|Q? If you have 2 identical bikes, one with 175mm cranks & one...||SGrouts|
Aug 4, 2002 1:25 PM
|... with 172,5mm cranks, with which of the 2 is harder to pedal assuming that you have the same chainring-cog combination?
2. With which you can achieve the higher max speed???
3. With which you can climb easier at high hils?
|Answer simple as 1, 2, 3||Kerry|
Aug 4, 2002 3:19 PM
|Each is equally easy to pedal, each gives you the same max speed, each gets you up the hill with the same amount of effort. Crank length is a personal preference, and in a blind test, very few people could tell the difference between a 172.5 and 175 crank. While many will claim they notice a difference, this is not done as a blind test, and so is most likely placebo effect. There is no valid testing that has ever shown a benefit to any particular crank length, regardless of body (leg, femur, etc.) size. The only (probably) agreed upon thing about crank length is that longer cranks = slower cadence, pretty much in proportion to length (about 3 rpm slower per 5 mm increase in length).|
Aug 5, 2002 7:10 AM
|interestingly I ride 170 and 175mm cranks and I spin faster on 175. avg RPM is higher, not sure about max.|
|re: Q? If you have 2 identical bikes, one with 175mm cranks & one...||phlegm|
Aug 4, 2002 3:52 PM
|The longer cranks will give you more leverage. Try this link http://www.analyticcyling.com
Shorter cranks are a bit easier to spin and less likely to catch on the ground on a hard turn.
Like Kerry said, crank length won't make a difference with max speed or ease of hill climbs. Either way, you must put out the same amount of energy.
Aug 4, 2002 4:58 PM
|The difference between a 175 and a 172.5 crank is .09 inches, about the thickness of 3 credit cards stacked together.
Applying the same force to each crank results in a whopping 1.45% increase in torque using the longer crank.
|1% is huge at the pro level. (nm)||nova|
Aug 4, 2002 5:16 PM
|depends on 1% of what nm||cyclopathic|
Aug 5, 2002 7:37 AM