View Single Post
Old 07-31-12, 11:15 AM
  #17  
nhluhr
John Wayne Toilet Paper
 
nhluhr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Roanoke
Posts: 1,952

Bikes: BH carbon, Ritchey steel, Kona aluminum

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by hobkirk
Is there much difference in feel or efficiency based on crank length?

I imagine it does matter quite a bit since it seems almost every crank is offered in 170m 172.5, and 175. But I come here to learn (and be entertained).

FWIW, I am 6'2" and ride about 150 miles per week. My current cranks are 175.
At 6'2", I think you're closer to being able to benefit from a 177.5 crank than from wanting to step down to a 172.5, but I don't know your leg length.

I'm 6'3" and ride 175s (because I haven't bothered to search for different lengths) but I consistently notice that I turn higher RPM than my ride partners at a given speed - perhaps that has something to do with the short-for-me crank length.

I'm at 1,544mi for the month so far and have always ridden 175s on my road bikes because that's the typical max length (higher end cranks often come in 177.5 or even 180 if you can find them).
nhluhr is offline