Originally Posted by
dwmckee
Hello - I have an old Bob Jackson 80's touring bike with 177.5 crank arms and a new Co-Motion Cascadia with 175 cranks. I am about 5' 11" and 175mm cranks are probably the right crank length for me but I keep finding my old Bob J is still far more comfortable for distance riding than my much more expensive (and custom fitted) Co-Motion. I am just curious if other distance riders find that longer than 'normal' cranks are more comfortable? Granted there are other differences between the bikes than crank length, but I'd like to hear other's comments about crank length preference.
Thanks,
Don
The issue with comfort may not have much to do with crank length in regard to pedalling efficiency, but rather the geometry of your bikes, and the saddle height, which changes marginally between crank lengths. What are the differences between the angles on the Jackson versus the Cascadia?
I've generally stuck with 170mm cranksets after opting for that length with my fixed gear some years ago. I figures that on each revolution my foot will be moving just slightly less distance than with a longer crank, and of course that leads to what I rationalise as cumulative savings in energy output (argue away on that one because it is only a perception). An additional factor was the slightly reduced risk of pedal strike on cornering with a fixie.
The exception is the tandem, and I don't mind the longer 175mm cranks because it makes stopping and starting while in the saddle easier. I am around 5'11" tall.