Recreational Cyclocross and Gravelbiking - Crankset opinions?
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.
10-06-03, 07:39 AM
i'm planning to get a new crankset, and I've been leaning toward going with something a bit longer. i have 170 mm on my road bike, and 170 on my 'cross bike right now. would i notice much improvement by going up to 172.5? problems? i'd like a bit more of a push going up sharp hills.
[my inseam, by the way, is 77.5 cm, and i have shortish calves...]
10-07-03, 10:21 PM
The problem I have with longer cranks is that I tend to smack the sides of ruts, roots and rocks. I can't tell you off hand what length my cranks are, but I'll check if you are interested. Of course, our courses tend to be fairly rough in parts - yours may be a bit different.
10-08-03, 07:18 AM
our courses seem to be designed by mountain bikers... i thought of the rut problem, but i'm not sure 2.5 mm [1/10 of an inch] will be that much of a problem, and taller riders with 175 mm cranks don't seem to have much trouble...
in any event, i ordered a 172.5 mm crankset. i'm looking forward to seeinbg it friday. thanks.
10-08-03, 07:44 AM
my wife can tell the difference between a 172.5 and a 175 in less than a mile of riding. She's a 5'6 american longstemmmed beauty.
It seems that cranklength is more a function of thigh length than total leg length.
The above being said, you really need to try riding a 170, 172,5 and 175 to see which feels better.
The difference in length will not have much impact on gearing but more in your cadence and bike feel.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.