Know the rules The Paceline Forum Builder's Spotlight


Go Back   The Paceline Forum > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 09-10-2019, 09:47 AM
Mark McM Mark McM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,020
Here's a bigger question:

While crank length may be largely up to personal preference, presumably there should be some correlation to height/leg length. Then why is the range of commonly available crank lengths so much smaller than the range of human heights?

Here is a chart of average human heights (both men and women), including a normal distribution. The average height of humans is just under 67" with a standard deviation of about 3.75", so 95% of humans (+/- 2 standard deviations) are between 59" and 74", or +/- 11% from the average.

And yet, the common range of crank lengths is only 165mm to 180mm (average about 172.5mm), which is a range of only +/-4 percent. If preferred crank length was proportional to height, that would be less than 1 standard deviation from average, and therefore commonly available cranks would only fit about half the population. And if some shorter people preferred shorter than proportional cranks and some taller people preferred longer than proportional cranks, the number of people for whom their preferred crank size was commonly available would be less than 50%.

It's well and good to talk about what crank lengths are best, but the practical reality is that many people couldn't easily find their preferred crank length anyway.

Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-10-2019, 04:18 PM
KJMUNC's Avatar
KJMUNC KJMUNC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 4,256
no way I'm clicking on that link now, but I will say my own personal experience changing cranks sizes has been mixed: I went up to 177.5 when I was racing on the suggestion of a Serotta fitter and I couldn't ever get used to it, especially when climbing.

I've also gone down to 172.5 on occasion when I bought groupsets that came with them and can't say I've noticed any difference over my standard 175's.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-10-2019, 05:42 PM
82Picchio 82Picchio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 165
At towering and normally proportioned 6'1", I am happy with 180s and 185s, having scaled back from 190s. That's my mileage...
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-10-2019, 06:56 PM
berserk87's Avatar
berserk87 berserk87 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Plainfield, Indiana
Posts: 1,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by false_Aest View Post
Nah. took me less than 30 seconds for the first post and it'll take about 45 for this one.

I'm still in the black bruh.

It's like rain on my wedding day.
Yeah. You are definitely winning. Bruh.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-10-2019, 07:04 PM
Spoker Spoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 349
Physiological performance is not a parameter in the histogram. Shorter people may be relatively stronger than tall people and get easier over the tp on the crank revolution.
Length is just one of the factors choosing crank length likely.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.