I started out with 172.5 because it was so common on bikes I looked at. Only
after a few years when I tried a 170, did I realize that crank length makes a
difference. Instead of trying to calculate mechanical efficiency of various
lengths, I though, "which feels better when I ride?" Still, I avoided anything
shorter because 165s are "for girls." I won an Ebay auction for an Ultegra
double not long ago and didn't realize the arms were 165 until after I already
had pulled the former unit out of the bike. Oh well, may as well try it. I LOVE
it. Seems short legs and short cranks kind of go together, for boys OR girls. I
can still ride 170s just fine and will leave them in place on other bikes, but
I'm getting better at ignoring pre conceptions and exploring the facts instead.
________________________________
From: Kenneth Stagg <kenneth.st...@gmail.com>
To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, August 20, 2010 7:10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: VO 50.4 BCD Crankset is here
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Ken Freeman <kenfreeman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know about pruckelshaus, but I find that a 170 and a 172.5 feel
> significantly different and it is important on a long ride.
I agree - though for me it works the other way around (i.e. 170 feels
much better - 165 feels better still.) I definitely understand the
unwillingness to re-acclimate when you've found what works for you!
I've tried all three lengths in one particular crank (Superbe Pro) and
found that I seem to be fairly sensitive to crank length - probably
moreso than Q factor.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
