Swim Bike Run
Slowtwitch.com
  • Login >
Slowtwitch.com
Search menu
Hot Forum Topics

Poll

Comfort While Cycling
How much does comfort while cycling influence your overall race performance?
View Results


Home > Forum > Triathlon Forum > Short Cranks Rule, Long Cranks Drool

Triathlon Forum

Back To ForumPrint Thread

Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Tri
Classifieds
Lavender
Jobs
Notices
Short Cranks Rule, Long Cranks Drool
Quote | Reply
candyman
Mar 20, 23 6:41
Post #1 of 14 (1512 views)
I've been riding 170/172.5mm cranks for a long time and decided to try shorter cranks and go with 165mm. Oh my, what a difference a few millimeters makes. Before, I always felt that my top leg was coming up very high and did not necessarily hit my elbow, but it was uncomfortable. If I raised my seat to adjust and make a longer distance between my upper leg and my torso, then I would really have to stretch/reach for the bottom of the pedal stroke.

With the shorter cranks, I feel engaged 100% during the pedal stroke and feel that my legs are doing a faster RPM than with the longer cranks. I must also confess that at the tender age of 64, I also know that my body is starting to shrink. Yes, shrinkage happens to all of us. With the longer cranks, I was starting to feel discomfort in my hip joint. With the shorter cranks, there is no pain at all in my hip joint.

For comparison, I have two tri bikes - a Cervelo P3 and an old Kestrel KM-40. I changed to the shorter cranks on my Cervelo and now have a hard time riding the Kestrel - "Old Bessy". Old Bessy has been with me for 20+ years, but she's collecting more dust in the garage.
Quote Reply
Re: Short Cranks Rule, Long Cranks Drool [candyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hanginon
Mar 20, 23 7:57
Post #2 of 14 (1453 views)
Short Cranks are for Woosies!!

Interesting - my experience with short cranks are almost the exact opposite of yours.

Raced on 172.5's when I was young, road race and crits. Retired, moved to Florida, moved to 170's and just doing TT's. Now aged 76, placed 2nd in Florida's Senior Games 75-79 age group, which qualifies me for the Nationals.

Recently tries 165's on both of my TT bikes - didn't like it at all. Felt like I couldn't develop enough power, especially in the lower part of my legs.

Discussion was here - https://forum.slowtwitch.com/.../?page=unread#unread
Quote Reply
Re: Short Cranks Rule, Long Cranks Drool [Hanginon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sciguy
Mar 20, 23 8:28
Post #3 of 14 (1414 views)
Hanginon wrote:

Recently tries 165's on both of my TT bikes - didn't like it at all. Felt like I couldn't develop enough power, especially in the lower part of my legs.

Discussion was here - https://forum.slowtwitch.com/.../?page=unread#unread

Did you actually measure power with a power meter? My experience is that few riders have much ability to sense power by feel accurately until they've spent a good bit of time comparing their perception to actual measured power.

Hugh
Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.
Quote Reply
Re: Short Cranks Rule, Long Cranks Drool [sciguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hanginon
Mar 20, 23 8:57
Post #4 of 14 (1368 views)
sciguy wrote:
Did you actually measure power with a power meter?
No - I have no instruments on the bike, I just listen to my legs. I am fortunate in having a lot of younger Tri riders I can ride with, and we ride the same route at similar speeds all the time, so the actual required power is probably fairly constant. With the short cranks the "soreness" in my legs was completely different, much worse and all concentrated in my thighs. The longer cranks hurt less and it feels like my calf's are doing something. I realize this is highly subjective, but it's the best way I can describe it. Others have also moved back to longer cranks.
Quote Reply
Re: Short Cranks Rule, Long Cranks Drool [sciguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Warbird
Mar 20, 23 9:54
Post #5 of 14 (1320 views)
sciguy wrote:
Hanginon wrote:


Recently tries 165's on both of my TT bikes - didn't like it at all. Felt like I couldn't develop enough power, especially in the lower part of my legs.

Discussion was here - https://forum.slowtwitch.com/.../?page=unread#unread


Did you actually measure power with a power meter? My experience is that few riders have much ability to sense power by feel accurately until they've spent a good bit of time comparing their perception to actual measured power.

Hugh


The very first thing I learned when I got my first power meter was just how gawdawful my perception of power output was. The first ride I did with it was a lap around a local course, where I would be racing at the end of the week. I rode at what I thought was a pretty consistent effort at race pace (without watching my Garmin), and was shocked when I uploaded the ride to find out just how wildly varying my effort was. Much higher than I thought on the climbs, and much lower on the flat and rolling sections. For the race itself several days later, I made an effort to stay somewhere in the middle (at about what Strava had estimated I was holding for long mountain climbs.) I backed off on the climbs and pushed harder on the flats, and wound up PRing the bike course and feeling better than usual at the start of the run...
"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"
Last edited by: Warbird: Mar 20, 23 9:56
Quote Reply
Re: Short Cranks Rule, Long Cranks Drool [candyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MrTri123
Mar 20, 23 9:55
Post #6 of 14 (1320 views)
candyman wrote:
I've been riding 170/172.5mm cranks for a long time and decided to try shorter cranks and go with 165mm. Oh my, what a difference a few millimeters makes. Before, I always felt that my top leg was coming up very high and did not necessarily hit my elbow, but it was uncomfortable. If I raised my seat to adjust and make a longer distance between my upper leg and my torso, then I would really have to stretch/reach for the bottom of the pedal stroke.

With the shorter cranks, I feel engaged 100% during the pedal stroke and feel that my legs are doing a faster RPM than with the longer cranks. I must also confess that at the tender age of 64, I also know that my body is starting to shrink. Yes, shrinkage happens to all of us. With the longer cranks, I was starting to feel discomfort in my hip joint. With the shorter cranks, there is no pain at all in my hip joint.

For comparison, I have two tri bikes - a Cervelo P3 and an old Kestrel KM-40. I changed to the shorter cranks on my Cervelo and now have a hard time riding the Kestrel - "Old Bessy". Old Bessy has been with me for 20+ years, but she's collecting more dust in the garage.

Very interesting

I have wondered about shorter cranks

What is your inseam?
Quote Reply
Re: Short Cranks Rule, Long Cranks Drool [Hanginon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MrTri123
Mar 20, 23 9:55
Post #7 of 14 (1318 views)
Hanginon wrote:
Short Cranks are for Woosies!!

Interesting - my experience with short cranks are almost the exact opposite of yours.

Raced on 172.5's when I was young, road race and crits. Retired, moved to Florida, moved to 170's and just doing TT's. Now aged 76, placed 2nd in Florida's Senior Games 75-79 age group, which qualifies me for the Nationals.

Recently tries 165's on both of my TT bikes - didn't like it at all. Felt like I couldn't develop enough power, especially in the lower part of my legs.

Discussion was here - https://forum.slowtwitch.com/.../?page=unread#unread

What is your inseam?
Quote Reply
Re: Short Cranks Rule, Long Cranks Drool [MrTri123] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
El Soloist
Mar 20, 23 9:59
Post #8 of 14 (1310 views)
I too have been very interested in trying shorter cranks lately. I have 172.5s which came on my tri bike. I have a 30" inseam
Quote Reply
Re: Short Cranks Rule, Long Cranks Drool [jsteck22] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Marksf
Mar 20, 23 10:07
Post #9 of 14 (1306 views)
My road bike came with 172.5's and my tri bike with 165's. My fitter told me to move the 165's to my road bike and go with 155's on the Tri bike. I was skeptical at first, but dude was one of the top fitters for Trek (Cyclelogic based of out Phoenix) so I trusted him. All in all I didn't see a drop in power, but I do feel like my hips open better and I carry a higher cadence.

for reference I have a long torso and super short legs. I am 5'10.5" and wear a 29-30" inseam on my pants.
Quote Reply
Re: Short Cranks Rule, Long Cranks Drool [Marksf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
theyellowcarguy
Mar 20, 23 10:52
Post #10 of 14 (1265 views)
Marksf wrote:
My road bike came with 172.5's and my tri bike with 165's. My fitter told me to move the 165's to my road bike and go with 155's on the Tri bike. I was skeptical at first, but dude was one of the top fitters for Trek (Cyclelogic based of out Phoenix) so I trusted him. All in all I didn't see a drop in power, but I do feel like my hips open better and I carry a higher cadence.

for reference I have a long torso and super short legs. I am 5'10.5" and wear a 29-30" inseam on my pants.

Paraic at Cyclologic pushes the short cranks on everyone. I too run short cranks because of him, 155 on my tri bike and 165 on my road bike. I haven't noticed a difference one way or the other, so I have to assume that's a good thing. I make significantly more power on my road bike (6% or so), but I think I'm still adapting to the aero position after years of road cycle racing, not because of the 10mm crank length. I'm kind of a set it and forget it type of guy and have been really happy with my fit so won't be swapping crank lengths to see if there is a difference.
My Strava | My Instagram | Summerville, SC | 35-39 AG | 4:41 (70.3), 10:05 (140.6) | 3x70.3, 1x140.6 | Cat 2 Cyclist
Quote Reply
Re: Short Cranks Rule, Long Cranks Drool [MrTri123] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hanginon
Mar 20, 23 11:17
Post #11 of 14 (1237 views)
MrTri123 wrote:
Hanginon wrote:
Short Cranks are for Woosies!!

Interesting - my experience with short cranks are almost the exact opposite of yours.

Raced on 172.5's when I was young, road race and crits. Retired, moved to Florida, moved to 170's and just doing TT's. Now aged 76, placed 2nd in Florida's Senior Games 75-79 age group, which qualifies me for the Nationals.

Recently tries 165's on both of my TT bikes - didn't like it at all. Felt like I couldn't develop enough power, especially in the lower part of my legs.

Discussion was here - https://forum.slowtwitch.com/.../?page=unread#unread


What is your inseam?

5' 11" with 32" inseam, 76cm non-ism saddle height, Time low stack height pedals, ball of foot 15mm in front of center. The Tri riders I ride with are 49 to 54 years old, no problem burying them - but I'm not a runner.
Last edited by: Hanginon: Mar 20, 23 20:02
Quote Reply
Re: Short Cranks Rule, Long Cranks Drool [theyellowcarguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Marksf
Mar 20, 23 11:45
Post #12 of 14 (1213 views)
theyellowcarguy wrote:
Marksf wrote:
My road bike came with 172.5's and my tri bike with 165's. My fitter told me to move the 165's to my road bike and go with 155's on the Tri bike. I was skeptical at first, but dude was one of the top fitters for Trek (Cyclelogic based of out Phoenix) so I trusted him. All in all I didn't see a drop in power, but I do feel like my hips open better and I carry a higher cadence.

for reference I have a long torso and super short legs. I am 5'10.5" and wear a 29-30" inseam on my pants.


Paraic at Cyclologic pushes the short cranks on everyone. I too run short cranks because of him, 155 on my tri bike and 165 on my road bike. I haven't noticed a difference one way or the other, so I have to assume that's a good thing. I make significantly more power on my road bike (6% or so), but I think I'm still adapting to the aero position after years of road cycle racing, not because of the 10mm crank length. I'm kind of a set it and forget it type of guy and have been really happy with my fit so won't be swapping crank lengths to see if there is a difference.

So far I am happy with it also. My LBS tried it out and said that they felt much smoother with the shorter cranks. Might be something to that also...
Quote Reply
Re: Short Cranks Rule, Long Cranks Drool [Warbird] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mathematics
Mar 20, 23 12:27
Post #13 of 14 (1160 views)
Warbird wrote:
sciguy wrote:
Hanginon wrote:


Recently tries 165's on both of my TT bikes - didn't like it at all. Felt like I couldn't develop enough power, especially in the lower part of my legs.

Discussion was here - https://forum.slowtwitch.com/.../?page=unread#unread


Did you actually measure power with a power meter? My experience is that few riders have much ability to sense power by feel accurately until they've spent a good bit of time comparing their perception to actual measured power.

Hugh


The very first thing I learned when I got my first power meter was just how gawdawful my perception of power output was. The first ride I did with it was a lap around a local course, where I would be racing at the end of the week. I rode at what I thought was a pretty consistent effort at race pace (without watching my Garmin), and was shocked when I uploaded the ride to find out just how wildly varying my effort was. Much higher than I thought on the climbs, and much lower on the flat and rolling sections. For the race itself several days later, I made an effort to stay somewhere in the middle (at about what Strava had estimated I was holding for long mountain climbs.) I backed off on the climbs and pushed harder on the flats, and wound up PRing the bike course and feeling better than usual at the start of the run...

There's some pretty interesting reasons for this RPE/power offset on uphill/downhill sections. One is the impact of noise/stimulus on RPE, less 'I'm going fast" stimulus on climbs = less RPE, even at the same power output. Secondly, on a climb there is visceral and direct input if you drop output, whereas on the flats it takes a bit for a power drop to be noticeable.

Most interestingly is the resistance to acceleration of cadence, where it's easier to change cadence at low gears compared to high gears, even at the same power. (Imagine riding a trainer at 300w at 90rpm and moving up to 95rpm. Now imagine instead of a 20lb flywheel there is a 2000lb flywheel). This manifests as a feeling of greater resistance, but also (and maybe more importantly) as a lack of 'intra-cyclic differential'.
Quote Reply
Re: Short Cranks Rule, Long Cranks Drool [mathematics] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
kajet
Mar 20, 23 13:01
Post #14 of 14 (1124 views)
mathematics wrote:
There's some pretty interesting reasons for this RPE/power offset on uphill/downhill sections. One is the impact of noise/stimulus on RPE, less 'I'm going fast" stimulus on climbs = less RPE, even at the same power output. Secondly, on a climb there is visceral and direct input if you drop output, whereas on the flats it takes a bit for a power drop to be noticeable.

I don't want to contribute to the derailing of the thread, but it's the exact opposite for me. The slower I go at a given effort/power level, the higher the RPE.

And when pushing against the wind, most people will agree that 300 watts feel harder than in quiet conditions or with a tailwind.
"FTP is a bit 2015, don't you think?" - Gustav Iden
Quote Reply
Back To ForumPrint Thread

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.