Skip to main content
13 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 2, 2013 at 14:03 vote accept Vorac
Jul 30, 2013 at 15:10 history edited Kibbee CC BY-SA 3.0
edited title
Jul 30, 2013 at 14:00 comment added jimchristie You would be incorrect in your guess that touring bikes would benefit from longer cranks. Touring bikes typically have lower bottom brackets than race bikes in order to make them more stable when loaded. Furthermore, toe overlap is a bigger concern. This means more to worry about both downward and forward of the cranks.
Jul 30, 2013 at 12:22 comment added Vorac @ Mladen Jablanović, very true. However, the fractional change is the same - 6% of 2*165mm.
Jul 30, 2013 at 12:19 comment added Mladen Jablanović Not that it affects the question much, but you shouldn't forget that there are two crankarms, so that the actual difference is 2x the difference of a single crankarm - 2cm, not 1cm.
Jul 30, 2013 at 12:06 comment added Vorac @trailmax, people vary from, for example 1.60m to 2.00m. This is 25% difference. The difference from 165 to 175mm is only 6%. And this is not considering the vast diversity of riding styles - downhill, touring, city.
Jul 30, 2013 at 11:59 comment added trailmax I can't imagine pedaling 220mm cranks. I don't think my knees will take it!
Jul 30, 2013 at 11:45 history tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackBicycles/status/362177081414660096
Jul 30, 2013 at 11:14 answer added Benedikt Bauer timeline score: 6
Jul 30, 2013 at 10:13 answer added cherouvim timeline score: 6
Jul 30, 2013 at 10:05 comment added Vorac @cherouvim, indeed. I do not feel that half a centimeter could possibly make a difference. And touring bikes have plenty of clearance to be able to use much longer arms, for example 220mm.
Jul 30, 2013 at 10:01 comment added cherouvim Are you asking about the 5mm difference between 170 and 175?
Jul 30, 2013 at 9:50 history asked Vorac CC BY-SA 3.0