Trek 5200

I forgot to say it is a 58 CM

"D.P.G." <1@1> wrote in message news:oIIKb.78742$xX.556398@attbi_s02...

Quoted message said:

Does anyone know what crank size is on a stock 5200 (Ultegra) I think it

is

Quoted message said:

175 mm. I don't have the bike here to measure myself. Is there any

advantage

Quoted message said:

or disadvantage to going to a small size ?

D.P.G.' 1@1 said:

Does anyone know what crank size is on a stock 5200 (Ultegra) I think it is 175 mm.

What frame size?

Barry

Quoted message said:

"D.P.G." <1@1> wrote in message news:oIIKb.78742$xX.556398@attbi_s02...

Quoted message said:

Does anyone know what crank size is on a stock 5200 (Ultegra) I think it

is

Quoted message said:

175 mm. I don't have the bike here to measure myself. Is there any

advantage

Quoted message said:

or disadvantage to going to a small size ?

175. Smaller is easier of course.

Callistus Valerius <[email hidden]> wrote:
: 175. Smaller is easier of course.

not in my universe.
--
david reuteler [email hidden]

A shy person. said:

Does anyone know what crank size is on a stock 5200 (Ultegra) I think it is 175 mm. I don't have
the bike here to measure myself.

With most better quality bikes, the crank length varies to some extent with the frame size, with
larger frames getting longer cranks.

Quoted message said:

Is there any advantage or disadvantage to going to a small size ?

No advantage or disadvantage to short cranks.

Long cranks have no advantage, and sometimes have the disadvantage of causing knee problems.

See: sheldonbrown.comcranks.htmlOpen ↗

Sheldon "165-170 For My Long Legs" Brown +----------------------------------------------------------------
+
| A moment's insight is sometimes worth a life's experience. | --Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton,
Massachusetts Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 harriscyclery.comharriscyclery.comOpen ↗ Hard-to-find parts
shipped Worldwide captainbike.comcaptainbike.comOpen ↗ sheldonbrown.comsheldonbrown.comOpen ↗

Sheldon Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

A shy person. said:

Does anyone know what crank size is on a stock 5200 (Ultegra) I think it is 175 mm. I don't have
the bike here to measure myself.

With most better quality bikes, the crank length varies to some extent with the frame size, with
larger frames getting longer cranks.

Quoted message said:

Is there any advantage or disadvantage to going to a small size ?

No advantage or disadvantage to short cranks.

Long cranks have no advantage, and sometimes have the disadvantage of causing knee problems.

See: sheldonbrown.comcranks.htmlOpen ↗

Sheldon "165-170 For My Long Legs" Brown

Dear D.P.G. and Sheldon,

Given the typical 170mm to 175mm difference in crank arms, lengths seem to be chosen mostly for shoe
clearance behind the front tire and perceived rider comfort.

There are, however, at least three points of difference of immense concern to anyone devoted to
pointless minutiae.

First, longer cranks increase wind drag slightly because there's 10mm more crank arm sticking up and
down in the breeze. While this is more than the penalty for untrimmed fingernails, it's less than
the penalty for wearing glasses, and about the same as sporting a wristwatch.

Second, longer cranks increase the weight of the drive train slightly, because there's about 10mm
more crank arm. This is worse than tassels on your cycling shoes, but not as bad as pedalling with
steel toe-caps. Call it about as evil as a pair of heavy socks?

Third, longer cranks effectively increase your gearing--your feet travel through a slightly greater
circle to turn the same front-and-rear gear combination. The ratio, charmingly, works out to 17.5 to
17, which in turn can be treated as the difference between a 52.5 tooth front sprocket versus a 51
tooth sprocket.

Sadly, neither chain ring is commonly available for testing--even Harris Cyclery refuses to stock
half-tooth sizes. So we're reduced to thinking of it as a little more than the difference between a
52 and a 53 tooth gear, but a little less than the difference between a 50 and 52 tooth gear.

Now I can sleep at night.

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

No advantage or disadvantage to short cranks.

Long cranks have no advantage, and sometimes have the disadvantage of causing knee problems.

Put me in the category of those who have felt significant differences when changing crank length.

I'm right at 6', and, like everybody who raced in the early-to-mid-70s, grew up on 170mm cranks.
Even the Gitane Tour de France that was way-too-big for me (but I had to have it because I like the
color) had 170mm cranks. My Criterium bike had 168mm (Sugino had weird crank lengths then) and never
felt quite right, but hard to say if it was the cranks.

Around 1995 or so I acquired my first bike with 172.5mm cranks, and noticed no big difference.
What's all the fuss about, I thought? But then in 1999 I first rode a bike with 175s, and absolutely
fell in love. For me, the difference was amazing... I felt *so* much better in the hills on 175s.
What I can't explain is why I felt no difference between 170 & 172.5s, but the equal-sized bump up
to 175s was wonderful.

My rain bike still has 170mm cranks, and yes, I can notice a significant difference (and much prefer
the longer cranks, but who's going to have a pair of 175mm Campy NR cranks lying around for an old
Cinelli???).

No knee problems with any crank length I've ever used; only time I had issues there dealt with a
too-aggressive cleat position (LOOK cleats too far forward). Moved 'em back and voila, no more
knee pain.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗

"Sheldon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A shy person. said:

Does anyone know what crank size is on a stock 5200 (Ultegra) I think it

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

175 mm. I don't have the bike here to measure myself.

With most better quality bikes, the crank length varies to some extent with the frame size, with
larger frames getting longer cranks.

Quoted message said:

Is there any advantage or disadvantage to going to a small size ?

No advantage or disadvantage to short cranks.

Long cranks have no advantage, and sometimes have the disadvantage of causing knee problems.

See: sheldonbrown.comcranks.htmlOpen ↗

Sheldon "165-170 For My Long Legs" Brown +----------------------------------------------------------------
+
| A moment's insight is sometimes worth a life's experience. | --Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton,
Massachusetts Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 harriscyclery.comharriscyclery.comOpen ↗ Hard-to-find parts
shipped Worldwide captainbike.comcaptainbike.comOpen ↗ sheldonbrown.comsheldonbrown.comOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

There are, however, at least three points of difference of immense concern to anyone devoted to
pointless minutiae.

First, longer cranks increase wind drag slightly because there's 10mm more crank arm sticking up
and down in the breeze. While this is more than the penalty for untrimmed fingernails, it's less
than the penalty for wearing glasses, and about the same as sporting a wristwatch.

I'm not sure this is true. At the downward part of the stroke, the pedal is in the same position
(relative to both ground and saddle) it would be, whether the crank is 165 or 175mm. For the shorter
crank, one would raise the seat slightly, and for a longer crank, it would be slightly lowered,
according to standard practices for determining seat height.

Since the downward crank arm is behind the leg, I'd think aerodynamic issues would be miniscule, if
existent. The upward crank arm is a more difficult one to fathom, as you're bringing the leg up
higher as well... it's possible that the less-compact form of the cyclist (greater distance between
the right & left knees) would have a far greater effect on aerodynamics than the cranks themselves.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗

D.P.G. said:

Does anyone know what crank size is on a stock 5200 (Ultegra) I think it is 175 mm. I don't have
the bike here to measure myself. Is there any advantage or disadvantage to going to a small size ?

I have a Trek 5200, size 58 cm, with 175 mm cranks, built in 2001.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

Per Elmsäter said:

D.P.G. said:

Does anyone know what crank size is on a stock 5200 (Ultegra) I think it is 175 mm. I don't
have the bike here to measure myself. Is there any advantage or disadvantage to going to a
small size ?

I have a Trek 5200, size 58 cm, with 175 mm cranks, built in 2001.

My '02 has the same.

Barry

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

No advantage or disadvantage to short cranks.

Long cranks have no advantage, and sometimes have the disadvantage of causing knee problems.

Put me in the category of those who have felt significant differences when changing crank length.

I'm right at 6', and, like everybody who raced in the early-to-mid-70s, grew up on 170mm cranks.
Even the Gitane Tour de France that was way-too-big for me (but I had to have it because I like
the color) had 170mm cranks. My Criterium bike had 168mm (Sugino had weird crank lengths then) and
never felt quite right, but hard to say if it was the cranks.

Around 1995 or so I acquired my first bike with 172.5mm cranks, and noticed no big difference.
What's all the fuss about, I thought? But then in 1999 I first rode a bike with 175s, and
absolutely fell in love. For me, the difference was amazing... I felt *so* much better in the
hills on 175s. What I can't explain is why I felt no difference between 170 & 172.5s, but the equal-
sized bump up to 175s was wonderful.

My rain bike still has 170mm cranks, and yes, I can notice a significant difference (and much
prefer the longer cranks, but who's going to have a pair of 175mm Campy NR cranks lying around for
an old Cinelli???).

Years ago I never paid any attention to crank length. I don't even remember what I was riding way
back when -- probably 170mm or even 165mm, because that's what bikes came with. But when I started
riding MTBs in the late 80s they all had longer cranks -- 175mm -- and instantly I knew that was
right for me. Now I won't ride anything else. I'm 6'0", BTW.

But this is definately a matter of personal preference, as is gearing and cadence. I can't
imagine getting huffy about someone else's crank length, when on many rides people's cadence
varies by 50% or more.

Matt O.

[email hidden] (Carl Fogel) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Third, longer cranks effectively increase your gearing--your feet travel through a slightly
greater circle to turn the same front-and-rear gear combination.

They therefore decrease your gearing. A longer crank is equivalent to a lower gear. Longer lever =
less effort = greater distance travelled by the foot to advance the bicycle a given distance.

--
Dave...

D.P.G. said:

Does anyone know what crank size is on a stock 5200 (Ultegra) I think it is 175 mm. I don't have
the bike here to measure myself. Is there any advantage or disadvantage to going to a small size ?

My 54cm Trek 5200 from 2001 (or was it a 2000 model?) came with stock 172.5 mm Ultegra crank arms.

--Noel

[email hidden] (Dave Kahn) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Carl Fogel) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Third, longer cranks effectively increase your gearing--your feet travel through a slightly
greater circle to turn the same front-and-rear gear combination.

They therefore decrease your gearing. A longer crank is equivalent to a lower gear. Longer lever =
less effort = greater distance travelled by the foot to advance the bicycle a given distance.

Dear Dave,

I suspect that we're using completely opposed terms for the same meaning. I also suspect that my
term is not likely to be favored.

Coming from a motorcyling background, I tend to think of a lower gear as increasing the gear ratio
as commonly expressed for low-speed machines--a typical off-road motorcycle has something like a 20
to 1 low-gear ratio, meaning that crankshaft spins 20 times (connected by the internal gearing plus
the external countershaft sprocket) for a single spin of the rear wheel.

For much lower-speed trials machines, 30 to 1, 34 to 1, and even 38 to 1 were common gearing ratios.
Obviously, such ratios are impossible with ordinary bicycle sprockets, which rarely reach 1 to 1 (28
front to 28 rear, to hazard an example) and would have to go to 14 front to 28 rear to reach 2 to 1.

In any case, despite my strange terminology, I think that we agree that longer cranks make it easier
to go up a steep hill and effectively head toward what the mountain bike riders call granny gears.

Carl Fogel

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are, however, at least three points of difference of immense concern to anyone devoted to
pointless minutiae.

First, longer cranks increase wind drag slightly because there's 10mm more crank arm sticking up
and down in the breeze. While this is more than the penalty for untrimmed fingernails, it's less
than the penalty for wearing glasses, and about the same as sporting a wristwatch.

I'm not sure this is true. At the downward part of the stroke, the pedal is in the same position
(relative to both ground and saddle) it would be, whether the crank is 165 or 175mm. For the
shorter crank, one would raise the seat slightly, and for a longer crank, it would be slightly
lowered, according to standard practices for determining seat height.

Since the downward crank arm is behind the leg, I'd think aerodynamic issues would be miniscule,
if existent. The upward crank arm is a more difficult one to fathom, as you're bringing the leg up
higher as well... it's possible that the less-compact form of the cyclist (greater distance
between the right & left knees) would have a far greater effect on aerodynamics than the cranks
themselves.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗

Dear Mike,

I doubt that I'm following you.

Straight up and down, a longer crank increases its frontal area, regardless how high or low it's
mounted--it's a bigger impeller blade. Both cranks increase 5mm in length when you go from a 170mm
to a 175mm.

The frontal area of the rider's legs, on the other hand, does not increase--while one leg extends
5mm further toward the ground, the other leg retracts exactly as much.

The cranks are always in front of the part of the legs on the same level, not behind the legs,
aren't they? That is, your leg is offset to the rear of the pedal by most of the length of
your foot.

Actually, the crank is more to the side of the rider's foot, ankle, and lower leg--the cranks are
never obscured by the legs when viewed from the front.

Frankly, I suspect that the feet are what affect any turbulence around the crank. After all, 175mm
is only about 7 inches, about cuff level on long cycling tights.

Hardly any part of your leg is next to the crank on the lower half of the pedal cycle and none of
your leg is next to the crank on the upper half of the cycle.

I'm puzzled by how any normal seating position affects this. While I gather that seat height is a
matter of exciting controversy, I naively expect that most riders want to keep the same distance
between the pedal at the bottom of the cycle to their seat to preseve the comfortable extension of
their hind legs.

To keep things in perspective, my cranks are about 14mm thick when viewed from the front. On my
screen, here's the actual extra frontal area increase from 170mm to 175mm, at 5mm x 14mm

......
||||||

......
||||||

And here's my chunky wristwatch at 14mm x 50mm:

.----------------.
/__________________\

In any case, let me know if I misunderstood your point.

Thanks,

Carl Fogel

Noel Llopis said:

D.P.G. said:

Does anyone know what crank size is on a stock 5200 (Ultegra) I think it is 175 mm. I don't
have the bike here to measure myself. Is there any advantage or disadvantage to going to a
small size ?

My 54cm Trek 5200 from 2001 (or was it a 2000 model?) came with stock 172.5 mm Ultegra crank arms.

Same on my 54cm 5200 from 2003.

--
Alan Hoyle - [email hidden] - alanhoyle.comalanhoyle.comOpen ↗ "I don't want the world, I just want your
half." -TMBG Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.

Carl:

Quoted message said:

The cranks are always in front of the part of the legs on the same level, not behind the legs,
aren't they? That is, your leg is offset to the rear of the pedal by most of the length of
your foot.

It's true that the leg is to the side, not in front of, the crank, so in that regard I goofed. And
it wasn't even one of my late-night posts either!

I was thinking that any change in aerodynamics was more likely caused by changes in leg positioning
caused by the longer or shorter arms, but I'm not certain how that would actually play out. At the
bottom of the stroke, a 165 & 175mm crank would position the body similarly, while at the top of the
stroke, the 175mm crank would place the leg higher-up towards the chest than would the 165mm.
There's also the issue that the legs are describing a larger circle with longer cranks, and this
would mean that more air is being pushed. But does it matter whether it's the leading or trailing
part of the stroke? If all wind were coming from the side of the bike, then you've got a situation
not unlike a fan or propeller, but it's coming from the front.

I doubt it makes much difference at all, but I wonder if Cobb (in Lousiana) has looked into it?
After all, if we're going to try and dress up a crank arm spider to be as aero as possible, and it's
much smaller than a rotating leg...

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗

"Carl Fogel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are, however, at least three points of difference of immense concern to anyone devoted
to pointless minutiae.

First, longer cranks increase wind drag slightly because there's 10mm more crank arm sticking
up and down in the breeze. While this is more than the penalty for untrimmed fingernails, it's
less than the penalty for wearing glasses, and about the same as sporting a wristwatch.

I'm not sure this is true. At the downward part of the stroke, the

pedal is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the same position (relative to both ground and saddle) it would be, whether the crank is 165
or 175mm. For the shorter crank, one would

raise

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the seat slightly, and for a longer crank, it would be slightly lowered, according to standard
practices for determining seat height.

Since the downward crank arm is behind the leg, I'd think aerodynamic

issues

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would be miniscule, if existent. The upward crank arm is a more

difficult

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one to fathom, as you're bringing the leg up higher as well... it's

possible

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that the less-compact form of the cyclist (greater distance between the right & left knees)
would have a far greater effect on aerodynamics than

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cranks themselves.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗

Dear Mike,

I doubt that I'm following you.

Straight up and down, a longer crank increases its frontal area, regardless how high or low it's
mounted--it's a bigger impeller blade. Both cranks increase 5mm in length when you go from a 170mm
to a 175mm.

The frontal area of the rider's legs, on the other hand, does not increase--while one leg extends
5mm further toward the ground, the other leg retracts exactly as much.

The cranks are always in front of the part of the legs on the same level, not behind the legs,
aren't they? That is, your leg is offset to the rear of the pedal by most of the length of
your foot.

Actually, the crank is more to the side of the rider's foot, ankle, and lower leg--the cranks are
never obscured by the legs when viewed from the front.

Frankly, I suspect that the feet are what affect any turbulence around the crank. After all, 175mm
is only about 7 inches, about cuff level on long cycling tights.

Hardly any part of your leg is next to the crank on the lower half of the pedal cycle and none of
your leg is next to the crank on the upper half of the cycle.

I'm puzzled by how any normal seating position affects this. While I gather that seat height is a
matter of exciting controversy, I naively expect that most riders want to keep the same distance
between the pedal at the bottom of the cycle to their seat to preseve the comfortable extension of
their hind legs.

To keep things in perspective, my cranks are about 14mm thick when viewed from the front. On my
screen, here's the actual extra frontal area increase from 170mm to 175mm, at 5mm x 14mm

......
||||||

......
||||||

And here's my chunky wristwatch at 14mm x 50mm:

.----------------.
/__________________\

In any case, let me know if I misunderstood your point.

Thanks,

Carl Fogel