|170mm or 172.5 crankarm lenght||jrm|
Feb 6, 2004 11:52 AM
|Is there a big diff between the 2? Im 5'8 riding a 56cm frame that fits well.
Im in the process of ordering some 172.5mm FSA energys and im now on 170mm 105 cranks. THanks in advance.
|no big difference...||C-40|
Feb 6, 2004 1:09 PM
|You will hardly notice the difference. I made the same switch about 6 years ago. It's a tradeoff. You might be able to spin the 170's a bit faster, but the 172.5's have a bit more leverage.|
|re: 170mm or 172.5 crankarm lenght||Mike Tea|
Feb 7, 2004 12:30 PM
|I'm about your height and ride the same sized frame. My old mtb cranks were 172.5 and my new ones 170. My old road bike cranks were 170 and my new ones 172.5. Go figure! I can't feel a difference in any of them.|
|re: 170mm or 172.5 crankarm lenght||Spoiler|
Feb 8, 2004 8:27 AM
|Ultimately, shorter cranks will always be stiffer. Whether you could feel it over other factors like bb or frame flex is debatable. Pro riders will frequently switch to longer cranks for mountain stages because of the added leverage. They'll then switch to shorter cranks for criteriums for the added pedal clearance when pedaling through corners.|| |