I’m liking this idea of using smaller cranks to open up the hip angle. I ride with 175’s on my roadie, so do you think I could go to 165 for the tri bike I’m building? I’d prefer to just buy this once. Would do 170’s if I hadn’t found a deal on some 165’s.
6’0", proportionate build. 56cm p2.
yep - I’ve done it.
No problems.
165 is probably a good choice.
Using a square taper bottom bracket might save you money.
Yes. Been on 165’s for a year now on tri bike and love em. Hip flexors don’t ache on the run.
interesting.
i am on 170’s on road bike and new TT bike i picked up last week has 175’s on them
i was enjoying the feeling of a little more power from the longer cranks (maybe just in my head) on the TT bike, but you guys are suggesting going shorter.
my position is not too aggressive atm on TT bike though - will work into it gradually as I have had lower back issues in the past, so maybe hip angle not such a factor for me as my knees are not in my chest
Courtney Ogden apparently raced on 145’s back in November and won!
There is nothing wrong with trying shorter …
If you hip angle isn’t super tight, why would you want shorter crank arms?
How about a power meter and run through some tests on your bike with a few different cranks sets a the LBS?
I’ve tried twice to go to 170’s from 175’s…just can’t do it. I change back to 175 every time. The only reason I can do this so easily is I own the Look 596 with crank arms you can change in a few minutes from 175 to 172.5 to 170.
Note, that I live where its very hilly. My regular 22 mile ride has 1600ft of climbing and this is my “flat” ride. I lose all kinds of power to the cranks as my speed slips below about 10mph, which around here happens about every 5-10 minutes : ) The 170’s get bogged down under 10mph, and a low cadence and makes it very difficult to get back up to speed and a good cadence.
I ride aggressive with a huge amount of drop, but I have very long legs and ride way forward. I don’t have a problem with hip angle. I see zero reason to stay with the shorter cranks and suffer climbing.
I’ve tried twice to go to 170’s from 175’s…just can’t do it. I change back to 175 every time. The only reason I can do this so easily is I own the Look 596 with crank arms you can change in a few minutes from 175 to 172.5 to 170.
Note, that I live where its very hilly. My regular 22 mile ride has 1600ft of climbing and this is my “flat” ride. I lose all kinds of power to the cranks as my speed slips below about 10mph, which around here happens about every 5-10 minutes : ) The 170’s get bogged down under 10mph, and a low cadence and makes it very difficult to get back up to speed and a good cadence.
I ride aggressive with a huge amount of drop, but I have very long legs and ride way forward. I don’t have a problem with hip angle. I see zero reason to stay with the shorter cranks and suffer climbing.
Try the 170s with a larger cog in the back (or a smaller chainring).
Changing crank length is changing a part of your overal “gear ratio”…if you don’t compensate with cogs or chainring, then you’ll end up feeling “bogged down”, just like it would be if for some reason you couldn’t get into your lowest gear with the longer cranks.
switch your rear casette when you try 170s
I’ve tried twice to go to 170’s from 175’s…just can’t do it. I change back to 175 every time. The only reason I can do this so easily is I own the Look 596 with crank arms you can change in a few minutes from 175 to 172.5 to 170.
Note, that I live where its very hilly. My regular 22 mile ride has 1600ft of climbing and this is my “flat” ride. I lose all kinds of power to the cranks as my speed slips below about 10mph, which around here happens about every 5-10 minutes : ) The 170’s get bogged down under 10mph, and a low cadence and makes it very difficult to get back up to speed and a good cadence.
I ride aggressive with a huge amount of drop, but I have very long legs and ride way forward. I don’t have a problem with hip angle. I see zero reason to stay with the shorter cranks and suffer climbing.
If you hip angle isn’t super tight, why would you want shorter crank arms?
more aero
less weight
better ground clearance
this isn’t crit racing though
so the ground clearance point is pretty silly
as are the other two points
.
Tom,
Thanks for the tip, however I don’t really need to go the route of the shorter cranks. I have no leg/hip angle problems. If I go to shorter cranks, and then change cogs to make up for it, I’m not really gaining anything. I used to ride 180’s til I got the 596 which has a max crank length of 175, unless you use the adapter and change to a non ZED crank (dumb idea).
Tom,
Thanks for the tip, however I don’t really need to go the route of the shorter cranks. I have no leg/hip angle problems. If I go to shorter cranks, and then change cogs to make up for it, I’m not really gaining anything. I used to ride 180’s til I got the 596 which has a max crank length of 175, unless you use the adapter and change to a non ZED crank (dumb idea).
I realized that…but, just thought I’d put that out there for others following along 
You are gaining plenty. You can go to compact, smaller rings, less links, should be more efficient drive train, lighter and more aero. Then your knees will thank you at some point. You will find that it is much more comfortable to spin higher cadences so you can get back some of that top-end speed from the larger gear ratios that you are now missing. You will also find that it is much more comfortable in the aero position, chances are you can be more aggressive (likely gaining more aero), or stay more comfortable at the same saddle-pad drop. And if you train with power you should either see an increase in power or the same power for a given heart rate. There is absolutely no reason you need to be on 175s. The #1 complaint of triathletes that I have is they think they need to have a 53/39 and #2 that they need long crank arms.