CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

“Are shorter cranks better on your bike?”

(2 posts)

No tags yet.

  1. chdot

  2. LaidBack

    But it was long thought that there was a price to pay for all this: shorter cranks meant less leverage and that in turn meant less power.

    Going from 170 to 155 might mean you will need to reduce all chainrings. I run a 50/39/26 on my M5 with 11-32 cassette. 3 x 9.

    165 will be much more subtle. On a recumbent bike your knees come towards you so every bit counts to avoid too extreme an angle on knees and hips.
    On an upright people can move their upper body on saddle and so it's not unusual for people not too think about crank length. If you do shorten cranks your seat height will go up making it less easy to touch down (depending on style). On a recliner the boom goes out but seat height not affected.

    If leverage was only concern then 180 cranks would be popular. Then again cornering clearance would be less (although lifting inside pedal norm on tight bends).

    The late Mike Burrows was a big advocate of shorter pedal cranks.

    Posted 4 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic


You must log in to post.

Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin