Pro's.... think they're riding with toe overlap?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Hexsense
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am

by Hexsense

slowK wrote:
slowK wrote:Yep - thanks for the replies. Shorter cranks will definitely be my next upgrade.


Well, I went to my LBS yesterday to ask about this. They just took off some new 165mm cranks from another bike (the customer fitted a power meter). They offered a great price, so I'm getting them. Will be interesting to see if I notice a difference (not just toe overlap, but in other aspects too).

Transition to shorter crank (as i did go from 172.5 to 167.5 to 165 before)

-Saddle height should go up 3-5mm as your crank is now 5mm shorter.
-relearn the gear! you theoretically need lower gear at higher cadence. 170 down to 165 is only 3% difference though, one gear in the back is usually 6-12 percent different per gear. 52 vs 50 in the front is 4% difference.
Reason is: reduced torque of shorter crank make it feel like a harder gear. Pedaling circle is now smaller too (smaller circumference) if you move the foot at the same linear speed through smaller circumference, that'll naturally result in higher cadence without anymore effort. And if the crank was too long from the beginning, going down will not reduce your torque much as your leg's improved efficiency will offset it. So, it only improve things.
-it takes quite a few weeks to fully get used to it. Good luck and keep an eye on even shorter cranks!

by Weenie


slowK
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:04 pm

by slowK

Hexsense wrote:
slowK wrote:
slowK wrote:Yep - thanks for the replies. Shorter cranks will definitely be my next upgrade.


Well, I went to my LBS yesterday to ask about this. They just took off some new 165mm cranks from another bike (the customer fitted a power meter). They offered a great price, so I'm getting them. Will be interesting to see if I notice a difference (not just toe overlap, but in other aspects too).

Transition to shorter crank (as i did go from 172.5 to 167.5 to 165 before)

-Saddle height should go up 3-5mm as your crank is now 5mm shorter.
-relearn the gear! you theoretically need lower gear at higher cadence. 170 down to 165 is only 3% difference though, one gear in the back is usually 6-12 percent different per gear. 52 vs 50 in the front is 4% difference.
Reason is: reduced torque of shorter crank make it feel like a harder gear. Pedaling circle is now smaller too (smaller circumference) if you move the foot at the same linear speed through smaller circumference, that'll naturally result in higher cadence without anymore effort. And if the crank was too long from the beginning, going down will not reduce your torque much as your leg's improved efficiency will offset it. So, it only improve things.
-it takes quite a few weeks to fully get used to it. Good luck and keep an eye on even shorter cranks!


Thanks for the tips hexsense. I had read about those issues when looking at it beforehand, and was figuring on raising my saddle height. I've always been a higher cadence spinner rather than a masher anyway, so will be interesting to see how it goes.

berend
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 7:51 am

by berend

thedonnydino wrote:Another reason that pros don't care about overlap is because they ride big manufacturer frames that go to great lengths to reduce toe overlap. Some say it's because it's fear of litigation, others due to some obscure rule or law.


There's indeed an obscure UCI rule 1.3.016 pertaining to this.

thedonnydino wrote:Cervelo used to run massive toe overlap and short wheel bases on their smaller frames, however subsequently responded to concern over overlap. All they did was slacken the head angle, and I believe change the rake a little bit. I even think they responded with a 650 wheel in smaller framsets initially. Ironically, Cervelo prided themselves in having similar, racey handling throughout their size range.


When Cervelo made their original geometry 1.3.016 didn't exist or didn't apply (pre-UCI-approved stickers.) Cervelo had to change after that rule came into effect.

wingguy
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

berend wrote:When Cervelo made their original geometry 1.3.016 didn't exist or didn't apply (pre-UCI-approved stickers.) Cervelo had to change after that rule came into effect.

Before the UCI-approved stickers came about bikes still needed to comply with UCI tech regs to race in UCI events, or they'd get kicked out in scrutineering (assming the scrutineers did their jobs properly).

slowK
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:04 pm

by slowK

Well - the shorter 165mm cranks are now fitted. Have only been for 2 short 22km rides so far. Raised saddle height by 3mm as a first step.

It feels... good! This may all be placebo, but the smaller circle feels smoother to spin, and it feels more natural for my 160cm height. And in the drops it's a bit better too (less "knees coming up to my torso" feeling at the top of the pedal stroke).

So far so good.

BdaGhisallo
Posts: 1929
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:38 pm

by BdaGhisallo

slowK wrote:Well - the shorter 165mm cranks are now fitted. Have only been for 2 short 22km rides so far. Raised saddle height by 3mm as a first step.

It feels... good! This may all be placebo, but the smaller circle feels smoother to spin, and it feels more natural for my 160cm height. And in the drops it's a bit better too (less "knees coming up to my torso" feeling at the top of the pedal stroke).

So far so good.


I made the change to 165mm cranks a few years ago. I am about 170cm and it feels much better than the 172.5mm I started out on 30 years ago and the 170mm cranks I used for a few years on my way to 165mm. And for the exact reasons you describe.

mattr
Posts: 3544
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

I'm still hesitating (waiting for a bargain).

Have some 165mm cranks in the basket in 4 or 5 internet retailers sites!

Hexsense
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am

by Hexsense

at 169cm myself,
i'm using 165mm crank length at the moment but keeping an eye on whether new(er) Sram, Quarq or Cannondale will offer 160mm crank length in on their high end in the future. I still want a crank shorter than 165mm but don't want to put non-weightweenies custom cranks on my bike!

User avatar
jekyll man
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:23 am
Location: Pack filler

by jekyll man

Hexsense wrote:at 169cm myself,
i'm using 165mm crank length at the moment but keeping an eye on whether new(er) Sram, Quarq or Cannondale will offer 160mm crank length in on their high end in the future. I still want a crank shorter than 165mm but don't want to put non-weightweenies custom cranks on my bike!


I think you can get Rotor 3D in 155mm, but its a special order.
That WW-enough for you?
Official cafe stop tester

tinozee
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:53 am

by tinozee

toe overlap is not an issue on road bikes. I have size 13 feet, trust me. Also 140mm stem and 13cm drop of Cdale, S-works and Ridley frames. Not an issue

BdaGhisallo
Posts: 1929
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:38 pm

by BdaGhisallo

Hexsense wrote:at 169cm myself,
i'm using 165mm crank length at the moment but keeping an eye on whether new(er) Sram, Quarq or Cannondale will offer 160mm crank length in on their high end in the future. I still want a crank shorter than 165mm but don't want to put non-weightweenies custom cranks on my bike!



165mm is usually the smallest you will see from any of the major component manufacturers like the big three. There's just not enough demand, I think, for anything shorter for them to justify making them. Frankly, I am surprised that 165 cranks are still widely available from them. I am thankful they are and hope it continues that way, but I have my worries.

wingguy
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

BdaGhisallo wrote:I am thankful they are and hope it continues that way, but I have my worries.

Triathletes will be your saviour :wink:

Shedloads of 165mm cranks made and specced for TT bikes. If anything they'll open up even shorter options.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post