Carbonfiberboy 

Uh . . . even when I was a little kid and didn't know any better, I put the ball of my feet over the flat pedal axles. When my first road bike (used) came with toe clips, I was a rocket ship.

McBTC

Sure, sure, we've all been there but, how many have their cleats pushed as far back as they will go for every bike and set of shoes?

McBTC

I was fully researched up to the eyeballs on the latest Speedplay cleats that give you extra rearward positioning and was ready to drop a few hun on a pair of 4-hole Sidi shoes to the point of shopping on Amazon. What stopped me from following through was an easy and inexpensive experiment: using coupling bolts to extend XL clips on a pair of road pedals. I've been pretty happy with the results-- i.e., being more connected and with shorter cranks, spinning higher RPMs in the same gear with no deadspots.

noglider 

Well wow!

This is a well reasoned (if poorly edited) article that offers a novel and important idea. The timing couldn't be better, as I have suffered a lot of pain for years until perhaps today. I got a pair of shoes that fit better than anything before, and I had the cleats placed far back. I think I have overuse-type injuries in my feet, and today is the first day I can apply all of my strength without causing pain and fatigue.

AnthonyG

I don't want to be rude but this is coming over as being a little naive as to what the industry forces are.

Elite riders use what they are PAID to use. The idea that Elite riders can use whatever they want to use is naive.

The industry forces are such that there is continual pressure to reduce the variety of sizes available. Its just manufacturing economics 101.

It has nothing to do with what fits people well. Its not about making bikes that fit people. Its about doing the least possible to fit people on bike they want to make.

EDIT: and I don't disagree that a HIGHLY trained rider will take a little while to settle into a new crank length. This is not however a reason to NOT change crank length.

Anthony

Carbonfiberboy 

That's a bit narrow as to who's elite. There are many elite riders who do not ride team bikes, who ride full custom equipment and could, can, and do have anything they want. Again, they ride pretty much the same standard frame configurations and components. I hold to an opinion that most folks aren't fools, that if a thing really worked better for a large enough segment of the population, it would come into common use. We see that throughout the market-driven industrial world. Change takes time, but it does happen. For instance, though very available, non-round chainrings never went anywhere. Carbon has largely supplanted metal for high end bikes. Etc.

From casual forum reading, one would think that RAAM would be dominated by recumbents and uprights would all have Brooks saddles. However, this is not the case.

That said, there are technical details about bike design which put practical upper limits on crank length, as described in my second link in a previous comment. However those limits wouldn't affect shorter cranks.

AnthonyG

Well to start with I'm not up in arms about cranks being too short for tall riders. My concern is that cranks are too long for short riders and in fact MANY average to short riders could and should be riding cranks that are shorter than they are on now.

I've been there and done that. I started my bike racing "career" on a 24" wheeled juvenile bike with 6" (152mm) cranks. It was a heavy steel clunker of a bike. When I decided it was time to spend the money on a custom, lightweight racing bike I wanted to build a bike that was the same size but with lightweight alloy components and Reynolds 531db tubing. The frame was easily doable but getting small components in alloy was difficult to impossible. I WANTED to get them made, even back then but I let myself be railroaded into buying a bigger bike than I wanted that had 27" wheels and 165mm cranks. TO make that frame work it had and INSANE seat tube angle of 78 degrees!

I raced that bike for a couple of years but to be honest my performances didn't keep getting better as they had on the smaller bike.

For better or worse I believe that the too large for me bike held back my development as a rider and I eventually gave up racing.

So where was I going? Just because a small rider is doing well n a bike thats too large for them doesn't mean that its the right size for them. I look at these great shorter riders and think, were would they be if they had a smaller bike that fitted.

I'm firmly of the view that short riders should be figuring MUCH higher in Grand Tours. Many of them should be winning because their light weight gets them over mountains with less energy expenditure. They don't win because they suffer more than they should on the flats.

Anthony

Carbonfiberboy 

Maybe so. . . Even Pantani was almost 5'8", taller than I am.

I don't have a bike that I can get really low on. Head tubes are too tall on top of 700c wheels. I could have a custom stem made that would put my drops even with my tires, but it does look odd and besides I'm old, heck with it. I could get a 650 bike, but tubes and tires are a PITA and besides-as before.

OTOH, maybe not. There are reasons of physics for many characteristics of competitive athletes. Scullers are very tall and strong for their weight. Weight lifters tend to be short and thick. It could be just a scaling factor. I would think that if it were not a physical law kind of thing that we'd have had at least 5'4" male champions. They're common enough among female pros and they get bikes from somewhere.

Leisesturm

Exactly. I don't know where Anthony has been for the last 30 years, because Georgina Terry has been making WSD bicycles for at least that long. Throw enough money her way and I believe she would even make one in manly colors like Teal Blue and British Racing Green. TA has been making cranks in 2mm increments from 130mm forever. All this conspiracy theory nonsense is giving me a headache. As I understand it, shorter stature cyclists do better than taller ones but perhaps there is a point of diminishing returns.

Leisesturm

The sculling analogy is an interesting one. Amateur scullers are of all heights, but only the tall ones are invited to try out for the Varsity and Olympic boats. They aren't just tall and strong for their weight, they are tall and strong, period. Taller and stronger is going to prevail over anything less everytime. Japan always sends boats to the Olympics and they always lose. They use shorter oars and insanely high stroke rates to compensate... and they lose in International competition against physically larger oarsmen and women.

I doubt that elite caliber cyclists of short stature are suffering on ill fitting bicycles because their coaches and other advisory agents are completely ignorant about how to design a bicycle that will accommodate a shorter individual. There is no point in spending the money on small wheeled bicycles for shorter cyclists unless the entire field is also on the same wheels. An elite cyclist on a 650B wheel will lose to an elite cyclist on 700C wheels even if the UCI allowed mixing of wheel sizes in sanctioned events. An elite cyclist on short cranks will lose to an elite cyclist on longer cranks. It comes down to what is competitive. After 100 years it is fairly well known what is competitive, i.e. what wins.

juls

Standards. If you're short like me/you realize men design kitchen counters. I can't mash potatoes on them! And then there are jockeys.......standards are all relevant. WE ARE ALL SNOWFLAKES

AnthonyG

You "Doubt". You don't actually know. You just want to believe what you want to believe.

And this old chestnut is always run out as a reason for not doing anything different. There is a natural human bias to draw a conclusion that only ONE answer is the right answer, and every other answer is wrong. This is drifting into P&R territory, and the cycling world isn't the worst at it (think religion), but its just normal human behaviour to only accept one answer as being correct.

And again your just making stuff up because you want to believe its true. Why on earth does it matter to you what a short rider uses when you yourself are tall? Seriously? Short legged riders have MORE force at the knee than a taller rider of equal leg strength. Shorter cranks are better at matching the leg forces of shorter riders.

Its just normal human bias to see what is different as being wrong.

Anthony

McBTC

Probably all true. If you are not 5' 8" and weigh 126 lb -- and, riding a bike is not your job -- what do elite caliber cyclists have to do with it? To think it matters what TdF riders do would be like learning to drive by copying Dale Earnhardt. I look at SUPs as a good example: you can YouTube 10 different paddling styles and the "teachers" range from amateur to pro and some were considered stellar performers 5 years ago while the next is choking up on the paddle and finishing 3rd in this year's Molokai.

Carbonfiberboy 

Weeelll . . . . some of it's just about getting up the road. If one couldn't care less about getting up the road, then it wouldn't seem to matter what other cyclists do, would it? However that's not even true. Comfort matters. Being able to stay in the saddle long enough to get somewhere matters. So one doesn't want to start by inventing the wheel and then figuring out how to make it roll more smoothly, etc. Much quicker to start off with the known known. And part of the known known is how to get up the road in comfort. We can't copy some elites because they're stronger, younger, or more flexible than we are. But for the most part, what works best for them will also work best for us, comfort and speed.

At 71, I ride the same frame that Lance won the TdF on in '99, and with pretty much the same setup, though frame size etc. is dialed down to my height. Why? Because it's superbly comfortable for at least 16 saddle hours and at the same time, fast. It's the most comfortable bike I've ever ridden, which is one reason I've never upgraded. I plan to keep riding it until I can't balance anymore.

ThermionicScott 

Racing cyclists aren't known for leaving competitive advantages on the table, though. If 145mm cranks were more optimal, where are the pros who are "stuck" with 165s and complaining that shorter cranks aren't more available?

(Remember: I'm not saying that shorter cranks might not in fact be better, but I'm just seeing scant real-world evidence for it apart from a couple testimonials in this thread.)

McBTC

All cycling is about figuring out how to make the wheel roll more smoothly, etc. and LA was better at it than anyone else for a few weeks out of every year for 7 years... So, if you have LA's monomaniacal dedication and determined adherence to a goal then I'd agree that he'd be a great role model. Dick Fosbury got over being a slavish follower of convention or he would have never flopped so marvelously.

McBTC

Challenging the baseline isn't something we see that much in pro cycling or Greg Lemond's use of aerobars in 1989 wouldn't have revolutionized time trialing.

ThermionicScott 

So riders would rather do what everyone else is doing, than win? Riiiiiight...

Bonus question: the standard crank length could have evolved to be anything, how/why did everyone get it wrong (in your and Anthony's opinion)?

AnthonyG

OK, I don't really want to go down the road of conspiracy theories. Yet I have answered these questions in this thread.

There is a STRONG streak in humanity that believes that there is only one right answer. All other possible answers are wrong. That's just the human condition. To break out of it takes effort, and a little luck.

On top of this. Bike Manufacturers don't WANT to change anything. I've stated it time and time again in this thread. Its about manufacturing economics. The fewer the variables the lower the manufacturing costs. The more variables there are the greater the manufacturing costs.

And then. The Obvious. Bike manufacturers sponsor the Professional cycling teams not out of charity. They do it to sell bikes so they put the professional riders on the bikes they want to sell.

So a short rider doesn't fit as well as he/she could?

Tough luck. You ride what your given or there are MANY more riders out there that want you spot on the team.

I'm of the view that short/lightweight riders DO have what it takes to win on the right sized bike. Trouble is there is a strong natural drive to comply with the norm and its not in the bike manufacturers interests to create a new norm.

Anthony

ThermionicScott 

I totally agree that bike/component makers screw over smaller riders. What would they GAIN by putting EVERYONE on cranks that are too long, though? Heck, shorter cranks would be lighter, so you'd think an FSA or SRAM or someone like that would be all over it.

Sure, makers aren't interested in changing things, but the 170 +/- 5mm "standard" predates most of the companies currently making cranks. If it could have evolved into anything in the beginning, why this?

AnthonyG

Well I'm not in the camp that would put everyone on 145mm cranks. I'd leave the tall people on 170mm and 175mm cranks. I ride 135mm cranks myself so even 145mm, while better, is still too long for my comfort.

I want to use a whole range of different sized parts all over the bike which is a no no from a manufacturing economics point of view.

Actually, its the high end, alloy component market that so restricted. In the world of cheap/steel components there is a lot more variety.

Anthony

Carbonfiberboy 

Who said anything about a role model? Quite the contrary. I was saying that you are incorrect about the poor suitability of pro positions and pro equipment for ordinary cyclists. There's a reason for the style of road bikes you will see displayed at your LBS. They work well for almost everyone.

That said, city bikes are more suitable for many people. MTBs are quite practical for city use because one can easily ride on and off of curbs. But I think this thread has been more about road bikes. MTBs come standard with 175 cranks now.

McBTC

Since there is so little actual "science" involved and what little research does exist points to robust riders who experience greater personal performance using shorter cranks than convention would dictate, I'd say we all are free to question convention and entertain our own notions as to what may explain different results across a range of riders.

My view I believe may be explained by--e.g., the examples of Jan Ullrich and Lance Armstrong. Both used performance-enhancing drugs so that's a wash. Web info indicates Jan was taller and lighter and rode with slightly longer cranks. Shorter, heavier LA apparently out-powered Jan more than once.

If there's a key my thought is that LA was a spinner compared to Jan. So, if you want to use what makes winners among pros, perhaps that's the key. Technically, anything more than ~75 rpm is spinning but pedaling in the 80s and 90s or more... that's really spinning. And, if you think you could be a better rider if you could spin faster but it just isn't working out for you, try shorter cranks. Sure, sure you may do fine "grinding" away like a Trojan... like Jan. But, that's not to say you might do even better "spinning" away like a... LA.

Maybe it's bs but it does describe my personal experience... I spin faster in the same gear using shorter cranks. As good as he was, Jan may have done even better with shorter cranks--e.g., less grinding and more spinning.

AnthonyG

If some people can make more power with short cranks then that's great. I'm not actually arguing that short cranks provide MORE power. My case is that there is no power loss in using short cranks.

Mind you, if power = torque X RPM, then if cranks are really too long for people to let them spin freely then the torque advantage of longer cranks is lost to the inability to get any RPM.


Any advantage to short cranks (or long cranks for that mater) will come down to the personal balance between Torque and RPM.

Anyway, the reason why long cranks are so bad for short riders is principally, Aerodynamics first, and balance second.

Cranks that are too long, cause your legs rise into your chest, which makes it impossible to adopt a full aerodynamic tuck and/or reduce the riders power when the leg is right into the chest.

In an attempt to prevent the riders legs rising into their chests steep seat tube angles are used which pivots the rider forwards. This places a lot more weight on their hands/arms/shoulders which makes riding long distances very uncomfortable.

Its the Aerodynamic and Comfort issues that are MOST holding short riders back on modern bikes that are too big for them. Short cranks are just an important key that allows a bike to be designed properly for short riders. If you asked me to design a bike for short people but I couldn't shorten the crank length, then I couldn't do a better job than anyone has done before me.

Short cranks is the KEY to a better design for short people.

Anthony

McBTC

There is the possibility that shorter cranks actually do provide MORE power due to a greater feeling of being connectedness (e.g., more symmetrical)– some riders experience an increased ease in pedal stroke and decreased 'dead spot' because, longer cranks means lower saddle equals greater knee flexion combined with a minimum of knee angle which puts more pressure on the knee and results in less power from the quads when going over the top.