Something for the tall guys...
 

I've got some of these and it's made an amazing difference to my riding (I'm 6'6")

So thought I'd share when they put out this nice 1min vid that sums up in a minute the benefits of long cranks for tall riders.


Honestly - going back to my old bike with its 175mm cranks feels like riding a kids bike. (I now ride 210mm cranks)

If you're tall - my bet is that you'll watch this vid a few times...

Adrian.

Yeah, the commonly available sizes (170-175) really don't give any proportionality to actual leg length. I'm 6', ride 175's, and haven't gone with anything longer mostly because it means getting four new sets of cranks. It does seem ridiculous that we spend so much time getting other aspects of bike fit right, but all ride pretty much the same cranks. 2.5mm difference is not a real adjustment. I think the french company TA make a selection of decent lengths.

One issue to consider is that frame manufacturers don't really allow for the use of cranks beyond the standard range, so pedal clearance in corners may be reduced. Unless of course you get a lovely frame made for you with plenty of BB clearance. Also if you ride track, I think many indoor velodromes require 170mm cranks, so you'll have to get used to switching over when you go to the track.

I think I pass Zinn Cycles pretty much every day... not short or tall enough to wander inside though.

What's the cornering clearance like? (Not sure if you're on a Zinn frame or factory-spec one)
Do the tall guys at the tour (Hincapie, Wiggins, etc.) ride extra-long cranks?

Id quite like to try some 180mm cranks, im 6'2" and think that the 5mm reduced seat height would help cope with short head tubes on bikes these days. Also I struggle with reach generally so sitting 5mm further forward would also help. Of course there is the pedalling efficiency thing to take into account as well, so it kind of makes sence for all round bike fit for me.

The "pedalling efficiency thing" is a myth, imo. Longer cranks give greater leverage, yes, so you can probably push a bigger gear. But they slow your cadence, so you may not accelerate as well, there's a bigger "dead spot" at the top of the stroke (which is inefficient) and they'll be harder on your knees. If anything I'd say we should be investigating the benefits of shorter cranks for shorter cyclists rather than longer ones for us tall guys, because there are likely to be efficiency advantages in reducing the acuteness of the angle through which the knee has to bend at the top of the stroke.

I don't think 180 is unusual. Rival's cranks come in 180. Dura Ace comes in 180.

I've got a cargo bike with longer cranks (feels longer, I guess they are, at least.) It feels different, but I've never been able to tell it was really any better or worse, either, so not a lot of reason to change.

Going from memory, I recall reading that Hincapie rides a 175 crank in a road race and 172.5 when TT. However those were the specs on bikes from a couple years ago. (Since I am a similar height/build I was curious as to how he would have his bike setup. BTW the bike was a 57cm. Yes 57cm)

:twitchy:

Basil Moss - yep I agree about the proportionality. We have short cranks when we get our first bike as kids and they get bigger as we get bigger - up to a point and then they stop. Same with wheel size - but that's a little more difficult to solve.

wanlogan - custom Zinn titanium frame too - so it's built around the custom cranks and has a higher bottom bracket to accommodate them. (it's my dream bike) So no problems at all with clearance - same as for any other road bike. And RE pro riders - don't know what they have - but I believe that Magnus Backsted had a set of Zinn custom cranks - 190's I think. He's a bit taller than hincape & wiggins.

Chasm54 - Yep - definitely can push a bigger gear. Does slow your cadence - but only for a while - until you get used to the bigger pedaling circle. Proportionally it's the same sized circle as a smaller rider would ride with say 170's or 175's so there should be no difference in cadence ability. But I hear what you are saying - and it did take a bit of getting used to - but my cadence is back to where it was before. I completely disagree with you on the acceleration though. It's one of the key benefits imo. I can now accelerate way way better than before - and thats because of the greater leverage. Accelerations that used to spit me out the back are now handled easily. And climbing is way way better for the same reason. I race regularly and since getting this bike I've jumped up 2 groups to now ride in the B grade - and have won the most improved rider award in my club as well as our summer series of racing (I've even had a couple of people question whether the long cranks are legal as they are giving an unfair advantage). I think the key is that I can finally use the leverage advantage that I have as a taller rider - the long cranks enable me to use that advantage. And I've had absolutely no problems at all with my knees jumping from the 175s to the 210s (and I'm currently riding about 350kms / week). Zinn does make shorter cranks for shorter riders - they are all about proportional length cranks - but the video was focusing on tall riders because it shows the proportionality argument better I guess (It's Lennard Zinn in the video I think - so I guess he's a cheap model and is 6'6")

So as you can see - I'm a zealot! But for good reason.

:)

Adrian.

and many tall guys who switch to the long cranks, report feeling more natural at a slightly slower cadence, which makes sense for longer legs.

I agree with the post above about length in relation to cadence and motion... I'm 6'2" with a 33" inseam and that calculator says I'm about 12mm short on my cranks but I love my 172.5's.

I used to have a 175mm crank but I honestly feel far more stable at a higher cadence (110+) and my sprint picked up a little bit of speed as well.

FWIW, I got a great deal on a used bike 15 years or so ago, exactly what I wanted except the previous owner had built it up with 170 cranks. He was 6'2"; I'm 6'4" and had always ridden 175s. I rode it a fair amount (it wasn't my only bike) for four or five years untilI destroyed it in a crash. I could spin like crazy on it, but it always felt a little cramped. I'm a lousy climber anyway, but I really couldn't go uphill on that bike. If I ever do another build (I have way more bikes than I need already), I'm going to try 180s.

I am 6'4" and have ridden 180 cranks for more than 20 years. If lengths longer than that were commonly available and did not add complexity to custom frame manufacture, clearance, etc, I think I might have gone longer. That said 20 years ago I rode all of the surrounding terrain using an 11-23 cassette, my cadence was low and I 'felt' efficient grinding out the hills (Boulder, Colorado, so reasonable climbs). With age and multiple knee surgeries on both legs I have slowly increased cadence and changed gearing. I now ride a 12-27 and sometimes wish I had a 28. I don't think I have slowed down noticeably, just don't enjoy the pain that I used to and I believe longer cranks, with higher gears are more destructive on ones body irrespective of inseam. I hate to think how little cartilage I would have left were I actually riding 195 cranks!

I'm 5'3" with a 28" inseam, so those 130mm cranks look pretty nice. But for over $500, I'll ride on longer cranks and suck it up.

I'm close to identical dimensions and have to say that I too prefer a 172.5mm crank based on my experience with one on a bike I just sold. I was able to spin out much more smoothly than with a 175, and I didn't feel like they hurt my climbing (such as it is) at all. But everyone who makes frames my size thinks I should have 175s so that's what I usually end up with.

do really tall people who find those cranks necessary also need custom bikes built?