Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Trainer vs road bike crank length - up or down?
Quote | Reply
I ride 172.5 cranks on my road and gravel bikes, and 175 on the mtb. Thinking about a basic 8 speed group for a trainer bike, but the cranks only come in 170 and 175.

I was thinking of going down to 170 for slightly better spinning/cadence, since I don't really need the leverage of a longer crank inside. Any other thoughts (besides it doesn't matter)?
Quote Reply
Re: Trainer vs road bike crank length - up or down? [brando] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think your thoughts are 100% correct. I ride 172.5 on my road bike and put 175 on a gravel bike I just built up as I think the leverage helps like on a mtb where you have to put in those short sharp bursts of power on steeper dirt climbs the extra leverage comes into it's own. Being more controlled on a trainer I would lean to 170 too.
Quote Reply
Re: Trainer vs road bike crank length - up or down? [brando] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Trainer vs road bike crank length - up or down? [brando] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
brando wrote:
I ride 172.5 cranks on my road and gravel bikes, and 175 on the mtb. Thinking about a basic 8 speed group for a trainer bike, but the cranks only come in 170 and 175.

I was thinking of going down to 170 for slightly better spinning/cadence, since I don't really need the leverage of a longer crank inside. Any other thoughts (besides it doesn't matter)?

Considering all research pointing to zero benefit to more leverage and shorter potentially having benefits I think 170 is the smarter choice. That said they say the difference of 2.5-5mm is not even tangible so you’re unlikely to notice any difference.
Quote Reply
Re: Trainer vs road bike crank length - up or down? [T2LV] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
T2LV wrote:
brando wrote:
I ride 172.5 cranks on my road and gravel bikes, and 175 on the mtb. Thinking about a basic 8 speed group for a trainer bike, but the cranks only come in 170 and 175.

I was thinking of going down to 170 for slightly better spinning/cadence, since I don't really need the leverage of a longer crank inside. Any other thoughts (besides it doesn't matter)?

Considering all research pointing to zero benefit to more leverage and shorter potentially having benefits I think 170 is the smarter choice. That said they say the difference of 2.5-5mm is not even tangible so you’re unlikely to notice any difference.
Kind of depends what you Can live with. 2,5mm shorter cranks means 2,5mm higher saddle and front end, And 5mm more space between leg and belly, so if thats an issue a shorter Crank might be a good odes
Quote Reply