Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Fitting Your Bike
Reload this Page >

Shorter Cranks for Climbing

Notices
Fitting Your Bike Are you confused about how you should fit a bike to your particular body dimensions? Have you been reading, found the terms Merxx or French Fit, and don’t know what you need? Every style of riding is different- in how you fit the bike to you, and the sizing of the bike itself. It’s more than just measuring your height, reach and inseam. With the help of Bike Fitting, you’ll be able to find the right fit for your frame size, style of riding, and your particular dimensions. Here ya’ go…..the location for everything fit related.

Shorter Cranks for Climbing

Old 06-23-20, 01:32 PM
  #26  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 17,212

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2832 Post(s)
Liked 741 Times in 555 Posts
Originally Posted by Wilmingtech View Post
This is not true. In the same gear the pedal speed (Not Cadence) must be faster with the longer cranks to keep the same cadence. By reducing the length of the cranks it does a few things, slows the pedal speed and opens the hip angle and reduces the knee flex over the pedal stroke. It's not going to give anyone more power or make them go faster but at the same pedal speed as the larger cranks the cadence would be higher thus increasing endurance over the 15 miles of climbing. Granted this is very marginal as we are talking about a 2.5mm difference in crank length which amounts to a 5mm overall circumference when looking at pedal speed.

The reasoning for the saddle forward was two fold. To make up the slight difference in saddle height with the shorter cranks and to open the hip angle for the longer climbs. It was 1/2cm of difference and was actually pretty comfortable for climbing.

Typically I try to spin at 75-80 rpm when I have steep climbs (+6%). In anything less than a 6% grade, I can typically sit at 85-90 without issue. My bike is typically setup 50/34 x 11/28 when I am in the hills which is most of the time. The struggle I had on this ride specifically is that it was 15 miles at 6-8% grade. I just don't have a regular ride that has a 2 hour climb at +6%. So my cadence slowly dropped over the length of the climb. .

Knees don't wobble. Just had a bike fit a month ago and the fitter started with KOPS (he was more of a "classic" fitter). He had me slide the seat forward during the fitting as this frame (As mentioned in the OP) is at the large ends of frame sizes for me. Sliding forward shortened my reach and opened up my hip angle a little bit and gave me a little more power comparative to where the seat was previously. I thought it interesting as well that I didn't get cramping in any other muscle groups besides the satorius. Toward the end of the final climb I had to massage them a little bit while riding to keep them from cramping up.
Here's a simpler way to think about crank length. Crank length is simply a gearing issue. We can use a standard "reductio" argument here. Given your current gearing, could you do that climb faster with 100mm cranks? No, you couldn't. You'd be hard pressed to just turn the cranks. Without a gearing change, it becomes a torque issue. If you can reduce the necessary torque with sufficient gearing, then any crank length will serve. Then it becomes a biomechanics problem, which is very difficult to solve because of the training issue. We become accustomed to a certain position, certain rpms, a certain crank circle, and only prolonged training with that new position, cadence, and crank circle can resolve whether or not it generates more power over a particular time span. This is not a simple problem. Hence the standard formula of: inseam in inches * 5.5 = crank length in mm. Most folks just use what came on the bike or else use the formula and see if that works for them. Or not.

Since your standard climbing cadence is considerably faster than 65, gearing your bike lower to allow a faster cadence and thus lower force would have been helpful. Just putting on shorter cranks doesn't mean you'll spin faster on a climb. To the contrary, because you can't spin faster unless you gear lower. One has to accept that cassette size is a visual for others which doesn't matter to you as you can't see it.

The climb from the Deli Stop to Sunrise is good training. I was at the ranger station a couple years ago, talking to a tandem team. They were about to start their 3rd repeat of the day. Can't say that tandems can't climb. An exceptional day ride is the clockwise loop from Ohanapecosh over Chinook and then White passes. People park in the equipment yard, to the left going in.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 06-23-20, 08:06 PM
  #27  
Iride01
Hits [ENTER] b4 thinking
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 5,585

Bikes: '20 Tarmac Disc Comp '91 Schwinn Paramount '78 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2157 Post(s)
Liked 894 Times in 675 Posts
50/34 rings and a 11-28 rear? You might consider getting an 11-32 cassette or a crank with smaller rings. Or just ride 200 or more miles per week and you'll be able to handle that hill next time.
Iride01 is offline  
Old 10-07-20, 02:38 PM
  #28  
Wilmingtech
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Rt 12 Washington USA
Posts: 428

Bikes: 2013 Ridley Helium, 2017 Blue Pro-Secco EX, 1987 Schwinn Super Sport

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked 80 Times in 56 Posts
Originally Posted by Iride01 View Post
Or just ride 200 or more miles per week and you'll be able to handle that hill next time.
^^^^This.
Wilmingtech is offline  
Old 10-10-20, 05:49 AM
  #29  
cubewheels
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Manila, Philippines
Posts: 1,511

Bikes: A really old BMX bike, Phantom 20 kid's MTB, Jackal Mio Gravel Bike

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 664 Post(s)
Liked 286 Times in 229 Posts
Originally Posted by Wilmingtech View Post
I've got the crankset here in the garage and it would take me all of maybe 30 min to set it up. Just not sure how much the shorter crankset would help, if at all.

Thanks!

-Sean
It probably depends entirely on your pedaling technique and comfort.

For example me, I like having my legs stretched for more of the pedal stroke, regardless of the power output (and whether sitted or standing). I'm more comfortable that way, hence, I prefer the shortest crank possible. I'm 5'8" and my crank length is 150mm.
cubewheels is offline  
Old 10-10-20, 05:59 AM
  #30  
Lemond1985
Sophomore Member
 
Lemond1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,690
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1623 Post(s)
Liked 1,043 Times in 625 Posts
Originally Posted by Wilmingtech View Post
I am 5'11 and a 185 lbs and am typically more comfortable on a 53.5-54cm (within certain geometries). I currently own a Ridley Helium in a medium which is like a 56.

I have the bike setup to fit me and it's not uncomfortable on long rides. My question is...

I have a long ride tomorrow that is mostly climbing (15 miles up 4000' and another 7 up 2000'). Would it benefit to slide the seat up a half cm and throw a 172.5 crank on there? (I typically ride with a 175)

I've got the crankset here in the garage and it would take me all of maybe 30 min to set it up. Just not sure how much the shorter crankset would help, if at all.

Thanks!

-Sean
I go between 170's and 172.5's to 165's without issues. You should be fine, I doubt you will ever notice any difference after the first minute or so. I ride a different bike all the time, so my body is used to making small adjustments on the fly, so YMMV, but i think you will be fine.

I love my 165's because they allow me to use a powerful "kick forward" pedalling style. Often longer cranks create a weak spot at the very top of the pedal stroke, pretty much cancelling out any leverage advantage from the longer crank. The shorter crank helps me stay op top of the pedals through the whole pedal strike and use a "kicking" motion to propel me. I have a tendency to drop my heels a lot while climbing, and this helps quite a bit with that problem.
Lemond1985 is offline  
Old 10-17-20, 05:54 PM
  #31  
Clyde1820
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,338
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 378 Post(s)
Liked 230 Times in 177 Posts
Originally Posted by Lemond1985 View Post
I love my 165's because they allow me to use a powerful "kick forward" pedalling style. Often longer cranks create a weak spot at the very top of the pedal stroke, pretty much cancelling out any leverage advantage from the longer crank. The shorter crank helps me stay op top of the pedals through the whole pedal strike and use a "kicking" motion to propel me. I have a tendency to drop my heels a lot while climbing, and this helps quite a bit with that problem.
I've noticed that as well. Shorter legs, here, and 160-165mm cranks have always felt "right," whereas typical 175mm's have that "weak" spot at the top you speak of. Haven't done 155mm's, but I suspect I'd do okay with those as well. 165's on the current bike (a rebuild, in progress).
Clyde1820 is offline  
Old 10-17-20, 07:29 PM
  #32  
cubewheels
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Manila, Philippines
Posts: 1,511

Bikes: A really old BMX bike, Phantom 20 kid's MTB, Jackal Mio Gravel Bike

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 664 Post(s)
Liked 286 Times in 229 Posts
Between my now two bikes, one with 150 mm crank and the newer with ~170mm crank. It's significantly easier to pedal uphill with the longer crank. I'm quite flexible with my ankle and bend them down around the top of the stroke and I do most of the climbs out of the saddle which may have been a factor favoring longer crank on climbs.
cubewheels is offline  
Old 10-17-20, 07:41 PM
  #33  
Lemond1985
Sophomore Member
 
Lemond1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,690
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1623 Post(s)
Liked 1,043 Times in 625 Posts
I think if you're out of the saddle climbing, crank length becomes almost irrelevant. For me it only matters when I'm seated, YMMV.
Lemond1985 is offline  
Old 10-17-20, 07:59 PM
  #34  
cubewheels
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Manila, Philippines
Posts: 1,511

Bikes: A really old BMX bike, Phantom 20 kid's MTB, Jackal Mio Gravel Bike

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 664 Post(s)
Liked 286 Times in 229 Posts
Originally Posted by Lemond1985 View Post
I think if you're out of the saddle climbing, crank length becomes almost irrelevant. For me it only matters when I'm seated, YMMV.
I also found the longer crank significantly easier in climbs seated as well, going at the same speed. But my quads are more sore after the ride so my results are contradictory

Perhaps, I need some time to adjust to the longer crank.
cubewheels is offline  
Old 10-18-20, 04:23 PM
  #35  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 17,212

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2832 Post(s)
Liked 741 Times in 555 Posts
My singles have 170mm cranks, our tandem 175. My stoker has much shorter legs than I. The tandem came with 170mm stoker cranks, but that long a crank made her legs cramp. The crank length on my singles is correct by the 5.5 * inseam in inches method. That same formula for my wife said she should have 150mm cranks, so I put those on for her last year. That totally screwed our seated climbing ability. She doesn't have the leg strength to get the power out of those shorter cranks at cadences which are powerful for me. OTOH her legs don't cramp and she's happier, so that's that. As I've said before, crank length is largely a gearing issue. Absolutely you'll need time to adapt your neuromuscular system to the longer cranks.

I assume "easier" means lower HR at the same power (speed). Yes, lower climbing cadence always reduces HR, but whether that's a good thing or not is another story. It's the same old story: lower cadence = increased leg stress and reduced aerobic stress. Perfect cadence and thus crank length, as the two are connected, is when breathing and leg stress are maxed at the same time. That's not a simple thing as both are modified by training.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Likes For Carbonfiberboy:
Old 11-12-20, 05:40 AM
  #36  
cubewheels
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Manila, Philippines
Posts: 1,511

Bikes: A really old BMX bike, Phantom 20 kid's MTB, Jackal Mio Gravel Bike

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 664 Post(s)
Liked 286 Times in 229 Posts
After spending 1 month and adapting to 170mm crank (coming from 150mm, I'm 5'8'), I've come to a conclusion that a shorter crank (my previous 150mm) is less tiring and more comfortable in all sitted efforts, including sprinting while sitted and also climbing. I'm not surprised if that also result to better efficiency since it seems to be an ongoing trend in the pro world.

The longer 170mm crank for me is only better for generating more power out of the saddle to go faster in climbs. I suppose that explains why Marco Pantani used long 180 - 190mm cranks in mountain stages since he rode out of the saddle most of the time. Unusually long crank arm for his size.

One interesting result for me with 150mm out of the saddle is effort felt easier / reduced. I feel I can ride out of the saddle for longer period on the 150 mm. However, I'm around 20% slower on out of the saddle climbs on the 150mm.

So I guess if you're going to climb a mountain sitted most of the time, a shorter crank might be better. If spendting 50/50 out of the saddle or more, a longer crank feels more efficient and definitely faster.
cubewheels is offline  
Old 11-12-20, 01:53 PM
  #37  
Moisture
Banned.
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 766
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 515 Post(s)
Liked 87 Times in 71 Posts
Originally Posted by phughes View Post
I'm your height and prefer 172.5 cranks. I swapped the 175s on my Long Haul Trucker for the 172.5s and much prefer them. Despite how close they are, they definitely made a difference. I would not mind trying 170s, but for now, the 172.5s feel nice. I can spin more freely.
A 2.5MM difference in crank arm length is damn near going to make no difference. You'd notice more of a difference upgrading to a higher quality, lighter crankset or even changing out your gearing.

Crank arms need to be proportionate to your inseam and how much power you output.
Moisture is offline  
Old 11-12-20, 02:43 PM
  #38  
phughes
Senior Member
 
phughes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,959
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 535 Post(s)
Liked 413 Times in 248 Posts
Originally Posted by Moisture View Post
A 2.5MM difference in crank arm length is damn near going to make no difference. You'd notice more of a difference upgrading to a higher quality, lighter crankset or even changing out your gearing.

Crank arms need to be proportionate to your inseam and how much power you output.
The cranks I went to are 170, not 172.5. I wrote that by mistake. Even with a 2.5mm difference, you are changing more than the length of the crank, you are changing the circumference of the circle the pedals travel. You also have a 5mm difference total top to bottom.

Leg length alone isn't all that matters. A shorter crank also helps decrease the total bend of the knee at the top of the stroke, which can help people with limited flexibility due to injury, or other issues. It also helps put less stress on the knees.

I will edit my original response to correct the length.
phughes is offline  
Old 11-12-20, 03:27 PM
  #39  
Iride01
Hits [ENTER] b4 thinking
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 5,585

Bikes: '20 Tarmac Disc Comp '91 Schwinn Paramount '78 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2157 Post(s)
Liked 894 Times in 675 Posts
IMO, The only thing that proportional sizing tells you is what the max length of crank is you should consider. Nothing about it shows that you must use that length.

And since your upper leg and lower leg aren't proportional on every person as well as your foot length, then saying one crank size for one leg length is border line silly.

Steve Hogg talks about crank length in detail, and while he somewhat supports proportional sizing, I like the considerations that he describes for different leg and femur lengths as well as other considerations. https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...gth-which-one/

All I can really say is like many other things, you can assume the accepted rules are the truth and never try anything different so you'll never know anything different. Or you can try different things and see what they do for you. I've found that sometimes the rules work for me. Sometimes, as in crank length, the rules don't work for me.
Iride01 is offline  
Likes For Iride01:
Old 11-12-20, 11:59 PM
  #40  
cubewheels
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Manila, Philippines
Posts: 1,511

Bikes: A really old BMX bike, Phantom 20 kid's MTB, Jackal Mio Gravel Bike

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 664 Post(s)
Liked 286 Times in 229 Posts
Originally Posted by phughes View Post
A shorter crank also helps decrease the total bend of the knee at the top of the stroke, which can help people with limited flexibility due to injury, or other issues. It also helps put less stress on the knees.
It's more comfortable in short... If you could adapt to it! That was my experience.

The correct crank length for me is 170cm. My CX bike has 170cm crank length. No issues there

My MTB has 150 cm crank length which is relatively short for my inseam (81.5 cm). I use either MTB or CX bike in the same route I do everyday in the road, depending on weather (MTB for bad weather). Same saddle setup via heel method, same footwear and pedals used. My quads burnout sooner in max effort climbs while sitted with the 170cm crank. Quads stay fresh longer with 150cm crank. Ironically, at the same climbing speed (CX vs MTB). My CX and MTB is identical in weight.

Out of the saddle, my endurance with either 170cm or 150cm is identical. However, I'm faster out of the saddle with the 170cm crank at the same effort. I guess that would explain why Marco Pantani, for a small rider, uses long cranks for climbing (180cm) since he climbs out of the saddle most of the time.
cubewheels is offline  
Old 11-13-20, 07:34 AM
  #41  
Moisture
Banned.
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 766
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 515 Post(s)
Liked 87 Times in 71 Posts
Originally Posted by phughes View Post
The cranks I went to are 170, not 172.5. I wrote that by mistake. Even with a 2.5mm difference, you are changing more than the length of the crank, you are changing the circumference of the circle the pedals travel. You also have a 5mm difference total top to bottom.

Leg length alone isn't all that matters. A shorter crank also helps decrease the total bend of the knee at the top of the stroke, which can help people with limited flexibility due to injury, or other issues. It also helps put less stress on the knees.

I will edit my original response to correct the length.
For somebody with longer legs who is able to crank out proportionally more power, you'll definetely be better off with longer cranks. It ultimately means more power to the cranks.

I also used 175mm cranks before switching to a 170mm set due to worn chainrings. Didnt feel too much of a difference pedaling in the saddle, but still noticeable. Out of the saddle, going up a hill, the 5mm difference was certainly enough to limit my power output. I need to play around with the gearing more often on pavement to find the right pedalling cadence. I feel like I am constantly spinning at too high of a cadence and must compensate with a higher gear. On my road bike - also with 170mm cranks, its not nearly as bad because the gearing is better suited to my needs. I have a 34.5 inch inseam which means I need roughly 187.5mm cranks. I definetely felt like i was able to put down power alot easier the one time I tried riding with 180mm cranks.

In short, choosing a crank arm length in close accordance with your inseam is rather important, especially with shorter guys because it definetely can cause knee and flexibility issues like you said if the arms are a bit too long. However most frames won't fit much more than 175mm without pedal striking around the turns.
Moisture is offline  
Old 11-13-20, 08:22 AM
  #42  
CargoDane
Not a newbie to cycling
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 911

Bikes: Omnium Cargo Ti with Rohloff, Bullitt Milk Plus, Dahon Smooth Hound

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 356 Post(s)
Liked 319 Times in 197 Posts
I usually use 172.5mm cranks, but with my newest bike (the only bike I have bought after my amputation). I ordered some 170mm cranks to see if it would help me spin better (with the proshetic foot, I can't use the foot itself to make a more "suspended" or "floated" revolution, if that makes sense). I can't really tell much of a difference in general, but I do find it slightly easier to spin, although I will never become a good spinner - I tend to mash. I think that at some point, I may try a slightly shorter crank still, just to see if it makes more of a difference for spinning.
CargoDane is offline  
Old 11-13-20, 09:02 AM
  #43  
Iride01
Hits [ENTER] b4 thinking
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 5,585

Bikes: '20 Tarmac Disc Comp '91 Schwinn Paramount '78 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2157 Post(s)
Liked 894 Times in 675 Posts
I don't see crank arm length important enough to take priority over other concerns. If a person isn't having any knee issues or any other fit issues, why bother?

For persons that compete, whether with themselves or others, it might be something else they can tweak to find out what gives them the better power output. However I'd expect that power output when compared to their use of short and long to have mixed results with one better for some things and the other better for others. Constant rolling terrain, flat, long climbs at moderate grades, long climbs at steep grades, short 30 mile rides or longer 75 mile rides and other things will put one with an advantage for a unique set of circumstances.

I only know that for my 34.5 legs, I prefer 165 mm. 175 mm cranks that I tried out for 10 miles wore me out on a 58 cm frame. Getting on a 56 cm version of the same frame with 172.5 cranks immediately after getting back to the shop and going the same 10 miles let me feel more rested and actually produce better times for specific segments in that ride and overall times. I'd rode my own bike five miles prior to the test rides, so I feel I was decently warmed up for the first ride.

I'm not saying my choice for short cranks is the right choice for everyone. I'm just saying it's my choice. Not some formula that I'm not supposed to question and blindly accept.
Iride01 is offline  
Likes For Iride01:
Old 11-13-20, 09:26 AM
  #44  
Lemond1985
Sophomore Member
 
Lemond1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,690
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1623 Post(s)
Liked 1,043 Times in 625 Posts
Good points. I read all the articles back in the late 80's and early 90's about how all the pros used 175 mm (or longer) cranks. The conventional wisdom at the time was that longer cranks were always better. Reminds me a little bit of the "wider tires are always faster" fad we are currently in the midst of.

Anyway, i struggled for years trying to get 175's to work (I'm 5-10) and I got nothing but low back pain, which I would recover from, but would always come back. I kept trying to fix the flat spot at the very top of the pedal stroke, but my knee was always too bent to apply much power. Fighting it only caused more pain and injury. These days, I find 165's and 170's much more to my liking.

Road bikes were sold for decades with gearing way too high to be practical (a 42 x 23 low gear???) for the average person, but that is finally changing. I think the idea of routinely putting 175 or 170 mm cranks on every bike sold also needs to be re-examined.
Lemond1985 is offline  
Old 11-13-20, 10:37 AM
  #45  
Leisesturm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,597
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1657 Post(s)
Liked 218 Times in 168 Posts
OMG. What a mess of good information, misinformation, myths, lies, talking over each other ... here, I'll add some more of my own, why not. I skipped a lot of posts after #19, but #26 stood out for being rational and accurate. What I didn't see (but may have missed) is the observation that, were it possible, most of the bikes we ride would have cranks of 200mm!! The reason why it is not possible is because the average bottom bracket height is 10.5" and longer cranks than the current standards might contact the ground during a turn. If you are racing. Most of us aren't. The cranksets on the bikes we ride are however derived from the TdF racers of the 1960's. When all cranks should be 200mm, it becomes a little strange to obsess about the difference in anything between 170mm and 172.5mm cranks! I've been riding a new bike with 175mm cranks and didn't know it because the specs on it say 170mm. I've got the cranks on the workbench though because I pulled them to install a mid-drive e-assist and 175mm is plainly stamped into the aluminum.

I also ride recumbents and on recumbent forums this topic gets quite a bit of attention. I didn't expect to see it here too. On a recumbent there are any number of reasons why a shorter crank might be neccessary. Shorter meaning 155mm ... 150mm. Even 140mm. Reductions on that order of magnituded are perceptivle in their effects on things but IMO the main reason on a recumbent to do this is because it is enclosed in some kind of shell that restricts the circle diameter of the riders feet. Knee issues should be addressed in their own right. Bicycles are transportation, recreation and/or sport. IMO they should not be used as physical therapy devices.

There is all that, but there is also this: 2mm is quite possibly the manufacturing tolerance of a cheap (affordable) crankset. One or both arms of a 170mm crankset could easily be as close to a 172.5 as matters and thus pulling the first set off to install the second (or vice versa), especially if money was spent acquiring the second... ... TL;DR: go big or go home. If you are going to change crank length for some reason, nothing less than a 15mm change is worth the time, money, or hassle. And, cranks LONGER than 170mm - 175mm have their place. For taller riders, sure, but average height ones as well.
Leisesturm is offline  
Likes For Leisesturm:
Old 11-13-20, 08:22 PM
  #46  
cubewheels
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Manila, Philippines
Posts: 1,511

Bikes: A really old BMX bike, Phantom 20 kid's MTB, Jackal Mio Gravel Bike

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 664 Post(s)
Liked 286 Times in 229 Posts
Originally Posted by Iride01 View Post
I'm not saying my choice for short cranks is the right choice for everyone. I'm just saying it's my choice. Not some formula that I'm not supposed to question and blindly accept.
Pro world is also trending towards shorter crank.

I personally found shorter cranks more comfortable and more efficient in medium intensity efforts. The recommended crank length for me is 170mm but my other bike has 150mm and ride both the same routes. I can always compare and see that 150mm is really better for long duration rides (including steady, sitted climbs), especially if your cruising cadence is ~90 rpm.

The reasons I still haven't changed the 170mm crank on my bike to 150mm is I actually like the better workout the 170mm provides. It seems to employ more of my muscles (which makes for a better overall workout) and also punchier and faster if riding out of the saddle.

If I'll be doing TT, I'll definitely be with shorter 150mm crank. 170mm in the mountains. But this really depends on the rider and goal. If I intend to take the climb at a relatively "easy" pace but still fast enough, I'll still go with shorter 150mm crank.

Last edited by cubewheels; 11-13-20 at 08:28 PM.
cubewheels is offline  
Old 11-18-20, 11:55 PM
  #47  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,728

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1028 Post(s)
Liked 1,329 Times in 552 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
So you use shorter cranks - then you have to spin faster to get the same power, right?
No.
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 11-19-20, 10:18 AM
  #48  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 17,212

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2832 Post(s)
Liked 741 Times in 555 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
No.
That's a snippet from a comment. Further in that comment, I explained that pedal force would have to increase on a climb if one went to shorter cranks without a gearing change and wanted to maintain the same power. Do you disagree with that? Yes, no?
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 11-19-20, 11:30 AM
  #49  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,728

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1028 Post(s)
Liked 1,329 Times in 552 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
That's a snippet from a comment. Further in that comment, I explained that pedal force would have to increase on a climb if one went to shorter cranks without a gearing change and wanted to maintain the same power. Do you disagree with that? Yes, no?
Agree.
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 12-10-20, 07:59 PM
  #50  
Wilmingtech
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Rt 12 Washington USA
Posts: 428

Bikes: 2013 Ridley Helium, 2017 Blue Pro-Secco EX, 1987 Schwinn Super Sport

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked 80 Times in 56 Posts
Mentioning Cranks on BF is like mentioning oil on any number of automobile forums.

Anyways I was listening to this Podcast from Trainer Road "Ask a Cycling Coach" Episode 287 and starting @ 01:36:00 They have a great discussion with quite a few examples and research on crank length -
Here is the excerpt from that episode -

Overall it seems that you will be better off with shorter cranks than long ones. Most of the reasoning seems to be around the ability to have a faster cadence with shorter cranks with less effort.

-Sean
Wilmingtech is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.