aroundoz

I had a custom bike built in 2003 and I went w/ the shop's recommendation to buy 180mm cranks, TA Zephyr to be exact. I am 6'05". Four years later, I am still having a hard time getting use to the length. It just seems like my legs are making awfully big circles compared to my other bikes w/ 175s. Looking at a measuring tape tells me 5mm isn't that much so am I imagining things?

However, I just learned of an old article in velo news which stated that 165mm cranks worked best for their study group regardless of height.

Will I really notice a difference or should I just stay with the 180s? The TAs w/ the Phil Wood BB wasn't inexpensive so I am not too excited about the idea of replacing it.

late

Hi,
175 cranks aren't hard to find. Throw some one and see what you think.
There are also custom cranks, you can get any length you want.
But try some 175s first.

Personally, I find 165 to be a little small, and 170 to be a little big.
It's really a case of what works for you. And the only way I know how to find that
out is trial and error.

531Aussie

is that 6ft 5", or 6ft 0.05"?

It's not your imagination: 180s are definitely a big circle to pedal, and if you don't like, you don't like them.


I'm 6ft. I had 180s for a year and just couldn't get used to them. I eventually went back to 175 then 172.5s. I'm happy with the 172.5s, but I missed a slightly longer crank for short hills, so I've just got some 177.5s, but I've only used them a few times.


as other guy suggested, you should be able to get some affordable 175s for a test.

CdCf

I use 175 for both my bikes, and I've ordered 175 for my third, which I'll build in the coming weeks.
If it ain't broke, why fix it, kinda thing...

531Aussie

is that 6ft 5", or 6ft 0.05"?

I'm 6ft. I had 180s for a year and just couldn't get used to them. I eventually went back to 175 then 172.5s. I'm happy with the 172.5s, but I missed a slightly longer crank for short hills, so I've just got some 177.5s, but I've only used them a few times.

It's not your imagination: 180s are definitely a big circle to pedal, and if you don't like, you don't like them.

as other guy suggested, you should be able to get some affordable 175s for a test.

MnHPVA Guy

I saw the same reference to the article. 165s are the shortest cranks the guy referring to the article has for sale. The actual figure was 150mm.

In the Velo News test, https://www.velonews.com/tech/rev/crank.html all the riders got their best power on 150s except the 6'-6" guy, and he got more power out of 150s than any length except 180s, which is what he always rides. All testing was done at the same RPM which should have put the 150s at a disadvantage.

One reason 180s feel long for you is that you and a 4'-10" person live in the same world. Stairs etc. are the same height for everyone. Almost all of us started cycling on 170s. So a shorter person is always moving their joints through a wider range of motion than you do. Their muscles have to be more elastic. If the circles seem too big for you, it's likely the 180s are inhibiting your ability to have a supple spin.

There is also a lot of variation in elasticity among individuals, regardless of height. My main business is selling short cranks, and I've had people 6'-2" who do best with 148mm on a recumbent. A local guy who's 5'-3" tried 155s on his bent and went back to 165s. (I find in general most folks do best about 15-20mm shorter on a 'bent than on an upright.) I didn't get it till I found out he does Yoga.

aroundoz

I do have 175s on my other bikes, touring and commuting, and believe my previous road bike also had them and they felt fine. After hearing what you all had to say, I am definitely going to make the change. But after hearing about the above mentioned article, I just wonder if I should go even shorter. I really don't have the luxury of trying different cranks on my bike. I must just go w/ the 172.5s which will probably be better for spinning. I hope....

late

Here are some cheap ones you could try

https://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?c...0Road%20Cranks