How come campagnolo doesn't make a 165mm record crankset? They make a 165mm record pista set, so why wouldn't they make a 165 for the geared sets?

I'm 5'10" with a 31" inseam, measured my femur and used the peter white cycle crank arm calculation and ended up with a 164.5 crank length. I know I'm in the average height and my proportions aren't all crazy, you'd think they'd make a shorter length for the riders shorter than me (and i'm sure that's a large percentage of the recreational cycling population)...

I did a search and found only one thread about 165mm cranks, and the only carbon ones out there were Lightnings? I don't know anything about them, but has this changed? The thread was two years old, so maybe there's somethin' new out there...

5'10" on a 165 road crank? wow

I bet the reason they don't make it is because 170-175s suffice for most

One more reason why SRAM Red will take more market share out of Campy. They don't have them yet, but promise to have 165 crankarms in all levels of SRAM. In the meantime, this is one more reason why I ride Dura Ace.

I wouldn't necessarily buy into that calculation. However, there are a number of very good pragmatic reasons for going 165:

1. Greater snap and leg speed.
2. Compatibility with track cranks (if you use 165's on the track of course).
3. Reduction of injuries -- doesn't apply to all people, but longer cranks do bring on some problems for some riders.
4. It isn't just about leg length -- it also addresses flexibility, whether your knees interfere with your breathing on longer cranks, etc.
5. Leg extension theories -- some people always keep the same bottom bracket to saddle height regardless of crankarm length, while others go by the lowest pedal position. In the former theory you can go to a longer crank more easily but encounter more resistance or interference at the upper end of the stroke, while in the latter theory you reach a point where you are hyperextended, at least from a practical power-output standpoint.
6. The theory these days is that you can generate more power with a bit more bend in the leg than in the old Italian model. If this works for you, then shorter cranks work as well. Note that in the pro peloton, riders are generally coming down in crankarm length -- Shimano is providing more protour cranksets in shorter lengths than a few years before and a number of riders are running shorter cranks. Not necessarily 165's, but at least shorter.
7. There are enough variables in picking crankarm length that you basically have to decide for yourself (or between you and an enlightened coach). You might belong on longer cranks, or perhaps on shorter ones -- a mathematical calculation doesn't give the exclusive answer.

Reduction of injuries -- doesn't apply to all people, but longer cranks do bring on some problems for some riders.

Worked for me. I switched from 172.5 to 165 mm cranks about a year ago. My hip flexors thank me every day I ride. 5'10', 84 cm "inseam."

Worked for me. I switched from 172.5 to 165 mm cranks about a year ago. My hip flexors thank me every day I ride. 5'10', 84 cm "inseam."



did you move your seat when you changed? up? down?

did you move your seat when you changed? up? down?

Didn't move my seat—been at 72,0 cm BB-to-saddle for about 8 years now. Looks very low to the casual onlooker, but it's where I need to be, believe me.

hey wim, did you go with dura-ace? i really want to go campy for sentimental reasons, but damn no 165's... what brand did you find?

hey wim, did you go with dura-ace? i really want to go campy for sentimental reasons, but damn no 165's... what brand did you find?

No, I drew the line at 9-speed. Ultegra FC-6500, 52/42, 165 mm. There comes a point in your life when "upgrading" seems like a foolish waste of money. Kind of like my parents enjoying their TEAC reel-to-reel tape player until they left this world. :D

measured my femur and used the peter white cycle crank arm calculation and ended up with a 164.5 crank length.

There is no reliable formula for predicting crank length. There ARE lots of formulas out there, but they are just figments of the imagination of their purveyors. No one has ever done a study that shows how crank length should relate to anything.

You will find no high quality data to support any particular crank length as being better than any other. This is true whether or not you correct for leg length, femur length, etc. On the other hand, you will find lots of anecdotal or low quality data to support all kinds of conclusions, and more theories than you can shake a stick at. A rider's response to changes in crank length is 1) highly individual, 2) dependent on riding style and the event (TT, climbing, crits, track racing, etc.), and 3) most important, highly adaptive. This is why it is so hard to study the effect of crank length.

A 2008 study by Jim Martin, Ph.D., from the University of Utah shows zero correlation between crank length and any performance factors.

ok fine kerry but i ride a track bike with 165's and i like it. so sue me.

ok fine kerry but i ride a track bike with 165's and i like it. so sue me.

What you need to understand is that while you may like 165s just fine, don't be fooled into thinking that someone has the ability to predict what will be right for you. Given the adaptability that people have shown in some of the crank length research, it appears that many riders can "learn to love" a wide range of lengths. The only real constant in crank length is that if you like to spin, shorter cranks are better.

Thanks for the info but I don't really 'need' to understand it. The question pertained to finding cranks, not being condescended to.