170mm cranks for 5ft 10.5inch rider?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:51 pm
Location: RVA,USA

by evan326

Bridgeman wrote:I need more money.

That is what I want to say to 95% of the posts on here! :beerchug:

by Weenie

Posts: 3546
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

Allen254 wrote:
mattr wrote:
Allen254 wrote:any rider of any height can rider which ever crank length but you will have to adjust saddle height.
they'll also need to have their knees operated on eventually.

Yes? Whats deserving of eyerolling about that?

There's is no minimum length of crank that can be used by any rider of any height, but there is a maximum. Or you exceed the limits of what you are biomechanically capable of. And then you'll f**k your knees.

Posts: 235
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:59 pm

by tarmackev

I'm 6'1 with a very long 35.5" inside leg.
I always rode 172.5 or 175, whatever came standard on my bike.

Years ago I purchased a track bike with 165 cranks, we had a very snowy winter in the UK and I spent a month on the Turbo with my track bike, I generally did an hour a day.
After a month of riding nothing but 165 I went out on a club ride on my road bike with 172.5 cranks.

We hit the first climb that you can easily ride seated, it's 1.5 miles at 5% and I was shocked how smoothly and easily I span up the hill, my pedal stroke felt super fluid and I dropped guys who I usually wouldn't.

I'd spent winters before on the Turbo and my club mates had all been training hard, one of the few new variables was the crank length. I'd ridden fixed gear bikes with 175 cranks in training also.
This was well before shorter crank length had become "a thing".

I do feel it was easier to spin with shorter cranks and I did feel a benefit.
I generally ride what comes as standard on the bike but if I change cranks or have an option I'll always go smaller.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Last post