Crank size 170 or 165
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Jersey
Posts: 6
Bikes: supersix 105, scott Sub 20 for commuting ,
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Crank size 170 or 165
I'm a 5"4 women, riding a 52 Supersix, 53/39 with a 170 crankarm.
This summer we are planning a trip to Oregon, to ride some hills. I am getting a compact 50/34 for the trip, but should I stay with the 170 crank size or switch to a 165. I don't have a high cadence, but do have endurance.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Peters, Missouri
Posts: 30,225
Bikes: Catrike 559 I own some others but they don't get ridden very much.
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1572 Post(s)
Liked 643 Times
in
364 Posts
Are you happy with the 170 mm crank length that you have now? If so, what do you hope to gain by changing?
__________________
My greatest fear is all of my kids standing around my coffin and talking about "how sensible" dad was.
My greatest fear is all of my kids standing around my coffin and talking about "how sensible" dad was.
#3
Senior Member
some reading material
crank length importance discussion
#4
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Jersey
Posts: 6
Bikes: supersix 105, scott Sub 20 for commuting ,
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So, far I've been happy with the 170mm. It's going to be the first time I'll be doing any major hills, and I'm just looking to make it easier on my lungs, I have exercise endured asthma.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Peters, Missouri
Posts: 30,225
Bikes: Catrike 559 I own some others but they don't get ridden very much.
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1572 Post(s)
Liked 643 Times
in
364 Posts
170 mm to 165 mm isn't a real big change so I wouldn't worry excessively either way. You might not even notice the difference.
The next time you go out, think about your top knee. If it feels a little uncomfortable or if it seems to want to point outward slightly, you might benefit from the shorter crank. If you're delighted with the way that your top knee feels now, I'd be reluctant to change.
The next time you go out, think about your top knee. If it feels a little uncomfortable or if it seems to want to point outward slightly, you might benefit from the shorter crank. If you're delighted with the way that your top knee feels now, I'd be reluctant to change.
__________________
My greatest fear is all of my kids standing around my coffin and talking about "how sensible" dad was.
My greatest fear is all of my kids standing around my coffin and talking about "how sensible" dad was.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 7,239
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
My bikes have cranks of 165, 170, and 175mm, and I hardly notice the difference. I agree with the comments above that if you currently feel comfortable with the 170mm cranks then you might as well stick with that length. The main advantage to going with shorter cranks would be if your knees were bothering you as a result of being bent more at the top of the crank rotation when using longer cranks.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times
in
177 Posts
I'm a 5"4 women, riding a 52 Supersix, 53/39 with a 170 crankarm.
This summer we are planning a trip to Oregon, to ride some hills. I am getting a compact 50/34 for the trip, but should I stay with the 170 crank size or switch to a 165. I don't have a high cadence, but do have endurance.
This summer we are planning a trip to Oregon, to ride some hills. I am getting a compact 50/34 for the trip, but should I stay with the 170 crank size or switch to a 165. I don't have a high cadence, but do have endurance.
Going to a 165 from a 170 will feel like you shifted up to a slightly higher gear. If you went from a 170 down to a 155 crank length that would be like shifting from a 23 sprocket in the rear to a 21, i.e. you'll be applying more force to maintain your speed at a given cadence or forced to shift down into an easier gear to keep the same force on the pedals.
#8
Banned
So, far I've been happy with the 170mm. It's going to be the first time I'll be doing any major hills
think about changing chainring sizes .. there you can make a difference ..
now that the cassette companies go to 11 we mortals really dont need great big chainrings
my touring bike has a 50,40,24 triple and i use freewheels that are no smaller than 13t
perhaps a uncommon double , like VO's 46-30 would be fine..
though since a lot of OEM builds are now offering the 50-34 they are selling pretty cheap .
the lowest gear you can use is the 34 though..
so 1:1 with a big rear cog is About, as low as you can go..
Last edited by fietsbob; 03-29-14 at 05:28 PM.
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: England
Posts: 12,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
OP is 5"4. 170 is a long crank for a rider that size. Are the riders advising to stick with 170 that short?
160/165 would be a better fit. the chanes in leverage/torque will be taken care of by change in choice of gears and cadence.
160/165 would be a better fit. the chanes in leverage/torque will be taken care of by change in choice of gears and cadence.
#10
tcarl
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 561
Bikes: Roark, Waterford 1100, 1987 Schwinn Paramount, Nishiki Professional, Bottecchia, 2 Scattantes, 3 Cannondale touring bikes, mtn. bike, cyclocross, hybrid, 1940's era Schwinn
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times
in
7 Posts
By way of comparison, I have a 31" inseam and find a 170 comfortable for general use. 175 is noticeably too long for me, but in high torque situations like mountain bikes, loaded touring or either steep or long hills they feel good. If your inseam is reasonably close to mine I'd think the 170 might be really good for the hills. Also consider a 167.5 if it's available.
#11
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Jersey
Posts: 6
Bikes: supersix 105, scott Sub 20 for commuting ,
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I do have a 30 inseam. So I'm mainly all legs with a short torso.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 11,016
Bikes: Custom Zona c/f tandem + Scott Plasma single
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 19 Times
in
11 Posts
My wife/tandem stoker is 4' - 10 3/4" 'tall' and rides 170 mmm cranks on our tandem.
She has logged over 240,000 miles on 170 mmm cranks and at age 79 has no issues.
She has logged over 240,000 miles on 170 mmm cranks and at age 79 has no issues.
#13
tcarl
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 561
Bikes: Roark, Waterford 1100, 1987 Schwinn Paramount, Nishiki Professional, Bottecchia, 2 Scattantes, 3 Cannondale touring bikes, mtn. bike, cyclocross, hybrid, 1940's era Schwinn
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times
in
7 Posts
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,589
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
crank length variation not proportional to leg length variation of riders.
insignificant effect on performance
however 165 cranks still desirable for short riders, for alternate reason
reduces toe strike with front wheel, when relatively huge 622 wheel crammed into xs frame
alternatively ride a Terry, geometry and wheel size sensibly designed to correlate rider size
insignificant effect on performance
however 165 cranks still desirable for short riders, for alternate reason
reduces toe strike with front wheel, when relatively huge 622 wheel crammed into xs frame
alternatively ride a Terry, geometry and wheel size sensibly designed to correlate rider size
#16
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Either 165 or 170 would be appropriate--it's a matter of personal preference.
5 mm is less than 1/5 of an inch difference. Not exactly worth sweating over.
#18
The Improbable Bulk
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wilkes-Barre, PA
Posts: 8,379
Bikes: Many
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
Generally agree. Not worth changing the crank for a different length unless one of the following is the case:
1) You have real identifiable issues with the current length. Then change it, and don't hesitate.
2) You are planning a different change (gearing etc), and changing the crank length can be affordable or free in conjunction with that change. (I am currently doing this).
1) You have real identifiable issues with the current length. Then change it, and don't hesitate.
2) You are planning a different change (gearing etc), and changing the crank length can be affordable or free in conjunction with that change. (I am currently doing this).
__________________
Slow Ride Cyclists of NEPA
People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Slow Ride Cyclists of NEPA
People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
#19
Banned
Separate out the crank, to say an Origin 8 110 bcd BMX cranks are made from 140 to 175 long
Product Description | Origin8
they are pretty cheap , you can run a DIY experiment.
https://www.origin8.bike/product-desc...model_uid=1008
these are threaded for a triple ..
Product Description | Origin8
they are pretty cheap , you can run a DIY experiment.
https://www.origin8.bike/product-desc...model_uid=1008
these are threaded for a triple ..
Last edited by fietsbob; 04-30-14 at 02:33 PM.
#20
Senior Member
It's hard to believe that, I never did, but when I got a power meter I realized that was the case. I tried different gears on a particularly steep hill in the area, one that takes me from 6.5 minutes to about 9 minutes to climb. At the bottom I tried going hard or not-as-hard because I wondered if it would make a difference in the second, very hard half of the climb. I found that I'm redlined for most of the climb so it's quicker if I go quicker at the bottom. Then I tried using bigger gears or spinning little gears. My power at the bottom was pretty consistent and I couldn't really tell if one was quicker than the other.
Theoretically a 53x11 and a 39x25 require the same power overall to go 6 mph the 53x11 will feel harder and will have more significant dead spots.
For any kind of sustained effort, i.e. not a sprint, you'll find some happy/tolerable medium in terms of gear/cadence for a given speed. You just have to get the gearing to somewhere within a good range for you, so you're not in a bad-for-you gear.
FWIW I'm a short legged 5'7", with a 29" inseam. I use 175 cranks and I'm primarily a crit racer. Most would have me on shorter cranks. I used to use 167.5s, then 170s. I tried going back to 170s for a year in 2008, another year in 2011, and both times I had poorer than expected results (I also rode both 170 and 175s during 2009 and that didn't work well either). I lacked strength/power and therefore speed. I was hoping to return to my 167.5/170 crank days but couldn't. The only thing I noticed was that I could spin faster with the 170s. However my power didn't change enough that I could notice.
If you're doing long climbs then your gearing will make more of a difference than crank length. After you get the gearing in the right range then the cranks may change the feel a touch but for me that's about it. From 2004-2011 I visited a good friend and his family in SoCal. I'd try to climb Palomar Mountain each time I went out, a climb that takes me (bottom part as well as the proper climb) about 2 hours. 170, 175, didn't matter. 39x23 bottom gear hurt because I went too slow for it, 39x25 was better; the only thing was that I spent more time in the 23 with 175s because I had more leverage. The only thing that changed my time significantly, by something like 15 minutes at minimum, was losing about 35 lbs compared to the year prior.
Whatever equipment you want to change do it as soon as possible so you are fluent with it when you go out west. Enjoy the trip!
__________________
"...during the Lance years, being fit became the No. 1 thing. Totally the only thing. It’s a big part of what we do, but fitness is not the only thing. There’s skills, there’s tactics … there’s all kinds of stuff..." Tim Johnson
"...during the Lance years, being fit became the No. 1 thing. Totally the only thing. It’s a big part of what we do, but fitness is not the only thing. There’s skills, there’s tactics … there’s all kinds of stuff..." Tim Johnson
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Smallguy
Road Cycling
13
07-31-11 12:52 AM