what crank are size should i use?
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
what crank are size should i use?
goodevenig all,looking for right crank arm fit.im 5'7 ,30 inseam.have a 49cm roadbike with 50tt.whats best fit for my height and 49cm bike?170mm or 172.5mm? thanks
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada - burrrrr!
Posts: 11,674
Bikes: 1958 Rabeneick 120D, 1968 Legnano Gran Premio, 196? Torpado Professional, 2000 Marinoni Piuma
Mentioned: 210 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1372 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,752 Times
in
939 Posts
170.
__________________
"98% of the bikes I buy are projects".
"98% of the bikes I buy are projects".
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 7,239
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
Probably 165mm or less but it might be harder to find. Odd that crank arm lengths are clustered in such a narrow range. My bikes range from 165mm to 175mm and they all feel fine to me. Would hardly notice the difference at all unless I really concentrate on it.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,223
Mentioned: 654 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4722 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3,037 Times
in
1,875 Posts
For average proportioned person with that inseam, I would be starting with a 167.5mm or 170mm crankset. Fine tuning would depend on you thigh measurement, foot length and the frame's seat tube angle.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 98
Bikes: Caylor, Basso, Sannino, Colnago, Masi
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The difference between 165mm and 175mm about 0.4" and if you think that you can feel that difference you are star material and should be looking forward to the TDF. The 175's give you a minuscule more leverage and that is a good thing. I'm the same general size as you are and I've been using 175's on everything for a few decades and I tried everything from 165 and up on the same advice as you're getting here. I don't and never did spin @120+ r's all day long and you prolly don't either. Watch the TDF'ers - neither do they.
More importantly if you're 5'7, 30 inseam and have a 49cm roadbike you should be looking for a bike that fits before you worry about the cranks. A traditional frame configuration of 53-54cm would be far more likely to provide you with a quality experience. I'm talking real world go for a ride have a good time fast as you can and don't hurt yourself kinda experience.
prolly not JMO but YMMV and it's your back and neck
besta luck
More importantly if you're 5'7, 30 inseam and have a 49cm roadbike you should be looking for a bike that fits before you worry about the cranks. A traditional frame configuration of 53-54cm would be far more likely to provide you with a quality experience. I'm talking real world go for a ride have a good time fast as you can and don't hurt yourself kinda experience.
prolly not JMO but YMMV and it's your back and neck
besta luck
Last edited by SteelCharlie; 05-02-17 at 11:54 PM.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 1,511
Bikes: '92 22" Cannondale M2000, '92 Cannondale R1000 Tandem, another modern Canndondale tandem, Two Holy Grail '86 Cannondale ST800s 27" (68.5cm) Touring bike w/Superbe Pro components and Phil Wood hubs. A bunch of other 27" ST frames & bikes.
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
Crank length should be proportional to frame size, but really it's a function of your cycling inseam. I'm 6'7" and ride 68-69cm bikes with 205mm, 200mm, 195mm and 185mm cranks.
Too long can hurt your knees. Too short can help you spin, and there are all kinds of data and anecdotal evidence showing cyclists are more efficient t with shorter cranks
Essentially, 175mm or 170mm cranks really aren't ideal for most cyclists. Component manufacturers don't want to make different sizes, but cranks should come in 2.5mm increments between 155mm-230mm. Almost everyone rides on the wrong size cranks.
#8
multimodal commuter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NJ, NYC, LI
Posts: 19,808
Bikes: 1940s Fothergill, 1959 Allegro Special, 1963? Claud Butler Olympic Sprint, Lambert 'Clubman', 1974 Fuji "the Ace", 1976 Holdsworth 650b conversion rando bike, 1983 Trek 720 tourer, 1984 Counterpoint Opus II, 1993 Basso Gap, 2010 Downtube 8h, and...
Mentioned: 584 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1908 Post(s)
Liked 574 Times
in
339 Posts
Crank arm length doesn't matter much. Regardless of leg length &c we can all walk up the same staircase and it feels normal to each of us.
While it is true that longer cranks give more leverage, more leverage is not needed in normal cycling.
When choosing between two cranks that are otherwise equal, choose the shorter one.
While it is true that longer cranks give more leverage, more leverage is not needed in normal cycling.
When choosing between two cranks that are otherwise equal, choose the shorter one.
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Minas Ithil
Posts: 9,173
Mentioned: 66 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2432 Post(s)
Liked 638 Times
in
395 Posts
I'm no star material for the TDF but I have bikes with 170, 172.5 and 175 cranks. I feel a difference between all three, especially the 175's. But I do ride almost every single day and am very sensitive to small changes in cranks and everything else. Mileage has more to do with it than how fast you are. If someone can't feel any difference they probably don't ride all that much.
#10
Keener splendor
Crank arm length doesn't matter much. Regardless of leg length &c we can all walk up the same staircase and it feels normal to each of us.
While it is true that longer cranks give more leverage, more leverage is not needed in normal cycling.
When choosing between two cranks that are otherwise equal, choose the shorter one.
While it is true that longer cranks give more leverage, more leverage is not needed in normal cycling.
When choosing between two cranks that are otherwise equal, choose the shorter one.
+1 This is the correct answer. Most of the "fit" associated with inseam is fixed in the seat post.
#11
No one cares
No.
Crank length should be proportional to frame size, but really it's a function of your cycling inseam. I'm 6'7" and ride 68-69cm bikes with 205mm, 200mm, 195mm and 185mm cranks.
Too long can hurt your knees. Too short can help you spin, and there are all kinds of data and anecdotal evidence showing cyclists are more efficient t with shorter cranks
Essentially, 175mm or 170mm cranks really aren't ideal for most cyclists. Component manufacturers don't want to make different sizes, but cranks should come in 2.5mm increments between 155mm-230mm. Almost everyone rides on the wrong size cranks.
Crank length should be proportional to frame size, but really it's a function of your cycling inseam. I'm 6'7" and ride 68-69cm bikes with 205mm, 200mm, 195mm and 185mm cranks.
Too long can hurt your knees. Too short can help you spin, and there are all kinds of data and anecdotal evidence showing cyclists are more efficient t with shorter cranks
Essentially, 175mm or 170mm cranks really aren't ideal for most cyclists. Component manufacturers don't want to make different sizes, but cranks should come in 2.5mm increments between 155mm-230mm. Almost everyone rides on the wrong size cranks.
Crank arm length doesn't matter much. Regardless of leg length &c we can all walk up the same staircase and it feels normal to each of us.
While it is true that longer cranks give more leverage, more leverage is not needed in normal cycling.
When choosing between two cranks that are otherwise equal, choose the shorter one.
While it is true that longer cranks give more leverage, more leverage is not needed in normal cycling.
When choosing between two cranks that are otherwise equal, choose the shorter one.
__________________
I prefer emails to private messages - holiday76@gmail.com
Jack Taylor Super Tourer Tandem (FOR SALE), Jack Taylor Tour of Britain, Px-10, Carlton Flyer, Fuji The Finest, Salsa Fargo, Santa Cruz Tallboy, Carver All-Road .
I prefer emails to private messages - holiday76@gmail.com
Jack Taylor Super Tourer Tandem (FOR SALE), Jack Taylor Tour of Britain, Px-10, Carlton Flyer, Fuji The Finest, Salsa Fargo, Santa Cruz Tallboy, Carver All-Road .
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 98
Bikes: Caylor, Basso, Sannino, Colnago, Masi
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm no star material for the TDF but I have bikes with 170, 172.5 and 175 cranks. I feel a difference between all three, especially the 175's. But I do ride almost every single day and am very sensitive to small changes in cranks and everything else. Mileage has more to do with it than how fast you are. If someone can't feel any difference they probably don't ride all that much.
I ride three different, very different, bikes currently - Caylor (175), Masi (175), Colnago (172.5). The Colnago had 170's and the thing feels just like it did with them. The Caylor has been with me for a few decades and has had everything from 165 to the now 175. Nothing else had changed on the bike since 1984. Still feels samo samo. The cranks are close enough to same as can be so why don't the bikes all feel the same?
Or I suppose I should just admire and envy your sensitivity - but I would wonder why the one that feels the "best" is not pervasive?
It's been my experience that proper bike fit obviates crank length since that is accommodated by the adjusto components.
Again - JMO ride what you like
Last edited by SteelCharlie; 05-03-17 at 11:58 AM. Reason: add
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 496
Bikes: Volagi Viaje (rando/gravel/tour), Cannondale Slice 4 (tri/TT), Motobecane Fantom PLUS X9 (plus tires MTB)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I got a high level bike fit on one of those "robo bikes" where they can change every fit dimension on the fly.
Going from 172.5mm cranks to 165mm increased my RPM at the same perceived exertion and "free" 4-5 watts.
I'm 6'1", and bikes my size always come with 175 or 172.5, so yes I realize this is quite a bit shorter than conventional wisdom.
Next outdoor ride after those changes (admittedly all the fit changes too) I set PB's for 40m TT and normalized power.
This is a TT/Tri bike, so maybe this is not as critical of an issue on other bikes.
After this experience I did put 165mm on my gravel/rando/touring bike. I don't have a power meter on that bike, so no objective measures, but I do have the sense of a decreased "dead spot" at the top and bottom of the pedal stroke and a more effecient/smoother motion overall.
I am not aware of any downside to decreasing crank length. Based on my n = 1 anecdotal experience, I'd try 165s. It's hard to imagine that 165s would be perfect for me at 6'1" and too short for 5'7". However, just to show how random and individual this all is, my inseam is only 1" longer than yours.
Going from 172.5mm cranks to 165mm increased my RPM at the same perceived exertion and "free" 4-5 watts.
I'm 6'1", and bikes my size always come with 175 or 172.5, so yes I realize this is quite a bit shorter than conventional wisdom.
Next outdoor ride after those changes (admittedly all the fit changes too) I set PB's for 40m TT and normalized power.
This is a TT/Tri bike, so maybe this is not as critical of an issue on other bikes.
After this experience I did put 165mm on my gravel/rando/touring bike. I don't have a power meter on that bike, so no objective measures, but I do have the sense of a decreased "dead spot" at the top and bottom of the pedal stroke and a more effecient/smoother motion overall.
I am not aware of any downside to decreasing crank length. Based on my n = 1 anecdotal experience, I'd try 165s. It's hard to imagine that 165s would be perfect for me at 6'1" and too short for 5'7". However, just to show how random and individual this all is, my inseam is only 1" longer than yours.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,537
Bikes: yes
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1281 Post(s)
Liked 643 Times
in
329 Posts
Hot take: People are different.
Just because *you* don't notice a difference between crank arm sizes doesn't mean that is universally true for everyone. I had some pain issues that were eventually alleviated, in part, by changing crank arm length. (There's a lot more to it than just that but that's the short version.)
So for *me*, I can definitely tell a difference in crank arm length because of my unique physiological circumstances.
But I also don't tell other people, who say they don't notice a difference, that they are wrong.
See how easy it is?
Just because *you* don't notice a difference between crank arm sizes doesn't mean that is universally true for everyone. I had some pain issues that were eventually alleviated, in part, by changing crank arm length. (There's a lot more to it than just that but that's the short version.)
So for *me*, I can definitely tell a difference in crank arm length because of my unique physiological circumstances.
But I also don't tell other people, who say they don't notice a difference, that they are wrong.
See how easy it is?
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 99
Bikes: Miyata 610 , Schwinn circuit, Bianchi C2C, Quattro Assi , 87 Trek 1500, Felt F1X, Burley duet, LHT and a few more
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I just picked up a 87 trek 1200 size 21 and was surprised it had 65's on it . I was expecting 70's.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 932
Bikes: '04 LeMond Buenos Aires, '82 Bianchi Nuova Racing, De Rosa SLX, Bridgestone MB-1, Guerciotti TSX, Torpado Aelle, LeMond Tourmalet 853, Bridgestone Radac
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked 46 Times
in
36 Posts
Princess and the pea kind of thing, I guess.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 98
Bikes: Caylor, Basso, Sannino, Colnago, Masi
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Hot take: People are different.
Just because *you* don't notice a difference between crank arm sizes doesn't mean that is universally true for everyone. I had some pain issues that were eventually alleviated, in part, by changing crank arm length. (There's a lot more to it than just that but that's the short version.)
So for *me*, I can definitely tell a difference in crank arm length because of my unique physiological circumstances.
But I also don't tell other people, who say they don't notice a difference, that they are wrong.
See how easy it is?
Just because *you* don't notice a difference between crank arm sizes doesn't mean that is universally true for everyone. I had some pain issues that were eventually alleviated, in part, by changing crank arm length. (There's a lot more to it than just that but that's the short version.)
So for *me*, I can definitely tell a difference in crank arm length because of my unique physiological circumstances.
But I also don't tell other people, who say they don't notice a difference, that they are wrong.
See how easy it is?
A gent I rode with many years ago had one leg shorter and he rode different crank lengths and a spacer under one cleat. Of course he wasn't searching for the last milliwatt but then so few of us are, eh?
JMO of course - - - ride what makes you happy
Charlie
#18
Extraordinary Magnitude
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Waukesha WI
Posts: 13,647
Bikes: 1978 Trek TX700; 1978/79 Trek 736; 1984 Specialized Stumpjumper Sport; 1984 Schwinn Voyageur SP; 1985 Trek 620; 1985 Trek 720; 1986 Trek 400 Elance; 1987 Schwinn High Sierra; 1990 Miyata 1000LT
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2608 Post(s)
Liked 1,703 Times
in
937 Posts
I know you weren't asking about fit- but... yeah.
I have 170s on all my "road" or "sport" or "touring" bikes. The two ATB style bikes I have are equipped with 175. I think that may be as for needing leverage and having a higher bottom bracket.
__________________
*Recipient of the 2006 Time Magazine "Person Of The Year" Award*
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
#19
multimodal commuter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NJ, NYC, LI
Posts: 19,808
Bikes: 1940s Fothergill, 1959 Allegro Special, 1963? Claud Butler Olympic Sprint, Lambert 'Clubman', 1974 Fuji "the Ace", 1976 Holdsworth 650b conversion rando bike, 1983 Trek 720 tourer, 1984 Counterpoint Opus II, 1993 Basso Gap, 2010 Downtube 8h, and...
Mentioned: 584 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1908 Post(s)
Liked 574 Times
in
339 Posts
I got a high level bike fit on one of those "robo bikes" where they can change every fit dimension on the fly.
Going from 172.5mm cranks to 165mm increased my RPM at the same perceived exertion and "free" 4-5 watts.
I'm 6'1", and bikes my size always come with 175 or 172.5, so yes I realize this is quite a bit shorter than conventional wisdom.
Next outdoor ride after those changes (admittedly all the fit changes too) I set PB's for 40m TT and normalized power.
This is a TT/Tri bike, so maybe this is not as critical of an issue on other bikes.
After this experience I did put 165mm on my gravel/rando/touring bike. I don't have a power meter on that bike, so no objective measures, but I do have the sense of a decreased "dead spot" at the top and bottom of the pedal stroke and a more effecient/smoother motion overall.
I am not aware of any downside to decreasing crank length. Based on my n = 1 anecdotal experience, I'd try 165s. It's hard to imagine that 165s would be perfect for me at 6'1" and too short for 5'7". However, just to show how random and individual this all is, my inseam is only 1" longer than yours.
Going from 172.5mm cranks to 165mm increased my RPM at the same perceived exertion and "free" 4-5 watts.
I'm 6'1", and bikes my size always come with 175 or 172.5, so yes I realize this is quite a bit shorter than conventional wisdom.
Next outdoor ride after those changes (admittedly all the fit changes too) I set PB's for 40m TT and normalized power.
This is a TT/Tri bike, so maybe this is not as critical of an issue on other bikes.
After this experience I did put 165mm on my gravel/rando/touring bike. I don't have a power meter on that bike, so no objective measures, but I do have the sense of a decreased "dead spot" at the top and bottom of the pedal stroke and a more effecient/smoother motion overall.
I am not aware of any downside to decreasing crank length. Based on my n = 1 anecdotal experience, I'd try 165s. It's hard to imagine that 165s would be perfect for me at 6'1" and too short for 5'7". However, just to show how random and individual this all is, my inseam is only 1" longer than yours.
I am not aware of any downside to decreasing crank length either; at least from the point of view of speed, efficiency, comfort, etc.
I believe there would be benefits to designing bikes for shorter cranks than 165; but that would be a major change, requiring lower bottom brackets etc, and I don't see the industry going there. Why should they? We all seem to do okay with the cranks we have, which are effectively all the same size anyway. But when offered the choice, I still go for the shortest cranks available.
__________________
www.rhmsaddles.com.
www.rhmsaddles.com.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 4,780
Bikes: Numerous
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1678 Post(s)
Liked 3,098 Times
in
914 Posts
Thread summary: some think it makes a difference, some don't.
I think the takeaway for the OP is don't stress over that 2.5 mm (1/10 inch!). I am in the "no difference" camp and would choose a shorter crank when I'm concerned about pedal strike, like for a crit bike or mountain bike.
I think the takeaway for the OP is don't stress over that 2.5 mm (1/10 inch!). I am in the "no difference" camp and would choose a shorter crank when I'm concerned about pedal strike, like for a crit bike or mountain bike.
__________________
N = '96 Colnago C40, '04 Wilier Alpe D'Huez, '10 Colnago EPS, '85 Merckx Pro, '89 Merckx Century, '86 Tommasini Professional, '04 Teschner Aero FX Pro, '05 Alan Carbon Cross, '86 De Rosa Professional, '82 Colnago Super, '95 Gios Compact Pro, '95 Carrera Zeus, '84 Basso Gap, ‘89 Cinelli Supercorsa, ‘83 Bianchi Specialissima, ‘VO Randonneur, Ritchey Breakaway Steel, '84 Paletti Super Prestige, Heron Randonneur
N = '96 Colnago C40, '04 Wilier Alpe D'Huez, '10 Colnago EPS, '85 Merckx Pro, '89 Merckx Century, '86 Tommasini Professional, '04 Teschner Aero FX Pro, '05 Alan Carbon Cross, '86 De Rosa Professional, '82 Colnago Super, '95 Gios Compact Pro, '95 Carrera Zeus, '84 Basso Gap, ‘89 Cinelli Supercorsa, ‘83 Bianchi Specialissima, ‘VO Randonneur, Ritchey Breakaway Steel, '84 Paletti Super Prestige, Heron Randonneur
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bozeman
Posts: 4,094
Bikes: 199? Landshark Roadshark, 198? Mondonico Diamond, 1987 Panasonic DX-5000, 1987 Bianchi Limited, Univega... Chrome..., 1989 Schwinn Woodlands, Motobecane USA Record, Raleigh Tokul 2
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1131 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I vote 165s for you, but you'll likely end up with 170s and be fine.
I typically ride 170s and 172.5s and I'm a few inches taller than you. No, I cannot tell the difference.
As some said, longer cranks give you more leverage (arguable whether or not that means anything), but shorter cranks are nicer on your knees.
I typically ride 170s and 172.5s and I'm a few inches taller than you. No, I cannot tell the difference.
As some said, longer cranks give you more leverage (arguable whether or not that means anything), but shorter cranks are nicer on your knees.
Last edited by corrado33; 05-04-17 at 09:18 AM.
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 194
Bikes: 2018 Trek FX7.3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
49 cm frame? That's fairly small. Larger cranks (and big feet) may end up having clearance issues with front tire. That's especially problematic if your feet are mechanically attached to the pedals via clips, cleats, etc.
#23
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The difference between 165mm and 175mm about 0.4" and if you think that you can feel that difference you are star material and should be looking forward to the TDF. The 175's give you a minuscule more leverage and that is a good thing. I'm the same general size as you are and I've been using 175's on everything for a few decades and I tried everything from 165 and up on the same advice as you're getting here. I don't and never did spin @120+ r's all day long and you prolly don't either. Watch the TDF'ers - neither do they.
More importantly if you're 5'7, 30 inseam and have a 49cm roadbike you should be looking for a bike that fits before you worry about the cranks. A traditional frame configuration of 53-54cm would be far more likely to provide you with a quality experience. I'm talking real world go for a ride have a good time fast as you can and don't hurt yourself kinda experience.
prolly not JMO but YMMV and it's your back and neck
besta luck
More importantly if you're 5'7, 30 inseam and have a 49cm roadbike you should be looking for a bike that fits before you worry about the cranks. A traditional frame configuration of 53-54cm would be far more likely to provide you with a quality experience. I'm talking real world go for a ride have a good time fast as you can and don't hurt yourself kinda experience.
prolly not JMO but YMMV and it's your back and neck
besta luck
#25
curmudgineer
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago SW burbs
Posts: 4,417
Bikes: 2 many 2 fit here
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 263 Post(s)
Liked 112 Times
in
70 Posts
Be that as it may, for actual riding comfort, the fit in the riding position is more important. Unless you mean 1 inch clearance is when you're riding