Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

For those of you who tried many different crankset lengths, what made you settle where you're at?
Quote | Reply
I have run 172.5 forever and been happy. I got my new to me tri bike and it came with 165s (I had the option of 172.5 or 165). I like the 165s and feel good. I'm asking my posted question because I want to get the 4iiii left side PM to match my road bike (Same PM) and I don't know if it's worth me considering 167.5 or 170s. I am only wondering if I would notice any discernable difference on the climbs. I am relatively surprised at how I am able to spin up pretty well with these, and I don't notice any difference at all on the flats.

Is the 167.5 jump to minute to notice?
Last edited by: littlefoot: Jan 16, 21 6:26
Quote Reply
Re: For those of you who tried many different crankset lengths, what made you settle where you're at? [littlefoot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
a proper bike fit that ran through the gamut of multiple different lengths is how I settled on mine. The size we went with just clicked best for me and gave me the best power output to comfort result. Best money ever spent.

Cheers, Ray
Last edited by: TX83: Jan 17, 21 7:20
Quote Reply
Re: For those of you who tried many different crankset lengths, what made you settle where you're at? [littlefoot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have wandered around that range of crank lengths (165-172.5) and I have to say that I have never noticed a difference in the 2.5mm range. If you think about it from a mechanical point of view, the difference of 2.5 mm is probably about the same amount of change you experience with different pad thinknesses in your bike shorts. I think you need to start getting in the 5 and 7.5 mm range before you feel big differences and i would say that this is mostly because you multiply crank length by 2 to get the total change in "effective" saddle height.
Quote Reply
Re: For those of you who tried many different crankset lengths, what made you settle where you're at? [grumpier.mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kind of what I figured. It's funny how the numbers can seem to throw ppl off but when you realize it's mm it's so minor. I am going to stay with my 165 and move on. I feel good and would rather get it now to train with. Thanks.
Quote Reply
Re: For those of you who tried many different crankset lengths, what made you settle where you're at? [littlefoot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How tall are you?
Quote Reply
Re: For those of you who tried many different crankset lengths, what made you settle where you're at? [littlefoot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I've used 165 up to 195 and finally settled on 165s for all my bikes. I run aero bars on my road and gravel bikes and just found I preferred the faster spin. Even 175 kind of bothers me now if I have to switch.
Actually, I run a 170 drive side and 165 left side on my tri bike (its a long story related to q-factor) and I can't tell the difference when I pull it out for my weekly ride.
Quote Reply