Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Galleries NEW FAQ Contact About Impressum
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:56 am

All times are UTC+01:00





Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:27 pm
Posts: 36
Looking to order up crankset for new bike build and debating 172.5 vs 175 for a 50/34 crankset. I am 5-10.5" and normal proportions (inseam to torso). I have ridden both lengths and can't really notice the difference.

Any good rule of thumb or factors to consider when chosing crank arm length?


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm
Posts: 1523
The trend seems to be shorter. I started cycling on 170s, and then made my way to 175s when that was the fashion. I'd take 170s now. I'm 6 ft tall. 170s allow me to spin up hills at a higher cadence and I like to have a higher easy gear.

I think the biggest benefit for me between 170s and 175s is that I can maintain a lower position with less hip to torso angle (on the 170s).

Honestly though, the difference between 172.5 and 175 is very small - less than a 2% difference so either way you won't be noticing a huge difference.

_________________
Colnago C59


Top
   
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:10 pm 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:25 am
Posts: 1468
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The people who think they know - usually the ones that don't actually do much cycling - recommend to go short, as this opens up hip angle a little.

I have always recommend that someone serious about their cycling tries a couple of sizes to determine if a preference exists.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:30 pm
Posts: 309
Valbrona wrote:
The people who think they know - usually the ones that don't actually do much cycling - recommend to go short, as this opens up hip angle a little.

I have always recommend that someone serious about their cycling tries a couple of sizes to determine if a preference exists.

I have plenty of 10,000+ mile years of riding and recommend the shortest cranks that you can be comfortable on. I'm on 155mm at 5'9" and its a massive difference compared to when I was running 172.5mm. Way less knee and hip strain, smoother pedal stroke, easier to maintain high power output on flats.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:17 pm
Posts: 135
Location: Southern California
Any aero testing done with the Bianchi Oltre XR4? Curious since I just picked up a new frameset.

_________________
2018 Bianchi Oltre XR4, (Celeste Matt)
2017 Giant TCR Advanced SL (Red)
2016 Specialized Allez DSW Sprint (Gold)


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:15 am
Posts: 1726
Location: NorthEU
Go for 172.5mm.

I have tried 175mm and 170mm, i am 182cm tall and inseam of 87.3cm.
I would go 170 over 175 any day.

_________________
Bikes:

Ax Lightness Vial EVO D
Paduano Racing Fidia
Open *UP*
https://opencycle.com/showcase/the-xplo ... eelsonfire


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:47 pm
Posts: 55
apctjb wrote:
Looking to order up crankset for new bike build and debating 172.5 vs 175 for a 50/34 crankset. I am 5-10.5" and normal proportions (inseam to torso). I have ridden both lengths and can't really notice the difference.

Any good rule of thumb or factors to consider when chosing crank arm length?


I'm about the same height as you and I run 172.5 and have for the most part for about the last 25 years. I bought a bike that came with a 175 about 13-14 years ago and felt it was a little long. Could have been the frame had a lot of BB drop or the Q of the cranks, but I also had more pedal strikes on that bike when running those 175s than on any other bike. I know the trend is to go smaller arms and higher cadence, but I grew up cycling when it was perfectly acceptable to run a 53/39 up front, a 13-18 cassette (6-spd) and grind up hills at 60rpm.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 6:06 pm
Posts: 145
I'm 5-10 and I would say my preference for the road is for 172.5, but seem to have acquired 170 on two of my bikes due to availability at the time. I'm not sure I really notice a difference.

I definately prefer 175 for mtb though when mashing up steep hills on a 1x.

Back in the 90s I used 175 on the road thinking it would be better to be the same all round (mtb and road), but that definately felt a bit big (although did help climb up hills on 42/23 which also was fashion of the day).


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:09 am
Posts: 5
172.5 go shorter crankset.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:50 am
Posts: 43
Many people encourage you to go shortest. But the way you push the crank is not the same to the other. My height 166cm, inseam 65cm, tried 165, 170, 172.5 now settle on 170.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


Edit: typo


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:35 am
Posts: 131
I've used 170. 172.5 and 175. I feel the 175s are long and increase the angle my knees and hips have to go through so slightly increase wear and tear on the body, maybe they feel as though I'm putting out more torque, but using more energy. 170s feel a bit short and 'spinny', good for climbing but on the flat feel like I'm losing potential power. For me at 183cm tall and average leg length I feel 172.5s are spot on.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:33 pm
Posts: 330
the present trend is as short as possible, so 165.


Top
   
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:42 am 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 1:06 pm
Posts: 1095
I'm 182cm. Seat height 750mm. I started life as a mtber and stock bikes came with 175mm cranks. I bought a road bike which had 172.5mm crankarms. I liked that better. So I went shorter on my mtb too. I've been slowly trying shorter and am now on 165mm on all bikes. I prefer it. I find it easier to get over the top of the pedal stroke with less hip flexion required.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. What factors do you consider when deciding to buy a new frame?

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

wwnick

21

1253

Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:27 pm

MiddMan View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Giant tcr advanced seatpost lenght

in Road

Hoven

2

835

Wed May 31, 2017 12:45 pm

mellett68 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Cannondale Hollowgram crankset spindle lenght for PF30

in Road

LouisN

3

690

Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:23 am

LouisN View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Crank Bearing Puller for SRM Campagnolo Crank

in Road

mrgray

14

1137

Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:37 am

mrgray View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Crank arm size

in Road

WhyZ

5

832

Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:20 am

Kayrehn View the latest post


All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], kookie, tonytourist, Yahoo [Bot] and 32 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited