Originally Posted by
rpenmanparker
I'm glad you are pleased with how it has all turned out. You did all the homework and are reaping the benefits. Regarding crank length, the recent trend has been to longer cranks, and I think that has been largely misguided. I expect though that your prior situation on the old bike was just a matter of a low end, non-women's specific bike not coming with appropriate length cranks for you rather than an actual philosophical belief in longer cranks. The good news is that your pre-purchase bike fitting identified the issue and it could be corrected in the new build. I have been riding 170 mm cranks for over 30 years and continue to build my bikes that way even though off- the-shelf bikes changed to 172.5 mm years ago.
What you are feeling is surely about the competent race geometry, low total weight, fairly light wheels, maybe the shorter cranks, and that new bike look and smell. There is nothing like it. Enjoy it.
I don't know that I would agree with the assertion that the recent trend has been toward longer cranks.
I would contend that the current trend is toward an increasing emphasis on "proportional" cranks and/or use specific cranks.
I think we're increasingly seeing a cycling population who are no longer willing to accept a one size(or very narrow range) should fit all solution from the manufacturers.
At least from my perspective, we increasingly are seeing the crank length of stock bikes vary with frame size. All be that within the traditionally narrow range.
But, we're seeing fitters paying increasing attention to both leg lengths and hips angles and recommending cranks above and below the standard range as appropriate. And, manufacturers are increasingly offering lengths beyond the traditionally narrow range (167.5-175).
All of which I feel is a move in the correct direction.