Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

190mm - 195mm cranks

Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

190mm - 195mm cranks

Old 03-19-21, 07:23 AM
  #26  
AnthonyG
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by Moisture
My riding position is not what I would call aero whatsoever- with or without my 190mm cranks. Of anything I feel like they actually helped me get slightly lower because I'm not sacrificing power output or leg extension by getting away with a slightly lower saddle height.
OK, well if it works for you and your not going aero then all is good.
A lot of the arguments on the subject are about what's best for high performance and racing, and as 531Aussie pointed out, gaining 50 watts in your legs but losing 70 watts to wind resistance doesn't make any sense for racing.
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 03-19-21, 08:43 AM
  #27  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444

Bikes: bikes

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times in 711 Posts
Originally Posted by Moisture
It seemed fine to me at first, but they made me feel like I was always restricted to a specific cadence and power output. Forcing myself out of this comfort zone, as I did often; seeking better performance, began to slowly cause impingement in my right knee.

I finally pulled the trigger on 190mm driveline crank arms (21.6% of my inseam)

The first time I tried them, I knew this was something I should have invested into a very long time ago. The extra length in the arms gave me a perfect range of motion, really helped open up my knees and hips, etc. But the biggest difference really was the flexibility I now had under a broad variety of cadences,
That doesn't make any sense. Longer cranks CLOSE up your hip angle. That's the entire point of going with shorter cranks; to open the hip angle while allowing for a lower torso.

Knee angle is adjusted with seat height.

190mm cranks is really out there.
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 03-19-21, 09:02 AM
  #28  
Rage
Space Ghost
 
Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,762

Bikes: Bridgestone, Fuji, Iro, Jamis, Gary Fisher, GT, Scott, Specialized and more

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Liked 411 Times in 317 Posts
It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity.
It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge.
This is the dimension of the imagination.
It is an area we call the twilight zone!
Rage is offline  
Old 03-19-21, 09:14 AM
  #29  
Moisture
Drip, Drip.
 
Moisture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575

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

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times in 163 Posts
How are the aerodynamics so affected?
Moisture is offline  
Old 03-19-21, 06:16 PM
  #30  
AnthonyG
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by Moisture
How are the aerodynamics so affected?
Read the thread. Read 531Aussie's posts.
Simply, its because as the cranks get longer, your knees rise higher into your chest at the top of the stroke, so you can't breath as well to start with and eventually your knees hitting your chest prevents a low back position being held at all, thereby making you less aerodynamic. Any gain in power is lost to extra wind resistance.
AnthonyG is offline  
Likes For AnthonyG:
Old 03-19-21, 06:53 PM
  #31  
Moisture
Drip, Drip.
 
Moisture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575

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

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times in 163 Posts
Originally Posted by AnthonyG
Read the thread. Read 531Aussie's posts.
Simply, its because as the cranks get longer, your knees rise higher into your chest at the top of the stroke, so you can't breath as well to start with and eventually your knees hitting your chest prevents a low back position being held at all, thereby making you less aerodynamic. Any gain in power is lost to extra wind resistance.
I dont see how this would apply if you stay within the 21.6% range.
Moisture is offline  
Old 03-19-21, 07:43 PM
  #32  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444

Bikes: bikes

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times in 711 Posts
Originally Posted by Moisture
I dont see how this would apply if you stay within the 21.6% range.
It 100% applies. Get your head as close to the stem as possible and pedal. You'll either find yourself with your knees hitting your midsection, or you'll scoot further and further forward on the seat in order to open your hip angle.

Like I said before, longer cranks close your hip angle.
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 07:40 AM
  #33  
aniki
Senior Member
 
aniki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked 59 Times in 31 Posts
Originally Posted by Moisture
I dont see how this would apply if you stay within the 21.6% range.
The 21.6% range is a BS formula perpetuated by a guy that just happens to sell longer cranks.
As ​​​rubiksoval states, the longer the crank, the closer your knees get to your chest (closed hip angle) this is why it's not uncommon for TT riders to use 145mm cranks.
The longer your cranks, the more your cadence will have slowed and become more 'choppy'.
Think of the tendons in your hips, knees and ankles like coiled springs being constantly flexed and un-flexed.
If you keep their motion in a range where the spring isn't nearing it's limit, it is easier for your muscles to control and you get a nice smooth action. If you stretch the spring further, to the limit of its flex, it requires slightly more effort but results in a fast and snappy response.
This is what happens with your leg joints when you use longer cranks (Unless you truly are a giant; which you are not); hence the fallacy of them being more powerful. Because although you DO attain slightly more torque in certain positions, this is entirely offset by the reduction in cadence and un-even deflection from your joints (resulting in more fatigue).
-
It's pretty well demonstrated here:-
aniki is offline  
Likes For aniki:
Old 03-20-21, 07:42 AM
  #34  
Rage
Space Ghost
 
Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,762

Bikes: Bridgestone, Fuji, Iro, Jamis, Gary Fisher, GT, Scott, Specialized and more

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Liked 411 Times in 317 Posts
Very eloquently explained, aniki.
Rage is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 10:26 AM
  #35  
Iride01 
I'm good to go!
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,811

Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6100 Post(s)
Liked 4,732 Times in 3,262 Posts
I was hitting the ground with the pedals while test riding bikes with 175 mm cranks while pedaling in turns. I hate to imagine the wreck I'd have with longer cranks. I'm happy on my 165 mm cranks that I can pedal and accelerate with while in a turn. Anything that the leverage of a longer crank arm gives you can be made up for with gearing choice.

IMO, the formulas for the proportional sizing of cranks to your dimensions only tells you what the longest is that you should consider. Not what you have to use. Proportional crank sizing is perhaps the worst myth to come out of the 70's and 80's.




Edit... damn, sucked into a zombie thread. How lovely!

Last edited by Iride01; 03-20-21 at 10:56 AM.
Iride01 is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 10:26 AM
  #36  
Moisture
Drip, Drip.
 
Moisture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575

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

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times in 163 Posts
Still no explanation as to how long is too long..

If your crank arms are the correct length, whatever that may be, I don't see how sitting merely 1cm higher than before would have such a drastic input on watts being wasted due to aero resistance. Unless they are simply too long, you would need to be in a crazy aero tuck which doesn't necessarily make you faster, or better balanced to physically have any problems with your knees hitting your body.

While this may have something to do with simply trying to sell more cranksets, Leonard Zinn, amongst other riders significantly taller than me, have spent countless hours helping other tall riders. Im sure that none of them have ever had an issue with this.

I won't be absolutely certain that crank arm sizing is strictly a proponent of using a specific percentage or calculation according to your inseam until I see a broader variety of riders applying this technique, but considering that I've at least seen good results myself using this approach, I think I'm leaning heavily towards what feels right, over hearing the same thing over and over again: I don't know exactly how long is too long, but too long is bad. This means that your crank arms, which probably aren't too long for you, are bad because they are longer than average...
Moisture is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 11:26 AM
  #37  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

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

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
This is all so funny to me. Like ratio and proportion don't exist. Why, in the one case of crank length, would ratio and proportion have the opposite effect on the human body than the expected? We seem to be quite particular about every other aspect of bike fit, but not this one. For this one thing, some argue that one size fits all.

I have a 30" inseam and ride 170 on my road bikes and 175 on our tandem, no problems at all for the past 25 years. I really can't tell the difference between those 2 crank lengths. Both those crank lengths are longer than 5.5*inseam in inches, same as the 21.6% formula. My wife has a 27" inseam and rode 170 cranks on our tandem and 165 on her single bike for years, also both over the formula by a lot. I finally thought I'd try proper length cranks for her and bought a custom set of 151mm cranks, still oversize for her. Our tandem power has suffered quite a large drop. We simply can't climb the hills we could before the crank change, at least not in the same gears we used to or thus at the same speed. Shifting down further on a climb is not faster for us, nor I think is it for most of us average non-dopers.

Now the theory is that all we have to do to keep the same power with shorter cranks is to pedal faster. The big However is exactly what TommyL referred to in post 7: spin costs energy. Faster spin costs more energy. The larger the object being thrashed (legs) the more energy they absorb. The upside for our tandem is that blessed Stoker no longer gets leg cramps when she's a bit out of shape, so a little slower is worth it for our team. Her pedal force remains the same, but the dwell time for that force is reduced, hence less power and no leg cramps.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 12:12 PM
  #38  
Moisture
Drip, Drip.
 
Moisture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575

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

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times in 163 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
This is all so funny to me. Like ratio and proportion don't exist. Why, in the one case of crank length, would ratio and proportion have the opposite effect on the human body than the expected? We seem to be quite particular about every other aspect of bike fit, but not this one. For this one thing, some argue that one size fits all.

I have a 30" inseam and ride 170 on my road bikes and 175 on our tandem, no problems at all for the past 25 years. I really can't tell the difference between those 2 crank lengths. Both those crank lengths are longer than 5.5*inseam in inches, same as the 21.6% formula. My wife has a 27" inseam and rode 170 cranks on our tandem and 165 on her single bike for years, also both over the formula by a lot. I finally thought I'd try proper length cranks for her and bought a custom set of 151mm cranks, still oversize for her. Our tandem power has suffered quite a large drop. We simply can't climb the hills we could before the crank change, at least not in the same gears we used to or thus at the same speed. Shifting down further on a climb is not faster for us, nor I think is it for most of us average non-dopers.

Now the theory is that all we have to do to keep the same power with shorter cranks is to pedal faster. The big However is exactly what TommyL referred to in post 7: spin costs energy. Faster spin costs more energy. The larger the object being thrashed (legs) the more energy they absorb. The upside for our tandem is that blessed Stoker no longer gets leg cramps when she's a bit out of shape, so a little slower is worth it for our team. Her pedal force remains the same, but the dwell time for that force is reduced, hence less power and no leg cramps.
Some great points. The extra power output (if any) isn't worth the increased risk of injury.
Moisture is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 12:13 PM
  #39  
Moisture
Drip, Drip.
 
Moisture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575

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

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times in 163 Posts
From what I gather, you want as much range of motion as possible. Past a certain point, cadence suffers, which makes any gains in power negligible. Not to mention increased risk of tendon or muscle tears, knee impingement, etc.
Moisture is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 12:34 PM
  #40  
aniki
Senior Member
 
aniki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked 59 Times in 31 Posts
Anecdotally, those who pedal at a naturally low cadence will likely prefer a longer crank. Those who naturally pedal at a high cadence will prefer a shorter crank.
99% of the pro-peloton ride cranks between 170 and 175mm

Scientifically, to my knowledge there has only ever been one study whereby a handful of cyclists were asked to try a variety of crank lengths between 120mm and 220mm. Initially the numbers were all over the place; after two weeks every single cyclist using cranks between 145 and 195mm was producing exactly the same power as they did on their original cranks (the majority being 172.5 as fitted to the majority of production bikes)

Bottom line; as explained in the video I posted above; it doesn't really matter! Until it does, IE. the crank length you're using makes you become bio-mechanically inefficient (stops you from pedalling smoothly, pedalling fast / slow enough, breathing properly, getting low enough, pedalling around corners fast enough etc.)
aniki is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 01:00 PM
  #41  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444

Bikes: bikes

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times in 711 Posts
Originally Posted by Moisture
Still no explanation as to how long is too long..

If your crank arms are the correct length, whatever that may be, I don't see how sitting merely 1cm higher than before would have such a drastic input on watts being wasted due to aero resistance..
With longer crank arms, you lower your seat. You raise your seat with shorter crank arms.

Nearly every post you've made about this topic has been 100% backwards and wrong. At this point it seems like you genuinely don't have a clue what you're talking about.
rubiksoval is offline  
Likes For rubiksoval:
Old 03-20-21, 01:01 PM
  #42  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444

Bikes: bikes

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times in 711 Posts
Having shorter or longer cranks does not increase or reduce power production, either. Not sure why multiple people are alluding to that.
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 05:12 PM
  #43  
AnthonyG
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by Moisture
Still no explanation as to how long is too long..
Moisture, your input into this thread is nothing short of weird. In all seriousness, do you have a reading disorder?
We have told you from the start what makes a crank too long. Your knees rise into your chest and you can't get/hold an aerodynamic position.
Your answer was that you DON'T get into an aero position anyway.

Well good for you.
If your not racing and your not getting aero then what you like is what you like.

As far as this being a discussion of the performance benefits/drawbacks of long cranks, all questions have already been answered.
AnthonyG is offline  
Likes For AnthonyG:
Old 03-20-21, 05:15 PM
  #44  
Moisture
Drip, Drip.
 
Moisture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575

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

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times in 163 Posts
Whats more important, 1cm or extra aero tuck or a more ideal crank arm length.

Crank arms are not a one size fit all approach..
Moisture is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 05:36 PM
  #45  
AnthonyG
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
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
I'm all for proportional crank length, however my personal interest is from the short end where most riders are always forced to use cranks that are too long.

What's more important, aero or extra leverage? For racing, the answer is aero.
Aero is the arbiter of how long you can go with the cranks.
There may be some freaks out there that can get aero with 21.6% inseam cranks, however for most its too long.
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 06:02 PM
  #46  
Moisture
Drip, Drip.
 
Moisture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575

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

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times in 163 Posts
Originally Posted by AnthonyG
I'm all for proportional crank length, however my personal interest is from the short end where most riders are always forced to use cranks that are too long.

What's more important, aero or extra leverage? For racing, the answer is aero.
Aero is the arbiter of how long you can go with the cranks.
There may be some freaks out there that can get aero with 21.6% inseam cranks, however for most its too long.
Agree that 21.6 is the upper limit of what would be considered ideal. I suspect that 20% is just about perfect.

There has to be a balance between aero and crank leverage.
Moisture is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 06:43 PM
  #47  
aclinjury
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 660
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 497 Post(s)
Liked 170 Times in 128 Posts
There is NO scientific evidence to suggest that a tall person should use a longer crank so that he can produce more power or be more efficient. The topic of crank length is like the topic of cadence. There is no correlation between crank length and/or cadence to power.

It is mainly a PERSONAL PREFERENCE thing.

but there IS a benefit to using shorter cranks for people with knee issues (aka, all the old geezers and tall folks with creaky knees)
aclinjury is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 06:51 PM
  #48  
shelbyfv
Expired Member
 
shelbyfv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 11,461
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3638 Post(s)
Liked 5,316 Times in 2,701 Posts
If a novice cyclist is riding 10-15 miles at a time, thinking "I hope I can survive this" it's probably OK that they aren't concerned with aero.
shelbyfv is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 07:06 PM
  #49  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,538

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10902 Post(s)
Liked 7,393 Times in 4,148 Posts
Originally Posted by Moisture
Agree that 21.6 is the upper limit of what would be considered ideal. I suspect that 20% is just about perfect.

There has to be a balance between aero and crank leverage.
My 175mm crank is 18.6% of my inseam. Give me your best argument for why I need a 200mm crank(21.5% of my inseam).
mstateglfr is offline  
Likes For mstateglfr:
Old 03-20-21, 07:57 PM
  #50  
Moisture
Drip, Drip.
 
Moisture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575

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

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times in 163 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr
My 175mm crank is 18.6% of my inseam. Give me your best argument for why I need a 200mm crank(21.5% of my inseam).
Because you haven't tried it yet.
Moisture is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.