Does Crank Length Matter Anymore

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:04:22 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 05/10/2015 9:18 AM, Greg Berchin wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:37:23 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

I've been using 175s and even 177.5 for 40 years, but with all the gears
now available, I'm wondering if length makes all that much difference,
to a point. I wonder if I could feel the difference between a 175 and a
170mm.

FWIW, I'm 6'4" tall with a 36" inseam. I've tried 170, 175, and 180 mm
cranks, and I like 170 best. I'm a pathetic climber but a strong
sprinter; I found that the longer cranks didn't help at all with my
climbing, but they really reduced my ability to spin.


My last bike was a 54 with a crank length of 172.5. My current bike is
a 52 with a 170 crank. Frames are similar - both Tarmacs, old one an
Elite and the new one a pro. Initially I was worried about the length
being shorter but it didn't seem to make a difference. The bike sizing
is different with the different size frame.

I seem to have been able to spin better this past year with the new one
so you may be right. But it's hard to say which change caused which
effect. Different size bike. 53/39 to 52/34. 10 speed to 11 speed.

But I can't say that I've actually noticed any difference with the crank
size. Maybe if I had changed the crank only.

There was a guy, signed himself "36" if I remember correctly, that was
a proponent of spinning and I remember a post where he was going to
replace his cranks with shorter ones with the idea that he would then
be able to spin even faster.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:37:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:04:22 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 05/10/2015 9:18 AM, Greg Berchin wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:37:23 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

I've been using 175s and even 177.5 for 40 years, but with all the gears
now available, I'm wondering if length makes all that much difference,
to a point. I wonder if I could feel the difference between a 175 and a
170mm.

FWIW, I'm 6'4" tall with a 36" inseam. I've tried 170, 175, and 180 mm
cranks, and I like 170 best. I'm a pathetic climber but a strong
sprinter; I found that the longer cranks didn't help at all with my
climbing, but they really reduced my ability to spin.


My last bike was a 54 with a crank length of 172.5. My current bike is
a 52 with a 170 crank. Frames are similar - both Tarmacs, old one an
Elite and the new one a pro. Initially I was worried about the length
being shorter but it didn't seem to make a difference. The bike sizing
is different with the different size frame.

I seem to have been able to spin better this past year with the new one
so you may be right. But it's hard to say which change caused which
effect. Different size bike. 53/39 to 52/34. 10 speed to 11 speed.

But I can't say that I've actually noticed any difference with the crank
size. Maybe if I had changed the crank only.

There was a guy, signed himself "36" if I remember correctly, that was
a proponent of spinning and I remember a post where he was going to
replace his cranks with shorter ones with the idea that he would then
be able to spin even faster.
--
cheers,

John B.

Limey he was....