Are my legs to long for short cranks ?

broachboy

Morning forum people, I have tha chance of buying a compact chainset (please see my other post regarding this :roll: )

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=

. I am approx 5' 10" with a 30" inside leg and ride a 54cm Racelight KiC2 fitted with Campag Chorus 172.5mm cranks. Question is what governs suitable crank length ? I have been offered a great compact crankset, but it is 170mm, could I use it ok ?

andyp

I own bikes with 165 mm cranks, 172.5 mm cranks and 175 mm cranks and to be honest I never notice any difference between them. I'm sure you'll be fine.

I'm just over 6' tall and have a 33 inch inside leg measurement btw.

broachboy

cheers for the reply Andy

Smokin Joe

Micheal Hutchinson's bike was featured in the comic last week and he reckons he has never found any difference whatever crank length he used. Same for me.

broachboy

Cheers SJ. Thanks for that info

Shezzer

Apparently, ideal crank length is governed by your femur length. I've got short legs (29") and get by fine with 172.5 cranks on most of my bikes although one has 175s. I don't notice a lot of difference tbh.

chriskempton

You've a slightly short inside leg for your height (sorry to be so personal!), so I'm sure you'd be fine on 170s.

Like everyone else says, I can't tell between 170, 172 and 175 either.

broachboy

Thanks for the comments guys I won't get offended by the fact that I have stumpy legs for my height :shock: just the way I am......

in fact when I met the woman who is now in fact SWMBO she used to refer to me as stump legs, or something similar - charming :shock:

graeme_s-2

I'm sure I read a Mike Burrows article some time ago where he said he'd been experimenting with really short cranks (can't remember how short, but considerably shorter than those that are usually available). He believed they gave some sort of performance/comfort benefit over standard cranks, but I can't remember the details now.

Sounds like it's not something worth worrying about to me!

broachboy

Ok forum people, sounds like it is ok to take the massive leap from 172.5mm to 170mm :shock: :roll:

Judging by the replies so far, it doesn't seem that I will have a problem - lets hope it works out, and those steep Shropshire climbs seem far easier

Shezzer

If you're planning on doing lots of climbing then longer cranks are better. If you're looking to keep a higher cadence or have a slightly easier long ride then shorter are best. Tbh though I've not noticed too much of a difference between 170 - 175.

broachboy

^ ah Shezzer so there is a compromise to be made somewhere..... If you see what I mean? I make the jump to 50/36 or 34 from 53/39 to help me get myself over the hilly routes that always pop up, yet within doing so , it is more beneficial to go for a longer arm on a compact chainset and gain in 2 ways in a strange type of a way :? :roll:

Now I can kind of see why my mtb has 175mm cranks :roll:

Nuggs

I doubt you'd notice a difference. I'm 6'5" and have 172.5 cranks, which are perfectly comfortable.