Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi all. I've read through the numerous topic about crank size both here as well as other sites around the web, along with having tried out a few of the formulas for determining appropriate crank size.

With that out of the way, on to my problem. I've been professionally fitted on all my bikes, size 56 frames, 172.5 cranks. I'm ~6'2" (and shrinking :D) and definitely in clyde territory at 220. While using SPD pedals, I would occasionally hit a flat spot with my left foot, with some more frequent pulling to the medial back of my knee. I've since recently switched to SPD-SLs and have noticed more frequent flat spots along with the continued tweak to my knee. I've done my best to account for stack height, having raised my saddle incrementally 3x.

I have always had a short inseam in pants size for my height, but I know that's in no way a hard rule for determining crank length. With that, I looked into some of the more involved formulas for figuring crank length; apparently, most of them have me coming in with a shorter 170mm, which was suprising. So, I'd like to hear from some folks who may have experienced similar instances wherein their crank length is disproportionate to their height. Thanks!
 

·
Russian Troll Farmer
Joined
·
3,416 Posts
I'm 6'2.5", and ride a 62cm, 172.5 crank. I would assume you have a very long stem to make a frame that small work for you. Also, if you are short-legged, that would probably result in needing a shorter crank as well. My inseam is 34"; if yours is closer to say 30", I would thing that a 172.5 crank is excessive, and really only good for climbing. I used to use 175mm cranks, and they were just too much for me.

BTW, how "professional" was that fitting? From what I've seen, 90% of those offering "professional fittings" are pure hyperbola...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I'm 6'2.5", and ride a 62cm, 172.5 crank. I would assume you have a very long stem to make a frame that small work for you. Also, if you are short-legged, that would probably result in needing a shorter crank as well. My inseam is 34"; if yours is closer to say 30", I would thing that a 172.5 crank is excessive, and really only good for climbing. I used to use 175mm cranks, and they were just too much for me.

BTW, how "professional" was that fitting? From what I've seen, 90% of those offering "professional fittings" are pure hyperbola...
Well, the fitting was done by a certified BG/Retul shop, so I guess it's as professional as it can be? It was very thorough, and I trust the guy who did it.

My inseam is somewhere in the 32 range, although I can sometimes wear a 30 in pants, so it is definitely short. The 56 frame fit me better than the 58, so that's what I went with, and my stem is pretty short at 100. All of that is likely a lack of flexibility thing I guess, I'm pretty comfy on the bike as it is, and I suffer nothing in the way of issues with handling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,636 Posts
Well, the fitting was done by a certified BG/Retul shop, so I guess it's as professional as it can be? It was very thorough, and I trust the guy who did it.

My inseam is somewhere in the 32 range, although I can sometimes wear a 30 in pants, so it is definitely short. The 56 frame fit me better than the 58, so that's what I went with, and my stem is pretty short at 100. All of that is likely a lack of flexibility thing I guess, I'm pretty comfy on the bike as it is, and I suffer nothing in the way of issues with handling.
You obviously don't know your bicycling inseam: stand against a wall with your stocking feet 6 inches (15 cm) apart and with a book pushed firmly upward in your crotch. Measure the distance from the book spine to the floor. That is your bicycling inseam.

There is no reliable formula for predicting crank length. There ARE lots of formulas out there, but they are just figments of the imagination of their purveyors. No one has ever done a study that shows how crank length should relate to anything.

You will find no high quality data to support any particular crank length as being better than any other. This is true whether or not you correct for leg length, femur length, etc. On the other hand, you will find lots of anecdotal or low quality data to support all kinds of conclusions, and more theories than you can shake a stick at. A rider's response to changes in crank length is 1) highly individual, 2) dependent on riding style and the event (TT, climbing, crits, track racing, etc.), and 3) most important, highly adaptive. This is why it is so hard to study the effect of crank length.

A 2008 study by Jim Martin, Ph.D., from the University of Utah shows zero correlation between crank length and any performance factors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
You obviously don't know your bicycling inseam: stand against a wall with your stocking feet 6 inches (15 cm) apart and with a book pushed firmly upward in your crotch. Measure the distance from the book spine to the floor. That is your bicycling inseam.

There is no reliable formula for predicting crank length. There ARE lots of formulas out there, but they are just figments of the imagination of their purveyors. No one has ever done a study that shows how crank length should relate to anything.

You will find no high quality data to support any particular crank length as being better than any other. This is true whether or not you correct for leg length, femur length, etc. On the other hand, you will find lots of anecdotal or low quality data to support all kinds of conclusions, and more theories than you can shake a stick at. A rider's response to changes in crank length is 1) highly individual, 2) dependent on riding style and the event (TT, climbing, crits, track racing, etc.), and 3) most important, highly adaptive. This is why it is so hard to study the effect of crank length.

A 2008 study by Jim Martin, Ph.D., from the University of Utah shows zero correlation between crank length and any performance factors.
It's a 34 according to your method. Other methods I have read state this isn't reliable due to limitations based on trochanter length and foot size, so there's that.

Thing is, this isn't about me gaining performance. I've read all the studies and observations which state crank length really doesn't matter. As I stated in my OP, this is about a defect in my pedal stroke and comfort, both of which have taken a bigger hit as of late with a change in pedals. To that end, I am hoping someone of similar proportions (shorter legs) can tell me if they've experienced similar symptoms, and if so, did changing crank lengths help.
 

·
is riding in MOPP4
Joined
·
695 Posts
Just throwing this idea out there...if it is just your left side giving you issues, then buy a a left crank at 170mm and keep the right side at 172.5mm. If the "flat spot" goes away, then you know. One leg is usually slightly longer than the other--maybe it's your left leg. Check eBay for a matching NDS crank arm.

As an aside, I switched to 145mm cranks (I'm about a foot shorter than you) and feel that my spinning is smoother.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Just throwing this idea out there...if it is just your left side giving you issues, then buy a a left crank at 170mm and keep the right side at 172.5mm. If the "flat spot" goes away, then you know. One leg is usually slightly longer than the other--maybe it's your left leg. Check eBay for a matching NDS crank arm.

As an aside, I switched to 145mm cranks (I'm about a foot shorter than you) and feel that my spinning is smoother.
I actually have considered that, but I'm concerned about possible other issues arising.

If I decide to go ahead and do this, I intend to get a power meter as well. Just want to be sure about what I choose as far as the cranks. I'll just have to go to the shop and ask for a refit with a special eye on my pedal stroke.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,580 Posts
They only way you are going to know if different crank length is going to work is to try it.

I'm not a physical therapist, but I would strongly suggest NOT riding with disparate crank lengths. Don't forget if one crank is longer or shorter, it's not just affecting extension at the bottom, it's also affecting compression at the top - It might be ok to do this as a short test, but I wouldn't recommend it for any long term solution without consulting with a physical therapist who is trained to work with cyclists (they are sadly rare).

You can sometimes find cranksets sans chainrings on ebay fairly cheap - I've bought them this way.

BTW, I'm 6' 5" and but also have a 34" cycling inseam - I ride a 61cm bike.

I've always ridden 175mm cranks on my road bikes and 180mm on my short lived MTB. I've actually considered giving 180 a try. Not for any reason other than it just *seems* like it would be more efficient for me. I've seen videos of me riding and it looks like I'm pedaling a tricycle or something. Cost (only available in Dura Ace) and concerns about skipping a pedal have kept me on 175s
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
They only way you are going to know if different crank length is going to work is to try it.

I'm not a physical therapist, but I would strongly suggest NOT riding with disparate crank lengths. Don't forget if one crank is longer or shorter, it's not just affecting extension at the bottom, it's also affecting compression at the top - It might be ok to do this as a short test, but I wouldn't recommend it for any long term solution without consulting with a physical therapist who is trained to work with cyclists (they are sadly rare).

You can sometimes find cranksets sans chainrings on ebay fairly cheap - I've bought them this way.

BTW, I'm 6' 5" and but also have a 34" cycling inseam - I ride a 61cm bike.

I've always ridden 175mm cranks on my road bikes and 180mm on my short lived MTB. I've actually considered giving 180 a try. Not for any reason other than it just *seems* like it would be more efficient for me. I've seen videos of me riding and it looks like I'm pedaling a tricycle or something. Cost (only available in Dura Ace) and concerns about skipping a pedal have kept me on 175s
That gave me a legit lol! :D

I raised the seatpost another 2mm or so over my previous line, seemed to help a bit actually. I'm going to stick with the 172.5 for the time being and invest in a left-sided power meter. Worst comes to worst I can sell it all and start over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,374 Posts
What? 34" inseam are not short legs, sorry. I would suggest to shift to a lower gear (more spin) and work on your technique!
 

·
Banned forever.....or not
Joined
·
24,426 Posts
I'm 6'2" and ride a 59 or 60cm frame depending on the manufacture. What I always use is a 58cm top tube with a 140mm stem, with 5" of drop. I started out with 172.5's but long ago, changed to 175's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
What? 34" inseam are not short legs, sorry. I would suggest to shift to a lower gear (more spin) and work on your technique!
Which is why inseam should never be the sole measurement utilized. I'm long-torsoed, average arms and smallish legs. Trust me, looking at me trying to stand over the top tube of a 58 Tarmac was pretty sad.

My technique is considered pretty solid, no issues with knee tracking, no bouncing in the seat until I hit about 110 RPMs. I'm just not all that flexible anymore, lol. That said, smaller cranks would make my spin better. Nonetheless, I am sticking with 172.5 and will look into tweaking my fit more and more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
If the back of your knee is hurting, you should not have raised your saddle - you should have lowered it.

IMHO, you need to work on technique, not throw money at it. I would try pedaling drills.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
If the back of your knee is hurting, you should not have raised your saddle - you should have lowered it.

IMHO, you need to work on technique, not throw money at it. I would try pedaling drills.
I don't disagree that my technique could use some work. The back of my knee isn't the classic "seat is too high" problem, it manifests itself on hard efforts (think headwinds) and almost always at around the 9-10 o'clock position (left knee for reference).

Keep in mind that this is also the leg that experiences flat spots on easy spins, hence the reason I think the crank may be too long, which would then negate what I just said and validate your advice. Ugh. :mad2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,580 Posts
it doesn't really address Wetworks questions, but I thought this new video from GCN on the crank lengths the pros use was pretty interesting.

Adam Hansen's comments in particular interested me.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,474 Posts
Keep in mind that this is also the leg that experiences flat spots on easy spins...
What exactly do you mean by "flat spots?" I realize you consider it a defect in your pedal stroke. Do you mean a momentary loss of resistance or increase of resistance from the pedal?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,784 Posts
I don't disagree that my technique could use some work. The back of my knee isn't the classic "seat is too high" problem, it manifests itself on hard efforts (think headwinds) and almost always at around the 9-10 o'clock position (left knee for reference).

Keep in mind that this is also the leg that experiences flat spots on easy spins, hence the reason I think the crank may be too long, which would then negate what I just said and validate your advice. Ugh. :mad2:
Your knee is feeling the stress in the recovery stage of hard efforts, are you pulling up on your pedals?
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top