Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Crank arm length from fit perspective
Quote | Reply
So up front I was not going to mine thru all 29 pgs of the odyssey started by H20man on crank length and performance. So if what I'm about to ask explained somewhere in it I am sorry and please point me to it.

Anyways, small rider here 5'5" 135 lbs (61cm saddle height) and am currently riding on a tri bike with 165mm cranks. In the process of building a new bike (N+1 is real) and I am looking at possibly going even shorter on crank length since well; I am tiny compared to most.

Reading articles such as those from cycling weekly and Cobbs site, while performance gains are very debatable, the real gain from going to a shorter crank has to do with fit.

Since it seems like everything to do with fit has a method to it, does anyone know if there is a way to measure this, say since my "x" is this, a good guess at a optimal crank length would be "y".

Lastly, resides Cobbs carbon one crank set, are there another other options for short (<165mm) carbon crank sets on the market.

Thanks,
Zinny
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [zinny] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is everything I have learned about fitting crank length after over 1000 attempts.

1. The only way to intuitively understand the benefits of shorter cranks is to have a competent fitter utilizing proper equipment take you to the limit of your current crank length before making a change. In other words, if your fit is not at least in the ballpark of optimized, you probably won't notice much, or even worse, you might have a different experience than if you were close to optimal.

2. When done as described above, about 80-90% of riders are going to prefer a crank length from .5 to 1.5 cm shorter than what would typically come on a stock bike in their size.

3. Many of the things previously mentioned are important, especially riding a lower / more aero position, but the first thing the fitter and rider need to determine is "Do you prefer this?". It is the same question asked when seat height, setback or drop is changed.... How does this effect your intuitive sense of pedaling? After which, we can look at the power, how much drop you can ride, etc. First is always rider feedback.

4. There is no perfect crank length, or if there is I don't know how to find it. I do know how to find an acceptable range for a given rider. Acceptable here is synonymous with appropriate, and NOT the same thing as aggressive. The #1 thing I look at is how close to the FIST described 100 degrees of hip angle can we achieve with this rider? Is their lack of mobility or excess belly fat getting in the way of this angle? If we have a lean and reasonable limber rider who just can't seem to pedal effectively when we dip below 105 degrees of hip angle, crank length absolutely becomes the prime suspect.

5. Crank length is often the most important metric I change for riders under 5'6" or so. The majority of these riders are what I term "massively over-cranked". These riders typically reduce crank length from 1-2cm, with the shortest commonly available length of 145mm (Cobb) being frequently used for riders under 5'3".

6. Generally, not one watt is gained or lost from a crank length change. Now if the crank was so long that it was basically contributing to a lousy fit, sure, we will probably find some power, but that is more a function of fixing the overall fit. This leads me into one of the final points...

7. Crank length is not fundamental to your bike fit. Seat height, setback, reach to bars, drop to bars ARE your bike fit. Nail those four and you've got a fit. Saddle selection, aerobar shape/tilt/width, crank length, cleat position etc are all secondary factors. Crank length is probably the most important secondary factor for the majority of riders, right up there with saddle selection. What this means is that if we determine 160mm is in your ideal range, your bike fit still exists on 175mm cranks. Saddle height will change, drop will change, set back will change and even reach may change with the less optimal length, but the fit isn't ruined by the wrong cranks. If cost is an issue, we adjust the saddle, ride a bit less drop and advise to change the cranks when you can.

8. Adaptation time for changes in crank length is about 3-5 minutes. Seriously, it just disappears. Which somewhat addresses the question, “Do I need the same length crank on my road bike.” Generally, no. For ‘cross training’ triathletes, road bikes tend to be more of a laid back affair. Specifically, we are not trying to ride in our most bent over, reduced thigh to torso positions, as we do on the tri bikes. So it is not usually as big of an issue.

Crank lengths on road bikes have been around for over a century, and generally work well. The problem with crank length arose when we transferred those historical lengths to commensurately sized aerobar bikes, without realizing the inherent difference in those styles of bikes. For those riding a road bike set up low, in a racing position, an exploration of crank length could be useful. Keep in mind the one tangible drawback that I have found with shorter cranks is a reduced ability to perform out of the saddle climbing. This seems to be a situation where one lever (crank length) comes to the forefront, and diminishes our sense of the system of six levers* used in propelling the bike.


*Foot, crank, lower leg, upper leg, gears, spokes.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [FindinFreestyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nice!
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [FindinFreestyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
FindinFreestyle wrote:
This is everything I have learned about fitting crank length after over 1000 attempts.

1. The only way to intuitively understand the benefits of shorter cranks is to have a competent fitter utilizing proper equipment take you to the limit of your current crank length before making a change. In other words, if your fit is not at least in the ballpark of optimized, you probably won't notice much, or even worse, you might have a different experience than if you were close to optimal.

2. When done as described above, about 80-90% of riders are going to prefer a crank length from .5 to 1.5 cm shorter than what would typically come on a stock bike in their size.

3. Many of the things previously mentioned are important, especially riding a lower / more aero position, but the first thing the fitter and rider need to determine is "Do you prefer this?". It is the same question asked when seat height, setback or drop is changed.... How does this effect your intuitive sense of pedaling? After which, we can look at the power, how much drop you can ride, etc. First is always rider feedback.

4. There is no perfect crank length, or if there is I don't know how to find it. I do know how to find an acceptable range for a given rider. Acceptable here is synonymous with appropriate, and NOT the same thing as aggressive. The #1 thing I look at is how close to the FIST described 100 degrees of hip angle can we achieve with this rider? Is their lack of mobility or excess belly fat getting in the way of this angle? If we have a lean and reasonable limber rider who just can't seem to pedal effectively when we dip below 105 degrees of hip angle, crank length absolutely becomes the prime suspect.

5. Crank length is often the most important metric I change for riders under 5'6" or so. The majority of these riders are what I term "massively over-cranked". These riders typically reduce crank length from 1-2cm, with the shortest commonly available length of 145mm (Cobb) being frequently used for riders under 5'3".

6. Generally, not one watt is gained or lost from a crank length change. Now if the crank was so long that it was basically contributing to a lousy fit, sure, we will probably find some power, but that is more a function of fixing the overall fit. This leads me into one of the final points...

7. Crank length is not fundamental to your bike fit. Seat height, setback, reach to bars, drop to bars ARE your bike fit. Nail those four and you've got a fit. Saddle selection, aerobar shape/tilt/width, crank length, cleat position etc are all secondary factors. Crank length is probably the most important secondary factor for the majority of riders, right up there with saddle selection. What this means is that if we determine 160mm is in your ideal range, your bike fit still exists on 175mm cranks. Saddle height will change, drop will change, set back will change and even reach may change with the less optimal length, but the fit isn't ruined by the wrong cranks. If cost is an issue, we adjust the saddle, ride a bit less drop and advise to change the cranks when you can.

8. Adaptation time for changes in crank length is about 3-5 minutes. Seriously, it just disappears. Which somewhat addresses the question, “Do I need the same length crank on my road bike.” Generally, no. For ‘cross training’ triathletes, road bikes tend to be more of a laid back affair. Specifically, we are not trying to ride in our most bent over, reduced thigh to torso positions, as we do on the tri bikes. So it is not usually as big of an issue.

Crank lengths on road bikes have been around for over a century, and generally work well. The problem with crank length arose when we transferred those historical lengths to commensurately sized aerobar bikes, without realizing the inherent difference in those styles of bikes. For those riding a road bike set up low, in a racing position, an exploration of crank length could be useful. Keep in mind the one tangible drawback that I have found with shorter cranks is a reduced ability to perform out of the saddle climbing. This seems to be a situation where one lever (crank length) comes to the forefront, and diminishes our sense of the system of six levers* used in propelling the bike.


*Foot, crank, lower leg, upper leg, gears, spokes.

Posts like this are why we need sitcky’s in this forum.

blog
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stevej wrote:

Posts like this are why we need sitcky’s in this forum.

There is a "Hot Forum Topics" pull down on the right side of the forum (at least on the desktop version of the forum). That would be a great place to collect these "pearls of wisdom" pages.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [zinny] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The way to figure out whether cranks are too long is to use Motion capture and look for whether the closed knee angle is less than ~68deg. And closed hip angle less than ~45deg.
I agree with Daves (findinfreestyle) points about changing cranks. Having Mocap does mean you can identify the possibility of needing to change cranks earlier in the process.

However, at your height it's a fairly safe bet to go straight to 145mm. Stronglight Junior if you want square taper BSA BB, Cobb Alloy for more frame fit options, Cobb carbon if you must have carbon. Or bikesmith will shorten all manner of alloy cranks.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [FindinFreestyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Do you have this in a Word Doc ready to post?

My YouTubes

Last edited by: LAI: Dec 5, 17 12:51
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [LAI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
LAI wrote:
Do you have this in a Word Doc ready to post?


Absolutely. I posted it on waterboy's thread a couple weeks ago. It didn't help.
Last edited by: FindinFreestyle: Dec 5, 17 12:57
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [FindinFreestyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah...you guys that take on trying to help him amaze me. Anyhow, thanks for sharing your insight on crank length. I wish I would have had it back in 2012 when I went "short".

My YouTubes

Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [zinny] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The mob answer is it makes zero difference, and just pay to get a bike fit on whatever you are already riding.

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
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [cyclenutnz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
cyclenutnz wrote:
The way to figure out whether cranks are too long is to use Motion capture and look for whether the closed knee angle is less than ~68deg.

That is the exact number I've found as well. Thanks for mentioning it; it's too often overlooked.

Jim Manton / ERO Sports
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [FindinFreestyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks for the thorough answer findinfreestyle. From LAI's response, I figure he had a negative or at least not beneficial experience from going "short". Which I haven't really considered.

So with that thought, while the majority of the examples seem to be people "over cranking". Are there any of people "under cranking" and its affects? Could that negatively affect fit?
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [zinny] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
zinny wrote:
Thanks for the thorough answer findinfreestyle. From LAI's response, I figure he had a negative or at least not beneficial experience from going "short". Which I haven't really considered.

So with that thought, while the majority of the examples seem to be people "over cranking". Are there any of people "under cranking" and its affects? Could that negatively affect fit?

Interesting, I asked this question for a new thread, and guess what, ... :

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
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sorry I generally don't enjoy the threads with the back forth so I probably missed it. Not to start a storm I'll file that question under for another day.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [zinny] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
zinny wrote:
Sorry I generally don't enjoy the threads with the back forth so I probably missed it. Not to start a storm I'll file that question under for another day.

Just FYI

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...tring=short#p6490300

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
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [zinny] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
zinny wrote:
Thanks for the thorough answer findinfreestyle. From LAI's response, I figure he had a negative or at least not beneficial experience from going "short". Which I haven't really considered.

So with that thought, while the majority of the examples seem to be people "over cranking". Are there any of people "under cranking" and its affects? Could that negatively affect fit?

Yes there can be a negative effect with going too short. You could go too short where replicating your same fit is impossible, extremely difficult, or just unsafe (stability). There is also gearing to take into consideration. You will spin out your gearing quicker on downhills.

Edit: Another negative could be aerodynamics. You have to keep on raising your saddle as you go shorter on crank length. There will be a point in which your cda will increase when you go shorter cranks and raise the saddle. This is probably the extreme though and would take a huge step to change this. (Eg 200 to 130)

blog
Last edited by: stevej: Dec 5, 17 15:08
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
h2ofun wrote:
The mob answer is it makes zero difference, and just pay to get a bike fit on whatever you are already riding.

You are being intentionally obtuse.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stevej wrote:
zinny wrote:
Thanks for the thorough answer findinfreestyle. From LAI's response, I figure he had a negative or at least not beneficial experience from going "short". Which I haven't really considered.

So with that thought, while the majority of the examples seem to be people "over cranking". Are there any of people "under cranking" and its affects? Could that negatively affect fit?


Yes there can be a negative effect with going too short. You could go too short where replicating your same fit is impossible, extremely difficult, or just unsafe (stability). There is also gearing to take into consideration. You will spin out your gearing quicker on downhills.

I thought the same thing until I actually TESTed this assumption on my super steep martis/brockway downhills. On either a 150 or 175 crank, 50/11, in both cases, I got up to 45 mph before I "spun" out. Since I in real life stop gaining speed at 30 mph, who cares about downhills. The real question is uphills. And yes, I am finding I can use gearing to adjust for going from my 200's to 150's on those steep hills and do just fine. (I was not expecting this)

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
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Please, do us all a favour and stay off this thread. Things tend to become "less than civil" whenever you are involved, and since you have the thread to end all threads describing your experiences, how about a thread devoted to the methodologies that actual fitters use?

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stevej wrote:
Yes there can be a negative effect with going too short. You could go too short where replicating your same fit is impossible, extremely difficult, or just unsafe (stability). There is also gearing to take into consideration. You will spin out your gearing quicker on downhills.

Gearing is unrelated to crank length.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [nightfend] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
nightfend wrote:
stevej wrote:
Yes there can be a negative effect with going too short. You could go too short where replicating your same fit is impossible, extremely difficult, or just unsafe (stability). There is also gearing to take into consideration. You will spin out your gearing quicker on downhills.

Gearing is unrelated to crank length.

Sheldon Brown would disagree with you.

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gain.html

blog
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JasoninHalifax wrote:
Please, do us all a favour and stay off this thread. Things tend to become "less than civil" whenever you are involved, and since you have the thread to end all threads describing your experiences, how about a thread devoted to the methodologies that actual fitters use?

I just bought a Quarq and went with 165mm instead of my previous normal 170mm. My methodology was "that's the shortest it comes in and doesn't seem like it should be too short and then I can get lower". How's that for methodology?

No, seriously.

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [Toby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's pretty much mine. I have a 165mm dura ace track crankset w 48t ring. It's the shortest i have and happens to be the shortest p2max crank length. So that's gonna be it once I get a pm.

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [zinny] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
zinny wrote:
Thanks for the thorough answer findinfreestyle. From LAI's response, I figure he had a negative or at least not beneficial experience from going "short". Which I haven't really considered.

So with that thought, while the majority of the examples seem to be people "over cranking". Are there any of people "under cranking" and its affects? Could that negatively affect fit?

I think you can go too short, and I think you can largely "feel" your way to that as well. For starters, many (most?) riders can get to such a low position with reasonably short cranks, that going lower via shorter cranks would be of questionable benefit to aerodynamics anyway.

For me, having the luxury of an adjustable crank fit bike at my disposal for many years, I hovered between 160 and 155 as my lower limit. At a long legged 6 feet tall with a 78cm seat height at my old 172.5s, going down through 170, 165, 160 all felt great. All shorter lengths felt better than the longer. Swapping back and forth between 160 and 155 (many, many times) has been interesting. The shorter the crank, the higher the natural RPMs, and I have tentatively reached the conclusion that 160s is ideal for me. I can comfortably ride 17cm of drop at that length with zero power loss from a well developed road position.

On my recently ordered PC fit bike, I am going to utilize both the standard 155-185mm cranks as well as the shorter 140-170mm set. Shorter riders are certainly not under cranked at 155mm, and those shorter adjustable cranks are probably the one piece of hardware I have wished for over the last few years. I am a little curious how the 140 - 150 length treats me, but I am fairly confident that the 155s are getting a bit under my range. It's subtle, but once noticed, it's consistent with every trial.

For the record, I also think all the 'testing' Dave C. is doing with HR and power and speed over courses is NOT a path to finding a proper range of crank lengths. I think it is a bottomless rabbit hole, and I hope he can keep it off this thread.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [FindinFreestyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
FindinFreestyle wrote:
zinny wrote:
Thanks for the thorough answer findinfreestyle. From LAI's response, I figure he had a negative or at least not beneficial experience from going "short". Which I haven't really considered.

So with that thought, while the majority of the examples seem to be people "over cranking". Are there any of people "under cranking" and its affects? Could that negatively affect fit?


I think you can go too short, and I think you can largely "feel" your way to that as well. For starters, many (most?) riders can get to such a low position with reasonably short cranks, that going lower via shorter cranks would be of questionable benefit to aerodynamics anyway.

For me, having the luxury of an adjustable crank fit bike at my disposal for many years, I hovered between 160 and 155 as my lower limit. At a long legged 6 feet tall with a 78cm seat height at my old 172.5s, going down through 170, 165, 160 all felt great. All shorter lengths felt better than the longer. Swapping back and forth between 160 and 155 (many, many times) has been interesting. The shorter the crank, the higher the natural RPMs, and I have tentatively reached the conclusion that 160s is ideal for me. I can comfortably ride 17cm of drop at that length with zero power loss from a well developed road position.

On my recently ordered PC fit bike, I am going to utilize both the standard 155-185mm cranks as well as the shorter 140-170mm set. Shorter riders are certainly not under cranked at 155mm, and those shorter adjustable cranks are probably the one piece of hardware I have wished for over the last few years. I am a little curious how the 140 - 150 length treats me, but I am fairly confident that the 155s are getting a bit under my range. It's subtle, but once noticed, it's consistent with every trial.

For the record, I also think all the 'testing' Dave C. is doing with HR and power and speed over courses is NOT a path to finding a proper range of crank lengths. I think it is a bottomless rabbit hole, and I hope he can keep it off this thread.

So, what type of adjustable cranks are you buying? Those sound like ones from highsierra?

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
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [FindinFreestyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Excellent post! Thank you.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [FindinFreestyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Perhaps everyone can just agree to ignore the water troll on this thread? Be nice to keep the signal to noise ratio in check on one of his favored topics for a change.....

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [FindinFreestyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
FindinFreestyle wrote:
zinny wrote:
Thanks for the thorough answer findinfreestyle. From LAI's response, I figure he had a negative or at least not beneficial experience from going "short". Which I haven't really considered.

So with that thought, while the majority of the examples seem to be people "over cranking". Are there any of people "under cranking" and its affects? Could that negatively affect fit?


I think you can go too short, and I think you can largely "feel" your way to that as well. For starters, many (most?) riders can get to such a low position with reasonably short cranks, that going lower via shorter cranks would be of questionable benefit to aerodynamics anyway.

For me, having the luxury of an adjustable crank fit bike at my disposal for many years, I hovered between 160 and 155 as my lower limit. At a long legged 6 feet tall with a 78cm seat height at my old 172.5s, going down through 170, 165, 160 all felt great. All shorter lengths felt better than the longer. Swapping back and forth between 160 and 155 (many, many times) has been interesting. The shorter the crank, the higher the natural RPMs, and I have tentatively reached the conclusion that 160s is ideal for me. I can comfortably ride 17cm of drop at that length with zero power loss from a well developed road position.

On my recently ordered PC fit bike, I am going to utilize both the standard 155-185mm cranks as well as the shorter 140-170mm set. Shorter riders are certainly not under cranked at 155mm, and those shorter adjustable cranks are probably the one piece of hardware I have wished for over the last few years. I am a little curious how the 140 - 150 length treats me, but I am fairly confident that the 155s are getting a bit under my range. It's subtle, but once noticed, it's consistent with every trial.

For the record, I also think all the 'testing' Dave C. is doing with HR and power and speed over courses is NOT a path to finding a proper range of crank lengths. I think it is a bottomless rabbit hole, and I hope he can keep it off this thread.

I am 6' long legged as well and tried from 170 in 5mm steps but going from 165 to 150 and found too short. I went back to 160 and felt great. I settled on them for the season but have 155 I will trial now. At 150 when I was on I felt powerful and fast but at times I was chasing the gear engaged with power through part of the pedal stroke but then chasing the load. You certainly cant have a lazy/poor pedal stroke or takes some time to adapt to such a small pedal circle. I have found over time though that my cadence has dropped with a shorter crank now in the low 80's.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tell me again, how do I block seeing someone’s post? I am so tired of seeing posts about “my adjustable cranks” that I’m going crazy. 3 million posts later, and still no conclusion? STFU!

I'm closer to the feathered end of the spear than the point.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [David_Tris] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
David_Tris wrote:
Tell me again, how do I block seeing someone’s post? I am so tired of seeing posts about “my adjustable cranks” that I’m going crazy. 3 million posts later, and still no conclusion? STFU!

Easy, click on my name and click on hide posts, I am gone

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
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [David_Tris] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
David_Tris wrote:
Tell me again, how do I block seeing someone’s post? I am so tired of seeing posts about “my adjustable cranks” that I’m going crazy. 3 million posts later, and still no conclusion? STFU!

Look at the how to unsee water boy thread. There is a built in hide posts option but it only hides threads someone started, not all of their posts
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stevej wrote:
Sheldon Brown would disagree with you.

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gain.html

I actually think this is wrong or at least misleading. The chain doesn't travel the diameter of the crank length. on a 53-tooth ring, the chain will travel the same distance regardless of crank length from a single rotation of the crank arm. You can test this by marking a spot of the big ring, and then rotating this chainring all the way around, advancing the bike while you do this until it reaches that mark again. Then measure that distance. It will be the same regardless of crank length.

I think you can get more leverage with longer crank arms and your foot velocity would be different, but that is completely separate from how fast a gear will rotate the back wheel and therefore the speed the bike will be propelled.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [nightfend] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
nightfend wrote:
stevej wrote:
Sheldon Brown would disagree with you.

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gain.html

I actually think this is wrong or at least misleading. The chain doesn't travel the diameter of the crank length. on a 53-tooth ring, the chain will travel the same distance regardless of crank length from a single rotation of the crank arm. You can test this by marking a spot of the big ring, and then rotating this chainring all the way around, advancing the bike while you do this until it reaches that mark again. Then measure that distance. It will be the same regardless of crank length.

I think you can get more leverage with longer crank arms and your foot velocity would be different, but that is completely separate from how fast a gear will rotate the back wheel and therefore the speed the bike will be propelled.

An important part of gearing is the force you have to apply to the pedal at a certain rpm to generate a specific amount of power. As crank length goes down, pedal force must go up to maintain the same power at the same rpm.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's true but its not the whole picture. There are two more things to consider.
1. For the same rpm, shorter cranks mean lower pedal speed. That means lower muscle shortening velocity. Muscles produce more force as they shorten more slowly. So yes, you need more force, but the muscle can produce more. For more on this google muscle force-velocity relationship.
2. When people switch crank lengths, they generally change seat height to maintain the same distance to the pedal in its most extended position (maximum leg extension). With shorter cranks your leg is more extended at every point in the cycle except that one most extended point. When your leg is more extended you are stronger. For example, you can lift more for a partial squat than for a deep squat. This is why short cranks don't compromise maximum torque as much as the simple length ratio. Only about half as much as the ratio would predict.
So your muscle is stronger at lower velocity and your leg is stronger due to what we call "biomechanical gear ratio" (the ratio of the movement of the distal point of the limb to the length change of the muscles involved in the action).
Cheers,
Jim


RowToTri wrote:
An important part of gearing is the force you have to apply to the pedal at a certain rpm to generate a specific amount of power. As crank length goes down, pedal force must go up to maintain the same power at the same rpm.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [Bio_McGeek] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bio_McGeek wrote:
That's true but its not the whole picture. There are two more things to consider.
1. For the same rpm, shorter cranks mean lower pedal speed. That means lower muscle shortening velocity. Muscles produce more force as they shorten more slowly. So yes, you need more force, but the muscle can produce more. For more on this google muscle force-velocity relationship.
2. When people switch crank lengths, they generally change seat height to maintain the same distance to the pedal in its most extended position (maximum leg extension). With shorter cranks your leg is more extended at every point in the cycle except that one most extended point. When your leg is more extended you are stronger. For example, you can lift more for a partial squat than for a deep squat. This is why short cranks don't compromise maximum torque as much as the simple length ratio. Only about half as much as the ratio would predict.
So your muscle is stronger at lower velocity and your leg is stronger due to what we call "biomechanical gear ratio" (the ratio of the movement of the distal point of the limb to the length change of the muscles involved in the action).
Cheers,
Jim


RowToTri wrote:
An important part of gearing is the force you have to apply to the pedal at a certain rpm to generate a specific amount of power. As crank length goes down, pedal force must go up to mainta

in the same power at the same rpm.

So why then am i hearing that me trying to target a lower rpm is bad? Or super short cranks are bad?

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
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
h2ofun wrote:
So why then am i hearing that me trying to target a lower rpm is bad? Or super short cranks are bad?

Because as with everything, there are limits to what your body can do indefinitely. You yourself have noted that on the short cranks you can't 'hold' 300 watts at 70 RPM. If that is because your legs can't produce the requisite force for a high number of repetitions, it may be that you can still achieve that power level by bringing the pedal speed up, with slightly reduced force. That requires either longer cranks, higher cadence, or a moderate combination of both.

Less is more.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [FindinFreestyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
FindinFreestyle wrote:
I think you can go too short, and I think you can largely "feel" your way to that as well. For starters, many (most?) riders can get to such a low position with reasonably short cranks, that going lower via shorter cranks would be of questionable benefit to aerodynamics anyway.

On top of that, going substantially shorter than what's needed can also have a negative effect on the bike's handling. I found no performance difference when using 145s instead of 165s, but I did not like the effect that raising everything 20mm had on my bike's handling...

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [Bio_McGeek] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bio_McGeek wrote:
That's true but its not the whole picture. There are two more things to consider.
1. For the same rpm, shorter cranks mean lower pedal speed. That means lower muscle shortening velocity. Muscles produce more force as they shorten more slowly. So yes, you need more force, but the muscle can produce more. For more on this google muscle force-velocity relationship.
2. When people switch crank lengths, they generally change seat height to maintain the same distance to the pedal in its most extended position (maximum leg extension). With shorter cranks your leg is more extended at every point in the cycle except that one most extended point. When your leg is more extended you are stronger. For example, you can lift more for a partial squat than for a deep squat. This is why short cranks don't compromise maximum torque as much as the simple length ratio. Only about half as much as the ratio would predict.
So your muscle is stronger at lower velocity and your leg is stronger due to what we call "biomechanical gear ratio" (the ratio of the movement of the distal point of the limb to the length change of the muscles involved in the action).
Cheers,
Jim


RowToTri wrote:
An important part of gearing is the force you have to apply to the pedal at a certain rpm to generate a specific amount of power. As crank length goes down, pedal force must go up to maintain the same power at the same rpm.

I don't know much about how shortening velocity affects muscle strength. But is it not true that most people self-select a cadence that is at least close to the same angular velocity of the cadence they used on the longer cranks?

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Are you aware of some data on self selected pedaling rates across crank length? I'd be keen to see it.
The only data I'm aware of are from Tom Korff's lab. He has left academia so we may never see them published. In our conversation he indicated that pedaling rate did change with length but not as much as the ratio of the length change.

RowToTri wrote:
I don't know much about how shortening velocity affects muscle strength. But is it not true that most people self-select a cadence that is at least close to the same angular velocity of the cadence they used on the longer cranks?
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [Bio_McGeek] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't know of a study. But it is "conventional wisdom" that cadence increases when cranks are shortened and I guess I just assumed that this was the body's way of maintaining percieved effort which in turn made me assume that pedaling velocity is important to percieved exertion, perhaps more important than rpm.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
I don't know of a study. But it is "conventional wisdom" that cadence increases when cranks are shortened and I guess I just assumed that this was the body's way of maintaining percieved effort which in turn made me assume that pedaling velocity is important to percieved exertion, perhaps more important than rpm.

I have dropped my cadence a lot from what I used to spin on 200's to what I am spinning now on 150's.

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
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [zinny] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My wife is 5'-1" (156cm) and just recently went in for a fit. Early this year she had upgraded from an older P2 with 650 wheels to a newer P2 with 700's. (reason for 700's was flatting in a race where SAG had absolutely no 650 tires. She had two tubes, but the tire blew, and she had to DNF.) Anyway, she got switched down from 165 to 155 cranks after telling the fitter she felt like her perceived power had dropped off on the new bike versus the old. He said he has seen that before, switched cranks, and she appears to be back faster. Lack of power meter in use means none of this is quantifiable, but for her it helped.

I'm closer to the feathered end of the spear than the point.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [zinny] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
zinny wrote:
Since it seems like everything to do with fit has a method to it, does anyone know if there is a way to measure this, say since my "x" is this, a good guess at a optimal crank length would be "y".


You know, you're not that short ... ;^)

But to answer your question, yes, there is a formula that you can use to get a ballpark fit number. It is based on 170mm cranks, but I think that it is close enough. While this info was drawn up with the intention of showing a possible relationship between crank length and performance (and of which there may not be lots of evidence), it can easily be used for crank length vs fit. It might provide a good target number with which to start the fit process.
Link:

http://www.nettally.com/palmk/crankset.html

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook

--
Last edited by: DarkSpeedWorks: Dec 6, 17 15:58
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [DarkSpeedWorks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DarkSpeedWorks wrote:
zinny wrote:
Since it seems like everything to do with fit has a method to it, does anyone know if there is a way to measure this, say since my "x" is this, a good guess at a optimal crank length would be "y".


You know, you're not that short ... ;^)

But to answer your question, yes, there is a formula that you can use to get a ballpark fit number. It is based on 170mm cranks, but I think that it is close enough. While this info was drawn up with the intention of showing a possible relationship between crank length and performance (and of which there may not be lots of evidence), it can easily be used for crank length vs fit. I might provide a good target number with which to start the fit process.
Link:

http://www.nettally.com/palmk/crankset.html

I used that as my basis years ago to buy and ride 200 cranks. It may have been way way off for me at 6'5

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
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I am not saying that it is some kind gospel.

Just that, for fit purposes, the number is often a good starting point.

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook

--
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [DarkSpeedWorks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DarkSpeedWorks wrote:
I am not saying that it is some kind gospel.

Just that, for fit purposes, the number is often a good starting point.

Just offering that is what I thought also, and it was WAY off, just for FYI. Wish I had known years ago. :(

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
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [zinny] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I posted this in a similar thread:
Here's my simplistic approach to fitting for aerodynamics and crank length together.
1. Decide how close to horizontal you want your torso. Closer to horizontal is generally more aero but requires really holding your head up to look ahead. You could do this part of the fit with cranks stationary and horizontal, its just to find out how low you're really willing to go.
2. Once you have dialed in the seat-relative-to-elbow pad position for how low you want to go, you can determine crank length. Proper crank length would be the one that gives you a reasonable hip angle as you come over the top. This is also influenced by fore-aft saddle position which serves to rotate your body about the bottom bracket. Of course you must adjust seat and elbow pad height to accommodate each crank length. If you're tall and thin, regular sized cranks will probably work just fine. If you're under about 5'10" or thickly built, you'll likely need shorter cranks (unless you want to sit up pretty high).
3. Done.
I went through this process to set up a UCI legal position (nose of saddle 5cm behind bb) for myself for track cycling. I wanted absolutely horizontal torso. At 5'8" 160lb, I needed 145mm cranks to make that rideable. For triathlon I wouldn't need to go that short because the rules allow a much more forward saddle position. Probably a good place to start any fitting procedure is with the saddle as far forward as the rules allow.
Cheers,
Jim
PS I am not a bike fitter except for myself. I have, however, published several papers on cycling crank length and cycling aerodynamics, and spent untold hours in wind tunnels.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank arm length from fit perspective [zinny] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
the one important thing for me with regard to using short cranks is that I find it easier to go up a hill while on the tri bars. When I have been on 'normal' cranks say 170 I have to sit up. This may be due to my inherent inflexibility but the ability to stay aero while putting out a reasonable TT power up a hill is a huge improvement.

I read that a smaller crank doesnt change drag but intuitively this does not make sense .. surely by turning a smaller circle we are creating less turbulence hence saving drag. The size of the hole we creating is now slightly smaller as well so doesnt this have an effect?? surely it must???
Quote Reply