View Single Post
Old 02-11-20, 12:06 AM
  #24  
79pmooney
Senior Member
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,905

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4806 Post(s)
Liked 3,928 Times in 2,553 Posts
Originally Posted by delbiker1
I just got back home after a 37 mile ride, on my Lemond Tourmalet, with the crankset changed back to 170mm from 175mm. Much more comfortable and efficient for me. Hard to believe that a 1/5 inch per arm can make such a difference.
I can believe that. I was 6'1/2" but all arms and legs BITD. Never rode anything bigger than 170/171 until I bought my Fuji Pro as a second year racer with its 175s. Riding the same wheels and gears, I was instantly minutes faster around my 45 mile training loop. For me, 170 is too short and I pay a real penalty. No upside. Perhaps I would benefit going even longer but my knees really do not like even small crank length changes (I've had crhrondomalacia patellae the past 42 years) and 175s work so I haven't experimented further.

No, I am not saying everyone should go longer because it worked for me. I am saying that for some of us, there is real benefit to be gained (and felt immediately) by going to the correct length for that person. (And it is my belief that this is so personal that it cannot be looked up in a book.)

Ben
79pmooney is offline