34/50 and 170 cranks. Too much spin for speed?
gmkleuser
Posts: 25
Hello all,
I know that the subject of compact crank sets has been debated. I would, however, like to see if anyone might have some insights on the subject given my specific case.
I grew up riding bikes. My old man was a regional rider and often dragged me along, whether I liked it or not. I didn't do any riding for a few years until I found myself jobless and living in Paris. Thus, I got a messenger job. Been at it for four years now. I started out like most on a crappy old mountain bike but then, I suppose you can say, fell into the stereotype of riding a steel track bike. I appreciate the speed control and low maintenance not to mention the comfort of steel on the Parisian cobblestones.
I ride a 46/17 ratio (2.7) with 165mm cranks, which is about right for the needs of acceleration/deceleration needed whilst riding in traffic. On the weekends when I ride a closed circuit I will put on a 14 cog (3.2 ratio).
To cut to the chase. I am moving back to the states soon and looking to get a good road bike but I am unsure of what crankset to go with as far as ratios are concerned. Back home, Texas, we don't need to worry about big hills. I do like a higher cadence but I do like to go fast.
Anyone have any experience with a compact 34/50 x 11/23 setup with 170mm cranks? I am used to high cadence and I think it works for me but I still want to be able to keep up with guys riding a "traditional" setup.
Sorry for the very long post. Any input is more than welcome. Bikes with more moving parts, gear possibilities, cables and brakes is exciting but intimidating for me and I am looking forward to your help.
Sportingly,
I know that the subject of compact crank sets has been debated. I would, however, like to see if anyone might have some insights on the subject given my specific case.
I grew up riding bikes. My old man was a regional rider and often dragged me along, whether I liked it or not. I didn't do any riding for a few years until I found myself jobless and living in Paris. Thus, I got a messenger job. Been at it for four years now. I started out like most on a crappy old mountain bike but then, I suppose you can say, fell into the stereotype of riding a steel track bike. I appreciate the speed control and low maintenance not to mention the comfort of steel on the Parisian cobblestones.
I ride a 46/17 ratio (2.7) with 165mm cranks, which is about right for the needs of acceleration/deceleration needed whilst riding in traffic. On the weekends when I ride a closed circuit I will put on a 14 cog (3.2 ratio).
To cut to the chase. I am moving back to the states soon and looking to get a good road bike but I am unsure of what crankset to go with as far as ratios are concerned. Back home, Texas, we don't need to worry about big hills. I do like a higher cadence but I do like to go fast.
Anyone have any experience with a compact 34/50 x 11/23 setup with 170mm cranks? I am used to high cadence and I think it works for me but I still want to be able to keep up with guys riding a "traditional" setup.
Sorry for the very long post. Any input is more than welcome. Bikes with more moving parts, gear possibilities, cables and brakes is exciting but intimidating for me and I am looking forward to your help.
Sportingly,
0
Comments
-
50x11 is still a huge gear - larger than 53x12 as I recall, larger than Bradley Wiggins set the hour record on recently, larger than Merckx ever rode.
So in short no, 50x11 shouldn't be a limiting factor.
But with that said, if you have 4 years riding as a messenger and are going to live in a fairly flat area then there's basically no reason for a presumably strong rider such as yourself not to go for a standard 53 39 chainset.0 -
Or go in between and get a 52/36....0
-
At 100rpm you will be doing the following mph
50 x 11 = 35.7
52 x 11 = 37.1
53 x 11 = 37.8
If you are not riding in hills and therefore not going down any hills, then I really can't see you spinning out with a 50x11....0 -
At 100rpm you will be doing the following mph
50 x 11 = 35.7
52 x 11 = 37.1
53 x 11 = 37.8
If you are not riding in hills and therefore not going down any hills, then I really can't see you spinning out with a 50x11....
actually could be looking at this the wrong way around....
Maybe a 52/53 with a small chain ring of 42 would give you a good set up if you will not be riding any hills?
A lot of your riding could then be done in the 42....0 -
Thanks for the quick replies, guys. Some great input to think about. I am still curious about the short crank length and big chain ring.
52X36 sounds like a good compromise. But, how easily can we find such a setup?0 -
Thanks for the quick replies, guys. Some great input to think about. I am still curious about the short crank length and big chain ring.
52X36 sounds like a good compromise. But, how easily can we find such a setup?
http://www.evanscycles.com/products/shimano/105-5800-52-36-11-speed-double-chainset-ec070072#select0 -
To cut to the chase. I am moving back to the states soon and looking to get a good road bike but I am unsure of what crankset to go with as far as ratios are concerned. Back home, Texas, we don't need to worry about big hills. I do like a higher cadence but I do like to go fast.
Anyone have any experience with a compact 34/50 x 11/23 setup with 170mm cranks? I am used to high cadence and I think it works for me but I still want to be able to keep up with guys riding a "traditional" setup.
Sorry for the very long post. Any input is more than welcome. Bikes with more moving parts, gear possibilities, cables and brakes is exciting but intimidating for me and I am looking forward to your help.
Sportingly,
I don't see how crank length has any effect on how fast you can go? The argument commonly stated is that shorter cranks help achieve a high cadence. I use 165mm cranks on both road bikes with a 52/36 on one and a full compact 50/34 on the other. My cadence is around 100-105 rpm. In the 50/11 that's around 36mph and in the easier 50/16 you'd be looking at 26mph.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
To cut to the chase. I am moving back to the states soon and looking to get a good road bike but I am unsure of what crankset to go with as far as ratios are concerned. Back home, Texas, we don't need to worry about big hills. I do like a higher cadence but I do like to go fast.
Anyone have any experience with a compact 34/50 x 11/23 setup with 170mm cranks? I am used to high cadence and I think it works for me but I still want to be able to keep up with guys riding a "traditional" setup.
Sorry for the very long post. Any input is more than welcome. Bikes with more moving parts, gear possibilities, cables and brakes is exciting but intimidating for me and I am looking forward to your help.
Sportingly,
I don't see how crank length has any effect on how fast you can go? The argument commonly stated is that shorter cranks help achieve a high cadence. I use 165mm cranks on both road bikes with a 52/36 on one and a full compact 50/34 on the other. My cadence is around 100-105 rpm. In the 50/11 that's around 36mph and in the easier 50/16 you'd be looking at 26mph.
I thought i was the only weirdo that run 165mm cranks.
My fitter recommended them to be 2 years ago.
Not sure i would notice the difference if i went back to 170's
MattScott Foil Di2 viewtopic.php?f=40044&t=13020685&p=19496365#p19496365
Genesis Volare 853 viewtopic.php?f=40044&t=13020702&p=19589281#p195892810 -
I thought i was the only weirdo that run 165mm cranks.
My fitter recommended them to be 2 years ago.
Not sure i would notice the difference if i went back to 170's
Matt
165mm user here. I'm 5'6" and I swapped from 170mm, they do feel much nicer to ride and suit doing a high cadence which is nice.
I went for them because of recommendations of websites etc, but I did see a fitter a few months after and he said that while he doesn't usually mention cranks in his fit because they can be expensive to replace my change was definitely for the better given my size.0 -
I am 5'11" so 170 might be the shortest I would go on a road bike although I do run 165 for track.
I am know that shorter cranks will not necessarily have an impact on speed, my concern was just too much spinning to get going fast. I do like a higher cadence but I don't wannna look like a windmill either
Thanks so much all. I was afraid of not getting much feedback from my question but ended up with plenty of food for thought.
I think I will just need to sit down with a gear ratio chart and think it over...then find what gear I can find a deal on (unfortunately budget is also a factor for me at the moment).
Thanks again, nice to find a forum where folks are helpful!0 -
Only too much spin for speed if your sprinting like mad, all out, over a 200m long segment. From my experience, improving my PR over the same seg ( 33.1 mph max) is now impossible with a 50t.
Day to day wise. Over a long route, a compact with 170mm cranks is perfect. I have to be canning it down a hill to run out of gears."The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby0 -
I am 5'11" so 170 might be the shortest I would go on a road bike although I do run 165 for track.
I am know that shorter cranks will not necessarily have an impact on speed, my concern was just too much spinning to get going fast. I do like a higher cadence but I don't wannna look like a windmill either
Thanks so much all. I was afraid of not getting much feedback from my question but ended up with plenty of food for thought.
I think I will just need to sit down with a gear ratio chart and think it over...then find what gear I can find a deal on (unfortunately budget is also a factor for me at the moment).
Thanks again, nice to find a forum where folks are helpful!
Yoy don't need to think.
Eddy Merckx did all on 53x13, why should YOU need a much bigger gear?0 -
I am 5'11" so 170 might be the shortest I would go on a road bike although I do run 165 for track.
I am know that shorter cranks will not necessarily have an impact on speed, my concern was just too much spinning to get going fast. I do like a higher cadence but I don't wannna look like a windmill either
Thanks so much all. I was afraid of not getting much feedback from my question but ended up with plenty of food for thought.
I think I will just need to sit down with a gear ratio chart and think it over...then find what gear I can find a deal on (unfortunately budget is also a factor for me at the moment).
Thanks again, nice to find a forum where folks are helpful!
Yoy don't need to think.
Eddy Merckx did all on 53x13, why should YOU need a much bigger gear?
I wasn't talking about needing a bigger gear than Eddy Merckx...My original question was on the subject of compact (50x34) set ups with short cranks. But thanks for your input.0 -
Short cranks wont make you spin faster for a given speed - this is just down to gear ratio and wheelsize.
Crank length is about the range of motion in your knee and how that effects muscle deployment. the crank length that is right for you should remain static regardless of gearing.0 -
Some interesting feedback on here. I'm only 5'4'', but with a 29.5'' inside leg and have been pondering switching from 170mm cranks to 165mm.
I am 5ft 6. I have two bikes with similar riding positions. One has 165 cranks and one has 170 cranks and I could be a bit thick but I can not tell any difference that I can attribute to different crank lengths.0 -
look, if you went for a 172.5 crank length, instead of a 170, do you honestly think you ll notice the difference?
i ve a std steel 7sp road bike hanging up in my shed with a 52/42 170mm and a 13/19 block i ve done many many hilly 25 tt's under the hour and done pretty good at RR too.
whether you ll keep up with your new mates in the states will depend on your fitness not what length cranks you ve got, learn to push a bigger gear at the same cadence as your fixie and you ll be a winner!
If it were me, i d get a 52/36 or 53/39 with 172.5 cranks, you can always select a cog easier out back if you want to pedal faster.0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl3xgFw-u8A just watching the video about Wiggins new bike.
Apparently he's running 170mm cranks, presumably because he's used to short cranks from the track? Either way that's way shorter than someone 6'3" would normally be running.0 -
His shorter cranks might be to do with him getting his saddle higher to open up his hip angle, he's got an aggressively low front end, maybe?[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
This is good stuff, guys. I really appreciate the feedback. I guess my lack of experience is showing a bit but all this is giving me some good stuff to think over. I think a "classic" 53/39 may be the way to go in the end and I can play around with different rear cog setups. I'll go with the 170mm just for the simple fact that I am used to the 165 on the track bike and haven't had any issues with knee problems.0
-
His shorter cranks might be to do with him getting his saddle higher to open up his hip angle, he's got an aggressively low front end, maybe?
this.
i'll be trialling 165 and 170 cranks soon to see if they can help me getting aero as well. currently on 172.50 -
Crank length was discussed at our club night a couple of weeks ago. As I understand it, the 170 is an arbitrary length that Shimano came up with, based on no science at all, and we've all got used to it. Track bikes tend to be 165 to reduce the risk of hitting the banking; indeed I believe Lee Valley may impose a limit in the track league meets.His shorter cranks might be to do with him getting his saddle higher to open up his hip angle, he's got an aggressively low front end, maybe?
this.
i'll be trialling 165 and 170 cranks soon to see if they can help me getting aero as well. currently on 172.5
I can see that going from 172.5 to 165 might have quite an impact on your aero position but as I've never measured my cranks and don't position my seat to the last mm, I doubt I would be able to tell the difference if someone swapped my chainset without telling me. Among my clubmates I wasn't alone in my suspicion that the current fad for shorter cranks is little more than a marketing ploy.0
