View Single Post
Old 08-07-16, 08:38 PM
  #9  
3alarmer
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 19,610

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 279 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21067 Post(s)
Liked 3,992 Times in 2,924 Posts
Originally Posted by prathmann View Post
I have bikes with 175mm (road bike), 170mm (tourer and folding bikes), and 165mm (tandem) crank lengths and switch back and forth between them frequently. Can't say I ever notice the switch between 170mm and 175mm. The 165mm is sometimes noticeable but not objectionable - I just tend to spin it a little faster in a lower gear than when using longer cranks.
Originally Posted by markjenn View Post
Unless you're predisposed to wanting either a short or long crank, I wouldn't pay much attention to 170 vs. 172.5. The mfgs certainly didn't when they built these older bikes which typically came with only a single crank size across all frames sizes.

- Mark
Originally Posted by gugie View Post
Crank length is over-rated, IMO. A few mm's? If it were important, crank lengths would come in significantly different lengths than they do now.

Having said that, read this.
...the only time I've ever wanted a different crank length was going around a corner full tilt and striking a pedal. Right then I wanted something shorter. Otherwise, like all the above guys i quoted, I don't much notice it.

I agree that you can tell going from a 175 to a 165, but both are still quite rideable. For me, anyway.

If you notice that the frame and wheel combination is going to have a particularly low BB height, you might want to go shorter to avoid pedal strike issues, assuming you intend to ride fast and pedal through the corners. Or maybe if your particular frame has a short wheelbase and there are some toe overlap issues.

There is, however, a dedicated group of "perfect for me" guys over in the road forum who probably have some very strong opinions on this. You should ask there, too.
3alarmer is offline