160s would be the fat part of the bell curve for riders with similar seat heights. That is my personal bell curve from including crank fittings in the last 1500 or so of my 3000 fits, and adhering to the principles and practices described HERE.

You would certainly be better off on 165s than 172.5s and 160 does dip into the realm of "shorter than the commonly available range" so less options. On the other hand, you might be even more better off on 160s and Rotor makes some nice stuff at that length.

Just keep in mind that with 160s you would be raising your seat 12.5mm (compared to his 172.5s).

Depending on the stack of the new bike make sure you will be able to get enough pad stack, especially if he isn't super dropped.

I sure would not buy cranks before a REAL fit that takes crank length into the process.

I was riding 200's for the last many years. I just tested riding 135's this morning and will try 130's tomorrow. Until you test and get fitted, you have no real idea what may be the best for you.


I am 6'5 by the way

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Are you planning on doing that anytime soon?

I already had a bike fit, how many do I need?

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

The context of your question is too small for the truth of your answer.

Nah, very simple question

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Exactly. Now you understand.

And another thread hijacked.

---

Citizen of the world, former drunkard. Resident Traumatic Brain Injury advocate.

Hijacked, how? He asked a question, I gave, just like everyone else, their opinion.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

I have him ignored and still can't get away from his nonsense.

Can we all make a pact to stop quoting him please?

Now trying to add some meaningful input here and what I believe in my humble opinion. I am 6' with a long inseam and have tested from 170 to 150 in 5mm intervals on my tri bike. I personally found 150 too short and settled on 160. That being said from 170 felt fine, 165 felt better and 160 better again. I come from many years of cycling and below 160 at times I struggled to maintain a good pedal stroke I guess too short for my muscle memory to adapt over a short time of trial. If it is a new triathlete I don't think you could go wrong starting at 165 to be safe as I imagine the position won't be too aggressive and the hip angle won't be too closed off. There could be a lot of debate on here but having played with this the way I see it.

A credible article here with input from John Cobb

http://www.cyclingutah.com/...-coming-full-circle/

How did I know that was coming just as soon as I saw the thread title? I figured it was about 60/40 someone's ironic troll attempt vs another newb asking an honest question. That'll learn him...

Yep, exactly where I find to be the fat part of the bell curve for riders your size. Until Dave had to come in and start shitting on everything. It's seriously time for that guy to get the boot.

What data do you have that shows 150 were too short but 160 was "right"?

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Because I just ask please show me data and these comments?

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Read what I posted I struggled to maintain a good peddling action. No data I couldn't pedal it efficiently. I raced 150 and when power was on I felt good but at times struggled to pedal at a length that short and overall race power was a long way down on previous races. At 160 my power is very similar to other lengths but I can run a slightly more aggressive position. Adjusting crank lengths takes a lot of time to adapt and maybe if I had of spent more than the three months and one 70.3 at that 150 my pedalling may have adapted over time.

This post isn't about you justifying yourself on your post. I fully explained myself enough here and the fact a 6' 5" guy believes he is going to get credible data on 130 cranks over such a short time frame when that far out from his pedal action muscle memory is hilarious. How about going back to your own thread and posting your irrelevant non credible data to yourself and let people that mean to help others do their best to do so...

Haha the irony is I tried to help him and posted on page one of his crank length thread and he was receptive and now he's attacking and wanting data. Apparently my opinion isn't enough.

I do love his defence of how long cranks are so amazing here and how anything but 200 is loss of leverage. It's hilarious...

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/Changing_to_shorter_cranks_P6152515/

Thanks for the data

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

165 would be a safe bet but having a fit done first would be the best option. It really all comes down to what position you are trying to achieve and how that impacts your hip angle and without a fitting it's a good guess at 165.

Chris Froome uses 175s so there's that. :)

‘Oh, are you 6'5", Waterboy?’ said one of the twins, with an air of great surprise. ‘You should have said something, we had no idea.’
‘Hang on, I think I remember him saying something about it,’ said the other twin. ‘Once– ‘
‘Or twice–’
‘A minute– ‘
‘All summer–’
‘Oh, shut up,’ said Waterboy.

Thanks all, think we are going to go with 165mm.

The comment about froome - I'm guessing most pro cyclists still use 172.5 or longer. Perhaps the UCI legal road position (saddle nose 5cm behind BB?) doesn't lend itself well to shorter cranks, or they are not as concerned with hip angle, etc.

I come from a road background, am only 5'10, and I always loved using 175's. I tried shorter (170) and just didn't feel as good and had a couple of my worst tt's on them. When I switched to tri about 6 years ago, I went to 172.5 because they came with the bike I bought, and never really thought about it. I then switched to 165 this past year just because, and now that I'm used to it, they feel OK, but I certainly haven't noticed any improvement in my performance either on the bike or running after...

One thing I wonder about - a lot of comments about how you can get more aggressive position with shorter cranks. I understand the concept, but for myself, I find I am more limited about how uncomfortable my neck gets, trying to look forward, rather than a hip angle issue. Thus I wonder if I'd like longer cranks again......

Cheers

3/10