Go look at the Shimano crank thread
Oh c’mon man…I said serious question. Plus, it is gonna be Force.
-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
Am I tempted by the thing? Or by the gold ano?
- Thread starter cantunamunch
- Start date
Oh c’mon man…I said serious question. Plus, it is gonna be Force.
Depends on leg length.
And preferred technique..
87cm inseam, size 56/ L frame, 172.5 is what they put as standard on these frames you know but I observe this recent trend of going shorter so I am wondering.
Thread Starter
TS
And it depends on your angles on the bike. If you're really slammed it can get your hip into a better range.
And I until Force comes in gold ano, I don't credit the seriousness
In all seriousness, ask a trackie.
And I until Force comes in gold ano, I don't credit the seriousness
In all seriousness, ask a trackie.
Zinn would put you at 180-185mm. More conventional would be 172.5-175. I wouldn't go to 170 unless you are a high cadence person or have range of motion issues. For the most part, very few people I know of complain about too long crank arms. They will on the other hand complain about 165's if they happen to try them.
Thread Starter
TS
Over in the TT Position FB group you see pics of 6'2" dudes on 53cm frames and 160-167mm cranks daily so.. *shrug*
Yeah but TT is a different beast right? Usually flatter, tougher position with much more vertical pedal motion. Ultimately there is no right answer. I've seen 170 being the absolute only size, up to 180, down to 150 and now we're back to 170-172.5 for your typical road pro. I've actually installed 180s back in the day and thought it was nuts but some people like it.
OK, thanks, that’s helpful. For if I screw up, going back to 172.5 on Force with Quark will not be cheap.
For me personally, I see longer cranks really only useful in an MTB type of environment where you have short very steep climbs and you need a lot of torque in one or two pedal strokes. Or maybe in a big climbing environment. I actually tend to the smaller sizes myself. Especially as I get older. I did 170s on my current but really I'd do 165s without complaint. I also tend to higher cadence as well.
Thread Starter
TS
Glute and hamstring oriented, but the upper body position affects the crank feel.
Thread Starter
TS
Not fussed about pedal strikes?
What length cranks did Steve Bauer use on that whack Roubaix bike?
Last edited:
Yeah I used to see that when I was racing crits, we basically had squares with 4 right-angle corners where pedal strikes were a thing. Every corner exit was a sprint. Nowadays, I don't worry about it as much. In MTB I just modify my pedal stroke, stutter the rotation and avoid pedal strikes that way as much as possible. Road bike I don't even worry about it, I'm not cornering like that anymore and if I am I'm coasting with inside pedal up anyway.
Ahh the Frankenbike..
I think those were 180's or 185's. They were available back then, specifically Campy had Super Record cranks in that size that were almost impossible to get. That bike was ahead of its time..
I recall that Indurain was using 180 and 185 back in the day. Mind you he was a big boy. Lance I think had shorter because higher cadence, and well, doping...
It's funny you know now that you mention pedal strikes, I can remember racers who had worn down their pedals where they would hit the ground, as if you'd filed them down. Which they had really. So we started grinding pedals in the shop for that reason. Probably not the best plan! I remember looking mostly at wheelbase and bb height specifically for Crit racing. That was forty years ago..
Thread Starter
TS
And now back to the original point of the thread
I mean, they have style and intelligence. Nuclear apocalypse proof prosciutto, self defence and eating tool, and booze for killing the end of the world buzz and cleaning wounds from the self defence tool. Spot on. The stem shifter is just gravy...
That’s the mandatory set up for La Vuelta this year I take it?
Oop, sorry, Serrano not prosciutto..