Every year I rack the training/race bike, 175's double, and go to work on the trainer bike, 172.5 and a triple. Every year I get the same experience, 1) I can spin those 172.5's with little effort. 2) It takes a long time to transition back to the other bike -- feels like a huge dead spot at the top of the stroke. Both are beam bikes. No obvious bouncing during the spring but it takes nearly a month before I get comfortable on the regular bike. Subjectively it feels like I want the triple back...it just feels better being "wider." Historically I've assumed that it was the 172.5's that enabled me to spin eaiser. Now I wonder if its the little extra width the triple affords me that actually may make me more efficient because I'm more comfortable. Thoughts?
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Triple vs Double and fit [Chappy]
[ In reply to ]
My guess is that you should stick with the 172.5 cranks. Why go to a longer crank? Maybe even the 172.5 is too big. Tell us more.
but then I use 165s with my sawed off legs, so what do I know?
but then I use 165s with my sawed off legs, so what do I know?
Re: Triple vs Double and fit [ajfranke]
[ In reply to ]
Fit guy, whom I trust, says 175's was the way to go 2 years ago when he built the current bike. As I recall the decision was based on foot length (13), leg length discrepency(?), and strength. Inseam is 31.5. Long torso. He's seen me a number of times since and from his vantage point everything looks good, and acknowledges the transition period in the spring will feel awkward. That I have a IM focus going on also has us leaning towards the 175's. I think the crank length is something to consider I also wonder about how the width of one's pelvis might factor into the mix. I'm fairly wide and wonder if THAT might be a bigger factor in the triple feeling more comfortable. It would seem to me there ought to be an optimal width of BB-Crankset for any of us, one where we are the most comfortable and generate the most power.(?)
Quote:
Fit guy, whom I trust, says 175's was the way to go 2 years ago when he built the current bike.All due respect to the fit guy, but nobody is that smart. Crank length is a self-selected thing, like shoes and gloves. There is no biomechanical "correct" length (and plenty of excercise phys PhD candidates have nearly died trying to find a formula for one). Do you feel better on the 172.5's? Then that's your crank length. Period. End of discussion.
As for width -- I doubt it. Try the shorter cranks on your race bike for a while (just put the triple ones on there without the granny ring). I'm betting you'll be fine. I ride a triple road bike and a double tri bike, and I cannot tell the slightest difference going back and forth between them (both have the same crank lengths).