I like to think I can get torque slightly more easily with the 175s on my
Matthews, but really, what I feel is that they are slightly harder to spin
compared to the 170s I use on everything else. I certainly couldn't tell a
difference when I briefly used 172.5s on a Ram. There are so many variables
between the other bikes and the Matthews, starting with Q and including
wheel weight and diameter, overall bike weight, and tire width, that it's
really a guess to say this, but just perhaps it is easier to push a given
gear in given conditions at low to moderate cadences with the longer cranks
-- I seem find myself pushing a 68 to 72" gear on the Matthews, on
pavement, surprisingly easily given the weight of the wheels and the bike
compared to the others -- but again, it's just a guess. But it's a guess
that will have me staying with 175s for off road.
I've never used 165s.
> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 3:33:36 PM UTC-6, Deacon Patrick wrote:
>> Both my Hunqapillar and Quickbeam have 175mm crank arms. Pedal strikes
>> have been a non-issue on the roads, but I’ve had a few, slow and
>> inconsequential, strikes on the trails. Those of you with experience (not
>> speculation, but actual riding experience): could you please help me
>> understand the effect of crank arm length in fixed gear riding on:
>> — decreased leverage of a shorter arm. Is this a real-world, material
>> effect, or inconsequential. Put another way, if I go with 170 or 165mm
>> crank arms, am I going to need to go with a 42t instead of 44t chainring?
>> Or is the difference slight and inconsequential compared with increased
>> pedal clearence?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.