Re: [CR]wtt: campy pista cranks, 165mm for 170mm.

(Example: Component Manufacturers)

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:09:59 -0700
From: "Mitch Harris" <mitch.harris@gmail.com>
To: "John Betmanis" <johnb@oxford.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]wtt: campy pista cranks, 165mm for 170mm.
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20071204121233.01335d80@mailhost.oxford.net>
References: <85826.27910.qm@web82708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
cc: classic rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>

On Dec 4, 2007 10:12 AM, John Betmanis <johnb@oxford.net> wrote:
> At 07:28 AM 04/12/2007 -0800, jeffrey piwonka wrote:
> >i'd like to trade my 165mm campy pista cranks (record)
> >for some 170mm. I'll consider 167.5mm too.
>
> I was under the impression that 165mm was the correct length for pista
> (track) cranks so as not to ground the outside pedal on the bankings, no
> matter how big the rider (but I've been wrong before).
>
> Back when I started riding and noticing these things (early 1950s) I
> thought all cranks were 6.5" (165mm) but never really paid that much
> attention. When I resumed serious riding, my 1978 Nishiki came with 165mm
> Apex cranks and I thought that might be appropriate for a 21" frame. I
> later upgraded to a Shimano 600 crankset which was 170mm, which was the
> most common size, but I didn't notice any difference. There was always a
> lot of discussion over crank lengths in Bicycling magazine, but no real
> agreement. The only conclusion I could draw was that longer cranks were for
> larger people.
>
> Anybody have any wisdom on this pertaining to bikes and riding styles over
> the years?

You're right that 165 was the standard length for track and was pretty necessary for general riding on some tracks, less necessary for other tracks, and not at all necessary for some events at all tracks. For certain tt oriented events like pursuits and kilos where special bikes are used, there was no need to ride the banking at low speed or to maneuver on the banking and so you could set that bike up with the crank length best for your size. For many tracks with moderate banking, 170 cranks work fine for general events that may include slow riding and maneuvering on the banking and you'd see a mixture of 165 and 170 cranks in the field. I campaigned with both lengths and would ride 170 a lot, switching to 165 for short steep tracks and when the track officials specifically required 165. Many riders, even tall ones, never varied from 165. This was also true of the pros as far as I observed. On a short steep track like Ghent, or a longer but steeply banked track like Antwerp, you'd see even a very tall rider like Urs Freuler on 165 cranks. And Tony Doyle too, on those tracks, although as a power guy, he'd switch to longer cranks when the track or event allowed.

--Mitch