I went from 172 to 165 to reduce toe overlap When I mounted fenders on my road
bike.
That required me to raise my seat as well as move it further back, which of
course required ao change the height of the handlebars.
the 165 Hollow Tech cranks that didn't work out. I had to change the bottom
bracket and then the hollow axle broke so I went back to solid axle & 170 back
on.
Then I had to readjust my seat height and move seat up.as well as adjust the
handlebars
That's quite a bit of tinkering that goes along with changing crank length
________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on
behalf of Patrick Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 3:54 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Wind!
The segue to crank length and pros and cons is an interesting tangent. I have
no dog in the debate about the aero question, but I do recall switching from
170s to 175s when I tried riding fixed offroad with a 60” gear. Uphills were
fine; the problem was downhills and flats without strong headwinds: horrible. I
switched back to 170s within a week or so; much better.
I didn’t use the 175s long enough to decide if they imposed an aero penalty.
I still use 170s for everything on road, tho’ I do prefer 175s off road now as
long as I have multiple gears and a freewheel.
I do marvel at the contortions, literal and metaphorical, that pros undertake
for the tiniest advantages. I too have noticed how low the hoods are in current
pro bikes, but I can’t imagine switching to 150s for any reason. Perhaps the
one, single reason I’m not a pro.
Patrick Moore, who just beat down headwinds again this morning in the drops on
the super-magic Joe Starck Riv fixie. (Despite the 170 mm cranks.)
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 6:33 AM Garth
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I suspect many people would like the feel of short cranks regardless of the
bodily measurements. I'm talking about say 140-155mm. Small 5-10mm changes are
often not even noticed. Aerodymamics comes into play from short cranks in that
it's less stressful to effectively ride in a low position while pedalling. Many
racers are now going really low even on the their road bike. Regardless of
one's abilities, anyone riding into the wind or downhill can tell that lowering
the torso into the wind is more efficient than sitting up with the upper torso
catching the wind. As for performance/speed gains from the shorter crank alone,
that depends on the rider and how effectively they can put power down to the
pedals more efficently. That's what I experience using 150's. I figured
eventually some successful riders would find them beneficial, then and only
then will we see the likes of "big bike" start selling them. SRAM has been
selling 155's for mtb use for a number of years. Maybe now it's the road's turn
to go down to at least 150mm. If you really think about it a very imited
selection of cranks for such a vast range of heights and leg lengths. One can
buy a stem from 0 to 170mm but the majority of cranks are only made from 165 to
175. .
Even @6'2" I found the 185mm length didn't live up to crank length theoretical
claims. It was just the opposite. More length didn't equate to output
efficiency, greater ease in climbing, or anything for that matter. Going to 175
or 170 didn't make any notable difference either. That didn't happen until I
tried some stock retail 152 Sugino XD's. Those ended up being break-happy so I
went with some Andel and Origin8's in 150. I also have a custom cut SRAM triple
mtb crank in 150 that I haven't used yet. I also pedal more towards the
mid-foot than ball. I feel very "planted" to the bike. The ability to ride low
easier came about after I was riding them for a few years and was tiring of
riding more upright, I craved going lower and back to drop bars. I could never
figure how in my 20's and dabbling in racing, how anyone could ride without
strain and pain in a lower TT position. It felt all wrong to me, too much
strain in the hips and knees. When I started moving my saddle forward with the
short cranks I started to have "ah-hah!" feelings. I've now moved my saddle
forward over 25mm. Now I get it, moving closer to the BB, plus shorter cranks
it's just less straining to pedal. Less strain on the hip and knees, and on a
day to day basis I feel fresher even after doing many hills the previous day.
Please note, this setup works for ME. What works for anyone else is up for them
to experiment with. Short cranks have been around for a long time but they take
a little strategic and patient searching. It wouldn't take much for Riv to
offer them as their manufacturer Andel is already manufacturing some cranks
down to 150mm. But I get it, cycling traditions and myths die hard. I read many
comments of riders who mock short cranks without ever using them. As a kid I
used to mock anyone I saw pedalling their bike mid-foot ...... now I get it.
Humble pie, mmmm good ! Aahahahahaha !
I've read this : https://biketestreviews.com/cranklength/
It makes sense why long crank lever were not effective for me. Much of it is
rather techie even, but the benefits of riding short cranks is clearly stated
throughout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgtKmrH9JAE71VD2ynTLePznuQtwpTSMeqF6_gjYwkpJ8Q%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgtKmrH9JAE71VD2ynTLePznuQtwpTSMeqF6_gjYwkpJ8Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CH2PR17MB37203074986A323B633A9B81CDCC2%40CH2PR17MB3720.namprd17.prod.outlook.com.
