you do that you may actually get up to 70 rpm one day.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I hate spinning.

Very funny. How many manufacturers make cranks of length smaller than 165mm? Or do you recommend BMX cranks?

Well, I am 6'2" and currently experimenting with 165 cranks (as short as my cranks will go and my big chain ring is a 58). Before this I was experimenting with 182.5. I find the shorter cranks demonstrably "easier" in the aero position and I think my speed is actually up some. It took a day or two to get used to the little bit "harder" pushing but I have no problem now. I see no reason not to try the shorter cranks and I see no reason to go to a smaller big ring.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

how does using smaller gears open up your hip angle?

I must have missed that one

Well, soon all of our cranks are going to go as short as 155mm and our long adjustable cranks have always gone as short as 85 mm.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Now that is some funny shit right there.

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

Francois,

Go here to see a thread I started on my wife's experiement with shorter cranks - 165's in her case:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...t_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

The thread turned a bit ugly after a while, but the key finding is that we found it was very helpful for her to go to the shorter cranks.

1. Solved some low back issues

2. Allowed her to ride aero more

3. Solved some issues she was having at 12:00

The net results has been faster bike rides/splits all year.

Based on some models, it would seem that she could go even shorter, but the 165 cranks were easily found and the results have been very good.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Sorry mate, I blame it on not knowing US units well ;-)

Sorry for the short cut...Less closed angle in the aero position, when on top of the crank.

Good stuff there. Going to try 165mm with 53-39.

Why do you think the 53 is necessary?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

My joints will like it.

actually i was being serious. for jordan, 170mm may be slightly small, but for you (if you use logic and proportionality, and few people do around the issue of crank length), realistically, you're going to have to go a lot smaller, very likely smaller than 165mm. how much smaller? i don't know exactly how long your legs are, but the bikes you have posted are small. set up an equation as i suggested and at least you will have a ballpark target. you don't have to go with bmx cranks. there are some custom crank companies that will make cranks whatever length you want.

that said, while you may want to experiment, i personally am not so sure "short cranks for triathlon" is really the way to go. while i do think you gain something with short cranks, you also lose something with short cranks. there is no free lunch ...

---

---

Where would you want to swim ?

Because my logic tells me there is really no reason to use proportionality here.

steve, i think you are missing something pretty important. 165mm long cranks for your wife are not by any stretch of logic, "short".

actually, they are normal, proportional cranks for her. "short" would be more like 150s or 140s.

---

---

Where would you want to swim ?

steve, i think you are missing something pretty important. 165mm long cranks for your wife are not by any stretch of logic, "short".

actually, they are normal, proportional cranks for her. "short" would be more like 150s or 140s.

Greg,

Thank you. My choice of words may not have been the best. Yours is better - they are proportionally right for her.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Why would they not like a bigger chain ring up front?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

It's not odd at all. Euclid never address the question of riding a time trial bike I believe. Neither did Riemann or Lobatchevsky for that matter.
As for using Thales theorem to justify crank length, well, now THAT is odd.

I went from 172.5's with standard 53-39 rings to 165mm cranks with (your) rotor q-rings and the difference for me has been significant. I had gradually decreased my hip angle over the last year searching for lower and more aero. And I found it. Then one day I realized I felt like crap pedaling with my 17 cm of drop and 76 cm of seat height... go figure right? Drop was reduced to 14cm, q rings and some inexpensive sram 165 arms to the rescue. Position eyeballs as nearly the same, but comfort while aero at threshold is immensely improved. Was having issues doing anything longer than 5 minutes at intensity with breaking position to relieve hip flexors. Issue is now gone. Been on the cranks for 1 month, q rings for 4 months. 45 minutes at 100% FTP this afternoon really verified my initial impressions on this set up. Best training ride of the year. I'm keeping the cranks. Actually going to spring for some Sram Reds at some point.

PM me if you want more info as I'm sure someone is about to pounce on this post and call me an idiot or question my coachness or some bs.

as you know, euclid never addressed thousands (if not millions) of things that basic geometry is used for today.

so, again i ask, what will be the basis for you to pick any length cranks to "open up your hip angle"?

how will you know whether to pick 130mm cranks, or 160mm cranks, or 170mm cranks?

---

---

Where would you want to swim ?

but comfort while aero at threshold is immensely improved

Bingo!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog