Crank length More spin or more power
-
- Posts: 646
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:12 pm
- Location: Blackhead NSW
Crank length More spin or more power
Postby brokenbus » Tue May 03, 2011 11:35 pm
Cheers
Nicko
- HappyHumber
- Posts: 5072
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:48 pm
- Location: Perth, (S.o.R.) W.A.
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby HappyHumber » Wed May 04, 2011 12:14 am
I'm sure others can contribute more thought fodder for you, but my experience has been starting out on geared roadies on 175s, I then went to 165s as is popular convention for a lot of Fixed Geared bikes and althought that's a bit like comparing Apples and Oranges. My preference now is a happy medium of about 170, which I could re use on a SS or FG bike without too much worry (BB drop & frame geometry notwithstanding)
I'm 187cm tall, FWIW...
Hit me up via the BNA dm; I'll get an alert. If y'know, you know.
- scotto
- Posts: 2380
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:38 am
- Location: Baulkham Hills
- Contact:
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby scotto » Wed May 04, 2011 8:34 am
- Bentnose
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 9:00 am
- Location: N/E suburbs Melbourne, Victoria
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby Bentnose » Wed May 04, 2011 9:57 am
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby trailgumby » Wed May 04, 2011 10:09 am
He has noticed an improvement in climbing ease, and I've noticed he doesn't flake out as readily on longer rides.
He is 15 and about 180cm.
For me, 170mm cranks feel "funny". Banging your pedal can be avoided by ratcheting over an obstacle instead of attempting a full pedal stroke. Remember to lower your saddle by 5mm to compensate.
- HappyHumber
- Posts: 5072
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:48 pm
- Location: Perth, (S.o.R.) W.A.
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby HappyHumber » Wed May 04, 2011 12:05 pm
Now these days 175 seems to be the norm, or default, in a lot of cases and drop bars are unikely a to be narrower than 40cm.
I dunno, just something that's been at the back of my mind with all the cobwebs & dust bunnies.
Hit me up via the BNA dm; I'll get an alert. If y'know, you know.
- sogood
- Posts: 17168
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Sydney AU
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby sogood » Wed May 04, 2011 1:12 pm
2) Shorter crank will lead to more spin at equal power.
The difference in leverage (ie. Gearing) is 2.94% increase by going to 175mm from 170mm crank.
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
- damhooligan
- Posts: 3409
- Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:16 pm
- Location: melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby damhooligan » Wed May 04, 2011 1:17 pm
1) the power does come from the rider, but it can make a difference to the rider to transfer that power onto the bike.sogood wrote:1) Length of crank does not affect power. Power comes from the rider, not the bike.
2) Shorter crank will lead to more spin at equal power.
The difference in leverage (ie. Gearing) is 2.94% increase by going to 175mm from 170mm crank.
Or can it not ??
SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!
- HappyHumber
- Posts: 5072
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:48 pm
- Location: Perth, (S.o.R.) W.A.
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby HappyHumber » Wed May 04, 2011 1:20 pm
Unsuccessfully fighting the urge to bring up fixed gear riding again; as well as cornering & clearance issues the shorter crank on FG bikes allows the legs to spin out with less strain. eg. It's less stretch & strain barrelling down a hill at a given cadence on a shorter rather than a longer crank.sogood wrote:2) Shorter crank will lead to more spin at equal power.
So, in supporting sogoods wonderfully succinct assertion... you'd theoretically be able to improve your cadence or spin more easily with a shorter crank.
Hit me up via the BNA dm; I'll get an alert. If y'know, you know.
- twizzle
- Posts: 6402
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
- Location: Highlands of Wales.
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby twizzle » Wed May 04, 2011 1:25 pm
Going from shorter -> longer cranks is also a great way to introduce knee problems as it takes a while for the body to adapt to the changed knee motion.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
-
- Posts: 1916
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:21 am
- Location: Perth
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby mitzikatzi » Wed May 04, 2011 2:06 pm
I paid $100 for a set of 44t and 34t chainrings once at my LBS
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby trailgumby » Wed May 04, 2011 2:53 pm
Mountain biking has the greatest variation in cadence of all the cycling disciplines - anywhere from 30 to 150rpm, all within a couple of hundred metres if the terrain demands it.HappyHumber wrote:Unsuccessfully fighting the urge to bring up fixed gear riding again; as well as cornering & clearance issues the shorter crank on FG bikes allows the legs to spin out with less strain. eg. It's less stretch & strain barrelling down a hill at a given cadence on a shorter rather than a longer crank.sogood wrote:2) Shorter crank will lead to more spin at equal power.
So, in supporting sogoods wonderfully succinct assertion... you'd theoretically be able to improve your cadence or spin more easily with a shorter crank.
Given that grinding at low cadences is most risky for knee injury, that biases the crank length selection towards going longer in my opinion.
At 185cm, with my inseam length, the Zinn on line calculator came up with a suggested length of 192mm, so 175mm is distinctly on the short side.
My view is that 170mm is too short for the OP for off-road use, and 175mm would be more user friendly.
If 170mm came stock on the bike, it raises the question in my mind as to whether the frame might be a little small as well. However, if you are in between two frame sizes, it is better to err on the small side, as the bike is easier to manage on the tricky stuff if it is shorter.
- sogood
- Posts: 17168
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Sydney AU
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby sogood » Wed May 04, 2011 3:06 pm
Rider is the source of power, while crank/chainring/cog/wheels are but components that affects the gearing and nothing more. In other words, it's all about leverage ratio/mechanical advantage, nothing to do with the power. Power transfer is more related to bike fit, interface equipment, technique, friction etc.damhooligan wrote:1) the power does come from the rider, but it can make a difference to the rider to transfer that power onto the bike.
Or can it not ??
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
- toolonglegs
- Posts: 15463
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
- Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby toolonglegs » Wed May 04, 2011 3:24 pm
They help me in the really step stuff technical stuff...but I also noticed going from 175mm to 180mm the reduction in ground clearance.
So you become more aware of pedal strike.But I like to try and ride up everything... .
-
- Posts: 3056
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:54 pm
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby zero » Wed May 04, 2011 8:08 pm
more weather proof - no.brokenbus wrote:I am upgrading my crankset mainly so I can get an external bottom bracket which I am lead to beleive is more weatherproof than the internal type and the current one is stuffed.
Both of the reasonable quality conventional taper bottom brackets were completely free and usable after 2 years of all weather commuting and offroad riding. a UN54 might well last you 10 years.
I've already had to remove and reassemble my external once and its less than a year old. Net stories abound of people opening em to find rusted bearings. The only thing I would say is ignoring the bearing vulnerability for a moment, is that I find removing the cranks to be far less of a chore, and I imagine its harder to damage the crank/spindle interface, and I prefer the idea that both bolts have to come loose for a crank to come loose.
Your boulder may well have a 48/38/28 crankset (which is really a touring or hybrid commuter crankset), and if you are buying an external bracket MTB crankset it will be a 44/32/22. Reckon your main source of improvement will be the new crankset closing up the ratios slightly and having more useful "MTB" ratios, and less commuter ratios you probably can't max out anyway.Anyway its currently a 170 and I can get 175's for cheaper than 170's. Am I going to appreciate being able to spin quicker with the 170's or the extra leverage with the 175's when using it as a mountain bike - going through mudholes and up steep hills etc. I am 182cm tall if thats relevent and its for a Giant Boulder. I would love to upgrade the whole bike but the GLW has other ideas.
Cheers
Nicko
I find the 32 very amenable to general single track riding, and I think I'd find a 38 too high, and a 28 only low enough as a granny if I wasn't fatigued. (ie I'd get up the first silly hill in a race no drama, but the tenth one ?)
I find a combination of crank length and crankset width together to be more uncomfortable for my knees than crankset alone. My road bike has 177.5s but road doubles are narrower. A period spent not riding my 175s on my MTB whilst I waited for brake parts to arrive, seemed to need acclimatisation for my knees afterwards. They never feel like that jumping on the roadbike after not using it for a while.
- HappyHumber
- Posts: 5072
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:48 pm
- Location: Perth, (S.o.R.) W.A.
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby HappyHumber » Wed May 04, 2011 9:44 pm
I'm inclined to agree with zero. I'd be dubious about claims of better weather proofing for the external bearing units. I personally am a fan of the old concept of having a drainage hole in the bottom of the BB shell, and have retro-drilled most of my steel frames for this reason. Haven't done it to my aluminium MTB, though.zero wrote:more weather proof - no.brokenbus wrote:I am upgrading my crankset mainly so I can get an external bottom bracket which I am lead to beleive is more weatherproof than the internal type and the current one is stuffed.
Both of the reasonable quality conventional taper bottom brackets were completely free and usable after 2 years of all weather commuting and offroad riding. a UN54 might well last you 10 years.
An engineer mate of mine who has more recently started getting into his riding was musing out loud to me about the possible benefits of the bearings being slightly larger in diameter and marginally further out of the BB shell in that they probably provide marginally better torsional stiffness (if my memory serves me correctly) than those smaller diameter mounted further inwards on the BB spindle.
Interestingly, he finds the popular bicycle terminology for parts quite amusing; Why exactly is the Bottom Bracket a "bracket"? When he tries to describe a part to me, he sounds like he's flipping through a CAD drawing library.
Hit me up via the BNA dm; I'll get an alert. If y'know, you know.
-
- Posts: 646
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:12 pm
- Location: Blackhead NSW
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby brokenbus » Wed May 04, 2011 11:53 pm
Cheers
Nicko
- Bentnose
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 9:00 am
- Location: N/E suburbs Melbourne, Victoria
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby Bentnose » Thu May 05, 2011 8:33 am
Isn't it called a bottom bracket because its a bracket to hang your cranks on? Why isn't a headset called a top bracket?HappyHumber wrote:
Interestingly, he finds the popular bicycle terminology for parts quite amusing; Why exactly is the Bottom Bracket a "bracket"? When he tries to describe a part to me, he sounds like he's flipping through a CAD drawing library.
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby trailgumby » Sat May 07, 2011 7:34 pm
Going from 28/28/48 to 22/32/44 makes a lot more difference than a change in crank length. Sorry, I kinda passed over the gearing when it was first mentioned, but I still reckon the 175mm cranks are worth doing.
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:38 pm
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby ozynigma » Sun May 15, 2011 7:38 pm
I am just under your height and have always had 175's on all my geared mtb's. Save the money, order the 175's and you will probably find they feel great.brokenbus wrote:I am upgrading my crankset mainly so I can get an external bottom bracket which I am lead to beleive is more weatherproof than the internal type and the current one is stuffed. Anyway its currently a 170 and I can get 175's for cheaper than 170's. Am I going to appreciate being able to spin quicker with the 170's or the extra leverage with the 175's when using it as a mountain bike - going through mudholes and up steep hills etc. I am 182cm tall if thats relevent and its for a Giant Boulder. I would love to upgrade the whole bike but the GLW has other ideas.
Cheers
Nicko
I have been trialling 180's riding single speed (slower cadence usually when under load) and I went to marginally smaller 172.5's on my new groupset for my roadbike (higher cadence usually when under load).
-
- Posts: 646
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:12 pm
- Location: Blackhead NSW
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby brokenbus » Sun May 15, 2011 9:57 pm
Cheers
Nicko
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby trailgumby » Tue May 17, 2011 1:55 pm
The only warning I'd make is that you won't view fire trails in quite the same light again.
Wanna tag along on one of the days?
-
- Posts: 646
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:12 pm
- Location: Blackhead NSW
Re: Crank length More spin or more power
Postby brokenbus » Tue May 17, 2011 7:27 pm
Cheers
Nick
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.