Re: [CR] Old Age vrs Crank Lengths - Range of motion issues


Example: Component Manufacturers:Ideale
From: "andrewhartline" <andrewhartline@gmail.com>
To: John Wood <braxton72@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTiknLQNWGGxgD+gzv3i-AR7x6cDk0dNUvFiRJKvF@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:34:06 -0700
References: <519559.20286.qm@web84401.mail.ac2.yahoo.com> <4C4B41DE.2060904@aol.com>
Cc: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Re: [CR] Old Age vrs Crank Lengths - Range of motion issues


If I may contribute my own anecdote: after a fitter recommended that I try longer cranks (am tallish at 6'1" and was riding 170's), I fooled around with 172.5's and 175s for two years, and had trouble with knee pain on and off during that time (am also a wannabe ultra-distance rider). I am now back on 170s and will likely stay there---although of course I can't be sure about this, the shorter length just seems to make it easier to achieve an ergonomic position given my own anatomical quirks.

Andrew Hartline Vancouver, British Columbia Canada

On 24-Jul-10, at 1:14 PM, John Wood wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:41 PM, verktyg <verktyg@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I think that starting off with lower gears, lowering your seat and
>> using
>> pedals that allow your feet to move around are far more important
>> than crank
>> arm length.
>>
>
> Good advice. Lower saddle, lower gears, and lots of float are no
> doubt
> important, but I also know that switching to shorter cranks made a
> very
> noticeable improvement for me. It was the final piece of the
> puzzle, and
> for me, seemed to have the greatest effect.
>
> John
> --
> John Wood
> Open Road Bicycles
> Missoula, Montana, USA