• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

What crank arm length does Lance run with?

Aug 3, 2009
81
0
0
Visit site
I heard it was 172.5's but it hasn't been confirmed. I know Cavendish runs with 170's, could that possibly be the ideal length for the road, especially if one spins at a high cadence?

Does it really make sense to go with longer arms in the TT, as Miguel Indurain did? I have my doubts. I'm thinking it's better to go with one length and stick with it, as that is what your muscles are used to.

And what about mountain biking, does Lance run the same length when he is motoring off-road? Or probably 175's?

What are your opinions on crank arm length?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Interesting question.

I have read a lot that shorter cranks (170ish) are definately better for high cadence riding, but I would assume that's for endurance riding. In Cavendish's case, I would guess that he uses 170's becoz he's a short arse and has little legs.

Personally, I'm 6ft1 and use 175's on mountain bike, and used to use 170's on the road. When I got a new road bike, I went up to 175's and experienced some hip/groin problems which i think is due to the greater angle produced in the hip and knees when riding longer cranks (thoughts anyone? i'd love to figure this problem out?). As such, I'm considering going back to 170's for the road since I prefer a high cadence due to ongoing knee problems.

The issue of longer cranks for TT's is interesting, and i've been trying to read up on it. "Apparently" you can increase your power with longer cranks (due to higher torque?) but this is debatable and I don't really buy that argument at all. Doesn't seem logical to me, but there are lot's of examples of pro's jumping up 2.5 to 5mm for a TT.. Any thoughts anyone?
 
Since i started riding, i didn't had much money so i never really experienced much components. I own a old 10 spd bike from the 80s, and it's original components was 175 cranks with double 46-52 chairings, when the cranks broke, i had to change for a 170 and a triple 34-46 chairing and in between a 6 spd 25-14 cassete(the old one was a 24-14). It felt horrible in the first week, but after this, my cadence growed up a bit and i got able to power almost at the same speed on the flats.
With the old 175 i had an lower cadence, and always carried the biggest gear in the group(46-24 against the 39x23 of the other roadies) at the same climb side by side, the only problem is that i had big acceleration at the bottom of the hill, and them at the top i felt like carrying a a refrigerator.
 
Sep 8, 2009
155
0
0
Visit site
on my fixed gear bike my cranks are 165 while my road bike has 170 (i'm 5'7")

I spin high cadences better on the 165 arms but when the road turns up i feel that i have better power transfer with 170...supposedly because I have more leverage or something

but that's just me
 
Apr 1, 2009
228
0
0
Visit site
Mountain Goat said:
Interesting question.

I have read a lot that shorter cranks (170ish) are definately better for high cadence riding, but I would assume that's for endurance riding. In Cavendish's case, I would guess that he uses 170's becoz he's a short arse and has little legs.

Personally, I'm 6ft1 and use 175's on mountain bike, and used to use 170's on the road. When I got a new road bike, I went up to 175's and experienced some hip/groin problems which i think is due to the greater angle produced in the hip and knees when riding longer cranks (thoughts anyone? i'd love to figure this problem out?). As such, I'm considering going back to 170's for the road since I prefer a high cadence due to ongoing knee problems.

The issue of longer cranks for TT's is interesting, and i've been trying to read up on it. "Apparently" you can increase your power with longer cranks (due to higher torque?) but this is debatable and I don't really buy that argument at all. Doesn't seem logical to me, but there are lot's of examples of pro's jumping up 2.5 to 5mm for a TT.. Any thoughts anyone?

My guess is that your problem stems from the fit of the bike and not just the cranks. Just a guess here but I'm thinking that your pushing at a slightly different angle which is stressing your hip flexers.

Crank length is an interest topic and I have always thought of it in terms of fit not torque, but it does make senses I guess, what does sparticus uses for tts?

For MTB I have always had slightly shorter cranks to help me get my foot over the top a light quicker.
 
Aug 13, 2009
89
0
0
Visit site
Physics says that longer crank arms give you increased leverage, which lets you turn a higher gear for the same applied force on the pedal or turn the same gear with lower applied force at the pedal. I don't know if "increased power" is being used to mean this; technically it would be incorrect, but "semantically" everyone understands. Longer crank arms mean greater foot speed for a given RPM (the foot is traveling a greater distance around), usually means a little more effort on the muscles to maintain the cadence. 170 to 172.5 is about 1.5%, ironically changing a 52 to 53 in front is about 1.9% (53 to 54 is about 1.8%) so for TT's if you go up by 1 tooth on the front, and increase to the next size crank arm, you'll "feel" about the same applied force on the pedals.

Changing crank arm length can play havoc with a person's position; personal experience (short legs, short feet, good flexibility) I had issues with 172.5 (have used 170 for ever, 165 on a fixed gear with no issues). Leaving the seat height alone, I felt like I was reaching at the bottom of the stroke. Dropping the seat to maintain the same knee bend at the bottom, I had too much compression at the top of the stroke, resulted in knee pain. Toss in tweaking fore and aft, it was cheaper and easier to slap a set of 170's on, reset to old position, no problems (other than being too old, too fat, too slow). People that I ride with with longer legs and longer feet have no trouble with the change in crank length (if you plot feet, leg and knee angles, the change isn't as drastic as if your legs/feet were shorter).

Of course, I have no clue as to the length that Lance rides, but I can understand why Cavendish rides 170s.
 
Jul 22, 2009
303
0
0
Visit site
I reciently went from 170 to 165 and definitely there is an increase in cadence, less work to maintain an average speed on the flats, but there is a very real cost in climbing ability. It is worth consideration for me as a recreational cyclist- it must be heck for some pros having to choose what to go with in the tour when a career is at stake.
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Visit site
Mountain Goat said:
Interesting question.

I have read a lot that shorter cranks (170ish) are definately better for high cadence riding, but I would assume that's for endurance riding. In Cavendish's case, I would guess that he uses 170's becoz he's a short arse and has little legs.

Personally, I'm 6ft1 and use 175's on mountain bike, and used to use 170's on the road. When I got a new road bike, I went up to 175's and experienced some hip/groin problems which i think is due to the greater angle produced in the hip and knees when riding longer cranks (thoughts anyone? i'd love to figure this problem out?). As such, I'm considering going back to 170's for the road since I prefer a high cadence due to ongoing knee problems.

The issue of longer cranks for TT's is interesting, and i've been trying to read up on it. "Apparently" you can increase your power with longer cranks (due to higher torque?) but this is debatable and I don't really buy that argument at all. Doesn't seem logical to me, but there are lot's of examples of pro's jumping up 2.5 to 5mm for a TT.. Any thoughts anyone?

I am also 6 1 and i currently use 170. I feel like it is much easier to turn over the gear even if it might just be psychological. The funny thing is i feel like i climb better too. I would imagine from a physiological standpoint that longer cranks would be akin to changing your cleat position which defintely can cause problems.
 
May 13, 2009
105
0
0
cycling.davenoisy.com
It's worth it for many to look into shorter cranks on the road... I was running 170's, but am from the track and run 165's there. Essential for a smooth, fast spin. When riding 175's (sometimes swap MTB's with friends for short stretches) my legs feel like they're flailing around in huge circles! That's gotta be a waste of energy.

A few benefits from shorter cranks:

* in crits, more clearance in corners, pedal through even more

* in TT's, you can get lower/closer to the top tube, as your knees aren't coming up as high - free speed

For TT's, if you're a grinder at 90rpm or less, there may be less of an advantage, but for anyone who maintains their spin in a TT, shorter cranks may do you some good.

It does feel a bit strange on climbs at first, but you *should* be able to maintain your power/speed after some adaptation. I've heard it can take a while (up to 6mos in some cases) but it should all come together in the end. I think it took me about a month before climbs no longer had a 'weird' feeling for me. It kinda feels nice now, even at lower cadences my legs feel like they're spinning much more smoothly.

There's probably also a physiological factor here, dependent on size and femur length, etc.. Maybe really big guys do better with longer cranks, i'm not sure... What does Theo Bos use on the track -- or road for that matter? If he can crank out the power he does on 165's, and he's a pretty tall guy, then there may not be much to that.. I don't really know in that aspect!
 
Jul 8, 2009
187
0
0
www.edwardgtalbot.com
ProTour said:
I heard it was 172.5's but it hasn't been confirmed. I know Cavendish runs with 170's, could that possibly be the ideal length for the road, especially if one spins at a high cadence?

Does it really make sense to go with longer arms in the TT, as Miguel Indurain did? I have my doubts. I'm thinking it's better to go with one length and stick with it, as that is what your muscles are used to.

And what about mountain biking, does Lance run the same length when he is motoring off-road? Or probably 175's?

What are your opinions on crank arm length?

So we have a link saying 175 for Lance. I would say that what the pros use might not be the best guide for people who aren't training at something close to a pro level. and a lot of it is riding style, body type, etc.

My leg and torso lengths are fairly close to Lance's. I use 172.5 cranks and I feel like I would have no problem riding 175's on hilly terrain or in a TT, but I also suspect that I would be a better rider if I used 170s and learned to spin better. Of course if I rode more than 150-200K a week, I'd also be a better rider :)
 
Aug 16, 2009
322
0
0
Visit site
I'm 5' 10", I ride 172.5 road, but have had 170s suggested for me. I'm more of a masher than a spinner.
On Mt. bike give me 175s, the extra torque of pussing the longer lever is important when powering through mud or sand.
 
Aug 3, 2009
81
0
0
Visit site
James Huang said:
Hi folks,

Armstrong runs 175mm cranks:

Thanks for the info. I was a little surprised he used such long cranks, since he generally spins at a high cadence. I read that he has at times used 172.5 in TT events, but am not certain it's true. I found this list on an old internet thread, looks like most of the pros go long:

Jacques Anquetil 175mm
Lance Armstrong 175mm
Magnus Backstedt 177.5mm
Chris Boardman 170mm
Santiago Botero 172.5mm
Angel Casero 175mm
Mario Cipollini 172.5mm
Fausto Coppi 171mm
Malcolm Elliott 172.5mm
Tyler Hamilton 172.5mm
Bernard Hinault 172.5mm
Miguel Indurian 180mm (190mm for second Hour record!)
Laurent Jalabert 172.5mm
Greg Lemond 175mm,
Brad McGee 175mm
Robbie McEwen 175mm
Eddy Merckx 175mm
David Millar 175mm (180mm in TT)
Francesco Moser 175mm
Marty Northstein 167.5mm in Keirin (170mm in kilo)
Graham Obree 175mm
Marco Pantani 170mm (180mm in mountains)
David Rebellin 172.5mm
Roger Riviere 175mm
Jean Robic 170mm
Tony Rominger 172.5mm (175mm for Hour record)
Oscar Sevilla 175mm
Jan Ullrich 177.5mm
Rik Verbrugghe 175mm
Erik Zabel 172.5mm
Alex Zulle 175mm (180mm in mountains)
Alberto Contador 172.5
Fabien Cancellara 177.5
Tom Boonen 177.5mm
Allan Davis 172.5mm
Gord Fraser 172.5mm
Oscar Freire 172.5mm
Thor Hushovd 175mm
Giovanni Lombardi 172.5mm
Alessandro Petacchi 175mm
Fred Rodriguez 175mm
Erik Zabel 172.5mm

Boardman used 170s on all his hour records

http://www.bikecult.com/bikecultbook/sports_recordsHour.html

Rominger 172.5
Moser 175
Merckx 175
Obree 175

And, according to this site, despite only having an 86cm inseam (33.85"), Marc Madiot used 180s all the time

I can believe Indurain ran 190's at times, but was very surprised to see Pantani on 180's!

It seems like unless you like to spin at a high cadence almost all of the time, it's best to go longer rather than shorter, unless it hurts your knees, you have knee issues, or it feels awkward.

It might be interesting to see a study that analyzed the spin of top pros to see if the ones running shorter cranks might be using their upstroke muscles more equally, giving them more efficiency. But maybe what is lost in efficiency is made up in more power from more torque with the longer arms?
 
Mar 12, 2009
553
0
0
Visit site
Jim Martin did a study of power production with varying cranks lengths from 120mm-180mm. The short of it is that is makes no difference.

Your power output is your power output. So go with what feels good. A shorter cranks could be good in TTs as it would allow a lower position.
 
Aug 13, 2009
89
0
0
Visit site
Assuming the force being applied by the rider is constant, the longer lever arm provided makes it easier to turn a given gear ratio. Think about what you do when you are trying to free a stuck nut from a bolt: most people grab a longer wrench or put a bit of pipe over the wrench to give them a longer lever arm. The amount of force they apply to the wrench handle is the same, but the longer lever applies more force (torque) to the nut.

In a "practical" sense, this means that you can apply less force on the pedal with longer crank arms, which saves some of your legs, which makes it easier to recover for the next day. I'd guess that over a long Tour, the effect is cumulative: the less you expend and the quicker/easier you recover in the first week, means you should have more left in the tank for the third week. In the uphill terrain, the longer lever means you can probably go up with a bit less effort for a given speed or faster for a given effort.

The downside of longer crank arms is that at a given RPM, your feet are actually moving faster (they are describing a circle with a larger circumference). Steady state efforts (TT's, long climbs) this tends to not be an issue, but something with a lot of change of pace (crits) you lose the ability accelerate quickly (need to close a small gap? Spin the legs up a little bit instead of shifting a gear). Watch a really good crit rider or a trackie in a points race, leg speed changes all the time.
 
ProTour said:
I heard it was 172.5's but it hasn't been confirmed. I know Cavendish runs with 170's, could that possibly be the ideal length for the road, especially if one spins at a high cadence?

Does it really make sense to go with longer arms in the TT, as Miguel Indurain did? I have my doubts. I'm thinking it's better to go with one length and stick with it, as that is what your muscles are used to.

And what about mountain biking, does Lance run the same length when he is motoring off-road? Or probably 175's?

What are your opinions on crank arm length?

Put three people in a room and ask about 'best' crank length and get four opinions. I had a customer who brought owned a DeRosa for 3 years with different crank lengths and didn't know it.

I think the 'range' is defined most by femur length and overall length length rather than type of riding but remember the differences are teeny(2.5mm) and the resulting 'circle' that a foot makes when riding, those differences are small as well(about 16mm for 2.5mm differences in crank length).
 
Jul 22, 2009
303
0
0
Visit site
I didn't think 5mm would make such a difference- but I was really really surprised at how much it did going from 170 to 165. I did a lot of TT drills etc on 170s long ago and then got a new mtn bike equipted with 175s as standard- it felt different, but not nearly as much as going onto 165. 5 mm crank length is 1 cm diameter difference- and according to where the power is on the pedal stroke, again that can make a big difference when the cadence is 90+ rpms, that is 1 meter per min- 20m for 20 minutes and there you'll see the difference- perhaps less effort but more work or, for those with metronomic cadences perhaps less effort equal work and slower average speed....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Laszlo said:
I reciently went from 170 to 165 and definitely there is an increase in cadence, less work to maintain an average speed on the flats, but there is a very real cost in climbing ability.

What did the loss feel like? Weird question, but did you feel that you couldn't maintain the cadence going uphill, or more pain in the quads?

As I said, i'm on 175s, but will change back to 170s.. I was considering going right down to 165's, but if that means difficulty climbing, then i'm not to sure :confused:

The reason is that I always found it uncomfortable to spin the whole circle at my high cadence (usually around 100). So if i drop 10mm, then the circle would be 2cm less diameter, which seemed like a good idea, but maybe that's too much.

Anyone else had trouble climbing on 165s?? From the look of the pro's list, 175 is what the big climbers are pushing, but hard to compare us to them
 
Aug 13, 2009
89
0
0
Visit site
Below is my opinion, based on personal experience, it may be greatly different than others.

I've ridden 170s (with a 38x52 in front, 12x25 10spd rear) on a road bike for "just about forever" (greater than 20 years), 165's on a fixed gear (usually ridden on the road). Stylistically, I've always been higher cadence, I feel on top of a gear in the 95-100 range (made it easy to do group rides with a bunch of track riders). The 165s give you a shorter lever arm from the pedal spindle to the crank axle, so for any given amount of force you apply at the pedal, there is less effective force applied at the crank (simple physics). For a "normal" length of 170mm, the 5mm represents a difference of about 3% in lever arm length; this means that at the crank you'll apply 3% less (going to 165) or 3% more (going to 175). Now, exactly what does that 3% mean on the bike? Normally, about 1 tooth on a chainring. Still using the 170 as the normal length crank arm, a 39x16 with 165s will feel like a 40x16, with 175s it will feel like a 38x16. If you plot out the deltas in gears across the gears normally used by racers, say a 39x53 with a 12x25 10spd, the steps between successive gears is about 1.5-3%.

Climbing I felt the impulse was stronger, but of a shorter duration (a little more pedal loading, but you move through it quicker). Absolute position of the seat relative to the pedal can change the way it feels (seat up/down, back/forwards). It may take a few rides to get used to the feeling, but you should be able to adjust to it. On a mountain bike, you want to limit the delta between peaks of applied power (easier to maintain traction). The longer crankarms mean lower peak force has to be applied, but it's applied for a longer time.

Don't forget that the differences between the GC contenders in a 3 week tour (assuming all undoped) are actually very small. Assuming they all start the tour out with a "full tank", every little bit they save in the first 2 weeks means they have more for the third week. If changing the crankarms means they save a little bit more, then it's easy to see why they run longer cranks.
 
Jul 22, 2009
303
0
0
Visit site
Mountain Goat said:
What did the loss feel like? Weird question, but did you feel that you couldn't maintain the cadence going uphill, or more pain in the quads?

I used to do most of my climbing seated but did something late august and was off the bike for 4 weeks; I got the 165s and had a few rides on them on regular routes. I am trying to avoid re-injury so I am refraining from the grind climb and trying to spin low gears up or stand. The standing part the cranks do feel short, no question. And it's not like you can go down a gear to compensate, because if I have to stand I am in my lowest gear already- BUT I did notice on an ultra steep climb I did on the weekend I was able to turn the crank over the top faster and maintained a rolling momentum, whereas before I used to go up seated because I could maintain the tension on the chain better, like there was a dead spot at the top of the crank rotation.

you might even have a spare set of 170s to try- they are easier to come by than 165s- and a new set of cranks can cost a bit of money too- it might be easier or more worthwhile to step down 5mm than do a whole cm and find the change too extreme to adjust to properly. just my humble opinion.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Laszlo said:
I used to do most of my climbing seated but did something late august and was off the bike for 4 weeks; I got the 165s and had a few rides on them on regular routes. I am trying to avoid re-injury so I am refraining from the grind climb and trying to spin low gears up or stand. The standing part the cranks do feel short, no question. And it's not like you can go down a gear to compensate, because if I have to stand I am in my lowest gear already- BUT I did notice on an ultra steep climb I did on the weekend I was able to turn the crank over the top faster and maintained a rolling momentum, whereas before I used to go up seated because I could maintain the tension on the chain better, like there was a dead spot at the top of the crank rotation.

you might even have a spare set of 170s to try- they are easier to come by than 165s- and a new set of cranks can cost a bit of money too- it might be easier or more worthwhile to step down 5mm than do a whole cm and find the change too extreme to adjust to properly. just my humble opinion.

Thanks for the advice!

I had 170s on my old bike for ages, its just the last year that I jumped up to 175s and havent been happy spinning that huge circle, so i could go back to those 170s for a bit to test them out.

It's definately the large circle, and the dead spot with long cranks that bothers me, so i'll try a few things before making a big purchase.

Cheers!
 
Jul 24, 2009
142
0
0
Visit site
I went from 175 to 180mm cranks last season, I changed to them because I've got an 89cm inseam. I was immediately faster on hills (though possibly because my bike's gearing isn't suited for the the really steep hills here, long cranks give better leverage, so almost like an extra gear).

But the 180mm cranks felt like pedaling through treacle on the flat. This season I've dropped the cadence and moved the saddle back a bit and it feels better. (To recruit the glutes more and to reduce the burn in the quads.)

And some study on PubMed shows that shorter cranks are more efficient at power well below threshold while the longer cranks had slightly higher peak power outputs. Overall there isn't too much in it though.
 
Oct 13, 2009
5
0
0
Visit site
I have read Lance rides with 175 cranks on his road bike. I have also been to the Trek factory in Waterloo WI, where they have his Tour De France road bikes in their showroom. I checked out the cranks, 175.
FYI,,,the cassette was a 11 X 21.
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,316
2
0
Visit site
I am 6'4" with a long femur. I made the move from 175mm up to 177.5 cranks on the recommendation of a trainer and a new frame fitting. I have always been a spin cadence rider and just assumed I couldn't get it done with that long a crank. FOr most of my novice career I ran 172.5

But now with the For whatever reason I have more power and my rpm is not compromised. I have never looked back. Even riding the fixie around with the 165s on there now and again I just feel like I need the longer crank

All I can share with you here is it works for my based on my body type

Bike fiit is key I will say for me anyway. I moved to a more slack seat tube in that process. I put a used pair of 177.5 on an old steel Italian race bike with a steep Seat Tube angle I had and couldnt work it out at all. just couldnt get over like I wanted
 
Oct 13, 2009
5
0
0
Visit site
Morati said:
I have read Lance rides with 175 cranks on his road bike. I have also been to the Trek factory in Waterloo WI, where they have his Tour De France road bikes in their showroom. I checked out the cranks, 175.
FYI,,,the cassette was a 11 X 21.

Oh yeah......Chainrings ? 56 X 39
 

TRENDING THREADS