Changing to compact... what length of crank?
Advancing age and more probably common sense means a change over to a compact chain set. Currently running a 175 crank with a 53t big ring. Is there a particular length of crank that works best or is it (as i suspect) all down to just how much leverage you can exert on the pedals.
Any advice is welcome
Any advice is welcome
0
Comments
-
Crank length is to do with personal preference as much as anything but the basic rule of thumb seems to be the taller you are the longer the cranks you should have. Whether that is true or not is debateable.
If you're happy with 175 cranks then I'd stick with the same length when ordering a compact.0 -
0
-
Stick with the 175's,as your legs ( & more importantly,knees) will be used to pedalling in the same action,& hopefully you won't be able to tell any differance,apart from having some lower gears for the hills.so many cols,so little time!0
-
RichA wrote:
problem with rules like that is that they break down for all but a few, working backwards then the person who 'needs' a 175mm crank has a leg only 3cm longer than the person who 'needs' a 170mm crank. so given common road crank lengths of 170, 172.5, 175 and at a stretch 180mm it hardly caters for real life folk with vastly different leg lengths.
go with what you feel comfortable spinning, if it works for you then it's the right length.0 -
Crank length also depends on what sort of cycling you do and your physique. People use longer cranks on an MTB, for instance. For my height some charts say I should be on 165s, but on my fixed I can't get up hills on anything less than 170s and I ride 172.5s off-road where leverage is the issue, not cadence.
There's no reason to change just because you're moving to a compact chainset. The range of gearing is roughly the same, after all.0
