and the Crankarm Length Saga continues- Food for Thought - Page 2

Clancy · #16 09-07-2019, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jojobos

At the same cadence, the pedal speed will decrease as crankarm length gets shorter.

I know that, just an odd way of demonstrating it. I thought he was trying to hypnotize me...,

stephenmarklay · #17 09-08-2019, 08:22 AM

It is interesting to think about. There are few variables saying “best” would seem to be conditional. For instance standing on a 10% grade on my single speed requires some leverage. I would think that longer arm would help in that.

charliedid · #18 09-08-2019, 01:22 PM

I could have payed closer attention in school it's true, but I have no idea what that guy is illustrating or getting at.

Help an idiot out.

Black Dog · #19 09-08-2019, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charliedid

I could have payed closer attention in school it's true, but I have no idea what that guy is illustrating or getting at.

Help an idiot out.

He really was not illustrating anything relevant to the topic at hand, and certainly not doing it well. He could have at least had some contrasting lines on the clear disc to show that it was changing its rotational speed.

berserk87 · #20 09-08-2019, 05:44 PM

I'm starting to think that this crank length thing is overanalyzed. I just went from 175mm to 165mm on my TT bike, based on a recent professional fitter's recommendation. I can tell some difference (it's easier to get my leg over the top of the crank at 12 o'clock). Other than that, not much.

For most of us, the easily obtainable crank lengths vary from 175 to 165mm. Beyond that they become a bit harder to find when purchasing. It might seem like a centimeter is a huge deal. I am starting to wonder because we are talking about the width of an average finger. If LeMond is talking about 145mm cranks, so be it - but try finding 145mm cranks that you can easily purchase (look via the Shimano or Campy road groups, for example). That's a tough search.

I am another one that is lost on the use of the video. It seems too simplistic. The silver wheel is driving the clear disc. That's not what happens with a bike. On the bike you have gearing options on the bike and physiological differences for the rider that can contribute a lot to efficiency for a given RPM speed and crank length.

stephenmarklay · #21 09-08-2019, 07:07 PM

I can see that there are differences with shorter cranks. It seems plausible that if you leg, especially hip flexors, going through a smaller range of motion would be less tiring. But I am not sure the trade of point of leverage/fatigue.

I do think the top is interesting but I am not sure there is a “best” length. It may be more individual. Lance with a high cadence may have benefited from them but he used long cranks. I am not so sure about the diesel, Jan Ullrich.

false_Aest · #22 09-08-2019, 11:41 PM

I would like my time back please.

No food. No thought. My brain is Starvin Marvin

So many more disses but it's not needed.

CiclistiCliff · #23 09-09-2019, 12:27 AM

For me it's about my hip flexors and knees. Switching from 175 to 170's doesn't bind up my hip, doesn't destroy my permanently buggered hip flexors and reducing IT band issues.

I like feel of getting over the top of the pedal stroke quicker as well.

K3RRY · #24 09-09-2019, 03:14 PM

Thanks for sharing!

FWIW I changed from 172.5 to 175 and I had to drastically move my seat lower. Not sure if I like that. Haven’t ridden much yet since to report results.

The guy in the video could have correlated his example better and talked about cadence.

berserk87 · #25 09-09-2019, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by false_Aest

I would like my time back please.

No food. No thought. My brain is Starvin Marvin

So many more disses but it's not needed.

Ironically, you wasted more of your time posting this, and contributed nothing to the discussion.

false_Aest · #26 09-09-2019, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by berserk87

Ironically, you wasted more of your time posting this, and contributed nothing to the discussion.

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.

FlashUNC · #27 09-09-2019, 07:14 PM

Adam Hansen did a better job explaining his logic for longer cranks.

Dino Suegiù · #28 09-09-2019, 07:23 PM

Adam Hansen does a better job explaining just about everything.
He was superb when he used to post on WW years ago.

mtechnica · #29 09-09-2019, 08:03 PM

I am not an expert obviously but as far as I know the results on crank lengths are basically inconclusive and probably come down to personal preference. If you base all of this on racing results I’m guessing the vast majority of cranks are just normal sized and at most are loosely correlated to rider height.

stephenmarklay · #30 09-09-2019, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtechnica

I am not an expert obviously but as far as I know the results on crank lengths are basically inconclusive and probably come down to personal preference. If you base all of this on racing results I’m guessing the vast majority of cranks are just normal sized and at most are loosely correlated to rider height.

I honestly don’t think there is a “best” length. It depends is probably the right answer. If I am grinding up a hill on my single speed I will take my 175mm. But I am sure a 165mm or shorter would be easier on my hips over a 100 miles of riding. And that is just me. I bet everyone has their input.

Still it is interesting...