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


Go Back   > >

Singlespeed & Fixed Gear "I still feel that variable gears are only for people over forty-five. Isn't it better to triumph by the strength of your muscles than by the artifice of a derailer? We are getting soft...As for me, give me a fixed gear!"-- Henri Desgrange (31 January 1865 - 16 August 1940)

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-01-05, 09:59 PM   #1
thenathanator
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
thenathanator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Bikes:
Posts: 127
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"one writer in a major magazine article quite a few years ago claimed that after considerable testing with many different riders, 18.5% of the distance from the top of the femur to the floor in bare feet should be the crank length." http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm

I just measured myself... and apparently I need a 185mm crank... (I'm 6'4").
I think that would pose some problems with pedal strikes... but I haven't gotten my frame yet.

Do most tall people just run 170mm cranks? seeing as a 185mm could be hard to come by.
thenathanator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-05, 10:01 PM   #2
dolface
Iguana Subsystem
 
dolface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: san francisco
Bikes:
Posts: 4,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i'm pretty sure that's for geared bikes
dolface is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-05, 10:04 PM   #3
[170]
5mm More Power
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Below the Black
Bikes:
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Let me tell you something before other losers chime in.

[170]mm cranks are the way to go. They are the most versatile and help get the most power for your pedal stoke. Some may say that [165]mm are the way to go but those are for chumps. Period.

[185]mm cranks are very hard to come by. I don't see them(him) around all that much. But, if you trying to go big you can try to take on [190]mm cranks but those are for tri-geeks.

[172.5]mm cranks are sometimes seen as a compromise. But, only women compromise. You want power? Beauty? Speed? Then you have to choose [170]mm cranks.

I couldn't resist.

But the truth had to be spoken.

See my previous thread on how I am the far superior crank length.
[170] is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-05, 10:07 PM   #4
thenathanator
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
thenathanator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Bikes:
Posts: 127
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I knew it wouldn't be long before you chimed in
now let's just wait for [165] to arrive...
thenathanator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-05, 02:01 AM   #5
LóFarkas
LF for the accentdeprived
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Bikes:
Posts: 3,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I always thought it'd be logical for long-legged people to have longer cranks for the same feel and optimum power output... Which would mean that I, at 6'2" with looong legs should ride a 180 or so. But on a fixed gear, this minor consideration is overshadowed by pedal strike issues, so 170 is the way to go- on my frame, anyway. I don't really see the need for short cranks on a trackframe, though... they have high BB's anyway, right?
LóFarkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-05, 07:58 AM   #6
Aeroplane
jack of one or two trades
 
Aeroplane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Suburbia, CT
Bikes: Old-ass gearie hardtail MTB, fix-converted Centurion LeMans commuter, SS hardtail monster MTB
Posts: 5,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'll third the 170's... seems like a happy medium for a long-legged freak on a fixed-gear conversion. I'm not that long-legged (33" biking inseam) and I'm rocking 170's on the conversion with no issues.
Aeroplane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-05, 08:54 AM   #7
captsven
Spawn of Satan
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
Bikes:
Posts: 764
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am 6'5" with a 36” inseam.

I have tried 170, 172.5 and 175 on fixies. I do mostly open road riding with a little city riding. For me the 172.5, 175's work the best where I live. You can get up the hills easier and, most importantly, it is easier on the downhills. I have found you can descend steep grades easier with longer cranks because it is harder too wind out the rpm's.

I can get the 172.5 up to about 170+ rpm's on a few hills. The 175's would drop that to about 160-165 rpm's on the same hill, and I would lose some speed. I do not like spinning above 170 rpm's for too long, I do not find it comfortable.


The downside of the longer cranks are: I am very aware of my speed on tight turns. Fast downhills with blind turns scare the $**t out of me because of possible pedal strike.

I basically give up maneuverability to go up and down hills easier. That works for me.
captsven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-05, 08:58 AM   #8
pitboss
cxmagazine dot com
 
pitboss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: WI
Bikes: Titus road, Fort CX
Posts: 8,269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by [170]
Let me tell you something before other losers chime in.
This is my favorite thing Super Rookie's alter-ego has ever said: other losers. Admittance of the fact that he realizes he is a loser. Half-clever.

Why 165? I prefer a faster spin up. And if 5mm does not make that much of a difference, why 170 vs 165?

It is all personal fit and feel here. Super Rookie needs the extra leverage. I like to get up to speed faster. When I picked up riding the velodrome, I was taught on 165 and was informed that 165 is good for steeper banks. I stuck with it. I know a few riders that push 167.5s at Northbrook since it is a flatter track. Meh - I have 165s, I am sticking with 'em. Who knows: maybe as I get older and slower and drop down to SR/170s level of racing, I will need 170s. For now - I stay 165.
pitboss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-05, 08:59 AM   #9
huhenio
Barbieri Telefonico
 
huhenio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bikes: Crappy but operational secondhand Motobecane Messenger
Posts: 3,522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
@ captsven

I hear ya ... turning in traffic have to be performed at moderate speeds, like 15mph tops.
__________________
Giving Haircuts Over The Phone
huhenio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-05, 10:12 AM   #10
treechunk
information sponge
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Little Village, Chicago, IL
Bikes: Lots. Mostly steel. Mostly heavy. Mostly geared, and very low, at that.
Posts: 692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenathanator
"one writer in a major magazine article quite a few years ago claimed that after considerable testing with many different riders, 18.5% of the distance from the top of the femur to the floor in bare feet should be the crank length." http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm

I just measured myself... and apparently I need a 185mm crank... (I'm 6'4").
I think that would pose some problems with pedal strikes... but I haven't gotten my frame yet.

Do most tall people just run 170mm cranks? seeing as a 185mm could be hard to come by.

If bikes were built the way they should be, you would have 185mm cranks and a bb height that would match. As it is, bikes tend to be mass-produced (as do cranks) and there are "standards" in crank length/bb height that don't serve everyone's needs. If you really want to try out a longer crank, see what kinda BMX stuff you can find, they tend to run MUCH longer cranks (almost everything is 180 as opposed to 170 as the standard). I just checked Profile Racing's website (http://www.profileracing.com/) and they offer 190mm cranks. If you want to go this route, a custom frame with an appropriately high bb is probably going to be the way to go. Also, ask DonWalker/JonnyCycles about this and see what they say.
__________________
Philosophy and feelings don't change the laws of physics
treechunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-05, 10:27 AM   #11
Brensan
Halifax, NS.
 
Brensan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Halifax
Bikes: Fixed road conversion. Custom build by me.
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Can someone clear something up for me? I always thought that a higher bottom bracket meant a shorter seat tube. Wouldn't that mean that a trade of higher bb and longer crank would feel the same as someone with a lower bb and shorter crank (relatively) since the distance from saddle to peddle wouldn't really change? Is this totally wrong? Is a higer bb from angled stays?

I'm pretty tall, like 6'3" and I ride a big road frame conversion. If I was to buy a track frame with a higher bb wouldn't I want longer cranks then what I am riding now to keep the same fit?

Sorry if this doesn't make sense.
Brensan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-05, 10:31 AM   #12
huhenio
Barbieri Telefonico
 
huhenio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bikes: Crappy but operational secondhand Motobecane Messenger
Posts: 3,522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brensan
Can someone clear something up for me? I always thought that a higher bottom bracket meant a shorter seat tube. Wouldn't that mean that a trade of higher bb and longer crank would feel the same as someone with a lower bb and shorter crank (relatively) since the distance from saddle to peddle wouldn't really change? Is this totally wrong? Is a higer bb from angled stays?

I'm pretty tall, like 6'3" and I ride a big road frame conversion. If I was to buy a track frame with a higher bb wouldn't I want longer cranks then what I am riding now to keep the same fit?

Sorry if this doesn't make sense.
I wish I was 6'3'' ... to push 185 cranks like Indurain.
__________________
Giving Haircuts Over The Phone
huhenio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-05, 11:34 AM   #13
treechunk
information sponge
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Little Village, Chicago, IL
Bikes: Lots. Mostly steel. Mostly heavy. Mostly geared, and very low, at that.
Posts: 692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brensan
Can someone clear something up for me? I always thought that a higher bottom bracket meant a shorter seat tube. Wouldn't that mean that a trade of higher bb and longer crank would feel the same as someone with a lower bb and shorter crank (relatively) since the distance from saddle to peddle wouldn't really change? Is this totally wrong? Is a higer bb from angled stays?

I'm pretty tall, like 6'3" and I ride a big road frame conversion. If I was to buy a track frame with a higher bb wouldn't I want longer cranks then what I am riding now to keep the same fit?

Sorry if this doesn't make sense.

generally I think you'd put your post a bit higher to compensate.
__________________
Philosophy and feelings don't change the laws of physics
treechunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-05, 12:17 PM   #14
gorn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chi-troit
Bikes: [2004 Bianchi Eros] [1988 Colnago XL Fixed Gear Conversion]
Posts: 577
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brensan
Can someone clear something up for me? I always thought that a higher bottom bracket meant a shorter seat tube. Wouldn't that mean that a trade of higher bb and longer crank would feel the same as someone with a lower bb and shorter crank (relatively) since the distance from saddle to peddle wouldn't really change? Is this totally wrong? Is a higer bb from angled stays?
So let's assume you fit yourself the same way on either bike, so:
Exposed seat post + seat tube + crank arm = max leg extension, and you're right, that would be the same on either bike if you fit yourself the same.
However, what about min leg extension:
Exposed seat Post + seat tube - crank arm = min leg extension. Obviously this is different when the crank arm length is different.

So it's really the spin that is different, longer cranks give you more leverage, shorter cranks are easier to spin. Generally people with longer legs feel more comfortable with longer cranks.
gorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-05, 02:39 PM   #15
na975
Guest
 
Bikes:
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
167.5 ffor me, pedal strike is a B****!
  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 07:26 AM.