The point of taking crank length into account is that the leverage of the
system is calculated more accurately. Shortening the cranks raises the gear,
and shrinking the ring lowers the gear. Both together should have a net effect
of zero.
175mm cranks, 44t ring, 18t cog, and 29”x1.9” tires = 4
I have ridden fixed on the street and light trails where I used a 165mm
crankset (on a RB2 conversion and then on a QB). I generally ride a 172.5 road
and 175 mountain arm length. I really enjoyed the different feel the 165 gave
me. If you get the chance, I encourage you to try it just for fun.
The gear calculator is an excellent place to answer my question, Kai. Thanks.
My switch from a 40t chainring to 44t (4.7-5.1, or an increase of .4 gain
ratio) was roughly the same as the difference in gain ratio difference betrween
165 to 175 (5.1-5.4, or an increase of .3 gain ratio). In other
>From Sheldon in his essoteric gain ration post:
>http://sheldonbrown.com/gain.html
All things being otherwise equal ... “If the mountain bike has 175's and the
road bike 170's, the gear on the mountain bike is really about 3% lower!”
So, there is a 3% loss of power dropping from 175 to 170, an
Both my Hunqapillar and Quickbeam have 175mm crank arms. Pedal strikes have
been a non-issue on the roads, but I’ve had a few, slow and inconsequential,
strikes on the trails. Those of you with experience (not speculation, but
actual riding experience): could you please help me understand the ef
