Crank length
#1
Full Member
Thread Starter
Crank length
Inseam cm x 1.25 + 65 = really?
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3450 Post(s)
Liked 420 Times
in
289 Posts
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.
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.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18369 Post(s)
Liked 4,507 Times
in
3,350 Posts
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.
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.
In general I'm happy with a bit longer cranks, but despite more leverage, the longer rotation circle means there is no free energy.
#4
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,528
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3886 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 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
Results matter
#5
Full Member
Thread Starter
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
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
#6
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,979
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6187 Post(s)
Liked 4,805 Times
in
3,314 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.
#7
Full Member
Thread Starter
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'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.
#8
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,528
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3886 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
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'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.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#9
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,979
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6187 Post(s)
Liked 4,805 Times
in
3,314 Posts
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'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 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.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18369 Post(s)
Liked 4,507 Times
in
3,350 Posts
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'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.
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.
Likes For CliffordK: