[CR]It's a Personal thing! Crank length/Vintage Bicycle Quarterly

Example: Production Builders:Pogliaghi

From: "Sterling" <sterling@tns.net>
To: "Bike Bike List" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <B9A56F4D.8EE8%hilary.stone@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: [CR]It's a Personal thing! Crank length/Vintage Bicycle Quarterly
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:36:55 -0700

Hilary and Brandon have hit the mark. I have a 86cm inseam and just have never FELT COMFORTABLE on cranks longer than 170mm. I have 172.5mm on my De Rosa and it just does not FEEL right to ME. I'm giving serious consideration to 165mm , I have a few sets around here , TA and Campy Pista. I'm going to give them a try.
   Sterling Peters
   San Diego

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hilary Stone"
To: "Sterling" ;
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [CR]Crank length/Vintage Bicycle Quarterly

> This issue of crank length is a subject very close to my heart - but what
> the pros use is not necessarily a good guide to what is ideal. They ride
> what they are given.
> Having worked with kids for the past five years or so and having designed
> frames for short and tall riders for the past 17 years I generally recommend
> about 20 to 21% of your inside leg length. Foot length is another factor to
> affect crank length as is pedalling style. This particular formula results
> for me in 162.5mm cranks - my son is at present on 150mms. On the correct
> crank length pedalling is far smoother - I do not think power output is
> necessarily badly affected by slightly too long or too short but comfort is.
> However seriously too short or long cranks I am sure will seriously affect
> pwer. Correct crank lengths also make the design of small frames far easier
> - toeclip overlap (foot overlap when using clipless pedals) is far less of a
> problem. The bottom bracket can also be lowered which is particularly of
> benefit on a touring frame or one used mostly in the city.
> In Britain the standard crank length for many years was 165mm (6 1/2in)
> which I suspect was about right. A lot of experimentation with crank length
> was carried out at the beginning of the 20th century in England - cranks as
> long as 9in were used but the standard length eventually arrived at was
> 165mm.
> Hilary Stone, Bristol, England
> Sterling Peters wrote:
> > Jan Heine made some interesting comments about crank length in Vintage Bicycle
> > Quarterly ( A 400K Brevet ). He commented about the fact that with shorter
> > crank arms you can lower the Bottom bracket height , get a better cornering
> > more stable bike and have the additional advantage of being able to continue
> > pedaling thru the corners without fear of kissing the pavement , not to
> > mention you also save your knees from the stress of longer cranks. I remeber
> > reading somewhere that in the 50's the Randoneurs typically used crank lengths
> > of about 165mm and smaller gear ratios.
> > I can also recall that this long crank thing has been tried before by the
> > Professional racers again I think it was in the 50's or 60's and they moved
> > back to more knee forgiving lenghts after a few years. What does anyone

> > about this?