Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
140 cranks - out of saddle climbing
Quote | Reply
ETA:
Another short (20mi) ride due to logistics, but this time with the better climbs near my house.
For seated climbs, I give the edge to my 170 cranks.
For out of saddle, the 140's win by a landslide. I suspect the latter is because my 170's are really too long for me, and I always had a hitch as a result when out of saddle. The 140's turn over more naturally, very smooth - I love it.
But I'm 5'4", not 6'.
Really loving my lower position in the drops as well.
Just my experience thus far since asked.

------------------------
Took my 1st ride today on 140 cranks (replaced 170), road bike. I guess I was expecting the ride to feel really weird, but it doesn't. Something slightly amiss, not necessarily bad but different, that's all. Don't know if I can get my saddle sufficiently far forward, really my only question at this point. I think I'll really like them, and I didn't expect that to be the case. Just one short ride.


Last edited by: caf0: Feb 23, 13 11:09
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [caf0] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How tall are you? That looks like a pretty small frame, and even after raising your seatpost to accomodate the 140 cranks, not a lot of ton of distance between saddle and pedal.

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [refthimos] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm 5'4", 29.5" inseam, average height/dimensions for a U.S. female.
It is a 48 w/ 700c wheels.
The bike has an atypical geometry.
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [caf0] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [caf0] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You're actually a little taller than I would have guessed with that setup. I'd hazard to guess that you have a very good position in the drops running that position, and with such short cranks, no problems with the knees hitting the chest. Wish 140's worked for me, I would have more drop then Ryder Hesjedal! /pink

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"as weird" - thank you very much :)

Quote:
it doesn't look as weird as I would have thought.
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [refthimos] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
You're actually a little taller than I would have guessed with that setup. I'd hazard to guess that you have a very good position in the drops running that position, and with such short cranks, no problems with the knees hitting the chest. Wish 140's worked for me, I would have more drop then Ryder Hesjedal! /pink

I was thinking the same thing riding in the drops. Makes me want to go shorter on my tri bike.
And I wonder why cranks have been so long for, well, so long...
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [caf0] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I just went from 172.5 to 170 and it took a while for me to make that decision. Thanks for making my thought process agony feel so insignificant.

lol
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [LSUfan4444] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I just went from 172.5 to 170 and it took a while for me to make that decision. Thanks for making my thought process agony feel so insignificant.

I struggle with moderation :)
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [caf0] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Very interesting. Who makes the cranks?
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [rodb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Very interesting. Who makes the cranks?


BikeSmithDesign http://www.bikesmithdesign.com shortens cranks (yours or others like SRAM they stock).
Mark is super nice, and he made/shipped mine w/in 24hours.
I actually had asked for longer cranks, but he talked me into the shorter ones (same price). I'm glad he did.
I can't recommend him highly enough.
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [caf0] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nice.
Can someone please correct me, but I think that bike is UCI illegal as the bars are lower than the top of the front tire.....cool!
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [caf0] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Please let us/me know if it hinders your out-of-the-saddle climbing. That's what makes me hesitate going below 167.5.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speed Concept 9 (race)
Madone 5 (training)
Trek 1000 (rain/snow/sleet/monsoon)
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [caf0] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nice garage door :)
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [mikegarmin4] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Please let us/me know if it hinders your out-of-the-saddle climbing. That's what makes me hesitate going below 167.5.

I'll report back after a week of riding.
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [caf0] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Mark made a pair of 155s for my wife. Se had a fit with adjustible cranks and she really felt good with this length. She was riding 170s. I went to 167.5 from 172.5. They do feel better on my tri bike. Please do let us know after a week how they are for you.
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [caf0] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bicycle racers have........longer cranks =)
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [caf0] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I went from 172.5 to 150 to see what I thought, really doesn't feel "that" much different, I'm getting 130s to experiment with before deciding which length I want bikesmithdesign to make me, why the comment about the seat, you went shorter and felt you had to move the seat forward?
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [HXB] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
why the comment about the seat, you went shorter and felt you had to move the seat forward?

I raised my saddle over an inch to compensate for the shorter cranks. Because of the seat tube angle, this pushed the saddle further rearward. Prior to raising it, I already had my saddle at the last mark before "stop". Now I've moved it to the word "stop" itself, cheating a little I think. Have to ride it longer to see if ok. Not sure how much I can cheat, maybe to the end of the word "stop". I guess if none of that works, the next step is a shorter stem.
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [caf0] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
From my experience (at the other end of the fit scale, as a long-legged 188cm), unless these are carbon-railed saddles you can pretty much slam them forward as far as the seatpost lets you. I was fit with my Arione dead-centered on a zero-setback post, but it did just fine slammed on the setback post I had on before. Some posts - like my PRO Koryak, originally designed for XC mountain biking - allow a bit more leeway by virtue of the clamp design.

ZONE3 - We Last Longer
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [mikegarmin4] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
FYI, I changed my BB to a square taper in my Cervelo P2K a few years ago. This allowed me to use the BMX style cranks and try all sorts of short cranks for cheap (origin8, works for double rings 110 BCD).

I used 160mm for a season, no issues at all with climbing. Just need to spin faster (which is easier due to short cranks).

However, I did change back to 170mm cranks. I just felt faster on them.

I'm [5' 8", inseam 30"]
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [mikegarmin4] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Please let us/me know if it hinders your out-of-the-saddle climbing. That's what makes me hesitate going below 167.5.

Ok - here you go.
Another short (20mi) ride due to logistics, but this time with the better climbs near my house.
For seated climbs, I give the edge to my 170 cranks.
For out of saddle, the 140's win by a landslide. I suspect the latter is because my 170's are really too long for me, and I always had a hitch as a result when out of saddle. The 140's turn over more naturally, very smooth - I love it.
But I'm 5'4", not 6'.
Really loving my lower position in the drops as well.

If you are currently smooth out-of-saddle, your experience could differ. But man, what a sweet difference they make for me.
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [tessartype] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
From my experience (at the other end of the fit scale, as a long-legged 188cm), unless these are carbon-railed saddles you can pretty much slam them forward as far as the seatpost lets you. I was fit with my Arione dead-centered on a zero-setback post, but it did just fine slammed on the setback post I had on before. Some posts - like my PRO Koryak, originally designed for XC mountain biking - allow a bit more leeway by virtue of the clamp design.

Cool - thanks for the info. I'm good, then.
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [mikegarmin4] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mikegarmin4 wrote:
Please let us/me know if it hinders your out-of-the-saddle climbing. That's what makes me hesitate going below 167.5.

N=1
5'10"
"Smooth" out of saddle to begin with
Out of saddle sensation to make power at VO2max and above as follows - 180>175>172.5>170>167.5>165>148
Quote Reply
Re: 140 cranks - not bad at all [Andrew69] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hi Andrew,

Roger Hammond was in a similar situation - drops about even with the top of the tire. He told me he was considering raising his bars, not because it might have been a better riding position, but because he worried about other riders' tires buzzing his knuckles!

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)
Quote Reply

Prev Next