On Jan 20, 10:20 pm, Earl Grey <earlg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just curious, do any of you folks subscribe to Kirby Palm's crank > length formula:http://www.nettally.com/palmk/crankset.html > > Makes intuitive sense to me, but with my shortish 83PBH I should be > using a 179mm crank! My first real bike had a 175mm crank (Fisher > monster cross) and I have stuck with that length because it is the > closest in length among the commonly available sizes. In a way I guess > I am splitting the difference between the conventional wisdom and > Kirby Palm's radical formula. Seems to work for me, but haven't tried > anything else! > > Cheers, > > Gernot
> I found his formula too long myself. The longest I used was 185mm. I used them for many years. It gave me more leverage for uphills for sure, and allowed me to stay seated longer climbing, but I've since gone back to using 175mm arms and I don't miss them at all. I like being able to spin a little easier. The bottom line though is crank length doesn't make any difference overall in my riding. I could easily use 170mm just as well. Back when I started riding, 170mm was the norm, you never really thought about it. You just rode. Somewhere along the line we were "told" we need longer arms. We bought the idea. We called it progress, but was it really? If I could be transported back to a time before longer arms I wouldn't even give it a thought. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
