181mm (7 1/8") production cranks exist for traditional caveman unit conversion reasons so there’s a bunch of 90s California CNC stuff, some postwar european vintage from england/france, and also some ashtabula one piece steel cranks.
I’ll get some eventually but I’m not gonna pay a premium for some Cook Bros that are likely already cracked. I couldn’t convince Jawn Heniey to do his own reenactment Herse cranks but he did 177.8mm (7") instead
To truly catch all the Pokemon I will get around to ordering my own EEWings cranks, probably when I have more frames with goofier BB standards to work around or take advantage of https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256803512630361.html
yep “knees touching collarbones” is a core constraint
shorter cranks and rearward cleats directly place the knee lower in space
moving the saddle forward/up directly places the shoulder further away
but for me the longer cranks have second-order effects everywhere else allowing me to position my saddle further forward stably and otherwise open my hip angle
It’s always been about opening the hips at the top of the stroke. That’s the biggest issue with more aggressive fits. Also helps less fit folks with less flexibility in general, even on more upright endurance road and even some hybrid fits.
Also it occurred to me that your local shopmart or ranch store stocks “mens” jeans in at least 28-34" inseams if they’re at all trying, so that’s 6" or 150mm. Since cranks will change top and bottom that’s 75mm in variance, which means a normal range could be 135-210 and not 165-175.
You’re not wrong. But based on rider feedback while switching crank length on the fly, the commonly selected rage for aero fit is 145-165 with 150-160 taking the lions share and 155-170 for drop bar fits across riders of all sizes.
Not once that I can recall was 175 crank selected.
I don’t see anything that resembles a direct measurement correlation between leg length and crank length. For whatever reason the variance in inseam just seems to get squashed.
I’m not saying that what you and Fred are doing is wrong. It could very well be the most right thing for your use cases.
But outliers aside it seems what riders are actually looking for in crank length when allowed to test is still a larger 25mm swing than the “norm”.
I’m not so much advocating for shorter cranks all around or even for myself, I’m just surprised how well they work, or maybe it’s even how not-bad they work. And maybe based on some other stuff I’m doing I’ve found myself in a different local maxima in my personal solution space.
We basically do. Dave the fitter intentionally obfuscates what he is changing at times to get as honest a feedback as possible. The fit bike and adjustable cranks allow him to change things rapidly enough I think. And he keeps talking the whole time so the rider is rarely looking at what he is changing.
The best money I’ve ever spent on the bike was $300 for a fancy pants fit that I didn’t fuck with save going to new shoes after like two years. I love paying a pro to do something so I don’t feel compelled to think about it.
Just a week ago I got a small adjustment from the fitter too (eccentric BB rotated from 9 o’clock to 12, so I wanted him to double check the exact saddle placement after that.)
I always lol when ppl in the scene talk about fucking with their fit after dropping hundreds on a fit from a pro. They are doing their own research I guess.
