Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:15 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:28 pm 
Old School Hero

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:31 pm
Posts: 225
165mm was also the traditional length for British bikes with cottered cranks, or 6 1/2" was (165.1mm).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:49 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 2001
Location: Bodmin,Cornwall.
I am of the ride any length you get given but I've just been given a set of TA's nice cranks.The left is 170 the right 165.Just not quite brave enough to try it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:15 am 
Retro Guru

Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:42 am
Posts: 2741
legrandefromage wrote:
I have an inside leg of 33 inches

What should I expect?
Once you are used to it (5 mins) nothing.
I'm running a 32" inside leg at the moment, no opportunity to upgrade at all......

ScillySuffolk wrote:
Crank length, like Q-factor, falls within the gamut of self-selectable criteria that you are (unconsciously) capable of adjusting for: ie ride what you have/like/want and ignore anyone who tells you otherwise.
Not quite true. Too long can give long term issues with knee damage.
You set saddle height to BDC, so you need enough knee/ankle/hip motion to get over TDC, too long cranks will encroach on that. And it's (usually) the knee that goes.

You can go as short as you want, until it feels weird!

I'm currently just starting the process of moving to shorter cranks across the board. 165 was massively more comfortable than 170 on the road bike, and still not sure what i should do with regards the MTBs and CX bikes..... shorter is pretty much a given, just how much!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:10 am 
Old School Grand Master

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:55 pm
Posts: 8785
Location: New Forest, UK
Absolutely agree with mattr - I once did a tour on 175s (usually ride 170) and I had knee pain all the time. I recently swapped from 175 on my singlespeed to 170 and it's amazing how much smoother my pedalling is.

Match crank length to suit leg length.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:58 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 2240
Location: Sheffield, top city
I can tell the difference between 170/172.5/175 .... not had 165's since I had a cottered chainset in the 80's

if I lived in a flat area, I'd go for shorter cranks and rev like hell. I currently use 172.5 on all bikes except the pub clunker
My weakness is hills and as I ride in the Peak district and am asthmatic i've never been able to climb with a fast cadence, so I tend to churn a bigger gear (and I have Rik-van-looy style thighs so the knees don't take the strain).

longer cranks will give you far better acceleration, but will be hard on stamina as you're moving a bigger circle (pedalling further). Short cranks will let you sustain a speed for longer, but will feel like you can't power through a short hill.

Horses for courses - experiment and see what works - there is no formula to account for a whole host of physical differences.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jack Sabres and 16 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