Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Classic & Vintage This forum is to discuss the many aspects of classic and vintage bicycles, including musclebikes, lightweights, middleweights, hi-wheelers, bone-shakers, safety bikes and much more.

View Poll Results: What crank arm length do you ride?
165mm 9 9.68%
170mm 44 47.31%
172.5mm 27 29.03%
175mm 29 31.18%
180mm 5 5.38%
Other 3 3.23%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 93. You may not vote on this poll

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-25-12, 06:05 PM   #26
gaucho777
Senior Member
 
gaucho777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Berkeley, CA
Bikes: '72 Cilo Pacer • '72 Peugeot PX10 • '73 Speedwell Ti • '74 Nishiki Competition • '74 Peugeot UE-8 • '86 Look Equipe 753 • '86 Look KG86 • '89 Parkpre Team Road • '90 Parkpre Team MTB • '90 Merlin
Posts: 5,605
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
5'11" and a 30" inseam (pant size)--pretty short-legged. I use 172.5mm on a road bike, 175 on MTB or TT bike (though I don't ride any TT bikes any longer). I'm one of those people that can tell the difference in crank sizes. When I used to race, 172.5 cranks seemed to me a good compromise between shorter, 170mm cranks (good for sprints/crits), and 175mm (good for road races/hilly rides). The added leverage of 175's is good for time trials and mountain biking where spinning/sprinting is not important. 172.5mm is what I got used to, and now I always try to find 172.5s if at all possible. I'll use 170s if it's a rare model or if that's what came on a bike (as is usually the case) but it's not my preference.

P.s. By the way, if anyone wants to trade 172.5mm Campagnolo cranks for 170s (NR or SR) or 175s (C-record, etched), I'm all ears.

Last edited by gaucho777; 07-25-12 at 06:17 PM.
gaucho777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 06:13 PM   #27
RobbieTunes 
Idiot Pro Tempo
 
RobbieTunes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NC
Bikes: at Pedal Room
Posts: 20,571
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novakane View Post
I just use what's on the bike and in decent shape...
+1
I've got them from 170 to 175 and don't think about it. I'm 5'6" and 31 inseam (trousers).

By the way, I've got some 9-sp Records cranks in 180mm....
__________________

Robbie ♪♫♪...☻

Friends don't let friends drink and wrench.

1985 Raleigh Competition Racing USA Series-Coleman made me do it.....
1987 Bridgestone Radac - Aluminum (sadly, the frame is toast, RD hanger snapped off)
1988 Centurion Dave Scott Ironman Master - Steel
1989 Centurion Carbon-R - Carbon Fiber

http://www.pedalroom.com/members/RobbieTunes
RobbieTunes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 06:20 PM   #28
rhm
multimodal commuter
 
rhm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NJ, NYC, LI
Bikes: 1940s Fothergill, 1959 Allegro Special, 1963? Claud Butler Olympic Sprint, Lambert 'Clubman', 1974 Fuji "the Ace", 1976 Holdsworth 650b conversion rando bike, 1983 Trek 720 tourer, 1984 Counterpoint Opus II, 1993 Basso Gap, 2010 Downtube 8h, and...
Posts: 15,818
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
6' height, 32" pants; I voted "165."

But the truth is more complicated.

I have 145's on my recumbent, have ridden a lot of bikes with 152's (6") and currently have two bikes with 160's, several with 165's, some with 170's, and a very beautiful 6.75" crank. It's long but just too pretty to get rid of. I used to have 172.5 and 175's but I have successfully got rid of all those.

You can get used to anything. Anything more than 5 mm off what you're used to will feel wrong at first but you will adapt quickly. I have ridden thousands of miles on 140's and hundreds on 127's (5"). I didn't much like the latter but it was a single speed and a pretty terrible bike anyway so maybe not a fair test of the crank.

On long rides, long cranks make my leg muscles very sore; I don't have that problem with shorter ones. But as I say, you can get used to anything, and that's what I'm used to.
rhm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 06:31 PM   #29
mikemowbz 
Senior Member
 
mikemowbz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Bikes: Are several.
Posts: 1,181
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobbieTunes View Post
By the way, I've got some 9-sp Records cranks in 180mm....
Still interested in those, right here!
mikemowbz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 06:38 PM   #30
jr59
Senior Member
 
jr59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: the 904, Jax fl
Bikes:
Posts: 2,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
6'4 and 32 inseam on my pants
jr59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 06:38 PM   #31
WNG
Spin Forest! Spin!
 
WNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Arrid Zone-a
Bikes: I used to have many. And I Will again.
Posts: 5,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I chose 170mm as that's what I've mostly ridden the past 30 years. But I've rode 175mm on a mtb, and didn't notice much difference.
Therefore, I've not been choosy when acquiring cranks, and have 170, 172,5 and 175 models for both road and mtb models.
Most of my C&V bikes have 170. Daily road beater has 170, and two future modern road builds will sport 175, and a Campy 172.5 respectively. It will interesting to compare the three.

I'm about 5'10" pant inseam is 30", short leg/long torso build. 9.5W shoe size (as I also feel shoe size factors), and I'm a spinner not a masher.
WNG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 06:47 PM   #32
thinktubes 
Fast+Bulbous
 
thinktubes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Across the street from Chicago
Bikes:
Posts: 3,386
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
172.5, 6' 1", 32 inseam
thinktubes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 06:47 PM   #33
wrk101
DRF aka Thrifty Bill
 
wrk101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The NC Mountains
Bikes: 86 Katakura Silk, 87 Prologue, 87 Cimarron, 14 frame school custom, 73 Paramount
Posts: 19,976
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Rings6Stars View Post
170 or 172.5 on the road/cross bikes. I don't notice a difference. I've also ridden 175 with no ill effect...

5'8"

Cycling inseam (perineum to floor, barefoot): 29.5"
+1 This.
__________________
See my vintage steel bike tribute page on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/BillsVintageSteelBikes
wrk101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 06:59 PM   #34
Velognome 
Get off my lawn!
 
Velognome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Garden State
Bikes: 1917 Loomis, 1923 Rudge, 1930 Hercules Renown, 1947 Mclean, 1948 JA Holland, 1955 Hetchins, 1957 Carlton Flyer, 1962 Raleigh Sport, 1978&81 Raleigh Gomp GS', 2010 Raliegh Clubman
Posts: 6,128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
34" riding 175mm

Oh you ment inseam
Velognome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 07:07 PM   #35
KZBrian
Senior Member
 
KZBrian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kalamazoo, MI USA
Bikes: 1986 Cannondale SR400, 1986 Schwinn Super Sport , 1994 Trek 920
Posts: 369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
170, 68", 32" pants.
KZBrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 07:11 PM   #36
cyclotoine
Senior Member
 
cyclotoine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Yukon, Canada
Bikes:
Posts: 8,558
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
6'3.something" 32" pant, I hate walking on my pant legs! So I like them just so.

I have 170mm on my track, but have some 172.5s somewhere for it, I have 172.5mm on my fixed gear (road 170s forever on it), I have 175s on my mountain bike and used them for polo too and my winter beater. I have 180s on my cross bike and my road bike and my touring bike and now on my cross/beater/fast touring/slow road bike. I have some 185s to that used to be on my road bike, but the square taper is not for me anymore on a road bike. The cranks, for a number of reasons, had too much flex and shifted poorly and I had one chain derailment that caused me some pretty bad road rash... they are TA Carmina's BTW and were mated to a phil wood titanium magnum BB (the best I could possibly get for these cranks). I may tripilize them and put them on my touring bike in place of the 180 ritchey compact pros I have currently (old 94bcd mtb cranks, very cool).

for anyone that wonders why longer cranks are the norm on mtbs... well... try riding up a mountain on your road bike with longer cranks and you will no longer wonder why someone thought that was a good idea.
__________________
1 Super Record bike, 1 Nuovo Record bike, 1 Pista, 1 Road, 1 Cyclocross/Allrounder, 1 MTB, 1 Touring, 1 Fixed gear
cyclotoine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 07:14 PM   #37
rootboy 
Senior Member
 
rootboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Wherever
Bikes:
Posts: 15,893
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
OK guys. Are we talking pants length or fromunder to floor?
rootboy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 07:27 PM   #38
Rx Rider
Geck, wo ist mein Fahrrad
 
Rx Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Front Range
Bikes:
Posts: 715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rootboy View Post
OK guys. Are we talking pants length or fromunder to floor?
s'pose to go to the floor.

6', 33.5''. I've noticed I "ankle" my 172.5 a lot but don't my 175. I like 175 a wee bit more, (masher).
Rx Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 07:38 PM   #39
Bianchigirll 
Bianchi Goddess
 
Bianchigirll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Camp Hill, PA
Bikes: Too many to list here check my signature.
Posts: 22,536
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
I favor a 172.5 and it mioght be in my head but they just feel better. I have never been a good spinner and these slightly cranks just feel right. I am without heels a statuesque 5' 11"
__________________
Bianchis '87 Sport SX, '90 Proto, '90 Campione del Fausto Giamondi Specialisma Italiano Mundo, '91 Boarala 'cross, '93 Project 3, '86 Volpe, '97 Ti Megatube, , '90 something Vento 603,

Others but still loved,; '80 RIGI, '80 Batavus Professional, '87 Cornelo, '09 Motobecane SOLD, '?? Jane Doe (still on the drawing board), '90ish Haro Escape
Bianchigirll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 07:44 PM   #40
curbtender
Senior Member
 
curbtender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area, East bay
Bikes: Marinoni, Kestral 200 2002 Trek 5200, KHS Flite, Koga Miyata, Schwinn Spitfire 5, Schwinn Speedster, Mondia Special, Univega Alpina
Posts: 3,907
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
6', 32", 175 on most of my bikes and I like the 172.5 on my commuter. Tend to mash.
curbtender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 07:57 PM   #41
clubman 
Youngman Grande
 
clubman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nova Scotia
Bikes: roadsters, club bikes, fixed and classic
Posts: 3,102
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
30" inseam, 170 road bike, 165 track, usually 175 mtn bike. Just cuz.
clubman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 07:58 PM   #42
LesterOfPuppets
cowboy, steel horse, etc
 
LesterOfPuppets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Rock Springs, WY
Bikes: My War
Posts: 26,848
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
I like 172.5, but they're hard to find for MTBs so put 175s on those.

I prefer 170 on flat road rides but just put up with the 172.5 mostly.
LesterOfPuppets is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 08:00 PM   #43
Wildwood
Senior Member
 
Wildwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Seattle area
Bikes: see signature
Posts: 4,070
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
6'1" and a bit. I've ridden 170/172.5/175 with no problem. Now over 60 yrs I intuitively (?) know a smaller circle should be easier on knees when properly centered on the frame. Right? For me, the wider Q on my triple is more of an adjustment, no an annoyance.

I want to try 165.
Wildwood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 08:12 PM   #44
photogravity 
Hopelessly addicted...
 
photogravity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Central Maryland
Bikes: 1949 Hercules Kestrel, 1950 Norman Rapide, 1970 Schwinn Collegiate, 1972 Peugeot UE-8, 1976 Raleigh Sports, 1977 Raleigh Sports, 1977 Jack Taylor Tandem, 1984 Davidson Tandem, 2010 Bilenky "BQ" 650B Constructeur Tandem, 2011 Linus Mixte
Posts: 5,008
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have bikes with 140mm, 165mm, 170mm and 175mm crankarms. I'm about 5' 10" and my pants inseam is roughly 30 inches. The only cranks that I can really tell are shorter are the 140mm, but that's a full inch shorter than the other cranks, so it stands to reason I'd notice the difference.
__________________
--
Ridding the world of derailleurs, one bicycle at a time.

46 Hercules Roadster, 49 Hercules Kestrel, 50 Norman Rapide, 51 Hercules Lion, 52 Hercules Windsor, 56 Hercules Royal Prince, 61 Fiorelli Tandem, 67 Carlton Super Race (IGH), 70 Schwinn Collegiate (IGH), 71 Hercules, 71 STF Hercules, 72 Peugeot PX-8 (IGH), 76 Raleigh Sports, 77 STF Raleigh Sports, 77 Jack Taylor Tandem, Early-80's Mike Appel SC, 84 Davidson Tandem, Late-80's Alpine, 10 Bilenky "BQ" Signature Tandem
photogravity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 08:20 PM   #45
jonwvara 
Senior Member
 
jonwvara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Washington County, Vermont, USA
Bikes: 1966 Dawes Double Blue, 1976 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1975 Raleigh Sprite 27, 1980 Univega Viva Sport, 1971 Gitane Tour de France, 1984 Lotus Classique, 1976 Motobecane Grand Record
Posts: 2,376
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
I'm probably 6' 3.5", not especially long-legged. I ride 170 and 175 interchangeably--can't detect any difference between them. I DO notice that the cottered cranks on my old Dawes Double Blue seem kind of short, but there's no length marking on them as far as I know. I should measure them sometime. I like they way they feel, though, so I probably wouldn't mind going even shorter than 170.
__________________
www.redclovercomponents.com

"Progress might have been all right once, but it has gone on too long."
--Ogden Nash
jonwvara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 08:39 PM   #46
mapleleafs-13 
Senior Member
 
mapleleafs-13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Bikes: Pinarello Veneto, Pinarello Montello, Bianchi Celeste
Posts: 1,763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i usually have 172.5 or 170, i don't think i notice a difference.
mapleleafs-13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-12, 09:45 PM   #47
GamblerGORD53
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Elevation 666m Edmonton Canada
Bikes: 2013 Custom SA5w / Rohloff Tourster
Posts: 838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
I am 5'8 with 825mm standover using runners.

In highschool I rode an antique 45 lb XL Rudge with 180mm cranks. It was the easiest peddling bike I ever rode.
Next came 2 Raleighs and 2 hybrids. They all had gutless 165mm cranks.
This year I put XL SA5w hubs on the 1990 Raleigh frame with the cotter crank off the 1974 Raleigh.
I did 3 centuries on this 53 lb (loaded) frankenbike. With the short cranks it went up only 3%ish hills sitting down.
It still went up all hills if standing up. GI's are 43.4 to 111.1 I needed 14.5 mph speed to push ok in 3rd gear.
Then I got 180mm ENO cranks/Phill BB. It now goes up 8 or 10% sitting, although at low revs, 25 or 30.
The gears all then shifted 2 or 3 mph lower also. Now I mostly shift at 10.5 mph to 3rd.
I then easily upped my all-time speed record to 44.63 mph on a 44m drop hill about only 500m long. This hill I went up at 6 to 7 mph while sitting and tired from 96 all day miles and 30 yet to ride.
That is 9.1% force difference from 165 to 180. Newton's Laws are CONFIRMED.
GamblerGORD53 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-12, 07:50 AM   #48
Pars 
Senior Member
 
Pars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Aurora, IL
Bikes: '73 Raleigh RRA, 1986 Trek 500 commuter
Posts: 2,346
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
5'8" (maybe a bit less), 30" pant inseam (can't remember bike inseam), 170mm
Pars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-12, 08:46 AM   #49
DTM006
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: CT
Bikes: 1984 Schwinn Peloton, 1991 Schwinn World Sport, 1980 Motobecane Nomade Sprint
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
6'1, 34" (32" pants), 170mm

why 170mm? That's what my bikes have--I'll be switching out to 172.5 on a trial basis
DTM006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-12, 09:14 AM   #50
dbakl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Bikes: Cinelli, Paramount, Raleigh, Carlton, Zeus, Gemniani, Frejus, Legnano, Pinarello, Falcon
Posts: 5,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Mostly 170s, though I have one bike with 172.5 that always felt good to ride...

6', I don't know, 32"
dbakl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:51 AM.