Crank arm length??????

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

upside
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:26 am
Location: USA

by upside

What is the concensus on crank arm length. I live in a hilly region... climb quite a bit. My thought with the longer length there is better leverage. I am 6' tall and have been using 175's and would like to try a 180. Is there a downside to my way of thinking or trying the 180's. Thank you.

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 8749
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

There has been a huge debate on the issue... the outcome is it does not really matter that much. It has more to do with your ride style. 175 is fine for your height IMHO.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



User avatar
bikerjulio
Posts: 1900
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:38 pm
Location: Welland, Ontario

by bikerjulio

One of the most debated topics in cycling, on which there is no consensus.

I'm 6' 1" with long legs and have bikes with cranks 175 - 177.5 - and 180.

Cannot really tell the difference to be honest.
There's sometimes a buggy.
How many drivers does a buggy have?

One.

So let's just say I'm drivin' this buggy...
and if you fix your attitude you can ride along with me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GekiIMh4ZkM

NiFTY
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 11:26 pm

by NiFTY

Similar to bore/stroke design in an engine. Longer crank gives more torque and makes it easier to turn a gear, but each stroke is longer and tends to reduce cadence. Its a tradeoff.
Evo 4.9kg SL3 6.64kg Slice RS 8.89kg viewtopic.php?f=10&t=110579" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mike
Resident Pro
Posts: 2984
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 9:42 pm

by mike

I use 175 mm and I am 5'7. I don't see why not go to 180 mm if you live in hilly region.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:30 pm

by Rick

Just my experience: I am one who thought crank length should make a difference. It only makes sense.
So I have tried over the past few years 170, 172.5, 175, and 180s. (I have a 33.0" inseam = 83.8 cm)
Even on 25-30 minute climbs averaging 10% it hasn't seemed to make a significant difference. (Using average power and times)
Yes it is a little easier to push a big gear at low cadence on the longer ones, and yes the shorter ones seem a little easier to spin, particularly going "over the top" at high power outputs. But I conclude that over any significant length of time you are limited by your biochemical power output, so the crank length effects are swamped by other things.
I am currently using the 170's, because I figure that if it makes little difference I might as well have a comfortable spin.

But I might continue experimenting, because it seems like it just has to make a difference! Right ?!?!? :noidea:

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Like Bikerjuilo says, no consensus. I'm 6'1" (91cm inseam) and use 175 cranks. On the tt bike I opted for 172.5 cranks.
Longer cranks give more raw leverage and for a short punch that's ok, but probably something to be said for more constant spin of a smaller circle as well. Best all round for me seems to be 175 but I'm sure I wouldn't notice much of a difference with 172.5 either (have those on my very first higher end road bike). All depends on what you're doing I suppose and you're riding style. No consensus means try it out for yourself. It's never a bad thing to experience it for yourself as opposed to just follow consensus like a lemming.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

upside
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:26 am
Location: USA

by upside

Thanks for the input.. very interesting and now thinking of not changing. Thanks

mitchgixer6
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:22 pm

by mitchgixer6

What with this being Weight Weenies then it stands to reason that the shorter arms will be lighter! :-)

User avatar
bigfatty
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:53 am

by bigfatty

What with this being Weight Weenies then it stands to reason that the shorter arms will be lighter


haha, that is funny and true.

I will be going from 175 to 172.5 when my new cranks arrive.

As I see it, not only do yor knees come up hiher causing a crimp but also more your knees are more compressed or extended when the crank is horizontal. For me I think I will prefer my knees being less crimped when the longer crank is in the vertical and horizontal/hind position. also, could one apply more force when the shorter crank is in the horizontal/fore position, as the leg is not so extended? straighter leg meaning more direct force.
Last edited by bigfatty on Fri Oct 03, 2014 7:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User Name
Posts: 611
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:32 pm

by User Name

I've bored several forumites over the years with my stories about this, :D so here's the short version.

I'm 6ft with long-ish legs (89cm inside leg), and I've extensively used every length from 170 to 180, and in the last couple of years I've done 'some' riding with 165s (mostly to see if I could get more aero), especially when I had a sore knee. Around 2004, I gave 180s a good try for over a year, but they ended up annoying me (mostly due to the position they put me in), and I went back to 172.5s for most of my riding. I probably would've been just as happy returning to 175s, or even 170s, but there were more 172.5s available in Dura-Ace 7800s around here when I was "re-decking" out my bikes.

In short, I believe longer cranks probably provide a small leverage advantage when riding off the saddle, but when seated, there's a trade-off: while there may be more leverage, they're harder to push, basically because your knees come up higher, and, to a lesser degree, you have to pedal a larger circle. In other words, when seated, it's much of a muchness.

In my opinion, the "spin" thing is only an issue if you're a sprinter.

One potential drawback I found is that long cranks can be seductive when you first try them, because they can feel good and "liberating", so you try everything to make them work.

Here's a short article which briefly explains the conundrum between possible reduced force (extra leverage?) versus the extra torque required to pedal a larger circle when using longer cranks.
http://www.arniebakercycling.com/pubs/F ... Length.pdf

Zoro
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:52 am

by Zoro

I used to commute 35mile each way to work on a track bike with 165mm cranks - 1-2 days a week. I would then ride my road bike with 180mm cranks. I stood much more on the road bike and also was not on a fixed gear and would use bigger gears (duh). I am 6'2".

Anyway I thought the 165s made my 180s feel better. I didn't like 165s on my road bike. Now I ride 175s as a matter of course and average around 85-90rpm. I would likely choose 172.5s for crits and spin 5 rpm faster.

fitty4
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:19 pm
Location: Denmark

by fitty4

I agree with User Name and bigfatty, my inseam is 84 cm and using 170mm , my bikefitter said: I'd like to see you on 170 mm" so I skipped the 172,5 mm and have been a happy man ever since. I don't believe in riding style, I believe in body mechanics.
The size of your feet is also a factor when determing the crank lenght.

Valbrona
Posts: 1629
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:25 am
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

by Valbrona

My advice to anyone serious about their cycling is to try the crank length that the math/maths says suits you best, and then also to try the next size up.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



abjra
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2014 5:02 pm

by abjra

My two cents: longer cranks aren't better. They've done studies that show no significant change in power within a pretty huge range of lengths (something like 160-190) and longer cranks will compromise your ability to produce power when in a low aero tuck. Longer cranks will drive your knees into your chest and make for a very tight hip angle. I'm 6'1", saddle height 83.8cm and will be running 172.5 cranks on my road bike and 165 cranks on my TT bike next season.

Post Reply