- Crank length
- The SliderMember
I tried exactly that to also get a little more clearance but I didn’t like the (slightly) shorter stroke at all ! I’m only 5′ 6″ and always used to use 175’s when I raced just about EVERY week. Read later that I should REALLY use 170’s (which I switched to) then I read it should be 165’s but, as I said – didn’t suit. Now I’ve decided to go back to 175’s as they just felt right ! There are NO real rules in cycling – just personal preferences I guess…Posted 7 years agocouldashouldawouldaMember
I can only add – on bikes that are subject to pedal strikes – ever few mm here and there adds up to an important log / rock that you miss (and maybe saves you a trip to A+E).
So what worked for me:
– shorter cranks
– more fork and shock pressure (not ideal)
– thinking ahead
– bigger tyres (think rubber queens)
– loose weight
– get a new frame
Ok – I never got as far as the last 2.
In answer to your opening Q- yes you will probably notice it. It might be better or worse for pedalling depending on what you’re used to.Posted 7 years agoavdave2Member
If I go from my hardtail 170 cranks to my rigid 165 cranks and haven’t ridden it for a while I notice the difference. The other way round I don’t. My previous bike had 175 cranks which I found fine off road but if I rode for a few miles on the road where I wasn’t moving around on the bike then my knees didn’t like it. Given the choice I’d probably stick with 165 as I prefer to spin rather than grind but the choices in 165 are limited.Posted 7 years ago
The topic ‘Crank length’ is closed to new replies.