I: [CR] It's a Personal thing! Crank length

Example: Events:Cirque du Cyclisme:2002

From: The Maaslands <TheMaaslands@comcast.net>
Subject: I: [CR] It's a Personal thing! Crank length
To: Classic Rendezvous <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:51:38 -0500

> > Chuck Schmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm the opposite: I ride 165, 170, 172.5 and 175 mm cranks on my
> > > different bikes and it's all good!
> >
> To which Mark added:
> > Yeah, my comfort range is from 165 to 185. The extremes take a while (part
> > of a ride) to get used to, then I do fine, no blown knees. I suspect I
> > could like cranks beyond that range but haven't tried any.
> >
> To which Greg added:
>Wow! That's quite a range. I suspect you are more versatile/skilled than most
> folks. Clearly this is a "personal preference" sort of thing, as we've seen
> from all of the other posts in this thread, but my guess is that most riders
> have a typical range of about +/-5mm from their "favorite" crank length, like
> Chuck's comments might suggest.
> At 6'2" with a 34" inseam, I typically ride a 60-cm frame (c-t) with 165-170
> on the track and 172.5 or 175 on the road. I prefer the 175s on the road.
> My wife, at 5'2" with a 30" inseam, rides 49-cm frames with 170s exclusively
> on the road (she doesn't have a track bike, but I would probably set her up
> with 165s if she did). I suspect she is just so used to the 170s that whether
> or not to try 165s is kind of moot for her. As far as I know, she has never
> ridden any other length!

This whole discussion made me wonder about my bikes. I went to check them out and was surprised to find that they are not all the same length. They go from 165 to 172.5, with most being 170. The ex-Roberto Conti De Rosa has the 172.5 cranks, and he is 189 cm tall or about 6ft2". I can't say that I have ever noticed any difference between the characteristics of one or the other length.

Steven Maasland Moorestown, NJ