whats the difference besides the obvious number. does the length of the arms should correspond to the length of the riders legs as well ?
The "logic" of "crank length should be proportional to leg measurements" has been around for a LONG time, and lots of people have turned that "logic" into a formula for determining crank length. Only one problem: the research doesn't support it. One key feature that is often ignored in these discussions is the duration of muscle contraction that is controlled by cadence. It just may be that there is an optimum here, which is why there is a fairly narrow range of cadence for optimum performance. Longer cranks tend to mean lower cadence, moving you out of that optimum range. Crank length has been a point of debate since the introduction of the "safety" bicycle in the late 1800s, and there have been all sorts of fads in that regard. Do you think that we have standardized on this narrow range because of some sort of global conspiracy, or because well over 100 years of experience (and testing the limits) have repeated shown that the 165-180 mm is really what works for human beings?nismosr said:whats the difference besides the obvious number. does the length of the arms should correspond to the length of the riders legs as well ?
Don't use your pants inseam as a measurement. You don't wear pants down to your feet, or buried deep in your crotch (hopefully...disco's dead).nismosr said:lets see i have a 30.5 inseam - I probably would try 170mm this time. thanks