranks.
AnthonyG is offline  
Likes For AnthonyG:
Old 10-15-21, 05:52 PM
  #55  
Moisture
Drip, Drip.
 
Moisture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,568

Bikes: Trek Verve E bike, Felt Doctrine 4 XC, Opus Horizon Apex 1

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1029 Post(s)
Liked 185 Times in 157 Posts
Originally Posted by AnthonyG View Post
The problem with the notion that longer cranks give you more torque is that our legs need to travel through a 360 degree motion of muscle and joint movements, and while you may get more torque at the 9-3 position you also get less torque at the 12-6 position. Shorter cranks smooth out the torque delivery rather than reducing it.
When moving from longer cranks to shorter cranks its quite important to move your saddle BACK, as well as up in order to maximise the torque from the shorter cranks.
Its all true, only question is what's considered too short versus too long.

Longer crank arms can and often will help with better power output at more specific cadences.
Moisture is offline  
Likes For Moisture:
Old 10-16-21, 12:34 AM
  #56  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 18,410

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

Mentioned: 110 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3373 Post(s)
Liked 1,328 Times in 971 Posts
Originally Posted by jonathanf2 View Post
I just wanted to bump this thread and see if any shorter riders (5"8" and under) actually go with longer cranks? I find 170mm to work well on my road bike to give me better sprints on the flats and climbs and I like 165mm on my gravel bike where I can do seated climbs at higher cadence. I was thinking of trying 172.5mm or 175mm to get additional torque on my road bike or would I risk more toe strike by doing so? Curious to hear opinions, thanks!
I'm 5'6" and ride 170 on my road bike, 175 on our tandem. Pantani rode 180 in the mountains. He liked to climb OOS so the long cranks gave him more power. It's hard to argue with yellow. I ride 175 on the tandem. If I had shorter cranks, our gear ratio would have to be stupid low. We're riding 24/40 now, team age 148. We spin 90 just fine.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Likes For Carbonfiberboy:
Old 10-16-21, 09:56 AM
  #57  
jonathanf2
Full Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 469

Bikes: '17 105 2x11 Sprint CF Comp / '21 GRX400 2x10 Poseidon X

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked 402 Times in 200 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
I'm 5'6" and ride 170 on my road bike, 175 on our tandem. Pantani rode 180 in the mountains. He liked to climb OOS so the long cranks gave him more power. It's hard to argue with yellow. I ride 175 on the tandem. If I had shorter cranks, our gear ratio would have to be stupid low. We're riding 24/40 now, team age 148. We spin 90 just fine.
Yeah I was thinking about Patani when going longer cranks! I'm about 5'7" myself. The reason I'm fine with shorter 165mm cranks on my gravel bike is that due to the trail terrain I ride, I can't climb OOS (or I loose traction) and the shorter cranks reduce toe overlap on the technical sections. On my road bike I have the traction to ride OOS and I don't need to worry so much about toe overlap since my turning is more dependent on leaning into a curve or making sure I follow the correct line. Would 175mm be too extreme though? Honestly I don't do long rides (mostly around 30 miles per session), so I'm not too concerned about long range riding comfort and I mostly focus on hard hill climbing and fast descents.

Would 172.5mm make a big difference over 170mm though? I figure if I go long, 175mm would be the way to go for maximum torque.
jonathanf2 is offline  
Old 10-16-21, 12:14 PM
  #58  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 18,410

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

Mentioned: 110 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3373 Post(s)
Liked 1,328 Times in 971 Posts
Originally Posted by jonathanf2 View Post
Yeah I was thinking about Patani when going longer cranks! I'm about 5'7" myself. The reason I'm fine with shorter 165mm cranks on my gravel bike is that due to the trail terrain I ride, I can't climb OOS (or I loose traction) and the shorter cranks reduce toe overlap on the technical sections. On my road bike I have the traction to ride OOS and I don't need to worry so much about toe overlap since my turning is more dependent on leaning into a curve or making sure I follow the correct line. Would 175mm be too extreme though? Honestly I don't do long rides (mostly around 30 miles per session), so I'm not too concerned about long range riding comfort and I mostly focus on hard hill climbing and fast descents.

Would 172.5mm make a big difference over 170mm though? I figure if I go long, 175mm would be the way to go for maximum torque.
I think there are so many opinions on best crank length because . . . everyone's different, sorta like saddles. IOW experiment, realizing that changing any aspect of fit requires a period of adaptation during which the feeling of "weird" becomes a feeling of "good" . . . or not. Personally, I don't think I'd climb better on shorter cranks.

OTOH, my wife was riding much too long cranks on our tandem and kept getting leg cramps, not good. I put on a set that was the correct length for her and which she really likes, but our climbing is worse now. Tandems fit is often a compromise. She can run those longer cranks on her trainer bike just fine, but the hard effort of long steep climbs is another story. Neither of us has every had knee issues like folks complain of when they talk about crank length.

IMO knee issues are a function of inadequate physical development. I think one hears so much about knee issues in runners because exact running form and conditioning to enable that exact form is so important. Similar idea. We had a couple our age (76&72) to dinner yesterday. The guy was telling me it was a bad idea to go to the gym because I was going to injure myself. Uh-huh. He has bilateral detached upper biceps because he never worked out. /rant

I know what you're talking about re gravel. Gotta keep that max torque down and cadence up.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Likes For Carbonfiberboy:
Old 10-16-21, 03:52 PM
  #59  
jonathanf2
Full Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 469

Bikes: '17 105 2x11 Sprint CF Comp / '21 GRX400 2x10 Poseidon X

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked 402 Times in 200 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
I think there are so many opinions on best crank length because . . . everyone's different, sorta like saddles. IOW experiment, realizing that changing any aspect of fit requires a period of adaptation during which the feeling of "weird" becomes a feeling of "good" . . . or not. Personally, I don't think I'd climb better on shorter cranks.

OTOH, my wife was riding much too long cranks on our tandem and kept getting leg cramps, not good. I put on a set that was the correct length for her and which she really likes, but our climbing is worse now. Tandems fit is often a compromise. She can run those longer cranks on her trainer bike just fine, but the hard effort of long steep climbs is another story. Neither of us has every had knee issues like folks complain of when they talk about crank length.

IMO knee issues are a function of inadequate physical development. I think one hears so much about knee issues in runners because exact running form and conditioning to enable that exact form is so important. Similar idea. We had a couple our age (76&72) to dinner yesterday. The guy was telling me it was a bad idea to go to the gym because I was going to injure myself. Uh-huh. He has bilateral detached upper biceps because he never worked out. /rant

I know what you're talking about re gravel. Gotta keep that max torque down and cadence up.
I'm a gym regular and on my non-bike days I do strength training. I've come to the conclusion if I want to be healthy into old age (I'm in my early 40s), exercise either on a bike or in the gym is a lifetime endeavor. I do quite a bit of stretching as well and my core is quite strong since I do focus on back and leg work quite a bit. My goal is to be one of those ultra fit grandpas! That's why I think I can handle the longer cranks with minimal risk of injury. It's funny, amongst my biking buddies we live and breath bicycling, we wake up thinking about bikes first thing!
jonathanf2 is offline  
Likes For jonathanf2:
Old 10-16-21, 07:32 PM
  #60  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 18,410

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

Mentioned: 110 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3373 Post(s)
Liked 1,328 Times in 971 Posts
IME you are absolutely correct. Future: I didn't hit a steep drop-off until 63, another at ~70. But one just has to never quit, never give up. I haven't done a 400k since my mid-60s, but my wife and I rode our tandem on a 154 mile, 9500' event ride in our late 60s. We just came back from a very nice 23 mile tandem toot, legs feel great. Did a lot of 95 cadence on the flat, get a little more power out of those short stoker cranks!
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Likes For Carbonfiberboy:
Old 10-17-21, 05:09 PM
  #61  
Moisture
Drip, Drip.
 
Moisture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,568

Bikes: Trek Verve E bike, Felt Doctrine 4 XC, Opus Horizon Apex 1

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1029 Post(s)
Liked 185 Times in 157 Posts
Originally Posted by cubewheels View Post
My calculated crank length is 170 mm but I have consistently higher average speed on 150 mm crank and signficantly higher average speeds on segments. I did have to spin higher cadence on short crank BUT it's so much easier to spin high cadence on short crank.

Scientific studies also gave favorable results towards short cranks. Popular info suggests best usage on TT bikes to maximize threshold power output (same thing you need on long climbs) I don't see why not road bikes too.
Calculated based on what? For me, something between 20.5% - 21.2% of my cycling inseam seems to work best in terms of balancing an ideal cadence with good power output.

for me, it's mainly the change in gear inches which i look for.
Moisture is offline  
Old 10-19-21, 03:01 AM
  #62  
Moisture
Drip, Drip.
 
Moisture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,568

Bikes: Trek Verve E bike, Felt Doctrine 4 XC, Opus Horizon Apex 1

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1029 Post(s)
Liked 185 Times in 157 Posts
Originally Posted by cubewheels View Post
I used a calculator based on inseam. After I tried 150mm, I started hating 170mm.

The only advantage I see with longer cranks is enabling lower cadence when pedaling out of the saddle (OOS). Lower cadence is an advantage in OOS to avoid lactic acid build up (high cadence is not advisable for OOS unless you have incredible aerobic performance).

Workout buffs would also appreciate longer cranks as it can better emulate some leg gym workouts, better workout for more muscle groups like if you're wanting to have a bigger butt.
I'm just curious what percentage of your cycling inseam 150mm would be.

you might be more happy with some 160mm cranks give or take.
Moisture is offline  
Old 10-19-21, 09:50 AM
  #63  
jonathanf2
Full Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 469

Bikes: '17 105 2x11 Sprint CF Comp / '21 GRX400 2x10 Poseidon X

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked 402 Times in 200 Posts
Originally Posted by cubewheels View Post
I used a calculator based on inseam. After I tried 150mm, I started hating 170mm.

The only advantage I see with longer cranks is enabling lower cadence when pedaling out of the saddle (OOS). Lower cadence is an advantage in OOS to avoid lactic acid build up (high cadence is not advisable for OOS unless you have incredible aerobic performance).

Workout buffs would also appreciate longer cranks as it can better emulate some leg gym workouts, better workout for more muscle groups like if you're wanting to have a bigger butt.
I tried 160mm and did not like it on my road bike even after fit adjustments. With 170mm OOS, it's true I can really feel the muscle groups I use from gym training. I do squats regularly and usually go OOS once I get close to a hill climb checkpoint allowing me to sprint to the top.
jonathanf2 is offline  
Likes For jonathanf2:
Old 10-19-21, 10:04 AM
  #64  
Moisture
Drip, Drip.
 
Moisture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,568

Bikes: Trek Verve E bike, Felt Doctrine 4 XC, Opus Horizon Apex 1

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1029 Post(s)
Liked 185 Times in 157 Posts
Longer cranks getting more muscles involved yes, but obviously the way you are positioned over the bottom bracket matters.
Moisture is offline  
Old 10-25-21, 12:53 AM
  #65  
Leisesturm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,157
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1942 Post(s)
Liked 416 Times in 301 Posts
The thread bump gave me the (sad) opportunity to read this missed thread in its entirety. Holy Moly what a cluster____ of speculation, misinformation, misperception and all manner of illogic. Carbonfiberboy is about the only poster making consistent sense. I'm sure he isn't the only one, but cripes. Listen. the percent change in ANYTHING between 170 and 175 is less than 3%! 2.94 if we want to get exact about it. Not perceptible. When you are talking about as gross an anatomical usage as an 80rpm cadence ... 3% gets quickly lost in the white noise of lactic acid overload. I don't doubt that for the first few tentative strokes with the new setup a person might think they have made a significant change, but once they start hammering it all just goes away. It really does.

A 10% change ... now you're talking. Why anyone would want 10% LESS torque to work with, I don't know, but if you are going to make changes, 10% is about the minimum that actually makes any real difference. For a 175mm crank that would be a 160mm crank. If you are doing it right you will also lower your gears 10%. Practically speaking you wouldn't try to lower each and every cog and chainring, just at the ends. Or you could drop down a gear (~13%) whenever you think about it. Chances are you'll do that automatically when you start to fatigue from having 10% less torque to work with.

As I have said before, the cranks we have are a compromise. Ideally they would be longer! All human powered endeavor is a need for speed. Our bicycles are descended from UCI sanctioned racing steeds that sought to allow constant high cadence pedaling for as long as possible. This meant keeping cadence constant through left and right hand turns at high speed. Much longer than 170mm and there is a real possibility of pedal strike in a corner and ... nobody wants that. Hybrids can run 175 because they run slower in the corners. But you are unlikely to see much below 160 or much more than 175 in regular production. Mainly because it makes little sense to have shorter cranks and 170/5 is the practical upper limit for longer ones without a frame redesign. Simplistic but true.

So why are there 155 ... 140. 100! Cranks? Because people want them. Misguided people, but they are a market. Fair game. Don't be that cyclist. Hold on to your money for something better than a crankset you don't need. The recumbent market is especially susceptible to the short crank thing. For 99% of recumbents standard cranks are just fine. The exceptions are those that enclose the riders feet as many only provide minimal clearance around the pedal circle. American feet just don't fit inside the toe boxes of European velomobiles with sporting pretensions. Sometimes cranks as short as 130mm need to be used but when you have the kind of drag coefficient the average velomobile does, what are a few (dozen) newton-meters of torque lost?

Look. I'm all for people doing what makes them happy. I just am dismayed that the reboot of this thread is just carrying the same old misinformation forward. At least know why you are doing something. Longer cranks are not the devil. Shorter cranks do not make you faster, or give you more endurance. At least not in the way most of you use them! Shorter cranks do not even really help your knees. Lower gears are a much better way of saving your knees than trying to limit the effective range of your knee flexion. TL;DR: unless you have a real good reason, and that is unlikely, the crankset sold with your bike, at least with respect to length, probably suffices. Piffling changes of 2.5mm and 5mm are just a colossal waste of time and money. Unless you are buying cheap crap cranksets and why would you do that?

I've yet to meet the production bike that wasn't grossly overgeared out of the box. If you are still using the 30/42/52 triple that came with your hybrid, or the 50/39 that came with your road racer you are not having a quality experience. The 30 (front) x 32 (rear) combination commonly found on most hybrids as the "granny" gear is about 27" which is also about the "gear'" that humans walk in. The low gear on my bike is 22 x 36. About 18". I don't expect a road racer to have an 18" low gear but if you guessed that the 39 (front) x 27(rear) low gear on many road bikes is too high, you'd be right. And you need LONGER cranks to wrestle that smb into submission, NOT shorter.
Leisesturm is offline  
Likes For Leisesturm:
Old 10-25-21, 05:12 AM
  #66  
Moisture
Drip, Drip.
 
Moisture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,568

Bikes: Trek Verve E bike, Felt Doctrine 4 XC, Opus Horizon Apex 1

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1029 Post(s)
Liked 185 Times in 157 Posts
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
The thread bump gave me the (sad) opportunity to read this missed thread in its entirety. Holy Moly what a cluster____ of speculation, misinformation, misperception and all manner of illogic. Carbonfiberboy is about the only poster making consistent sense. I'm sure he isn't the only one, but cripes. Listen. the percent change in ANYTHING between 170 and 175 is less than 3%! 2.94 if we want to get exact about it. Not perceptible. When you are talking about as gross an anatomical usage as an 80rpm cadence ... 3% gets quickly lost in the white noise of lactic acid overload. I don't doubt that for the first few tentative strokes with the new setup a person might think they have made a significant change, but once they start hammering it all just goes away. It really does.

A 10% change ... now you're talking. Why anyone would want 10% LESS torque to work with, I don't know, but if you are going to make changes, 10% is about the minimum that actually makes any real difference. For a 175mm crank that would be a 160mm crank. If you are doing it right you will also lower your gears 10%. Practically speaking you wouldn't try to lower each and every cog and chainring, just at the ends. Or you could drop down a gear (~13%) whenever you think about it. Chances are you'll do that automatically when you start to fatigue from having 10% less torque to work with.

As I have said before, the cranks we have are a compromise. Ideally they would be longer! All human powered endeavor is a need for speed. Our bicycles are descended from UCI sanctioned racing steeds that sought to allow constant high cadence pedaling for as long as possible. This meant keeping cadence constant through left and right hand turns at high speed. Much longer than 170mm and there is a real possibility of pedal strike in a corner and ... nobody wants that. Hybrids can run 175 because they run slower in the corners. But you are unlikely to see much below 160 or much more than 175 in regular production. Mainly because it makes little sense to have shorter cranks and 170/5 is the practical upper limit for longer ones without a frame redesign. Simplistic but true.

So why are there 155 ... 140. 100! Cranks? Because people want them. Misguided people, but they are a market. Fair game. Don't be that cyclist. Hold on to your money for something better than a crankset you don't need. The recumbent market is especially susceptible to the short crank thing. For 99% of recumbents standard cranks are just fine. The exceptions are those that enclose the riders feet as many only provide minimal clearance around the pedal circle. American feet just don't fit inside the toe boxes of European velomobiles with sporting pretensions. Sometimes cranks as short as 130mm need to be used but when you have the kind of drag coefficient the average velomobile does, what are a few (dozen) newton-meters of torque lost?

Look. I'm all for people doing what makes them happy. I just am dismayed that the reboot of this thread is just carrying the same old misinformation forward. At least know why you are doing something. Longer cranks are not the devil. Shorter cranks do not make you faster, or give you more endurance. At least not in the way most of you use them! Shorter cranks do not even really help your knees. Lower gears are a much better way of saving your knees than trying to limit the effective range of your knee flexion. TL;DR: unless you have a real good reason, and that is unlikely, the crankset sold with your bike, at least with respect to length, probably suffices. Piffling changes of 2.5mm and 5mm are just a colossal waste of time and money. Unless you are buying cheap crap cranksets and why would you do that?

I've yet to meet the production bike that wasn't grossly overgeared out of the box. If you are still using the 30/42/52 triple that came with your hybrid, or the 50/39 that came with your road racer you are not having a quality experience. The 30 (front) x 32 (rear) combination commonly found on most hybrids as the "granny" gear is about 27" which is also about the "gear'" that humans walk in. The low gear on my bike is 22 x 36. About 18". I don't expect a road racer to have an 18" low gear but if you guessed that the 39 (front) x 27(rear) low gear on many road bikes is too high, you'd be right. And you need LONGER cranks to wrestle that smb into submission, NOT shorter.
Agree with what you're saying, some good info here.

The only thing - there are circumstances when 5mm could be a welcome change in arm length, although whether its noticeable depends on how discerning of a rider you are.

If you have average proportions and are riding on a frame (and therefore arms) which otherwise fit you properly, I agree that 5mm isn't worth the effort.

If you are riding on crank arms that are too long, or maybe wildly too short, even 5mm would be worth it IMO.
Moisture is offline  
Old 10-25-21, 05:43 AM
  #67  
shelbyfv
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 10,088
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2990 Post(s)
Liked 3,836 Times in 1,972 Posts
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
Holy Moly what a cluster____ of speculation, misinformation, misperception and all manner of illogic.
Surely this can't be true. Got some real bike fit experts posting here, with the bikes to prove it.
shelbyfv is offline  
Old 10-25-21, 10:36 AM
  #68  
Leisesturm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,157
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1942 Post(s)
Liked 416 Times in 301 Posts
Interesting. "Let’s look at an example. This year’s IRONMAN World Champion, Jan Frodeno has a saddle height of 860mm and rides a crank length of 172.5mm. This seems pretty normal and doesn’t turn any heads. We could even say that Jan doesn’t use a short crank. However, if we took the ratio of his saddle height:crank length and applied it to a smaller athlete such as Rachel Joyce or Mirinda Carfrae (both have a saddle heights around 670mm and ride 165mm crank lengths), they would need to move down to approximately 135mm crank length to maintain Jan’s ratio. If we reversed this and wanted Jan to replicate Rachel and Mirinda’s ratio, Jan would need to bump his crank length up to approximately 210mm!!!." Very interesting indeed. So ... Jan ought to be using 210mm cranks to duplicate the setups of (successful!) athletes like Rachel Joyce or Mirinda Carfrae but, no, the takeaway is that all of them should be using much shorter cranks ... who am I. Still, my opinions are very much less rooted in biomechanics science than they are in fiscal responsibility. My road racer came with 170mm cranks and I am not that inclined to replace them because the change (if I use the same quality of new parts) would cost 1/2 what the bike did. There would need to be a proven detriment to using 170's to make me spend that money and go through the hassle of installation, setup and etc.
Leisesturm is offline  
Likes For Leisesturm:
Old 10-25-21, 10:53 AM
  #69  
Iride01
MotuekaCascadeChinook
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 11,094

Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020

Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4487 Post(s)
Liked 3,003 Times in 2,095 Posts
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
Still, my opinions are very much less rooted in biomechanics science than they are in fiscal responsibility.
So if we have the money to buy and try out cranks of differing lengths we are being fiscally irresponsible?
Iride01 is offline  
Old 10-25-21, 04:55 PM
  #70  
Leisesturm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,157
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1942 Post(s)
Liked 416 Times in 301 Posts
Originally Posted by Iride01 View Post
So if we have the money to buy and try out cranks of differing lengths we are being fiscally irresponsible?
Maybe. I wouldn't put it quite that way. Obviously. However, if they were doing it right, cranks would be adjustable. Same way seat posts are. Stems ... well they try ... but they know, and we should know, that every contact point we have with our machines should be infinitely adjustable. It's above my pay grade to say exactly HOW. But the same species that has a Mars mission on the back burner should be able to figure things like this out. Ideally these parameters would be adjustable AS you are riding, but I don't think anyone would be terribly upset if they could at least adjust for expected conditions on a ride to ride basis. FFT.
Leisesturm is offline  
Old 10-25-21, 06:20 PM
  #71  
shelbyfv
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 10,088
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2990 Post(s)
Liked 3,836 Times in 1,972 Posts
Think of it as a public service by bike designers. This thread and many others show that when it comes to bike fit, folks will do stupid stuff. Since bikes come with cranks sized appropriately for the intended rider, we have to go out of our way and spend money to get it wrong.
shelbyfv is offline  
Old 10-26-21, 09:15 AM
  #72  
Leisesturm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,157
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1942 Post(s)
Liked 416 Times in 301 Posts
Originally Posted by cubewheels View Post
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.
Leisesturm is offline  
Old 10-26-21, 10:02 AM
  #73  
Moisture
Drip, Drip.
 
Moisture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,568

Bikes: Trek Verve E bike, Felt Doctrine 4 XC, Opus Horizon Apex 1

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1029 Post(s)
Liked 185 Times in 157 Posts
There is so much more to this than simply being a "skinnier guy," most likely should be able to spin faster and benefit from shorter cranks.

Some riders would want to go as long as possible without affecting their average cadence. Or maybe as short as possible. Maybe other riders would prefer to stay somewhere in the middle.
Moisture is offline  
Old 10-26-21, 11:17 AM
  #74  
Iride01
MotuekaCascadeChinook
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 11,094

Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020

Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4487 Post(s)
Liked 3,003 Times in 2,095 Posts
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
Maybe. I wouldn't put it quite that way. Obviously. However, if they were doing it right, cranks would be adjustable. Same way seat posts are. Stems ... well they try ... but they know, and we should know, that every contact point we have with our machines should be infinitely adjustable. It's above my pay grade to say exactly HOW. But the same species that has a Mars mission on the back burner should be able to figure things like this out. Ideally these parameters would be adjustable AS you are riding, but I don't think anyone would be terribly upset if they could at least adjust for expected conditions on a ride to ride basis. FFT.
Well to be clear, the text I quoted only lend credence to what might be a misrepresentation of what you used it for. However, in general I'm only seeing your posts as saying we should not experiment and should take the bikes as they are sold to us and not try anything different.

I also question your statement about pro's and longer cranks. I'm wondering if that is both current and past, or just more in the past. In the days of Pantani and others that are said to have favored long cranks, there were fewer gear selections and range of gearing on a bike more limited. Limited in the respect that if you had a wide range, then you didn't have the choices of close gear ratio spacing that you might need to put out your best paced power for a particular speed and grade.

Pantini liked to ride out of the saddle too when in the hills and mountains. I'll always be of the opinion that if one likes that then they will be a lower cadence rider that will benefit from a longer crank. However for those that like to sit and spin higher cadences, a shorter crank will benefit them more. How short or long? I don't know. I'm only talking generalities.

As to crank length should be adjustable, that just means that cranks will be even more expensive and heavier. There just isn't a current design and manufacturing technology that will lend itself to the production of a lightweight crankset that is adjustable for length at a cost we'd pay.
Iride01 is offline  
Old 10-26-21, 11:19 PM
  #75  
AnthonyG
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3442 Post(s)
Liked 416 Times in 286 Posts
Originally Posted by shelbyfv View Post
Think of it as a public service by bike designers. This thread and many others show that when it comes to bike fit, folks will do stupid stuff. Since bikes come with cranks sized appropriately for the intended rider, we have to go out of our way and spend money to get it wrong.
Yeah no. Unfortunately.
Designers do not rule the World of Manufacturing. The bean counters do.
Manufacturing economics rule the World and what actually fits people well, is of the least importance.
People will fit on what they are given or walk instead.
Millions of people buy bikes that don't fit them well, so clearly "fit" is of minor importance when it comes to buying decisions in a competitive World.
To think otherwise is to be out of touch with reality.

Last edited by AnthonyG; 10-27-21 at 12:04 AM.
AnthonyG is offline  

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.