Crank arm length, what difference does it make?

warrior4life

172.5 175 177.5
Does it make much difference?
What are the negatives and positives for both?
I have a 34 inside leg, which should be right for me?
Help!

Chris James

Personally I don't think it makes much difference.

I have 33 inside leg and have ridden 165, 170 and 175 on differing bikes and I reckon the differences I felt were more down to the rest of the biese rather than the crank lengths.

Theoretically crank length should be related to leg length and since 34 inside leg is quite long then I would go for 175s if you are buying from new.

softlad

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/forums/vi ... t=12667036

Spender45

in my experience it makes no difference to me.

I have 34" inside legs as well. I use 175 crans on my road and MTB, 170s on my winter bike and 180s on my TT bike.

PT analysis shows no difference and they all feel fine to me with no real changes on pedaling style (Choppy or smooth). It seems I'm crap with any length of crank.

Garry H

Agree with all above comments. The only real difference I can think of is it may affect toe overlap if you have a relatively small bikeequipped with say 175 cranks.

jibberjim

Garry H wrote:

Agree with all above comments. The only real difference I can think of is it may affect toe overlap if you have a relatively small bikeequipped with say 175 cranks.

Also impacts pedal strike if you corner sharply with longer cranks.

maddog 2

I would broadly agree with the points made but would say that I definitely prefer a certain length, especially on the roadie. 175s feel too long for me and, just like a certain bowl of porridge, 172s are just right.

Having said that, I find it easier going shorter than longer than I'm used to. The commuter is currently running 170s as that was all I had in the parts bin, and they're fine.

I think 175s would be about right for you.