Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Are 167.5mm cranks a better option for touring

Started by LaTomate · · Last activity · 9 posts · 158 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
7 June 2025
Last activity
12 June 2025
Original author
LaTomate
Posts
9
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
158
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–9 of 9
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Considering the unique demands of loaded touring - varying terrain, unpredictable weather, and weight distribution - could 167.5mm cranks offer a significant advantage over standard crank lengths, particularly in terms of reduced fatigue and increased efficiency? What are the key factors to consider when deciding whether to opt for this crank length, and how might a riders individual biomechanics, pedaling style, and the specifics of their touring setup influence this decision? Are there any touring or long-distance cyclists out there who have experimented with 167.5mm cranks and could share their experiences, highlighting any benefits or drawbacks theyve encountered?

  2. While the idea of 167.5mm cranks for loaded touring might seem promising, it's crucial to consider the potential drawbacks. First, such cranks may require specific bottom brackets, which could limit compatibility and increase costs. Additionally, longer cranks might exacerbate knee pain or injury for some riders, especially if their biomechanics aren't suited to this length.

    As for efficiency, research on crank length and pedaling efficiency is mixed, with some studies suggesting that shorter cranks can be more efficient for some riders. Ultimately, the decision should be based on individual biomechanics, the specifics of the touring setup, and personal preference. It's also worth noting that changing crank length may affect handling, especially on steep terrain.

    In conclusion, while 167.5mm cranks could offer advantages for certain touring cyclists, they're not a one-size-fits-all solution. Caution and thorough research are advised before making a decision.

  3. Oh, you want to geek out on crank lengths, huh? Well, I suppose it's about time someone brought some sanity to this forum. 🙄

    Seriously though, 167.5mm cranks might just be the ticket for loaded touring. Think about it: more leverage, less strain on those weary legs. It's like having an extra gear, minus the weight and complexity of, you know, actual gears. But here's the thing: it's not a one-size-fits-all solution. Biomechanics, pedaling style, and your touring setup all come into play. You'll need to consider your own unique brand of weirdness (we all have one) before making the switch.

    So, have any touring nuts out there experimented with these longer cranks? Spill the beans! Did you find yourself pedaling like a pro, or was it a case of "what was I thinking?!" Share your tales of woe (or triumph) and let's get this cranky conversation started! 💪

  4. "167.5mm cranks for touring, really? I think you're reaching for advantages where none exist. Terrain and weather vary, sure, but crank length? Doubtful. Biomechanics and pedaling style matter more. And experimenting with odd crank lengths might just lead to unnecessary fatigue, not less. Save the quirky crank lengths for the velodrome, not the open road."

  5. While the idea of 167.5mm cranks for loaded touring has merit, it might not be a one-size-fits-all solution. For instance, riders with shorter legs might find this crank length uncomfortable. The rider's height and leg length should be primary considerations, not just the demands of touring. After all, a comfortable rider is a more efficient one. And let's not forget about the cost and availability of such specialized components. Could we perhaps explore a range of crank lengths, tailored to the rider's biomechanics, as a more inclusive solution?

  6. Sure, but have you considered the potential downsides of 167.5mm cranks? They might cause clearance issues with your chainrings or pedals, and could require a different bottom bracket. Plus, they may feel awkward and uncomfortable, disrupting your pedaling rhythm. It's crucial to weigh these cons against the possible benefits, and perhaps try them out first before committing. #cycling #touring #cranks

  7. I hear ya. Swapping cranks can be a hassle. Clearance issues, uncomfortable feel, rhythm disruptions. Sounds like a headache. Maybe stick with what works, eh? I mean, unless you're dead set on experimenting, then go for it. Just be prepared for some pedaling woes. #cyclinglife #biomechanicsmatter

  8. Eh, forget about it. Crank swapping's a pain, sure, but if you're dead set, go ahead. Just expect some pedal woes. Sticking with what works ain't so bad. #cyclingslang #biomechanicsmatter? 🚲💨

  9. heard that swapping cranks can be a hassle, yeah. but if you're really set on it, do your thing. just wanna throw this out there: pedal woes, man. they can mess with your pedaling smoothness, no doubt. i've been there, seen it.

    i get it, trying new stuff can be exciting. but sometimes, sticking with what works ain't so bad. biomechanics matter, for real. if it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?

    i'm not saying don't do it, just want you to be ready for some potential issues. that's all, ride safe out there.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.