Trek Crank Length

Shorter crank arms make for quicker spinning, longer crank arms make for better hillclimbing (via increased leverage)... or, at least. that's the common wisdom. I've never really noticed that the crank lengths made that big of a difference in either casre.

In article ,
"Garrison Hilliard" wrote:

Shorter crank arms make for quicker spinning, longer crank arms make for
better hillclimbing (via increased leverage)... or, at least. that's the
common wisdom. I've never really noticed that the crank lengths made that big
of a difference in either casre.

Thats what I have been told all these years. But who really knows until maybe
you have tried them?

My MTB¹s and Hybrids have 175 crank arms.

My Lemond roadie has 172.5¹s

I can¹t really tell the difference. Both are comforable.

HAND

--
³Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness³

- Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution

Garrison Hilliard wrote:

Shorter crank arms make for quicker spinning, longer crank arms make for better hillclimbing (via increased leverage)... or, at least. that's the common wisdom. I've never really noticed that the crank lengths made that big of a difference in either casre.

Crank length *should* be related to your thigh length to ensure your
knee articulates through a sensible angle. Unfortunately most
manufacturers (and retailers) set a premium on anything other than 170mm
or 175mm. I'd love some 165mm MTB cranks but Shimano only make XTR
ones, which are about the price of a cheap foreign holiday.

Garrison Hilliard writes:

Shorter crank arms make for quicker spinning, longer crank arms make
for better hillclimbing (via increased leverage)... or, at
least. that's the common wisdom. I've never really noticed that the
crank lengths made that big of a difference in either casre.

Well I think crank is this:

http://www.campagnolo.com/pics/03_REguranitura.jpg

and a crank-arm is this:

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Italy/PMP_crk_ad.htm

and a crank-arm-lever is this:

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Rar...rest_pics3.htm

# Crank:

# 1 : a bent part of an axle or shaft or an arm keyed at right angles
# to the end of a shaft by which circular motion is imparted to or
# received from the shaft or by which reciprocating motion is changed
# into circular motion or vice versa

This is like all the rest of popular embellished speech, where there
are no roads but roadways, it doesn't rain, we have rain storms or
worse, rain storm systems moving through our area. All this seems to
IMPACT on understanding instead of affecting it?

Jobst Brandt

wrote in message ...
Garrison Hilliard writes:

Shorter crank arms make for quicker spinning, longer crank arms make
for better hillclimbing (via increased leverage)... or, at
least. that's the common wisdom. I've never really noticed that the
crank lengths made that big of a difference in either casre.

Well I think crank is this:

http://www.campagnolo.com/pics/03_REguranitura.jpg

and a crank-arm is this:

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Italy/PMP_crk_ad.htm

and a crank-arm-lever is this:

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Rar...rest_pics3.htm

# Crank:

# 1 : a bent part of an axle or shaft or an arm keyed at right angles
# to the end of a shaft by which circular motion is imparted to or
# received from the shaft or by which reciprocating motion is changed
# into circular motion or vice versa

This is like all the rest of popular embellished speech, where there
are no roads but roadways, it doesn't rain, we have rain storms or
worse, rain storm systems moving through our area. All this seems to
IMPACT on understanding instead of affecting it?

Jobst Brandt


Dear Jobst,

If you're not careful, you might wind up being
thought of as a crank on the subject.

Crankily,

Carl Fogel

Zog The Undeniable wrote in message ...

Crank length *should* be related to your thigh length to ensure your
knee articulates through a sensible angle.

Minor point, but leg length would be a better (and easier) measure for
"standardising" knee angles.

For a given leg length, linking crank-length to thigh-length tends to
standardise hip angles.

According to my calculations if you link 2 great pearls/myths: KOPS
and "cranks proportional to femurs", everybody's thighs end up doing
very nearly the same thing in relation to an upper body inclined at a
given angle to the ground (ankling idiosyncrasies aside).

This approach would tend to standardise the "aerodynamic tuck"
situation (while leaving the knees to their own devices) and is used
by a good few bike fitters. Not sure this is their rationale, though.

Andrew Bradley

"Garrison Hilliard" wrote in message ...
Shorter crank arms make for quicker spinning, longer crank arms make for better hillclimbing (via increased leverage)... or, at least. that's the common wisdom.

Gears are there for leverage adjustments. Using shorter cranks for
spin defeats the object.

Andrew Bradley

wrote:
This is like all the rest of popular embellished speech, where there
are no roads but roadways, it doesn't rain, we have rain storms or

At a time of year when rain and snow are likely, how would you uniquely
describe heavy rain accompanied by high winds and thick cloud cover?
--
David Damerell Kill the tomato!

At high RPM's I can tell the difference between my 172's and my 168's, so I
imagine, although I never spin that high for that long on a Mtn bike, that my
175's are not for spinning.

For road riding, spinning to me is over 110Rpms, 90 is crusing and 105 is in the
grove, 120 to 130 is to train or strain.

HTH

JeffP....

"Andrew Bradley" wrote in message
om...
"Garrison Hilliard" wrote in message
...
Shorter crank arms make for quicker spinning, longer crank arms make for
better hillclimbing (via increased leverage)... or, at least. that's the common
wisdom.

Gears are there for leverage adjustments. Using shorter cranks for
spin defeats the object.

Andrew Bradley

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


"Andrew Bradley" wrote in message
. com...
"Garrison Hilliard" wrote in message
...
Shorter crank arms make for quicker spinning, longer crank arms make for
better hillclimbing (via increased leverage)... or, at least. that's the common
wisdom.

Gears are there for leverage adjustments. Using shorter cranks for
spin defeats the object.


_ But you can spin faster if you don't have to bend your knees
as much. I am definitely more comfortable on 165's than 175's
at higher RPM's. Use gears to adjust force, crank length to
make your knee's happy. I think there is some arguement to
using shorter cranks for touring as it's easier to make
many small steps rather than many bit ones. You do need to
make your gears smaller if you use shorter cranks to avoid
overstressing your knees.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBP/7rOmTWTAjn5N/lAQGbugP/eGOb5y/Mzz8OdgQIw9ZdRovvdNO9yaOx
qv8tnTmQVPYeQOSUWFYm6h75t1HJI3RP6kBpk2oWrm6UL7rMOS URGOExPdN4alWw
y3HdnYMJQ2BE4BAfSRIKQuxMnSkdQVxXx6TN3HlIY1cKu+Fm4d yVaXvYwklrbhg9
p/FTGjf2P7k=
=YNvW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----