i tried searching but didn't come up with a definitive answer. i also posted on another thread about shorter riders but didn't get any answers as well. hopefully someone will be able to help me out. i'm currently converting an old 48cm super mondia road frame. i'm 5'5" with a short (29") inseam. i've decided to go with a sugino rd track crankset but am torn between a 165 or 170 crank arm length. i'm worried about toe overlap and hitting the front wheel on tight turns. i'd like to go with the 170 as i feel like i'd be more efficient but if it will cause problems i'll go with the 165. has anyone my size had experience with this?

secondly, the rd comes with a 48t chainring. i also found a sugino xd crankset with a 46t. would there be any noticeable difference between the 2 with a 16t cog?

thanks in advance for any replies.

on a frame that small, i'd go with the 165mm. and, in terms of difference between those chainrings, it's a difference of 75.8 gear inches to about 79.1 (with the 48t)... i think the 46t is going to possibly allow for easier climbs and easier skids and such, but everyone has their own preferences.

thanks for the reply zip0082. i've got 2 small but steep hills that i have to get over when i leave my apt but then it's pretty flat after that. this bike will be my errand runner, no more than 10 miles one way. knowing this, what do you think about 46 vs 48?

With a short inseam, you're better suited to those 165's than long-legged folks who run them.

especially on a road frame you should go with the 165s.

I'm 5'2', with 30 in "inseam". I use 170mm cranks. It goes more by leg length than size of frame. If you have to use shorter cranks than optimal just in order to not have toe overlap with the front wheel, then the frame is too small for you. But in your case, with 29 in of leg, you're probably borderline where you could use either size of crank, and I doubt that you would find 165 too short.

great feedback guys. much appreciated. so the 165 with the 48t should be fine for my purposes?

i don't know the dif between the xd and the rd, but a smaller chainring is better if this is your first bike. it'll be easier to stop. of course if one crankset is more appealing to you than the other, 2 teeth aren't gonna make a ton of difference. you could always get a 17t cog to lower your gear.

5'6" tall. 31" inseam. 53cm frame. I like 165mm cranks. It makes sense that the cranks should scale with the frame size.

Get the crank model you want. You can always change the chainring later.

i think i'm going to go with the rd as it seems to be more of a true track crankset as opposed to the xd which i read is suitable for both road and mtb. i'm gonna start with a 16t cog as i got one free from a buddy and see how it feels. thanks guys.

If you can find them, 167.5 is worth trying. Love mine.

don't gear at 48x16. 1 skid spot. 46x16 is a very sweet all around gear.

hmmmm. didn't think about that.

You'll probably be fine - and 10 to 1 wouldn't notice a difference.
Frame geometry dictates overlap. I wouldn't consider crank length an issue.

get 165

love this reply. short and sweet.

now you guys got me thinking about the chainring size. the xd set i'm looking at is a little cheaper and has a 46t chainring but the arms are black which i'm not a fan of. i'm also assuming the 46t will make the couple hills i have to negotiate easier.

You love it because it's a command and doesn't explain anything.

I like reply #14. It's the only one that makes some sense.

Totally illogical.

I have a Sugino RD crankset I could swing your way.

I have a 48t chainring though, take it or leave it.

If you are using an old road frame you also have to consider that the BB shell will be lower to the ground than on a track bike. So I'd get 165mm cranks arms just to avoid pedal strike when going round corners, that assuming your going fg and not ss.

To work out what size chainring to get just use the Rabbit to calculate your desired gear inches and skid spots and work from there.

+1

165

pfft. that's nothing, if you ever tried the 176.95 there's no going back to 167.5 believe me

"If you have to use shorter cranks than optimal just in order to not have toe overlap with the front wheel, then the frame is too small for you. "


I kind of get what he's trying to say here (we are talking road geometry). If it was that one-in-a-million fit, where the crank is just nicking - the next size up frame might clear @ that same crank length. It would be like hitting the lottery.

Does that make sense?

I wouldn't call the RD any more of a "true track crankset" than the XD. They're both road cranksets meant for multiple chainrings, and the main practical difference is 130mm BCD on the RD (designed as a double) vs 110mm BCD XD (designed as a triple). That's not a slam on these cranks, since track cranks are overkill for most riders and this is a conversion -- I wouldn't waste the cash on "track cranks" for a non-track bike.

in this case then should i just go with a set of pake or origin 8's? the xd's i was looking at have black crankarms which i'm not a big fan of. both the pake and origins have an all metal finish, are 46t and are cheaper.

i found this Sugino Mighty Competition Road Crankset for a pretty good price but the crankarms are 171mm. too long?