My Inseam is 94 cm. After years of riding 175 cranks i went up to 177,5 an even 180. Best feeling on riding ever and also a little more power output. Once i tried out 172.5 which gave me massive knee pain. Cranklength depends much on individual phyisiology. Saying short cranks are always better is not true. On tt bikes maybe shorter is better cause of the hip angle. That could mean that 175 is short crank for a tall rider
Longer cranks are great for initial rfd; short cranks mean you foot does not have to travel so far (smaller circle), hence for a given stress the cad will be higher.
As a test, and to prove the theory, I bought a 155mm 1X crank on Amazon, tossed it on my gravel bike that previously had 172.5mm. You notice it a bit at first, then you don't. Zero performance difference, body position changes slightly, seat goes up etc. The only reason shorter cranks aren't widely available is industry dogma. The benefits are numerous.
Can’t believe they put a 5’10” person on 175s for any reason. I’m 6’3” and I run 175s on my gravel bike for more leverage at the low end, but 172.5 on my tri bike and it keeps my knees from hitting my chest.
Everyone I've seen so far is concerned with speed, power, and efficiency but I'm in my 70s and that is not important to me. I'm interested in the best hip and knee angles for injury prevention and how to determine the crank length for that.
Great question! THAT degree of specificity is definitely individual to the rider, your history with injury, and of course your height/composition. We definitely recommend checking in with a bike fitter who can take all of those things into consideration, as things like cleat position and saddle setback/angle can often have a more significant impact on knee and hip injury prevention!
@@TrainerRoad Thanx for the reply... I've read a lot about setting seat height and angle and reach but very little about crank length and it would seem that you would have to start with crank length. Most of what I've seen seems to say crank length doesn't really matter but I would think crank length should be about when the seat height is set you should be getting proper knee and hip angles when pedaling. Perhaps something around a consistent 90 degree knee angle.
Good info other than the talk about racing. I can’t fathom why people who will never be pros race and risk their health and equipment for … really nothing. You want an ego boost, dominate your weekend group. These “crits”or whatever you call them, just sound sad and pointless.
I don’t like how off the shelf bikes always have their standard equipment geometries. The bikes are already ridiculously expensive and you’re suppsed to replace hardware after you get it, which is even more ridiculous.
With all due respect, I disagree with all the findings of these scientific studies. When changing crank length these studies never mention adjusting position. The bike is pretty infinitely adjustable. I’m a 64 year old rider, 6’6”, racing days long over, doing about 4500 miles, on average, annually. I purchased a bike that, unbeknownst to me, had Zinn 200mm cranks. At first, there was a distinct “windmilling” perception. But a funny thing happened. Same power, lower heart rate, more speed pushing a bigger gear. PLUS years of nagging knee/hip pain, despite having a fitting, disappeared gradually. Ultimately I came down to 190mm. Perfect!! I’m able to “get on top of” a bigger gear on the flats, climb a bit better in a bigger gear, with a lower heart rate and subsequently less fatigue. On a mountain bike I do have to be a little more careful as well as on a Specialized Roubaix. But having bikes built by Seven has taken the crank length into account. No worries. Bottom line? They work for me and other NBA types. Great podcasts!
I agree. I’m 6’4+ and had similar thoughts. The squat analogy mentioned in the video isn’t persuasive because the duration of the applied power is a factor in over all power. I have ridden 172 bikes. I might buy that shorter lengths are optimal for track. However for rolling courses or acceleration I could never get comfortable on 172 cranks.
So you disagree with studies based on anecdata? Nice. Did you look up the protocol for the studies before you asserted that they don't change position? Also they discuss the issue re leverage because gear ratio changes when you just change gears. Tldr; it's about fit. But all the issues with power loss due to short cranks is pretty much bunk.
I do disagree based on living it as opposed to very focused scientific studies. I and several other beanpoles I know. Even with a background in mechanical engineering this is beyond me to describe, but.... Starting at the hip, the length of upper and lower legs, feet, cleat placement, and crank length create an unbelievably complex set of levers. This should be taken into account, as well as the riders perceptions in these studies.
@@rgz4ams You're really not disagreeing with much. They said it comes down to fit and hip angle. You keep referring to the studies. Have you read them? Your lived experience doesn't negate the studies. You should understand this given your mech E background!
What I’m disagreeing with is the “evidence” of the studies referenced in the video vs the “experience” I’ve had and other tall riders. The mention of longer cranks putting your knees in your chest for example is laughable. 180 to 190mm is approx 3/8 of an inch. Having ridden long (190mm) cranks for about 8 years now I can report that: Hip and knee pain disappeared after switching A lower cadence and lower heart rate at a given wattage. Still able to spin a lower gear at 90-110 rpm, cleats all the way back, with no problems. YMMV, if you wish to follow science, please do.
My Inseam is 94 cm. After years of riding 175 cranks i went up to 177,5 an even 180. Best feeling on riding ever and also a little more power output. Once i tried out 172.5 which gave me massive knee pain. Cranklength depends much on individual phyisiology. Saying short cranks are always better is not true. On tt bikes maybe shorter is better cause of the hip angle. That could mean that 175 is short crank for a tall rider
Longer cranks are great for initial rfd; short cranks mean you foot does not have to travel so far (smaller circle), hence for a given stress the cad will be higher.
As a test, and to prove the theory, I bought a 155mm 1X crank on Amazon, tossed it on my gravel bike that previously had 172.5mm. You notice it a bit at first, then you don't. Zero performance difference, body position changes slightly, seat goes up etc. The only reason shorter cranks aren't widely available is industry dogma. The benefits are numerous.
"both the protagonist and the antagonist." Lol, that's brilliant
I totally agree that shorter is better for acceleration. For me, longer efforts are better with slightly longer cranks.
Going from 172.5 to 165 hopefully will work out well😂
Can’t believe they put a 5’10” person on 175s for any reason. I’m 6’3” and I run 175s on my gravel bike for more leverage at the low end, but 172.5 on my tri bike and it keeps my knees from hitting my chest.
If you can buy 170 & 172.5mm length cranks, why aren't 167.5mm made? I'd buy those!
I run 115mm (~4")due to a knee injury and don't seem to be any slower whatsoever and man can I get low!
I’m 6’7”... time to find some 150mm cranks is what I took from this pod
Everyone I've seen so far is concerned with speed, power, and efficiency but I'm in my 70s and that is not important to me. I'm interested in the best hip and knee angles for injury prevention and how to determine the crank length for that.
Great question! THAT degree of specificity is definitely individual to the rider, your history with injury, and of course your height/composition. We definitely recommend checking in with a bike fitter who can take all of those things into consideration, as things like cleat position and saddle setback/angle can often have a more significant impact on knee and hip injury prevention!
@@TrainerRoad Thanx for the reply... I've read a lot about setting seat height and angle and reach but very little about crank length and it would seem that you would have to start with crank length. Most of what I've seen seems to say crank length doesn't really matter but I would think crank length should be about when the seat height is set you should be getting proper knee and hip angles when pedaling. Perhaps something around a consistent 90 degree knee angle.
Good info other than the talk about racing. I can’t fathom why people who will never be pros race and risk their health and equipment for … really nothing. You want an ego boost, dominate your weekend group. These “crits”or whatever you call them, just sound sad and pointless.
I don’t like how off the shelf bikes always have their standard equipment geometries. The bikes are already ridiculously expensive and you’re suppsed to replace hardware after you get it, which is even more ridiculous.
With all due respect, I disagree with all the findings of these scientific studies.
When changing crank length these studies never mention adjusting position. The bike is pretty infinitely adjustable.
I’m a 64 year old rider, 6’6”, racing days long over, doing about 4500 miles, on average, annually.
I purchased a bike that, unbeknownst to me, had Zinn 200mm cranks. At first, there was a distinct “windmilling” perception. But a funny thing happened. Same power, lower heart rate, more speed pushing a bigger gear. PLUS years of nagging knee/hip pain, despite having a fitting, disappeared gradually. Ultimately I came down to 190mm. Perfect!!
I’m able to “get on top of” a bigger gear on the flats, climb a bit better in a bigger gear, with a lower heart rate and subsequently less fatigue.
On a mountain bike I do have to be a little more careful as well as on a Specialized Roubaix. But having bikes built by Seven has taken the crank length into account. No worries.
Bottom line? They work for me and other NBA types.
Great podcasts!
I agree. I’m 6’4+ and had similar thoughts. The squat analogy mentioned in the video isn’t persuasive because the duration of the applied power is a factor in over all power. I have ridden 172 bikes. I might buy that shorter lengths are optimal for track. However for rolling courses or acceleration I could never get comfortable on 172 cranks.
So you disagree with studies based on anecdata? Nice.
Did you look up the protocol for the studies before you asserted that they don't change position?
Also they discuss the issue re leverage because gear ratio changes when you just change gears.
Tldr; it's about fit. But all the issues with power loss due to short cranks is pretty much bunk.
I do disagree based on living it as opposed to very focused scientific studies. I and several other beanpoles I know.
Even with a background in mechanical engineering this is beyond me to describe, but....
Starting at the hip, the length of upper and lower legs, feet, cleat placement, and crank length create an unbelievably complex set of levers. This should be taken into account, as well as the riders perceptions in these studies.
@@rgz4ams
You're really not disagreeing with much. They said it comes down to fit and hip angle.
You keep referring to the studies. Have you read them? Your lived experience doesn't negate the studies. You should understand this given your mech E background!
What I’m disagreeing with is the “evidence” of the studies referenced in the video vs the “experience” I’ve had and other tall riders. The mention of longer cranks putting your knees in your chest for example is laughable. 180 to 190mm is approx 3/8 of an inch.
Having ridden long (190mm) cranks for about 8 years now I can report that:
Hip and knee pain disappeared after switching
A lower cadence and lower heart rate at a given wattage.
Still able to spin a lower gear at 90-110 rpm, cleats all the way back, with no problems.
YMMV, if you wish to follow science, please do.