Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Crank length
Quote | Reply
My old road bike had 172.5mm cranks, and my new bike has 170mm which is not much of a difference, but every once in a while I wondered if longer cranks would give me extra power because I felt like I had more power on the longer cranks. This could have been cause by any number of reasons such as seat height, sitting position on the saddle, or something else. I'm not really worried about what caused it though. Wanting to know more I jumped on Google and came across this...

https://cyclingtips.com/...-leverage-power-fit/

I felt it was a great article and it has me thinking that I don't really need to change cranks unless the new ones are simply more aerodynamic because different length cranks don't seem to offer much more or less power unless you are on the extreme ends of what is currently available on the market.

Has this article been debunked or is there more data available?

I got 170mm because when I bought my groupset 172.5mm was way more expensive for some reason and there was no way in hell I was going to let my brand new frame sit there unused for longer than necessary. When you bought cranks did you just wing it and go smaller than your road bike because you heard it saves your legs for the run? Did your bike fitter sell you some sparkly ones? Are you considering new cranks? If so, why?

The more people I encounter the more I love my cats.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank length [Slug] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I went with shorter cranks for more comfort in aero. (keeping the knees from hitting my belly, I have big knees) :0)
Quote Reply
Re: Crank length [Slug] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Just bought a new crankset but did not think about length: just ordered 172,5 as the old ones were.
Is actually exactly 20% of my crotch height, as advised in the linked article.
The article mentiones that for IM there seems to be a tendency to smaller lengths.
However, since I do not have problems staying longer in aeroposition, I do not think I am going to worry about this topic.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank length [Slug] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How is your bike fit?
Quote Reply
Re: Crank length [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jimatbeyond wrote:
How is your bike fit?
If you mean my personal fit coordinates I don't have them, but I am comfortable on my bike. No pain anywhere, although I do start sliding forward a bit near the end of tough rides. It was happening more but I tilted the bars up and that reduced it a little. Other than that, nothing has been changed fit-wise in about 2 years.

The more people I encounter the more I love my cats.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank length [Slug] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you can get a bike fit.....I'm assuming a tri-bike here?????? I went to shorter crank length to open my hips up and my power went up a little bit but my comfort went up a lot. My legs were fresher for the run too. It was the fit that over all did this for me but equipment change wise it was the shorter cranks that made the biggest difference.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank length [longtrousers] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
longtrousers wrote:
However, since I do not have problems staying longer in aeroposition, I do not think I am going to worry about this topic.

That’s really not the reason to be on proper length cranks...

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.”
Quote Reply
Re: Crank length [Scottxs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thank you. Considering how something isn't right that is getting me to slide forward when tired, comfort is major consideration for me now. I'll keep looking for some 165mm cranks.

The more people I encounter the more I love my cats.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank length [Slug] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I didn't read the entire linked article but from what I did read and the skim I gave the rest, it appears to be pretty much in line with everything else credible that I've come across. I don't think anyone is going around claiming optimised crank length promises significant power increases, except perhaps a certain owner of a Velotron and his buddy. What I have seen is a lot of people saying shorter than previously typical cranks have provided more comfort and/or made it easier to run after.
I changed from 172.5mm cranks on my tri bike to 160mm a couple of years ago and I'm very glad I did. I didn't notice any power changes, nor did I expect to. However, I used to get fairly regular knee discomfort on hard efforts which I was hoping this would help, and fortunately it did dramatically improve when I switched. I also find it easier to maintain a more aerodynamic position with the less acute hip angle. I think I feel better running off the bike now too, but I think that one's more subjective and it's harder to be certain of either correlation or causation.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank length [Slug] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I would recommend 155mm crank arms.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank length [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I use 155, I went through all the measures, with twists and turns, I went back to longer, I shortened again and now I'm at 155, it's all more head than anything that has more power with longer, although it happened to me too, as he says with twists and turns
Quote Reply
Re: Crank length [Slug] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My old bike had 170 and my newer QR PR6 has 165. My lower back issues seem to have gone away.
Quote Reply
Re: Crank length [Slug] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My road bike has 162.5, and I've ridden 172.5, 162.5, and now 155 on the tt bike, never really noticed any changes in power output, if anything slightly higher in aero with the shorter cranks from reduced hip impingement.
Quote Reply