| |
Main
Date: 25 Oct 2006 16:46:27
From: Brian
Subject: Crank it up...
|
Crankarm length:
Longer? Shorter? Benefits or problems associated with each?
Discuss.
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 20:32:30
From: peter
Subject: Re: Crank it up...
|
BobT wrote:
> "peter" <prathman@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1161822724.265839.155020@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Brian wrote:
> <<snip>>
> > Switching back and forth I hardly notice any difference but do spin a
> > bit faster with the 165s compared to the 175s.
> >
> Don't agonize over the difference between 165, 170, and 175 mm crank
> arms. I bet you would be unable to perceive this 2.9% difference
> while blindfolded.
I'm not sure how you got from my "hardly notice any diference" to your
conclusion that I "agonize over the difference." But since I was
comparing preferred cadence between the 165 & 175 mm cranks, I'd note
that this is a 6.1% increase in length.
I've seen suggestions to use this change in preferred cadence to
advantage in fitting a regular tandem bike to a couple who aren't well
matched in their choice of gears. Fitting shorter cranks to the person
who normally likes to gear higher but at a slower cadence will
naturally cause them to spin a bit faster and make for more harmonious
pedaling.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 07:11:44
From: Helmut Springer
Subject: Re: Crank it up...
|
peter <prathman@comcast.net > wrote:
> I've seen suggestions to use this change in preferred cadence to
> advantage in fitting a regular tandem bike to a couple who aren't
> well matched in their choice of gears. Fitting shorter cranks to
> the person who normally likes to gear higher but at a slower
> cadence will naturally cause them to spin a bit faster and make
> for more harmonious pedaling.
The regular tandem has a strict coupling: both riders will always
spin with the same cadence. The longer cranks result in a higher
speed of pedal movement for the same cadence, while the shorter
cranks allow for less and slower movement. It can help coming to a
compromise convenient for both, some of my friends do this.
--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 17:32:04
From: peter
Subject: Re: Crank it up...
|
Brian wrote:
> Crankarm length:
>
> Longer? Shorter? Benefits or problems associated with each?
Longer gives more leverage while shorter might be easier on the knees.
I have one bike with 165 mm, two with 170 mm, and one with 175 mm.
Switching back and forth I hardly notice any difference but do spin a
bit faster with the 165s compared to the 175s.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 21:29:21
From: BobT
Subject: Re: Crank it up...
|
"peter" <prathman@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:1161822724.265839.155020@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Brian wrote:
<<snip >>
> Switching back and forth I hardly notice any difference but do spin a
> bit faster with the 165s compared to the 175s.
>
Don't agonize over the difference between 165, 170, and 175 mm crank
arms. I bet you would be unable to perceive this 2.9% difference
while blindfolded. One time, I searched for advice about crank arm length
I decided that there is no real concensus.
BobT
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 07:03:37
From: Helmut Springer
Subject: Re: Crank it up...
|
BobT <robertleetaylorRe@movethiscox.net > wrote:
> Don't agonize over the difference between 165, 170, and 175 mm
> crank arms. I bet you would be unable to perceive this 2.9%
> difference while blindfolded.
With a 92cm inseam I can ride 170-175mm nicely, 180mm become a
problem on longer rides. Switching with 5mm difference is
noticeable for the first few turns only.
A much smaller person loves her racer's 165mm, has 175mm on her
short distance every day bike, and can't stand the 180mm at all.
> One time, I searched for advice about crank arm length I decided
> that there is no real concensus.
There is a "too long" though that's an individual measure, and
there's no "too short" besides convenience. If you're average in
size the average 170-175mm should do, after all that's why they are
average...
--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 20:18:54
From: Chris Neary
Subject: Re: Crank it up...
|
>Don't agonize over the difference between 165, 170, and 175 mm crank
>arms. I bet you would be unable to perceive this 2.9% difference
>while blindfolded.
Don't bet my wife.
She is on the short side (5' tall, don't remember inseam offhand) and
consistantly has knee issues with anything over 165mm long.
YMMV.
Chris Neary
diabloridr@tcsn.net
"Prize the doubt, low kinds exist without"
- Inscription at Ramsmeyer Hall, Ohio State University
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 02:43:30
From:
Subject: Re: Crank it up...
|
Bob T who? writes:
>> Switching back and forth I hardly notice any difference but do spin
>> a bit faster with the 165s compared to the 175s.
> Don't agonize over the difference between 165, 170, and 175 mm crank
> arms. I bet you would be unable to perceive this 2.9% difference
> while blindfolded. One time, I searched for advice about crank arm
> length I decided that there is no real concensus.
I'm for calling cranks, crank lever arm sets, to make any confusion go
away. I'm into set theory anyway.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 17:48:33
From: Afraid To Take Hands Off The Bars
Subject: Re: Crank it up...
|
"peter" <prathman@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:1161822724.265839.155020@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Brian wrote:
> > Crankarm length:
> >
> > Longer? Shorter? Benefits or problems associated with each?
>
> Longer gives more leverage while shorter might be easier on the knees.
> I have one bike with 165 mm, two with 170 mm, and one with 175 mm.
> Switching back and forth I hardly notice any difference but do spin a
> bit faster with the 165s compared to the 175s.
>
Shorter can be harder on the knees, I tried to ride a small single speed
(read : childs tricycle) up a hill the other day.
My knees weren't liking it at all! I think gearing as a whole has to be
considered.
|
|
