Motorad

On a fitting-bike, I rode crank lengths that were both 170 mm and 165 mm. Based on today's feel for both lengths and my geometry, I'll go with the 165 mm crank: height = 63" ... PBH = 75.5 cm.

Today's fitting for my Legend ST was based on getting Shimano components. However, one concern I have is availability of high quality cranksets based on crank lengths of 165 mm.

For example, if I were to fit my Legend ST with Shimano Dura Ace components ... with a 165 mm crank ... what would the road cycling forum recommend for high quality, lightweight cranksets?

I'm still debating between a 53/39 double and 52/39/30 triple for my Legend ST, and would like very much to hear recommended crankset options for both chainring setups. So far, I have yet to see any setup in a carbon configuration ... so am generically asking about high quality and lightweight cranksets for a 165 mm crank. Thanks

PhatRoadie

I've tried a bunch i kept coming back to this...

531Aussie

are they Ultegra rings? How'd that happen?

531Aussie

I'm glad that 165s are becoming more popular (and more available), coz there are plenty of people who should be using them. It's pretty silly that the height of people ranges from about 5ft to ~6ft9", yet the standard crank range is 170 to 180, and it was 170 to 175 for a million years

If you're a super weight weeny, the Dura-Ace cranks are light, but not overly so: my 172.5s are 653g (with fixed cro-mo axle), and the BB is 98g -- total = 751g.

My 9sp Dura-Ace cranks are 605g (no axle on them), and an Ultegra Octalink BB is 246g -- total = 851g. That's only a 100g drop from 9 speed. The 9sp Dura-Ace BB is a lot lighter, but no-one liked using them coz they were a bit annoying to adjust -- they were a bit like the old style BBs with a lockring bit.