While pedals largely come down to personal preference, and we really have no idea what saddle a rider will choose, we (those who pay attention) have a very good idea of the narrow crank length range where most riders will settle. For those reasons, as well as simple logistics, cranks are not in the same category as seat/wheels/pedals in terms of likely or necessary factory customizations.

It WOULD be great to see manufacturers simply chop 1cm off all crank lengths on tri bikes sizes, compared to their road counterparts. That would get the vast majority into their optimal range.

I think the whole crank length thing has been blown out of proportion by one person's need for attention. Crank length should definitely be considered in an optimal balance of comfort, power production and aero but there are so many things that are being glossed over in the quest to make a big show out of nothing. Rather than get a basic fit right, with proper pelvic tilt, setback, drop, reach....and then tweak with crank length it's become a big show. Simple things that can be resolved through proper gearing got lumped under the crank length title have resulted in almost 20,000 views. That's OK, some good info from some smart people has been shared and I am sure some readers are benefiting from it. I hope people can separate the 1% good, 99% BS.

As for swapping in and out components, this is what framesets are for. I consider a frameset built bike like a tailored suit vs the "off the rack". People here are connaisseurs or wannabe connaisseurs but I think STers are the exception. Average Joe doesn't even have his seat height right. Does he really care about +/-5mm on his cranks ?

Also, as important that a few mm on cranks, consumers should be considering power meter integration on their cranks.

Already an option on Trek Project One, along with gear ratios, and other things on the dealer system.

---

Developing aero, fit and other fun stuff at Red is Faster

Average Joe doesn't even have his seat height right. Does he really care about +/-5mm on his cranks ?


Great point.

As is typical with this crowd, a string tendency to fiddle and fart around with the 5%, while ignoring the 95% of the basic stuff.

I agree with you on crank length - this whole discussion has actually been going on for a few years. If you have no problems, there is no need to switch cranks. Although, having said that, generally speaking I would say many triathletes, would do better on shorter cranks and when I say "better" I'm first talking about fit here and nothing else!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

The crank length discussion is happening in several cycling forums. Pretty much like it is over here.

This is an area where there doesn't seem to be a consensus; yet, people find a preference once they start exploring.

---

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.

Cool. Good heads up.

---

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.

Seems like the discussion has been going on over in the cycling world for a while. There is no consensus there either on their forums. People seem like what they like though when it comes to cranks or say why bother.

With an aging population feeling it in the hip flexors, shorter cranks could help their bike fit whether that be road or tri. If fiddling with this 5% leads to exploring a bike fit, then it will be well worth it.

---

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.

Great point. For us older folks, we are trying to find a fit that works now, rather than a fit that works for a person that is lets say 30.
The last thing I am worried about is am I leaning over enough, is my back flat. I just want to be able to get off the bike and be able to run. If shorter cranks
allows this and lets me race longer, who cares what my time or power is. At my age, the trick is to just get to the start line, and finish line. Not enough
folks that can do that to even worry about how fast one is. :(

---

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 am racing 56 this year. I am on the heavier side and I know my ability to generate power isn't going to go up. I am not 30 years old with the flexibility of gumbie.

So I have to be smarter to compensate for aging and slowing down.

In your other thread you say you don't care about aero. I probably need 40 watts less to go the same speed as you. As your FTP decreases with age, those watt savings make a difference.

My strength (relative) is the run so anything I can do to set up a good run is gold for me.

crank length is/was part of the journey to get a more efficient position but overall fit and measurement of cost/benefit of positions was more important

Some just takes words too strong at face value! Or course I care about aero. Do I care and want to be judged about a flat back? Nope!

Just wait, 56 is still young! I started to feel the change around 59. I really felt it at 60, and now going into 61. It does not get any better, and the decline is not linear. :(

---

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

Perhaps because people keep believing hip angle is the driver of crank length.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

we're about to start talking apples and oranges, or Newtonian vs. Quantum physics

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

What, in your opinion, is the driver of crank length then?

---

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

Hi Jim:
I'd be really interested to hear your take on crank length selection as part of your aero fitting process. Would you mind sharing? Feel free to email me if you don't want to share in public.
Cheers,
Jim

I'll send you an email, Jim.

For readers of this thread, and in the interest of not taking my ball and going home, I will say, and have previously posted, I've found knee flexion is the primary driver (though hip angle plays a role). If I remember correctly it was Cyclenutz who recently posted something about it as well, and his numbers were, to the degree, spot on with what I've found. Otherwise, it's not a subject I'll post much about here...too much noise. You all have fun.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

I did not find a Cyclenutz on ST

---

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

Help me Eric. I'm missing out on the content of Jim/you.

Don't really know about the hip being THE driver, though it's probably part of it. What I do feel is an impingement at times with the hip becoming tighter and restrictive. Manageable on the bike yet a very noticeable restrictor on the run where hip movement, if they are moving freely, adds to stride length and turnover. Just like the shoulder can hold a fine swimmer back, it seems like the hips can hold back the cyclist/runner.

Thank you in advance for the additional clarification.

PS What do you think of Steve Hogg's approach to bike fitting?

---

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.

Two angles can cause a subjective and objective decrease in ability to produce power / pedal effectively with sub-optimally long cranks, and they are not always entirely independent:
1. Thigh - torso angle at the top of the stroke
2. Knee flexion angle at the top of the stroke

You can improve (open) the thigh torso angle by sitting up, among other things. This doesn't fix the knee flexion issue if there is one, so in that sense, they are independent.

Shortening the crank improves both of these angles, producing less knee flexion and greater thigh torso clearance, so in that sense they are not entirely independent.

While measurement of these specific angles is a valid method to derive crank length, a properly guided rider's subjective impressions will generally encompass an unconscious evaluation of these metrics, as well as other intangibles. You don't really need to measure, but IIRC, I think the angle Jim refers to was 68 degrees or more (tighter) of flexion becomes problematic.

This is tangentially related to H20fun's inability to select a crank length, because he disregards the most important data he has access to, provided by the supercomputer between his ears. A better crank length (or any other fit metric) isn't just "feeling better" simply because one doesn't possess sufficient vocabulary to explain how and why, the same way properly appllied V02 max intervals aren't black magic because you lack an ex-phys degree and an understanding of cellular biology.

Steve Hogg is a snake oil saleman.

Post of the year so far...

Now please take a day off, l don’t want you overtraining for the next 364 days.

Cheers,
Maurice

Haven't trained or have done anything for the last 2 days with this terrible flu :(

---

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