Crank length

I've got a long inside leg and a shorter torso.

My first bike was a 58cm and had 175mm cranks on it. Reach to bars was too long but I bodged it. Cadence in mid to high 70s

My last two bikes were 56cm and better reach. I fitted 175mm cranks because I had the option at build stage and that's what I knew

Just ordered a new bike which has 172.5mm cranks. Will I actually notice any difference in practice? Obviously I'll try and see and can always add longer cranks. Just wondered in advance whether such a small difference in length will be noticeable?


  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 73,711
    Nah you won’t. Maybe in the first 2 mins.

    I went as short as I could go and I maybe was spinning marginally more often.
  • seanoconn
    seanoconn Posts: 11,493
    I doubt you’ll notice the difference. 172.5 seems to be the standard these days. Any advantage of longer cranks has been debunked, more torque but bigger turning cirle/lower cadence. A shorter crank might give you a little more play with your saddle position as well.
    Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי
  • MattFalle
    MattFalle Posts: 11,644
    no difference at all. none whatsoever. Zero, zilch, rien, pas de tout.
    The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
  • Whatever MF says I’m sure. I’ve always felt better with longer cranks. Not torque and cadence, I like the additional range of motion in my knees and hips. Maybe that’s just my imagination.
  • I have 170 on my commuter and 172.5 on my road bike. I do pretty much equal miles on each and I don't notice any difference.