170mm cranks for 5ft 10.5inch rider?
Moderator: robbosmans
Also have a 31inch inseam. Industry standard seems to be 172.5mm, but would like to try 170mm.
http://bikedynamics.co.uk/FitGuidecranks.htm
Seems most recommendations are a bit shorter than industry standard.
Also apologies for question spam recently
http://bikedynamics.co.uk/FitGuidecranks.htm
Seems most recommendations are a bit shorter than industry standard.
Also apologies for question spam recently
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
I'm 6 ft tall and love 170s with a low enough gear that I can spin up hills.
I have a 32" inseam and have used 175 and 165 back to back for a good portion of last year and never noticed a difference. I use 165 primarily now because it gets me a high saddle position, so more drop and theoretically allows me to get lower without running into issues with cutting off breathing or knee hitting the chest.
I had 175's on all summer, really liked it when getting in the most aero position on the hoods and sitting on the nose of the saddle. Also felt nice climbing out of the saddle.
Never really felt right most of the time though. Odd that I'd even notice it.. was sort of glad to sell it on.
Never really felt right most of the time though. Odd that I'd even notice it.. was sort of glad to sell it on.
-
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 10:26 am
- Location: Spain
I've had a Fuji SL1 RC with 175mm cranks, at the same time a Trek 8500 MTB with 172,5mm cranks, and at the same time a cyclocross Scott with 170mm cranks....So I guess there's no problem.
Now I only have my BH G6 with 172,5mm hehe.
Now I only have my BH G6 with 172,5mm hehe.
The fact is that the difference between 170mm and 172.5mm is very small. If you already have 172.5 cranks, I wouldn't even bother upgrading.
One thing I like about going from 175s to 170s was the decreased hip angle. I raised the saddle and left the bars where they were so I was more aero and there was more room between my tummy and thighs.
One thing I like about going from 175s to 170s was the decreased hip angle. I raised the saddle and left the bars where they were so I was more aero and there was more room between my tummy and thighs.
-
- Posts: 829
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:35 am
I'm about your height, and I have pretty long legs for my height. I run 172.5 on most of my bikes, but have 167.5 on the track bike. I don't notice the difference at all. In fact, I'd kind of like to go to 170s on the road bikes to decrease hip angle, but I just haven't done it yet.
Is thickness of all road shoes equal ? Or can vary even 3-4mm ? insole thickness ? Sock ? Pedal stack ? Inseam vs height ?
Being 182/85 inseam ( saddle height 75.5 from BB c ) I rode 170, 172,5 and 175 . Going directly from 170 to 175 and backwards ( same bike, shoes & pedals ) I felt some difference, but got use to it very fast. Cadence will drop a bit on longer crank (2-3rpm on 5mm difference ), that's it.
BTW didn't Wiggins change crank length from 177 to 170 recently ? / being 190-ish /
Being 182/85 inseam ( saddle height 75.5 from BB c ) I rode 170, 172,5 and 175 . Going directly from 170 to 175 and backwards ( same bike, shoes & pedals ) I felt some difference, but got use to it very fast. Cadence will drop a bit on longer crank (2-3rpm on 5mm difference ), that's it.
BTW didn't Wiggins change crank length from 177 to 170 recently ? / being 190-ish /
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.
Mark Twain
I can be wrong, and have plenty of examples for that
Mark Twain
I can be wrong, and have plenty of examples for that
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com