![]() |
Originally Posted by jyl
(Post 18480596)
In theory, shorter (longer) legs -> shorter (longer) crank. However, I've never seen any data showing that 2.5 mm (1/10 inch) makes a difference.
|
Originally Posted by Sirrus Rider
(Post 18488267)
What I've noticed is its a comfort issue. My standard go to crank is a 170 anything longer tends to slow down my spin. Shorter than 170 feels like walking around with the shoe laces of my right and left shoes tied to each other.
|
Originally Posted by Homebrew01
(Post 18480620)
The longer the crack, the more likely it is to brake.
|
Originally Posted by rmfnla
(Post 18489319)
Only on a fixie (or did you mean break?)...
Back to the OP, I have 172.5 on 1 bike, until the left crank arm broke. I had a spare 170mm laying around, so I put that on temporarily ....... 3 years ago ..... Can't tell the difference. |
I'm 5' 11" tall l and have a very long thigh for my height and a quite stubby torso. I ride 172.5s 175s and an old tourer with 177.5 cranks. The 177.5s would normally be pretty long for my height but they seem to work OK with my thigh length. I like the longer crank on distance rides. I ride at a lower cadence and cut down the reps for less chafing. Some folks probably do the opposite, but that does seem to work for me. I ride all three though on and off with all being fairly comfortable.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:19 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.