You are reading a single comment by @GeneralStrike and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@GeneralStrike
Was looking into this as I have a fair bit of toeverlap on my new build (frame has a steep head tube for short trail, rando-style, plus mudguards) and I seem to dimly remember that I decided to go for 170mm cranks (and promptly forgot, fitting 175s instead). I thought that fitting shorter cranks would be weird for a taller rider (180-something)but as I was reading up on it the latest consensus seems to be that there's virtually no difference in terms of biomechanical suitability, but rather the only measurable difference was that when using shorter cranks, O2 uptake was lower because the rider is effectively pedalling a slightly shorter distance overall (which I guess would add up over longer rides). It seems weird but made some kind of sense when broken down like that, and begs the question of why significantly shorter cranks aren't produced to accommodate shorter riders? And does it make sense for me to drop my crank length t0 170 or even 165, whatever it takes to get my toeverlap under control?