Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:35 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:44 am 
Retro Guru

Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:42 am
Posts: 2383
TBH, i can tell the difference 170/175, for about a minute after getting on the bike. Then i can't. Doesn't actually have any effect on performance, just feels a little odd.

Mismatched crank lengths i can feel all the time. Feels like one crank is either bent, or has a bent pedal axle...... Consequently, all my bikes have matched pairs of cranks (its not hard to do!)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:47 am 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:55 am
Posts: 2922
Location: Dorset
I always opt for 170 rather than 175 they weigh 2 grams less :facepalm:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:48 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:29 pm
Posts: 1877
Location: Somerset
I can really tell the difference even just 2.5mm, normally 175mm, had 170's arrive on my Xizang, had 172.5 on my road bike. I did not like the 170's, especially uphill, they got sold, I swapped the 172.5's for 175's, again better uphill. Don't forget, a 5mm longer crank means that your seat should be 5mm lower, thus you knee, relative to saddle will come 10mm higher, this is a problem for the time trial possition, where thighs can contact belly/lower ribs. If you don't ride the different lengths along the same route regularly you may never notice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:49 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:52 pm
Posts: 1387
Location: the Netherlands
widowmaker wrote:
I always opt for 170 rather than 175 they weigh 2 grams less :facepalm:


But you need a 5mm longer seatpost for that, so what's the net saving...? :facepalm: :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:45 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:29 pm
Posts: 1877
Location: Somerset
troje wrote:
widowmaker wrote:
I always opt for 170 rather than 175 they weigh 2 grams less :facepalm:


But you need a 5mm longer seatpost for that, so what's the net saving...? :facepalm: :D


FTWWW (For The Weight Weenie Win)

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:49 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:55 am
Posts: 2922
Location: Dorset
gtRTSdh wrote:
troje wrote:
widowmaker wrote:
I always opt for 170 rather than 175 they weigh 2 grams less :facepalm:


But you need a 5mm longer seatpost for that, so what's the net saving...? :facepalm: :D


FTWWW (For The Weight Weenie Win)

Image


Varnish that one a year and that will never break/rust 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:27 pm 
Retro Guru
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:37 pm
Posts: 5198
Location: North West
But you will be adding weight ... :lol:

WD :D


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: james1985, MSNbot Media, shogun, Smithjss70, Tc, themountie and 40 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group