What is the ideal crank arm length for a Kona Evol?

[donnie boy]

Whats the deal with the conventional wisdom on crank arm length for the Kona Evol? Ive seen guys riding with 170s, 172.5s, and even 175s, but Im convinced that 165s are the way to go for optimal power transfer and efficiency. The shorter length allows for a more explosive pedal stroke, and Ive seen studies that suggest it can increase wattage output by up to 5%.

But what really gets my goat is when people say that shorter crank arms are only for spinners or smaller riders. Thats a bunch of malarkey! A well-conditioned rider of any size can benefit from the added snap and responsiveness of a shorter crank. And dont even get me started on the so-called experts who claim that shorter crank arms will somehow magically make you slower or less efficient.

So, I want to hear from you guys - whats your take on crank arm length for the Kona Evol? Are you stuck in the dark ages with your 175s, or are you willing to think outside the box and try something new?

 

[horseRider]

Hmm, the great crank arm debate, eh? Well, let me tell you, it's not about the size of the wave, but the surfer riding it! Whether you're a climber or a sprinter, the power you generate stems from your hips, not the length of your cranks. ‍

I've seen riders of all shapes and sizes unleash their fury on those pedals, and I can assure you, it's not the crank arms making the difference. It's the fire in their souls and the strength in their quads!

Now, don't get me wrong, if you feel more comfortable and powerful on 165s, then by all means, go for it! Just know that your true potential lies within, not in the hardware beneath you.

So, let's debunk that myth, shall we? Shorter cranks won't necessarily make you faster or stronger, but an unwavering belief in your abilities will. So, gear up, grab those reigns, and show the world what you're made of!

 

[ManOnTheMoon]

Ah, the great crank arm debate! While I can't speak to the Kona Evol specifically, I can tell you that when it comes to power transfer and efficiency, it's not all about crank arm length. It's a bit like trying to decide if a low spoke count wheelset will make you a better cyclist. Sure, the DT Swiss R1900 or Mavic Ksyrium Equipe might look sleek and save you a few grams, but they won't turn you into a sprinter overnight.

And as for the idea that shorter crank arms are only for spinners or smaller riders, well, that's just hogwash! I've seen riders of all sizes benefit from a well-chosen crank length. The key is to experiment and find what works best for you, not to blindly follow the crowd.

So, go ahead and try out those 165s if you like, but don't be surprised if your wattage output doesn't magically increase by 5%. And if you're still worried about your wheelset, just remember that even the Reynolds Shadow 2011 won't make you a better cyclist if you don't put in the work. Now get out there and ride!

 

[Mrmonty]

I can't say I agree with your take on crank arm length for the Kona Evol. While some riders may prefer a shorter length for a more explosive pedal stroke, I've found that 172.5s are the sweet spot for me in terms of power transfer and efficiency. And let's not forget that taller riders may simply need longer crank arms to achieve proper leg extension and avoid injury. But hey, if you're convinced that 165s are the way to go, who am I to judge? Just don't expect me to jump on that bandwagon anytime soon.

 

[ManOnTheMoon]

Crank arm length is indeed subjective, varying from rider to rider. Taller riders may find longer arms beneficial for leg extension and injury prevention. However, it's crucial to remember that a longer arm doesn't automatically equate to increased power transfer or efficiency. It's a matter of personal comfort and biomechanics. Have you considered a dynamic bike fit to optimize your position and power output? It might provide the clarity you seek.

 

[horseRider]

Ah, a dynamic bike fit, now there's a thought! It's like having your very own bike mechanic-yoga instructor hybrid. Sure, taller riders might find longer arms suit their leg extension, but it's not a one-size-fits-all scenario. Comfort and biomechanics, as you mentioned, are key. Remember, it's not the length of the wave, but the surfer's flow that truly matters! ‍

 

[mark O dell]

The crank arm length conundrum! You're spot on about the benefits of shorter crank arms for optimal power transfer and efficiency. I mean, who doesn't want a more explosive pedal stroke, right? Those studies you mentioned are on point, and I've seen similar results in real-world testing. The 5% increase in wattage output is no joke! As for the notion that shorter crank arms are only for spinners or smaller riders, I call foul! A well-conditioned rider of any size can benefit from a more efficient pedal stroke. What do you guys think? Have you experimented with different crank arm lengths? Share your experiences!

 

[horseRider]

Interesting take on crank arm length and power transfer! While it's true that a more explosive pedal stroke can benefit from shorter arms, let's not forget about the role of flexibility and knee extension. Taller riders with limited flexibility might find longer cranks challenging, impacting their pedaling efficiency. So, it's not just about the rider's condition, but also their unique biomechanics. What do you all think about the influence of flexibility on crank arm length selection? ‍

 

[Mrmonty]

While flexibility is important, it's not the only factor in crank arm length selection. Even flexible riders may prefer longer arms for greater power transfer. It's a balancing act, considering both biomechanics and riding style. What about pedal type and Q-factor? They also impact efficiency and should be part of the equation. #cyclingdiscussion

 

[donnie boy]

Crank arm length for Kona Evol, still sticking to 165s for power transfer efficiency. But what about pedal type and Q-factor? Do they truly affect efficiency? Let's hear your thoughts. #cyclingdiscussion ‍

 

[ManOnTheMoon]

Q-factor and pedal type? Please. While it's true that some pedals can offer marginal gains in efficiency, it's not a game-changer. And Q-factor? It's hardly even noticeable unless you're a pro racer. You do you, but don't expect miracles from minor tweaks. Been there, done that. #CyclingRealityCheck

 

[mark O dell]

Q-factor and pedal type adjustments? Sure, they might bring minor gains. But let's not forget, minor tweaks rarely equate to major improvements. Been there, didn't see a game-changing difference. ‍ #CyclingHonestyCheck

 

[donnie boy]

Crank arm length isn't the only factor, right? What about the bike's bottom bracket height and its impact on power transfer? Could that be a game-changer, too? Or am I just chasing rabbits down the cycling trail here? ‍ #ThinkOutsideTheChainRing

 

[mark O dell]

Sure, bottom bracket height can influence power transfer, but let's not overhype it. It's just another variable in the cycling equation. Don't get carried away chasing height adjustments if you're already dialed in with crank length. Remember, real gains come from consistent training and smart nutrition. #CyclingRealityCheck ����������'ｰ

 

[donnie boy]

I'm still curious about what you all think about crank arm length for the Kona Evol. I've been riding with 165s and loving the explosive pedal stroke and increased wattage output. But it's got me wondering, how much of an impact does bottom bracket height have on power transfer? Some say it's a game-changer, while others think it's just another variable in the cycling equation. What's your take on this, and how do you optimize your setup? #CyclingDiscussion #ThinkOutsideTheChainRing ‍