faster wrote: Captain Serious wrote:
^ have you noticed or perceived any speed difference with the different lengths?
Yes. Currently using 177.5 cranks atm which I can maintain a faster cruising speed for longer, a lot longer. I'm fresher after a ride too as I assume I'm using more muscles but they aren't going to failure like I experienced with short cranks. Thoroughly recommend it. Maybe not for crit type racing as it's too big a circle to turn in a sprint. I'm 179cm with an 88.8cm inseam using shimano size 44 shoe.
I have 180mm cranks ready to install once the campag tool turns up.
Your crank length 'history' and body dimensions are similar to mine. I've bored the people on here with my story many times, so here's the short version:
I'm 182 or 181cm (I think I've shrunk
), with long-ish legs (~89cm inseam) and size 43 feet.
I got right into the long crank thing about ten years ago, and bought 180s. At first I loved them, so I bought another 2 sets for my other main bikes and used them exclusively for almost a year. I thought I had a secret weapon.
After several months, they started to sh1t me a bit; I was regularly getting off the seat to "get on top of" them, and I could never find a comfortable position, especially after about 90 mins of riding. I was constantly adjusting the height and fore-aft position of my saddle. When I eventually had some persistent medial knee pain in both knees, I got rid of them after having some great rides on some old 175s.
When I "restocked" my bikes (5 or 6, at the time
), I found many more deals on 172.5s than 170s or 175s, so rode 172.5s for ages.
However, there were times when I missed the long cranks, especially when riding off the saddle over short hills or our out of corners in races, so I put some 177.5s on one bike.
Then I read all the stuff about short cranks and getting more aero, etc, so I experimented with 165s, 167.5 and 170.
I was probably no faster or slower on any different length, but the 165s feel odd, so I rarely use them.