I went with 165 on my TT bike for a number of reasons. First that was the shortest readily available length I could find. Shimano did theoretically make 160, but none of the outlets I looked at actually stocked this. Second most of my training is indoors on a wattbike, which has 170mm cranks. The 165 isn't so different that it's all that noticeable.
Notable disadvantage: acceleration efforts of a fixed acceleration value between both setups will require higher torque values experienced through the rider’s legs when cranks are shorter. It might not be noticeable, it might be noticeable.
It feels definitely harder on the thighs(not to be confused with the knees) and almost feels like stalling at times but it is an acceptable tradeoff for better sustained efforts. And best of all, no chafing now.
I went with 165 on my TT bike for a number of reasons. First that was the shortest readily available length I could find. Shimano did theoretically make 160, but none of the outlets I looked at actually stocked this. Second most of my training is indoors on a wattbike, which has 170mm cranks. The 165 isn't so different that it's all that noticeable.
Subscribed!
Thanks so much!
Notable disadvantage: acceleration efforts of a fixed acceleration value between both setups will require higher torque values experienced through the rider’s legs when cranks are shorter. It might not be noticeable, it might be noticeable.
It feels definitely harder on the thighs(not to be confused with the knees) and almost feels like stalling at times but it is an acceptable tradeoff for better sustained efforts. And best of all, no chafing now.
would you aim to get your road bike and tri-bike cranks to be the same?
I don't, totally different riding positions. Hip angle is naturally more open on the road bike due to more upright position.
Optimal Crank length as well as other tuning should be decided After individual biomechanic which each amateur should do. No magic bullet here