@@Hermod_Hermit those two instances certainly make sense, but I'm thinking more of with a dropper. Will the shape of this saddle ever interfere with the rider standing, manipulating body position over the bike as much as you do in trail/enduro type riding.
I've ridden a variety of crank lengths in 56 years of cycling - 165s, 170s, 172.5s, 170 on one side and 175 on the other (long story) - and have never noticed any significant difference. I switched from 172.5s to 165s about 12 years ago in hopes that it would help with some knee problems. It didn't, but I've stuck with the 165s because there was no reason to change again. By the way, what eventually did make my knees better was strength training, specifically squats and deadlifts.
Agreed. Did the same thing and after the initial adjustment period there was no difference. After switching back to 172.5 I actually like them better than shorter.
As someone who voids their bike's warranty just by sitting on it, I really appreciate the point about soft tissue opposition. It's something I rarely see a lot of discussion about on these sort of bike fit videos, but it's really helpful when it's included, even when it's not the main point of the video.
I've found the best idea is to buy used, rather than chase very, very minor design differences and paint jobs. With the cash you save, changing parts is less painful and you get what you really want rather than what you're given.
30 years ago when I was racing people rarely bought new bikes fully equipped. You'd choose a frame, then a groupset, wheels, pedals, and saddle, and have a mechanic assemble it for you, or yourself if you were able. So you had full control over every part that went on the bike
You and other channels discussed this quite a few times since 4 years ago. I'm surprised that bike manufacturers still don't use shorter crank arms for their 2XS and XS bikes. If any change, it's a very reluctant one. I'm 167 and use 160 for both road and e-gravel (which has aero bars too).
I bought a Trek hardtail mountain bike in 2019, one with supposedly women's-specific geometry. Guess what cranks they put on it? 175mm, regardless of frame size! Ridiculous. I'm only 5 ft 4 1/2 inches tall (so about 163 cm, right?), but because I didn't know any better for the first 4 years I wondered why I struggled to climb even in bike's granny gear, and why my knees were sore after long rides. Last fall I bought 155mm cranks and the mechanic who installed them at my LBS was impressed with how they felt when he test-rode it. He is much taller than I am and he said 175s are even too long for him. What is Trek thinking?!?
163cm here and use 160mm on the Road bike and 155mm on the Gravel (seat height 665mm). Even with 160mm cranks I still get toe-overlap with 700c wheels as I have a more mid-foot cleat position. Thank goodness I have 650b wheels on the gravel bike!
@@phil_d going up a frame size and down in stem length fixes toe overlap. Long stems only exist because pros wanted short bikes to get closer to their wheel
I use 160mm cranks and I'm thinking about going to 155's or even 150's. Going from 170's to 160's made a huge difference in comfort. I have hip impingement and going to shorter cranks really helps, as was said in this video. Another thing that has really helped is using Favero Assioma Dui Shi power meter pedals with a wider q-factor, and also using pedal extenders when I'm not using those pedals. Pushing out the foot stance wider means much better knee tracking and much less stress on the knees when you have hip impingement. I want to add that hip impingement is often just how your hips are built -- there's no flexibility training you can do to improve it, for many of us.
Going from 172.5 to 165s changed my riding life. I actually did it on a whim after watching a few Neil videos. Turned out my a-symmetry and right lower backcpain was caused by a very stiff left hip. The pain literally went over night.
I am exactly suffering from the lower back pain ! been having it for almost two years. Did Physio, Chiro and joined the gym to strength training.. it helped a bit but the problem was never eliminated.. recently someone who saw me at the local track suggested that I change to 165 or 160mm crank length.. I always wanted to try it but kept pushing.. reading your message here gives me renewed hope ! and I will start looking at local options to try this ! Thank you man ! I really appreciate you..
I have the same problem,lower back Pain when i do thershold training.i am 185 cm tall and have a 175mm crank on bike.think i buy the 170mm or 165mm for MTB
@abedfo88 I'm so curious about this. I have had lower right side back pain for YEARS. I've gotten multiple fittings, done strengthening, checked my form and it still persists. Did you not know your left hip was tight before you switched? Or the 165 nicely compensate for the tight hip so it didn't affect your back anymore? I'm heavily considering switching to 165 (I currently have 175; 170 on my previous bike) bc I think it would relieve my back pain. Not exactly sure what's causing it but willing to try bc the pain is so obnoxious and drains my energy while riding.
@aoguchi it turned out that my left hip has like zero internal rotation and was very tight. I'm working on hip flexibility. I still get right side pain but it's more in my glute which is much more manageable !
I've moved from 160 to a 140 crank and have loved it. Being 5'7 with a short inseam, I have loved the feeling of the cranks. Everything feels so much better.
I forget my exact measurements but 28" (71-72cm) inseam on pants is gernally slightly too long. When I did the stick between the legs and measure, it said I should get 145mm cranks. I rounded down. @@czts4778
I had hip impingement and was having hip pain with 175mm crankarms on my mountain bike. I got 165s and the pain is completely gone. I'm also more of a cardiovascular rider and like to spin higher cadences, so its a win-win for me.
Croder makes 140mm cranks that are designed around a 24mm shimano style spindle. Got a set for my 9 year old daughter’s 1st road bike, fits BB386Evo with spindle adapters.
@@johnnyf5743510mm, still has some growing to do before she fully fits it but in any case it’s ready for her and until then she has fun shifting through gears on the trainer. 2018 43cm Felt VR5W.
I love shorter cranks. I switched from 175mm to 170mm for this year road season and Iam 6foot4 and they are amazing for me. For solo breakaways in road race they are amazing. I can ride in fully aero position on a road bike for hours and hours witch has masive aero benefits for me. Thanks for amazing video as always, guys. PS: love "eaglebeak" saddle :)
Did the same a few years ago and I just feel much faster with 170. I don't know if I am really faster, but the psychology probably does lead to some performance improvements!
@@faustinoeldelbarrio8967 Sorry - just seeing this. I decided to go to 170mm as I was concerned that 165mm could be too aggressive of a change. So far though, I am very satisfied with the change and feel like I can more easily peddle faster, which for me was my primary goal.
Purely from mechanical perspective, the produced power (P) is equal to torque (M) multiplied by angular speed (ω): P = M * ω = F * l * ω where "l" is lever length. Now, lever length is not exactly equal to your crank length, but it is very much proportional to it. So, if you go for shorter cranks (l decreases), to produce the same power, you either need to push the pedals harder (increase F) or spin faster (increase ω).
Either way you are still producing the same power, you're not getting any more watts for free by increasing the cadence or cranks. The more important aspect is what is more efficient for the body, which is a much more complex equation.
@@ryanm968 we know that lower cadence/higher torque for most people means faster muscle fatigue. So for a purely endurance event shorter cranks at higher cadences are probably better. For short events, like most track races, especially those with a standing start, the ability to produce more torque at low rpm is probably preferred.
You have to push harder or spin faster (if you’re in the same gear I would say). The one thing that no one has explained yet was changing chainrings (and cassette) in spite of shorter cranks. I plan on going shorter and I am going to need a larger climbing cassette and quite possibly go compact chain rings at the same time to ensure I am not under leveraged. In Bmx, single speed, if we go shorter, we simply make the gear change easier.
I tried going from 175 to 170, didn't work for me. I simply didn't enjoy riding with shorter cranks. I'm glad I tried it to put the question to rest for myself. I imagine for some people it would be a game changer though because the difference was surprisingly vast.
@@0nkelfarmor I would say generally most days I would ride at a high cadence. It really just depends on how I’m feeling, sometimes I love to grind. My number one priority is comfort, above all!
I’m a big rider at 6 foot 230lbs and moved to 170 cranks and felt an amazing improvement. Currently building a gravel bike with 167.5 cranks and looking forward to it.
I think you missed one very important category and it's not just riders on the tall or short extreme, it's the balance between leg length / inseam and your overall height. More like the distribution between your top and lower half. For instance, I am 5'9, 185 lbs, quite lean, no gut but my cycling inseam is 34.25 inches, very short torso, and huge femurs. Hip mobility is great, I can squat to the floor w/ flat feet and be totally comfortable but this is because my knees go way outside my torso. See Squat University's videos on squat stance for different physiology. This is exactly the same for cycling. Long or normal cranks mean my knees will be hitting me chest at a normal saddle height (I'm at 740). 165s were a drastic improvement from 175 and 170s but was still having issues w/ low back and hip flexor pain. Funny enough, this morning I just installed 160s on my bike, it feels INFINITELY better. I immediately was able to raise my saddle 10mm more, I feel way more stable, it's insane how much better it feels. Wish I woulda done it a few years ago.
I'll need more time on the 160s to tell. My understanding of the science on shorter cranks is efficiency and power output is not changed until you really get to extremes. The power curve just changes slightly, so you might lose a smidge of max power in a trade off for slightly lower power for longer. In my opinion, it's all about comfort. I'll trade anything to feel better on the bike, to ride more comfortably, for longer, train more etc. Also, opening my hip angle allows me to ride more aero so even if there was any power trade offs, they would be far outweighed by aerodynamic advantage.@@myxti3669
I am 69 yrs. Most all of the bikes I've had all came with 175s. At 5' 11, 174 lbs, inseam of 33, right leg shorter by about 3/8s of an inch, I am leaning towards the 167.5. Have a new gravel bike based on what they call 56cm, bt it sure is hard to myself comfortable on this thing. Seat forward, back, up, down, cleats in, out forward and back. What I've deduced is setting seat height from the crank at bottom of stroke times the 1.09% method and have finally cme up with something getting closer. Cleats near as far forward as possible, seat forward past center. Almost have it dialed. This is with an extra shim on the right cleat. (1) 2mm shim on each pedal which changes the "Q" factor and cleats all the way inboard as well. I'm bull legged. Which now brings me back to the shorter crank lengths. I a sure my flexibility is considerably less that it was 15 years ago so now onto maybe what will help. I do all of my own fitting. Change things until there isn't any discomfort and move on.
Persuasive stuff. This guy gives every impression of knowing what he's talking about, providing evidence for each point he makes. I was surprised though that shorter cranks take longer to wind up as I would have thought the opposite.
Anatomy refers to the internal and external structures of the body and their physical relationships, whereas physiology refers to the study of the functions of those structures your amazing knowledge of our anatomy and our physiology and how these interact with each other Neill your a one off and that's for sure i never met anyone with greater insight than you have in this area and how you make corrections for our shortcomings WOW.Thank you loved the video Sir.
if anyonre don't have physical limitations, than the most correct way to choose the cranks length is according to length of the legs. but not only inseam matters. it is important to take in account the ratio of hip and shim. if hip longer than shim it better proceed with longer cranks. if shim longer than hip it is better to choose shorter cranks. the ratio of hip to shim crucially influence on cranks length
I agree, im worried that this ‘whole hip impingement thing’ is getting overused. You suggest a recipe for upper leg versus lower leg. Any link to the recipe you mention?
0100 here in Spain. The missus upstairs probably waiting for me to come up for a jangle........she can wait. Stanbury just dropped new content. Kettle on the boil. Im opening the good biscuits. What a time to be alive.
I also have hernia’s L2-L3 L4-L5 I am 185cm tall and have 175mm crank and when riding my bike the backpain is getting worse.howe tall ar you?maybe i get the 170 mm or 165mm crank
I’ve been experimenting with 145s, down from 170 and I’m seeing tons of benefits and no downside (apart from a frame with a bottom bracket that’s not at the optimum height).
What I find amazing is how bad the LBS is at fitting a bike to someone. They sell someone a bike that is clearly not fit properly to the rider. The rider has a few rides and stops due to poor fit. You could spend 3K on a poorly fit bike and then only ride a few times then ditch it. I think anyone who is serious about riding should be fit BEFORE buying a bike. Go to a real fitter. Get set up on a fit bike. Get all these parameters down first, then get the bike that fits you properly. It will save you thousands of dollars, a whole bunch of pain, and you will be much happier! This guy is phenomenal!
Exactly. Almost all customers I've come across never had a preliminary bike fit on a fit bike, they just pick a bike based on what they lust over. There was one time I had a customer asking if I could switch his new bike's cockpit to a one-piece counterpart, but the thing is, he's completely new to this bike and has never had a bike fit on a fit bike based on its geometry, so I had to decline the request (and also explain why) since I don't yet know what cockpit dimensions suit him.
I welded my pedals onto my bb. Definitely increased my cornering clearance ability. Seat height is a lot lower which takes pressure off the saddle region and allows for a more aero set up IME.
My sit height is 64cm and i’ve benefited from using 155 crank length. I’ve tried both road (straight arm) & mtb (bent arm) 160 crank length and still prefer 155 road crank. I’m this calculation as gauge: a) 163(height) x 0.95 = 154.85 b) 1.25 x 72(inseam) + 65 = 90 + 65 = 155
Long time rider of 175 in my mtb, until a few years back when I switched to 165. All movements became easier and less knee pain post ride. When I got my gravel it came with a 170. It works yes, but after switching to 165, it felt better.
I have an 98cm inseam, total height of 191cm. I was on 185mm cranks, 180s, 175s, 170s, 172,5s and recently on 177,5mm cranks. I was constantly fidling with my position, especially seat height. Now I thought, I might just give it a try and install 165s. They feel way more comfortable when riding. As if the whole fit is more "relaxed". No more fidling. Let's see how it will turn out in the long term.
Another bonus that comes up less - I switched to 165mm on the road for less hip impingement/better ergonomics. I then switched to 165mm of road and it’s been a revelation. I don’t feel like I have less torque and I have almost no pedal strikes now, all while keep my crank length constant across my bikes now. It has turned out to be a win/win/win situation (ergonomics/consistency/fewer pedal strikes).
@@franciscopizarroi When you switch to shorter cranksets, you do have to raise your saddle by the difference in crankarm length between the old and new setup (ex. 5 mm difference, raise by 5 mm). Saddle fore & aft needs no further adjustment.
I went from 175 to 165 on my mtb and all the reasons were correct...hip issues disappeared completely...my sports physician couldn't fix it but my bike fitter did
165s are the bomb! And I’m average height. I went from 172.5mm and tried 165s because I had some old cranks from a vintage bike project I had lying around. Wow! I noticed a 3 watt increase in power on a long climb I do on occasion. Maybe it was placebo. I don’t know. We might be onto something with these short cranks. Maybe we can even go shorter and get more power!
I have a 35” inseam and known labral tears of hips and had increased pain L hip due to impingement. Saw orthopedic doctor. Said it was arthritis, live with it, and get a hip replacement when unbearable. I went from 175mm to 170mm crank. Pain gone in a week.
Running 160mm cranks. Im 5' 9" , but I have very short legs, long torso and arms. Was a huge improvement since saddle height has always been a problem to get enough drop to bars.
👍 Because I'm old, my height today is 166 cm..😁 I've always ridden with 172.5 mm cranks.. I've sometimes tried shorter ones but they feel so strange.. besides, quality carbon fiber shorter cranks cost an awful lot.. More videos could be made for undersized people (under 165 cm 😁), adjusting the bike.
totally agree on last talking point, sudden big watts normal sized cranks. road & CX bike im on 175 or MTB 170 but thats for ground clearance. example going from 172.5 > 175 gave me around 80watts on my max power. other personal point, easy climbing out the saddle say low tempo watts 75/80rpm i find the 175 feels more natural and inline with my running cadence when im training uphill repeats. but i do train bike and running to have that synergy.
I'm surprised that none of the videos about shorter cranks makes any explicit mention of the reduction in leverage they give, although this was hinted at in this one at the end of this one. Going from a 172.5 to a 165 crank is about a 4.5% reduction in applied torque for the same force. and as power = torque*angular velocity, this means less power for the same cadence. Has anyone looked into whether there is any advantage in changing the chain ring tooth count with shorter cranks to compensate for the loss of leverage? You could compensate for the estimated reduction in torque by having 2 fewer teeth on the chain ring.
My first road bike came with 175mm cranks on a 52cm bike. I’m 5’7”. My next bike was a Tri bike that came with 172.5mm and I could tell the difference and I liked it. About 4 years ago made the switch to 170mm and then a year ago 165mm and love that size. Now I just need a smaller bike. lol.
I'm 6'2 with really long femurs running 175mm cranks. But also I tend to spin high cadence 95+ for threshold and definitely a more aerobic kind of rider. So a bit conflicted maybe I'll try 170mm cranks some day.
6'1(185cm) here and also long femur. I have 35'' inseam (89cm) and short feet for my height 10 1/2 US (44EU). Long legs, short torso. I need a lot of saddle setback so my saddle tends to be lower than the average for my inseam. Also because my tibias are shorter thant my femurs and my feet are not that long for my height, a 175mm crank feel way off. I feel like I'm pedaling a giant bicycle. I immediatly felt the difference it when I switched to 172.5mm but it is still too long. I think that crank length really depends on the way it feels rather than measurements.
I have some hip flexor impingement , which resulted in a recent bike fit dropping the crank length from 172.5 to 165 . The improvement felt from this adjustment and other tweaks was pretty immediate. However, the major impediment to moving to this set-up is now actually getting 165 mm cranks that are compatible with the various BB set-ups. Here in Melbourne and most likely across Australia currently acquiring cranks or crank-sets of this length is near impossible. Perhaps the shorter cranks and their benefits is an aspect now being picked up by bike fitters across the sector and hence this dearth in being able to acquire these length of cranks . The fact you can't get them is obviously relieving riders' discomfort, as you can't get out and ride
Road 170s for a long time, but not until I went to 175s did I gain the power I never had before. I am 6 foot with a 32 inch inseam. Any power training (90rpm) would give me sore knees. Now even at 66 years old can still power train, time trial / long mountain climbs, today with 175's. The hip flex test you mentioned: I am very poor in flexibility, something I have always known, especially hamstring flex, very poor.
I’m on 155 crank arm since I’m not a tall guy. It definitely helps during long-distance, and I just need to train more on cardio; when speed is required, crank up the cadence before shifting to a smaller cog.
I fit both the first two points on this list: Poor hip mobility and almost no internal hip rotation. I have already widened my Q factor, which does help. I am going to see if I can find some 165s. Cheers.
Why shorten cranks? Is it simple? I do not think so.. According to physic the torque required to drive the bike working on the circle equals power * power radius length. So when crank length is shortened to get the same torque the power must be higher - power means your muscles in this case. It means you will have to reduce gearing when uphill - sometimes push the bike if torque you can generate is not enough. You can change front gears for smaller but in the result you will get less efficient and slower machine - you must work on higher cadence all the time. Yest you can ride like that but everybody has limited cadence value. Of course for someone who has short legs shorter crank is better but the reason is pedaling kinematics - range of work of knee and hip joints changes a lot. so finding the optimal crank length depends from individual rider features.
The main disadvantage is that you have to raise your saddle. So you have to bend down more. I recently swapped from 175 to 172.5 and reached the limit of my neck flexibility by raising the saddle by 2.5 mm. Results: neck pain, tense shoulders, back pain, numb hands, numb feet, hurting bum. And a bit higher cadence overall, but at the expense of bad fitting gears (either too high or too low cadences for my taste and body). So back I am to 175. - Much better is losing some fat from the safety tire, especially the visceral fat. Hip flex gets easier, breathing is much improved, heart rate goes down. Lost 4 kg, heart rate down by 5 to 6 beats. (I’m 1.88cm/6"2', 100kg, saddle height 800 mm, more grinder than spinner - if all that’s of interest to anybody.)
I'm only 182cm (5'11") with short legs for my height, I love 175s on xc mtb. I've tried 170 many times but i feel my legs are too close together when I'm standing and pumping the bike through corners for example, and also when standing up to pedal hard - attacking a climb for example - longer cranks have more leverage so when you're using your whole body to pedal, longer is better. For road bike it's totally different as you're in the saddle and spinning more often. I love 172.5 on road and would probably be able to change to 170.
I have a stride length of 100cm and since I've been using 180mm cranks I've had significantly fewer problems with my knees - I think there's too much talk about short cyclists - or short-legged people - but from 90cm it gets really long and I'm only 190cm tall There are a lot of great people out there...
Long crank arms, push the lifting leg higher, the elasticity of muscles and tendons work against the lifting leg, making the pushing leg work harder. Less lift less work. Smaller circles, less work.
i have hip pain and lower back on one side,after 4 years riding with pain i found the problem= pelvic obliquity. i have low rpm because and can't bring my knee to my chest. max 45 degrees.iam 6,1 and go from 175 to 170mm crank and it was all haven.now try to go 165mm crank for mtb
Soft Tissue Opposition (STO) lol As an older rider (60 y/o) I certainly suffer from this condition. It amazes me on how the industry arives at a standard. Given this discussion I wonder if the standard set-up for the average rider should be with 165's. I would venture to say the average rider would never think twice about having a shorter crank and would just ride it the way the bike shop sold it. However, they would have a much better physiological experience. Thanks for sharing Matt Hudson Valley, NY
When I did the knee bend test my left leg was aboout 30-40 degrees, but the muscle was tight and stopped me moving anymore. My right was better, without the muscle stiffness. I will try shorter cranks.
Thank you for all the useful information. The phrase 'a normals sized person between 5 foot 8 and 6 foot 2' made me chuckle though, when the average height of a woman in the UK is 5 foot 3.
Im 6'1". Always used 175 mtb 172.5 road. Replacing my road crankset with a 170, mainly because there wasnt a 172.5 option but now Im interested to see how it will feel.
I agree with all of your points, but there's information missing from all of these types of videos. One thing is the elimination of the dead spot. For you, if you can spin 120 rpm, you don't suffer from that. I was taught to pedal properly decades ago but could not do it. After about 20-30 hours on 153s 4 years ago for the first time I could pedal in a circle smoothly. Next is the rule not to pedal below 70 rpm because you will hurt your knees, and it's true for me on 165+. But I can pedal as hard as I want, for hours and hours, on the 153-, no pain. I would expect to reach exhaustion but I've done 5 hour rides (a lot for me) pushing hard all day and wasn't ruined. People talk about wattage, but never about the power curve/rpm, such as they do for motorcycles. 165+ for me was 70-90 rpm, max at about 80. On 153s, I can smash the cranks at 50 rpm and never shift until I get to 100 rpm. Your discussion about sprinting styles is very relevant here, so I have no idea if this works for anyone else. On the 140s the bottom of the powerband started closer to 60 rpm. I run 4-5 gears harder in all situations, have more endurance and went from the bottom 1/3 on Strava to the top 1/3. I've ridden 11 sizes from 190 to 130mm. I liked the 153 and the 140, so I chose 145. I'm 6'2" with hip limitations, which may be the cause of my results, but I've put several people of all heights on
I’m 167cm and recently started using 160mm cranks, down from 170mm. I definitely feel like I’m pedalling underneath myself. I didn’t notice much increase in cadence though
I’m pretty sure we have it all wrong and that riders with longer feet should actually ride shorter cranks. Sort of like saddle width, smaller riders normally go for 155mm and larger blokes tend to settle on a 145mm seat
Love your show and it has helped me a lot. Q: When I switch from 172.5 to 170mm crank I feel pain in my right hip flexor. I have adjusted the saddle height accordingly.
I am 166 and 77 cm in inseam. I've always used 170mm cranks. I don't compete, only recreational cycling At times of maximum effort my cadence is 100rpm, if I need power I increase rpm normally. Should I go to 160 or 165? I'm seeing feedback from 1.90m riders using 165 cranksets. According to this, for my height I should go to 150 I'm confused, I don't want to lose money buying hundreds of cranks Thanks
178cm(5'10'') here with long legs and long legs and flexible pelvis(so I sit high and reach far down), and I've gone to 160mm cranks to alleviate hip impingement. I actually had 155s early on, but then they got stuck to an old frame in a freak accident, and for some reason I didn't bother getting the aftermarket cranks again. Now I just need a new frame or fork, because my handlebars are too low(tolerable but not optimal) xD
So you're saying myself as a 60kg 5'7" bloke (seat height at ~675mm) with a tendency for riding at high cadence I should really be thinking about 165mm cranks rather than the 172.5mm (that came on the secondhand bike). My summer bike has 170mm cranks and i can't say I notice any difference.
I've seen other fitters discuss this exact scenario and they usually say they wouldn't bother with any change less than 5mm. Most people won't perceive any difference with 2.5mm and the change in hip angle and other potential benefits likely wouldn't be worth the cost and effort.
very insightfull vid! but I don't realy understand how you think a 'non-powerfull-high-leggspeed-rider' will have benifit from shorter cranks. I do thing it is actually the opposite. If you have good legspeed you won't have to much touble (neuromusculair) to ride high cadance with somewhat longer cranks (when no biomechanical limitations). the distance you foot is travling is longer than with shorter cranks so the speed you have to develope to ride the same cadance is higher with longer cranks. the benifit with the longer cranck is that you don't have to push that hard because you have greater lever. the opposite: going to shorter cranks you will have less biomechanical issues because you will have to develop less leg speed to accive the same RPM. but next to that you will have to create more force to create the same momentum with this shorter lever. this also might explain why you have trouble answering an acceleretion with you shirt cranck setup. hope you fount this note interesting! have a good day! vocsnor
Tried shorter cranks and had issues recovering post ride with more avg force on the pedals (at sub-optimal cadence I suppose). Went back to 175mm as I have long legs/short torso at 6’1” and reasonably good mobility.
I brought a bike which was on sale. I thought if I could stand over it, with my feet flat on the floor without the top tube touching my crotch or feel that my crotch was sat hard on the top tube, then I would buy the bike. It tucked the crotch test so I brought the bike. I'm a short guy at just 5 foot four with a 29 inch inside leg. My thighs are shorter than my knee to the bottom of my foot. Anyway I knew that I can increase the saddle height by adjusting the pole the saddle sits on. The handle bars were a little too long for me but I could always scoot forward on the saddle or move the saddle a bit towards the handlebars. Anyway after buying the bike I adapted to the longer reach OK. But half way through the ride I experience this shooting pain in front of my left knee to the point I could not peddle any further I said to my friend I can't go on. I could walk but not ride. He went home on his bike and he came back in his car and drove me and the bike home. Anyway I came across an article on you tube which talked about shorter cranks. I knew I had to bite the bullet and get me a set off new cranks. It was a pain looking for Trigra 4700 all the cranks of 165mm were not in stock. But I managed to find a set. Long story short. What a revelation. Money well spent and that meant my cheap domane 4 was not so cheap anymore
Forever hip problems here, hips at about 45 like you show. Looking into getting some 165mm cranks right now, might start with 105 set to try, think the Ultegra and Dura Ace older cranks are on recall..
I just laid flat on the ground to test out criteria #1. My thigh contacts my lower rib cage and stops there. At that point, my knee is quite a bit away from my chest (20 cm'ish). I look nothing like Neil who somehow is able to have his leg, from hip to knee, touching his chest. Have I failed the test?
I'm 170cm and I can't get use to the 165mm Crank. I try it for more than 8 months and moving back to 170 is like night and day. I'm a sprinter and those short crank really impact my jumping out ofbthe saddle and on climbs. I notice that on 165mm crank riding a 14 sprocket feels like a 13 on 170mm.
Thanks for talking about the other side of crank length(all bikes 172.5).... I've been thinking for a while about going to shorter and I may still go there(but maybe not 165 short), but as a B- .. C+ aging sprinter who only 'races' crits where do you change from relying on neuromuscular to endurance
A question for neill: Does shorter crank exaggerate bike fitting issues? My leg discrepancy is more obvious as my left quad always start to hurt more than the right one, especially in TT position.
Crank length change in 2 bikes for me this year. TT 165 from 170 (recently tried 155mm but didn’t like the loss of torque) & road bike 170 from 175mm. 6ft 1 inch, 73kgs reasonable mobility but I am aging….hit 42 later this year 😢
You can change gears and get the torque back... You lose horsepower which is the "over time" portion of the equation. Short cranks don't make your muscles weaker
@@Gk9311actually I don’t see any drawback as to why you shouldn’t go for especially if you’re on the lower end of the cadence schedule currently. I plan to do a couple of videos on my channel on both bikes that have made changes this year as also gone narrower on bars too following expert bike fitter advice
Very informative discussion thanks. Another comment alluded to taking into account the relative length of the upper and lower leg bones. I’d be really interested to hear whether that’s something to consider. Unless the ratio is very unusual, would that really be a factor in bike fitting?
I've got zero hip flection issues, but bringing the knee near or past 90° gives massive recovery pain in ligaments. Short cranks help but I need more help
I went from 175 to 170mm on all my bikes a few years ago and I can't say I have noticed any difference at all either way. I'm not a tall rider (5' 9") but certainly not considering another costly switch to 165mm as "the industry" seemingly discovers yet another new thing. Scroll down for the placebo effect statements
Adam Hansen - used 180mm cranks (max allowed?) at 1.86m/6'1" tall. Crazy handlebar drop/extension, and record for most consecutive Grand Tours. (I only bring this up for shits and giggles)
Seat goes down with longer cranks and up with shorter so that doesn't make it more. You are right he had crazy The seat drop and stem length and saddle-to-bar and a very forward biased position.
This topic gets me going all the time... pretty much every pro is on 172.5s even Pozzovivo at 5'4" is on 170s..... Everyone on this thread is going down to 160s and feeling great...wtf... Is this just a bunch of fat weekend warriors commenting🤷
I change from 170 to 172.5 and never ride with higher average speed og better in mountains. Im 170 cm and been riding for more than 50 years, so its different for each person
Leg proportion is also important. I have a 86cm inseam, saddle height 80.5, but I can't run cranks longer than 170mm because my femurs are quite short.
Not very many women are in your “average” height range of 5’8” to 6’. I read once that average height of women in Australia is 5’4”, same as here in North America.
that saddle really steals the show
They are also really, really good...
But so awful looking 😢
I'd like to see someone mention humoring using one of those for mtb purposes, whether it be xc or trail riding. Could it have any place there?
@@Emolokz got one on my road bike, one on my gravel.
@@Hermod_Hermit those two instances certainly make sense, but I'm thinking more of with a dropper. Will the shape of this saddle ever interfere with the rider standing, manipulating body position over the bike as much as you do in trail/enduro type riding.
I've ridden a variety of crank lengths in 56 years of cycling - 165s, 170s, 172.5s, 170 on one side and 175 on the other (long story) - and have never noticed any significant difference. I switched from 172.5s to 165s about 12 years ago in hopes that it would help with some knee problems. It didn't, but I've stuck with the 165s because there was no reason to change again. By the way, what eventually did make my knees better was strength training, specifically squats and deadlifts.
very decent and honest answer. thank u!
Maybe you need to try 160mm
弱者は，クランクのつっかかり，ひっかかりが，筋肉収縮痛をうみます．
あなたは，強者です．
Agreed. Did the same thing and after the initial adjustment period there was no difference. After switching back to 172.5 I actually like them better than shorter.
As someone who voids their bike's warranty just by sitting on it, I really appreciate the point about soft tissue opposition. It's something I rarely see a lot of discussion about on these sort of bike fit videos, but it's really helpful when it's included, even when it's not the main point of the video.
Agreed. Those moments of inclusivity are refreshing and, in this case, really helpful.
Fantastic overview! Shame it's so inconvenient and often expensive to change cranks. Should be able to choose when you purchase the bike.
I've found the best idea is to buy used, rather than chase very, very minor design differences and paint jobs.
With the cash you save, changing parts is less painful and you get what you really want rather than what you're given.
30 years ago when I was racing people rarely bought new bikes fully equipped. You'd choose a frame, then a groupset, wheels, pedals, and saddle, and have a mechanic assemble it for you, or yourself if you were able. So you had full control over every part that went on the bike
You and other channels discussed this quite a few times since 4 years ago. I'm surprised that bike manufacturers still don't use shorter crank arms for their 2XS and XS bikes. If any change, it's a very reluctant one. I'm 167 and use 160 for both road and e-gravel (which has aero bars too).
I bought a Trek hardtail mountain bike in 2019, one with supposedly women's-specific geometry. Guess what cranks they put on it? 175mm, regardless of frame size! Ridiculous. I'm only 5 ft 4 1/2 inches tall (so about 163 cm, right?), but because I didn't know any better for the first 4 years I wondered why I struggled to climb even in bike's granny gear, and why my knees were sore after long rides. Last fall I bought 155mm cranks and the mechanic who installed them at my LBS was impressed with how they felt when he test-rode it. He is much taller than I am and he said 175s are even too long for him. What is Trek thinking?!?
Money
163cm here and use 160mm on the Road bike and 155mm on the Gravel (seat height 665mm). Even with 160mm cranks I still get toe-overlap with 700c wheels as I have a more mid-foot cleat position. Thank goodness I have 650b wheels on the gravel bike!
@@phil_dwould you mind sharing which 155mm cranks you’re using please? It’s so difficult finding reasonably priced shorter cranks for gravel
@@phil_d going up a frame size and down in stem length fixes toe overlap. Long stems only exist because pros wanted short bikes to get closer to their wheel
He really did say..."if you're really short down below"
I admit I'm short down below so I compensate by using short cranks xD
The ability of this chap to explain complicated points very clearly is a real skill in itself. Video after video he conveys knowledge effortlessly.
I use 160mm cranks and I'm thinking about going to 155's or even 150's. Going from 170's to 160's made a huge difference in comfort. I have hip impingement and going to shorter cranks really helps, as was said in this video. Another thing that has really helped is using Favero Assioma Dui Shi power meter pedals with a wider q-factor, and also using pedal extenders when I'm not using those pedals. Pushing out the foot stance wider means much better knee tracking and much less stress on the knees when you have hip impingement. I want to add that hip impingement is often just how your hips are built -- there's no flexibility training you can do to improve it, for many of us.
Wonderful post! 👍🏻Agree fully
I run 140mm on some bikes its fantastic
@@sempi8159 where do you get 140mm cranks? I've never seen cranks that short.
@@northkyt those are Diy but you get some that even go down to 130mm. There is a company in Japan that makes them. Do you need the website?
@@sempi8159yes please !
Going from 172.5 to 165s changed my riding life. I actually did it on a whim after watching a few Neil videos. Turned out my a-symmetry and right lower backcpain was caused by a very stiff left hip. The pain literally went over night.
I am exactly suffering from the lower back pain ! been having it for almost two years. Did Physio, Chiro and joined the gym to strength training.. it helped a bit but the problem was never eliminated.. recently someone who saw me at the local track suggested that I change to 165 or 160mm crank length.. I always wanted to try it but kept pushing.. reading your message here gives me renewed hope ! and I will start looking at local options to try this ! Thank you man ! I really appreciate you..
@@s1lent51 I just got new crank arms from ali express! luckily my BBs and existing cranksets were compatible.
I have the same problem,lower back Pain when i do thershold training.i am 185 cm tall and have a 175mm crank on bike.think i buy the 170mm or 165mm for MTB
@abedfo88 I'm so curious about this. I have had lower right side back pain for YEARS. I've gotten multiple fittings, done strengthening, checked my form and it still persists. Did you not know your left hip was tight before you switched? Or the 165 nicely compensate for the tight hip so it didn't affect your back anymore? I'm heavily considering switching to 165 (I currently have 175; 170 on my previous bike) bc I think it would relieve my back pain. Not exactly sure what's causing it but willing to try bc the pain is so obnoxious and drains my energy while riding.
@aoguchi it turned out that my left hip has like zero internal rotation and was very tight. I'm working on hip flexibility. I still get right side pain but it's more in my glute which is much more manageable !
I've moved from 160 to a 140 crank and have loved it. Being 5'7 with a short inseam, I have loved the feeling of the cranks. Everything feels so much better.
Just curious what is the figure when you said short inseam. I have 75cm inseam and I'm not sure whether to get 165 or 160. Thanks
I forget my exact measurements but 28" (71-72cm) inseam on pants is gernally slightly too long. When I did the stick between the legs and measure, it said I should get 145mm cranks. I rounded down. @@czts4778
Guess that going to 150 or 155 should be enough dropping down to 140 is a lot.
You are still 5'7"
@@czts4778さん，迷わず160㍉．
155㍉1週間後に入荷．
股下は少し短い74歳の老人サイクリスト．
I had hip impingement and was having hip pain with 175mm crankarms on my mountain bike. I got 165s and the pain is completely gone. I'm also more of a cardiovascular rider and like to spin higher cadences, so its a win-win for me.
I have 175 mm crankarms and have lower back pain when i go mountainbiking.think go for 170mm or 165mm.i’am 185cm tall.howe tall ar you.
@@davychristiaens6421 I’m 5’7” or 170 cm
Croder makes 140mm cranks that are designed around a 24mm shimano style spindle. Got a set for my 9 year old daughter’s 1st road bike, fits BB386Evo with spindle adapters.
What is her saddle height?
@@johnnyf5743510
@@johnnyf5743510mm, still has some growing to do before she fully fits it but in any case it’s ready for her and until then she has fun shifting through gears on the trainer. 2018 43cm Felt VR5W.
Croder, Cobb, Appleman...
@@johnnyf5743 my comment keeps getting erased. Five hundred and ten.
I love shorter cranks. I switched from 175mm to 170mm for this year road season and Iam 6foot4 and they are amazing for me. For solo breakaways in road race they are amazing. I can ride in fully aero position on a road bike for hours and hours witch has masive aero benefits for me. Thanks for amazing video as always, guys. PS: love "eaglebeak" saddle :)
Did the same a few years ago and I just feel much faster with 170. I don't know if I am really faster, but the psychology probably does lead to some performance improvements!
I am 6'2 and currently have 175mm and today (before watching this video) bought 165mm. Looking forward to seeing how it works out for me.
@@entdmIIhow did it go? I’m 6’2 as well and considering this change
@@entdmIIalso considering this- any feedback?
@@faustinoeldelbarrio8967 Sorry - just seeing this. I decided to go to 170mm as I was concerned that 165mm could be too aggressive of a change. So far though, I am very satisfied with the change and feel like I can more easily peddle faster, which for me was my primary goal.
Purely from mechanical perspective, the produced power (P) is equal to torque (M) multiplied by angular speed (ω):
P = M * ω = F * l * ω
where "l" is lever length. Now, lever length is not exactly equal to your crank length, but it is very much proportional to it.
So, if you go for shorter cranks (l decreases), to produce the same power, you either need to push the pedals harder (increase F) or spin faster (increase ω).
Exactly! Thats why I go as long as possible, but at one point you going to see that your cadence decreases.
Either way you are still producing the same power, you're not getting any more watts for free by increasing the cadence or cranks. The more important aspect is what is more efficient for the body, which is a much more complex equation.
@@ryanm968 well, with more leverage its much easier to generate the same torque and therefore power. You are right about the bodymechanic aspect.
@@ryanm968 we know that lower cadence/higher torque for most people means faster muscle fatigue. So for a purely endurance event shorter cranks at higher cadences are probably better. For short events, like most track races, especially those with a standing start, the ability to produce more torque at low rpm is probably preferred.
You have to push harder or spin faster (if you’re in the same gear I would say). The one thing that no one has explained yet was changing chainrings (and cassette) in spite of shorter cranks. I plan on going shorter and I am going to need a larger climbing cassette and quite possibly go compact chain rings at the same time to ensure I am not under leveraged. In Bmx, single speed, if we go shorter, we simply make the gear change easier.
I tried going from 175 to 170, didn't work for me. I simply didn't enjoy riding with shorter cranks. I'm glad I tried it to put the question to rest for myself. I imagine for some people it would be a game changer though because the difference was surprisingly vast.
Just out of curiosity (i am considering doing the same) what cadence do you usually ride with?
@@0nkelfarmor I would say generally most days I would ride at a high cadence. It really just depends on how I’m feeling, sometimes I love to grind. My number one priority is comfort, above all!
I’m a big rider at 6 foot 230lbs and moved to 170 cranks and felt an amazing improvement. Currently building a gravel bike with 167.5 cranks and looking forward to it.
What were you riding ?
I think you missed one very important category and it's not just riders on the tall or short extreme, it's the balance between leg length / inseam and your overall height. More like the distribution between your top and lower half. For instance, I am 5'9, 185 lbs, quite lean, no gut but my cycling inseam is 34.25 inches, very short torso, and huge femurs. Hip mobility is great, I can squat to the floor w/ flat feet and be totally comfortable but this is because my knees go way outside my torso. See Squat University's videos on squat stance for different physiology. This is exactly the same for cycling. Long or normal cranks mean my knees will be hitting me chest at a normal saddle height (I'm at 740). 165s were a drastic improvement from 175 and 170s but was still having issues w/ low back and hip flexor pain. Funny enough, this morning I just installed 160s on my bike, it feels INFINITELY better. I immediately was able to raise my saddle 10mm more, I feel way more stable, it's insane how much better it feels. Wish I woulda done it a few years ago.
Great, any drawbacks you feel from the shorter cranks? Harder to climb or anything?
I'll need more time on the 160s to tell. My understanding of the science on shorter cranks is efficiency and power output is not changed until you really get to extremes. The power curve just changes slightly, so you might lose a smidge of max power in a trade off for slightly lower power for longer. In my opinion, it's all about comfort. I'll trade anything to feel better on the bike, to ride more comfortably, for longer, train more etc. Also, opening my hip angle allows me to ride more aero so even if there was any power trade offs, they would be far outweighed by aerodynamic advantage.@@myxti3669
I guess 175mm seams to really be for the tall and strong guys riding 600 watts on a time trail
I am 69 yrs. Most all of the bikes I've had all came with 175s. At 5' 11, 174 lbs, inseam of 33, right leg shorter by about 3/8s of an inch, I am leaning towards the 167.5. Have a new gravel bike based on what they call 56cm, bt it sure is hard to myself comfortable on this thing. Seat forward, back, up, down, cleats in, out forward and back. What I've deduced is setting seat height from the crank at bottom of stroke times the 1.09% method and have finally cme up with something getting closer. Cleats near as far forward as possible, seat forward past center. Almost have it dialed. This is with an extra shim on the right cleat. (1) 2mm shim on each pedal which changes the "Q" factor and cleats all the way inboard as well. I'm bull legged. Which now brings me back to the shorter crank lengths. I a sure my flexibility is considerably less that it was 15 years ago so now onto maybe what will help. I do all of my own fitting. Change things until there isn't any discomfort and move on.
@@DanielGruszka
Persuasive stuff. This guy gives every impression of knowing what he's talking about, providing evidence for each point he makes. I was surprised though that shorter cranks take longer to wind up as I would have thought the opposite.
Anatomy refers to the internal and external structures of the body and their physical relationships, whereas physiology refers to the study of the functions of those structures your amazing knowledge of our anatomy and our physiology and how these interact with each other Neill your a one off and that's for sure i never met anyone with greater insight than you have in this area and how you make corrections for our shortcomings WOW.Thank you loved the video Sir.
if anyonre don't have physical limitations, than the most correct way to choose the cranks length is according to length of the legs. but not only inseam matters. it is important to take in account the ratio of hip and shim. if hip longer than shim it better proceed with longer cranks. if shim longer than hip it is better to choose shorter cranks. the ratio of hip to shim crucially influence on cranks length
I agree, im worried that this ‘whole hip impingement thing’ is getting overused.
You suggest a recipe for upper leg versus lower leg. Any link to the recipe you mention?
I have a 165mm crank and it's great. I got it purely so I could raise my seat height to make my bike look pro 😅
just get a frame two sizes smaller... sorted
crank is cheaper than a new frame@@ribbyramone
So 10mm made it look pro? 🥲
0100 here in Spain. The missus upstairs probably waiting for me to come up for a jangle........she can wait. Stanbury just dropped new content. Kettle on the boil. Im opening the good biscuits. What a time to be alive.
New vocab to investigate: “jangle”
Has something to do with long stems
You've got your priorities straight!
@@pauljohnston7522 Short crank!
Best comment
165mm cranks allowed me to ride all day vs an hour or two due to back pain pain from my herniated L4-L5 and L5-S1 discs.
I also have hernia’s L2-L3 L4-L5 I am 185cm tall and have 175mm crank and when riding my bike the backpain is getting worse.howe tall ar you?maybe i get the 170 mm or 165mm crank
6'1" and I spin 85-90 rpm with 153mm crank arms All the power , faster acceleration , and a higher cadence.
I’ve been experimenting with 145s, down from 170 and I’m seeing tons of benefits and no downside (apart from a frame with a bottom bracket that’s not at the optimum height).
Where did u get 145 cranks?
What I find amazing is how bad the LBS is at fitting a bike to someone. They sell someone a bike that is clearly not fit properly to the rider. The rider has a few rides and stops due to poor fit. You could spend 3K on a poorly fit bike and then only ride a few times then ditch it. I think anyone who is serious about riding should be fit BEFORE buying a bike. Go to a real fitter. Get set up on a fit bike. Get all these parameters down first, then get the bike that fits you properly. It will save you thousands of dollars, a whole bunch of pain, and you will be much happier! This guy is phenomenal!
Exactly. Almost all customers I've come across never had a preliminary bike fit on a fit bike, they just pick a bike based on what they lust over. There was one time I had a customer asking if I could switch his new bike's cockpit to a one-piece counterpart, but the thing is, he's completely new to this bike and has never had a bike fit on a fit bike based on its geometry, so I had to decline the request (and also explain why) since I don't yet know what cockpit dimensions suit him.
Greg Lemond used 175 mm.
Indurain 180 mm.
Now it's completely different, with Pogacar using 165 mm in his Tour win.
I welded my pedals onto my bb. Definitely increased my cornering clearance ability. Seat height is a lot lower which takes pressure off the saddle region and allows for a more aero set up IME.
My thumb scrolling cycling UA-cam videos has more mileage than my Strava account.
My sit height is 64cm and i’ve benefited from using 155 crank length. I’ve tried both road (straight arm) & mtb (bent arm) 160 crank length and still prefer 155 road crank.
I’m this calculation as gauge:
a) 163(height) x 0.95 = 154.85
b) 1.25 x 72(inseam) + 65 = 90 + 65 = 155
Long time rider of 175 in my mtb, until a few years back when I switched to 165. All movements became easier and less knee pain post ride. When I got my gravel it came with a 170. It works yes, but after switching to 165, it felt better.
I have an 98cm inseam, total height of 191cm. I was on 185mm cranks, 180s, 175s, 170s, 172,5s and recently on 177,5mm cranks. I was constantly fidling with my position, especially seat height. Now I thought, I might just give it a try and install 165s. They feel way more comfortable when riding. As if the whole fit is more "relaxed". No more fidling. Let's see how it will turn out in the long term.
i have 96 cm inseam and 170 mm is shortest i go, cant get any power out if they are shorter
Any updated on long term feel?
Another bonus that comes up less - I switched to 165mm on the road for less hip impingement/better ergonomics. I then switched to 165mm of road and it’s been a revelation. I don’t feel like I have less torque and I have almost no pedal strikes now, all while keep my crank length constant across my bikes now. It has turned out to be a win/win/win situation (ergonomics/consistency/fewer pedal strikes).
Hi, did you have to rise the saddle? And give more seatback?
@@franciscopizarroi When you switch to shorter cranksets, you do have to raise your saddle by the difference in crankarm length between the old and new setup (ex. 5 mm difference, raise by 5 mm). Saddle fore & aft needs no further adjustment.
I went from 175 to 165 on my mtb and all the reasons were correct...hip issues disappeared completely...my sports physician couldn't fix it but my bike fitter did
Howe tall are you,Will also go from 175mm to 165mm crank have lower back pain and hip.
I am 185cm tall
@@davychristiaens6421 1.8m
And less pedal strikes as a bonus
165s are the bomb! And I’m average height. I went from 172.5mm and tried 165s because I had some old cranks from a vintage bike project I had lying around. Wow! I noticed a 3 watt increase in power on a long climb I do on occasion. Maybe it was placebo. I don’t know. We might be onto something with these short cranks. Maybe we can even go shorter and get more power!
3 watt?!😂 Really meaningful
Pogacar switch to 165 mm in the last strade bianchi and he did a overwhelming win! I don’t think that it was placebo! Haha
I have a 35” inseam and known labral tears of hips and had increased pain L hip due to impingement. Saw orthopedic doctor. Said it was arthritis, live with it, and get a hip replacement when unbearable. I went from 175mm to 170mm crank. Pain gone in a week.
Running 160mm cranks. Im 5' 9" , but I have very short legs, long torso and arms. Was a huge improvement since saddle height has always been a problem to get enough drop to bars.
👍
Because I'm old, my height today is 166 cm..😁
I've always ridden with 172.5 mm cranks.. I've sometimes tried shorter ones but they feel so strange.. besides, quality carbon fiber shorter cranks cost an awful lot..
More videos could be made for undersized people (under 165 cm 😁), adjusting the bike.
totally agree on last talking point, sudden big watts normal sized cranks. road & CX bike im on 175 or MTB 170 but thats for ground clearance. example going from 172.5 > 175 gave me around 80watts on my max power.
other personal point, easy climbing out the saddle say low tempo watts 75/80rpm i find the 175 feels more natural and inline with my running cadence when im training uphill repeats. but i do train bike and running to have that synergy.
I'm surprised that none of the videos about shorter cranks makes any explicit mention of the reduction in leverage they give, although this was hinted at in this one at the end of this one. Going from a 172.5 to a 165 crank is about a 4.5% reduction in applied torque for the same force. and as power = torque*angular velocity, this means less power for the same cadence. Has anyone looked into whether there is any advantage in changing the chain ring tooth count with shorter cranks to compensate for the loss of leverage? You could compensate for the estimated reduction in torque by having 2 fewer teeth on the chain ring.
wht not going 172.5 to 180?
My first road bike came with 175mm cranks on a 52cm bike. I’m 5’7”. My next bike was a Tri bike that came with 172.5mm and I could tell the difference and I liked it. About 4 years ago made the switch to 170mm and then a year ago 165mm and love that size. Now I just need a smaller bike. lol.
I wonder if you pushing shorter cranks is part of the reason Pog went to 165mm. I switched to 165 recently and am 187cm and i am happy with it.
I'm 6'2 with really long femurs running 175mm cranks. But also I tend to spin high cadence 95+ for threshold and definitely a more aerobic kind of rider. So a bit conflicted maybe I'll try 170mm cranks some day.
some Brand do have 172.5 for a change
6'1(185cm) here and also long femur. I have 35'' inseam (89cm) and short feet for my height 10 1/2 US (44EU). Long legs, short torso. I need a lot of saddle setback so my saddle tends to be lower than the average for my inseam. Also because my tibias are shorter thant my femurs and my feet are not that long for my height, a 175mm crank feel way off. I feel like I'm pedaling a giant bicycle. I immediatly felt the difference it when I switched to 172.5mm but it is still too long. I think that crank length really depends on the way it feels rather than measurements.
I have some hip flexor impingement , which resulted in a recent bike fit dropping the crank length from 172.5 to 165 . The improvement felt from this adjustment and other tweaks was pretty immediate. However, the major impediment to moving to this set-up is now actually getting 165 mm cranks that are compatible with the various BB set-ups. Here in Melbourne and most likely across Australia currently acquiring cranks or crank-sets of this length is near impossible.
Perhaps the shorter cranks and their benefits is an aspect now being picked up by bike fitters across the sector and hence this dearth in being able to acquire these length of cranks .
The fact you can't get them is obviously relieving riders' discomfort, as you can't get out and ride
Road 170s for a long time, but not until I went to 175s did I gain the power I never had before. I am 6 foot with a 32 inch inseam. Any power training (90rpm) would give me sore knees. Now even at 66 years old can still power train, time trial / long mountain climbs, today with 175's. The hip flex test you mentioned: I am very poor in flexibility, something I have always known, especially hamstring flex, very poor.
160mm cranks here. Truly changed everything about how comfortable I am on the bike.
Neil, would be interesting to know how your saddle height compares to the heights “ recommended” by the various more traditional methods!
I concur. 3 ticks out of 5 for me. I swapped cranks from 175mm down to 170mm recently and feel much better.
I’m on 155 crank arm since I’m not a tall guy. It definitely helps during long-distance, and I just need to train more on cardio; when speed is required, crank up the cadence before shifting to a smaller cog.
I fit both the first two points on this list: Poor hip mobility and almost no internal hip rotation. I have already widened my Q factor, which does help. I am going to see if I can find some 165s. Cheers.
Why shorten cranks? Is it simple? I do not think so..
According to physic the torque required to drive the bike working on the circle equals power * power radius length.
So when crank length is shortened to get the same torque the power must be higher - power means your muscles in this case.
It means you will have to reduce gearing when uphill - sometimes push the bike if torque you can generate is not enough.
You can change front gears for smaller but in the result you will get less efficient and slower machine - you must work on higher cadence all the time.
Yest you can ride like that but everybody has limited cadence value.
Of course for someone who has short legs shorter crank is better but the reason is pedaling kinematics - range of work of knee and hip joints changes a lot.
so finding the optimal crank length depends from individual rider features.
I could not comfortably use the drops on my new bike until I went down to 165s. Game changer
What was your previous crankarm length?
@@yonglingng5640- 170
@@yonglingng5640 bike came with 172.5 and I downgraded to 170, which only helped a little. Going down to 165 made it much more comfortable.
The main disadvantage is that you have to raise your saddle. So you have to bend down more. I recently swapped from 175 to 172.5 and reached the limit of my neck flexibility by raising the saddle by 2.5 mm. Results: neck pain, tense shoulders, back pain, numb hands, numb feet, hurting bum. And a bit higher cadence overall, but at the expense of bad fitting gears (either too high or too low cadences for my taste and body). So back I am to 175. - Much better is losing some fat from the safety tire, especially the visceral fat. Hip flex gets easier, breathing is much improved, heart rate goes down. Lost 4 kg, heart rate down by 5 to 6 beats. (I’m 1.88cm/6"2', 100kg, saddle height 800 mm, more grinder than spinner - if all that’s of interest to anybody.)
I have long legs and a short torso so shorter cranks artificially put the seat higher and further back, which makes reach even more challenging.
May be a silly question, but did you try raising the bars by the same amount to keep the saddle to bar drop the same?
@@Lemond75 Not a silly question, but the handlebar is already as high as it can get. Otherwise that sure should solve it.
0
But this is how to be more aero. Otherwise you can also raise your cockpit the same bit to compensate
I'm only 182cm (5'11") with short legs for my height, I love 175s on xc mtb. I've tried 170 many times but i feel my legs are too close together when I'm standing and pumping the bike through corners for example, and also when standing up to pedal hard - attacking a climb for example - longer cranks have more leverage so when you're using your whole body to pedal, longer is better.
For road bike it's totally different as you're in the saddle and spinning more often. I love 172.5 on road and would probably be able to change to 170.
I have a stride length of 100cm and since I've been using 180mm cranks I've had significantly fewer problems with my knees - I think there's too much talk about short cyclists - or short-legged people - but from 90cm it gets really long and I'm only 190cm tall There are a lot of great people out there...
Long crank arms, push the lifting leg higher, the elasticity of muscles and tendons work against the lifting leg, making the pushing leg work harder.
Less lift less work. Smaller circles, less work.
i have hip pain and lower back on one side,after 4 years riding with pain i found the problem= pelvic obliquity. i have low rpm because and can't bring my knee to my chest. max 45 degrees.iam 6,1 and go from 175 to 170mm crank and it was all haven.now try to go 165mm crank for mtb
Soft Tissue Opposition (STO) lol
As an older rider (60 y/o) I certainly suffer from this condition.
It amazes me on how the industry arives at a standard. Given this discussion I wonder if the standard set-up for the average rider should be with 165's. I would venture to say the average rider would never think twice about having a shorter crank and would just ride it the way the bike shop sold it. However, they would have a much better physiological experience.
Thanks for sharing
Matt
Hudson Valley, NY
they should make 160mm cranks for size 52cm bikes and 165mm for 54cm
When I did the knee bend test my left leg was aboout 30-40 degrees, but the muscle was tight and stopped me moving anymore. My right was better, without the muscle stiffness. I will try shorter cranks.
I'm the same mate. Switching to 165s was really beneficial. I'm 6ft2 aswell
Seat height is 690 using 160 cranks, love them!
"soft tissue limitation", "spare tire around the middle" cracks me up 😂
I'm not that short. at least I don't think i am. 170cm with short legs and went down 160mm cranks and it's been a gamechanger.
Thank you for all the useful information. The phrase 'a normals sized person between 5 foot 8 and 6 foot 2' made me chuckle though, when the average height of a woman in the UK is 5 foot 3.
I use short cranks because I've got long legs and a barrel chest so I hit my chest with my knees (still happens in the drops)
Im 6'1". Always used 175 mtb 172.5 road. Replacing my road crankset with a 170, mainly because there wasnt a 172.5 option but now Im interested to see how it will feel.
I agree with all of your points, but there's information missing from all of these types of videos.
One thing is the elimination of the dead spot. For you, if you can spin 120 rpm, you don't suffer from that. I was taught to pedal properly decades ago but could not do it.
After about 20-30 hours on 153s 4 years ago for the first time I could pedal in a circle smoothly.
Next is the rule not to pedal below 70 rpm because you will hurt your knees, and it's true for me on 165+. But I can pedal as hard as I want, for hours and hours, on the 153-, no pain. I would expect to reach exhaustion but I've done 5 hour rides (a lot for me) pushing hard all day and wasn't ruined.
People talk about wattage, but never about the power curve/rpm, such as they do for motorcycles. 165+ for me was 70-90 rpm, max at about 80. On 153s, I can smash the cranks at 50 rpm and never shift until I get to 100 rpm. Your discussion about sprinting styles is very relevant here, so I have no idea if this works for anyone else.
On the 140s the bottom of the powerband started closer to 60 rpm.
I run 4-5 gears harder in all situations, have more endurance and went from the bottom 1/3 on Strava to the top 1/3.
I've ridden 11 sizes from 190 to 130mm. I liked the 153 and the 140, so I chose 145. I'm 6'2" with hip limitations, which may be the cause of my results, but I've put several people of all heights on
I’m 167cm and recently started using 160mm cranks, down from 170mm. I definitely feel like I’m pedalling underneath myself. I didn’t notice much increase in cadence though
I’m pretty sure we have it all wrong and that riders with longer feet should actually ride shorter cranks. Sort of like saddle width, smaller riders normally go for 155mm and larger blokes tend to settle on a 145mm seat
Love your show and it has helped me a lot. Q: When I switch from 172.5 to 170mm crank I feel pain in my right hip flexor. I have adjusted the saddle height accordingly.
Hip mobility hip strength maybe a tear ask you physio or doctor of choice
I am 166 and 77 cm in inseam.
I've always used 170mm cranks.
I don't compete, only recreational cycling
At times of maximum effort my cadence is 100rpm, if I need power I increase rpm normally.
Should I go to 160 or 165?
I'm seeing feedback from 1.90m riders using 165 cranksets. According to this, for my height I should go to 150
I'm confused, I don't want to lose money buying hundreds of cranks
Thanks
160mm crank 680mm seat height, soft tissue opposition right here 🙋🏻♂️
178cm(5'10'') here with long legs and long legs and flexible pelvis(so I sit high and reach far down), and I've gone to 160mm cranks to alleviate hip impingement. I actually had 155s early on, but then they got stuck to an old frame in a freak accident, and for some reason I didn't bother getting the aftermarket cranks again. Now I just need a new frame or fork, because my handlebars are too low(tolerable but not optimal) xD
So you're saying myself as a 60kg 5'7" bloke (seat height at ~675mm) with a tendency for riding at high cadence I should really be thinking about 165mm cranks rather than the 172.5mm (that came on the secondhand bike). My summer bike has 170mm cranks and i can't say I notice any difference.
I've seen other fitters discuss this exact scenario and they usually say they wouldn't bother with any change less than 5mm. Most people won't perceive any difference with 2.5mm and the change in hip angle and other potential benefits likely wouldn't be worth the cost and effort.
very insightfull vid! but I don't realy understand how you think a 'non-powerfull-high-leggspeed-rider' will have benifit from shorter cranks. I do thing it is actually the opposite.
If you have good legspeed you won't have to much touble (neuromusculair) to ride high cadance with somewhat longer cranks (when no biomechanical limitations). the distance you foot is travling is longer than with shorter cranks so the speed you have to develope to ride the same cadance is higher with longer cranks. the benifit with the longer cranck is that you don't have to push that hard because you have greater lever.
the opposite: going to shorter cranks you will have less biomechanical issues because you will have to develop less leg speed to accive the same RPM. but next to that you will have to create more force to create the same momentum with this shorter lever.
this also might explain why you have trouble answering an acceleretion with you shirt cranck setup.
hope you fount this note interesting!
have a good day!
vocsnor
long stem and cranks are the way to go
Tried shorter cranks and had issues recovering post ride with more avg force on the pedals (at sub-optimal cadence I suppose). Went back to 175mm as I have long legs/short torso at 6’1” and reasonably good mobility.
I brought a bike which was on sale. I thought if I could stand over it, with my feet flat on the floor without the top tube touching my crotch or feel that my crotch was sat hard on the top tube, then I would buy the bike. It tucked the crotch test so I brought the bike. I'm a short guy at just 5 foot four with a 29 inch inside leg. My thighs are shorter than my knee to the bottom of my foot. Anyway I knew that I can increase the saddle height by adjusting the pole the saddle sits on. The handle bars were a little too long for me but I could always scoot forward on the saddle or move the saddle a bit towards the handlebars. Anyway after buying the bike I adapted to the longer reach OK. But half way through the ride I experience this shooting pain in front of my left knee to the point I could not peddle any further I said to my friend I can't go on. I could walk but not ride. He went home on his bike and he came back in his car and drove me and the bike home. Anyway I came across an article on you tube which talked about shorter cranks. I knew I had to bite the bullet and get me a set off new cranks. It was a pain looking for Trigra 4700 all the cranks of 165mm were not in stock. But I managed to find a set. Long story short. What a revelation. Money well spent and that meant my cheap domane 4 was not so cheap anymore
Great Video!
Forever hip problems here, hips at about 45 like you show. Looking into getting some 165mm cranks right now, might start with 105 set to try, think the Ultegra and Dura Ace older cranks are on recall..
Best explanation.
I just laid flat on the ground to test out criteria #1. My thigh contacts my lower rib cage and stops there. At that point, my knee is quite a bit away from my chest (20 cm'ish). I look nothing like Neil who somehow is able to have his leg, from hip to knee, touching his chest. Have I failed the test?
I'm 170cm and I can't get use to the 165mm Crank. I try it for more than 8 months and moving back to 170 is like night and day. I'm a sprinter and those short crank really impact my jumping out ofbthe saddle and on climbs. I notice that on 165mm crank riding a 14 sprocket feels like a 13 on 170mm.
WoW. Gotta save some money and make my way down have a fitting. And a holiday ride
As a 2 meter tall person... I don't want shorter cranks
But you would probably benefited with longer ones 😊 !!
@@jean-paullanglois5452 I've been considering this
hi genuine question, isn't the first option here IMPROVING YOUR FLEXIBILITY? anyone?😅
Thanks for talking about the other side of crank length(all bikes 172.5).... I've been thinking for a while about going to shorter and I may still go there(but maybe not 165 short), but as a B- .. C+ aging sprinter who only 'races' crits where do you change from relying on neuromuscular to endurance
What about mtb?
A question for neill: Does shorter crank exaggerate bike fitting issues? My leg discrepancy is more obvious as my left quad always start to hurt more than the right one, especially in TT position.
For a bike fit specialist, the saddle on that bike behind him looks to be way too far forward...
Crank length change in 2 bikes for me this year. TT 165 from 170 (recently tried 155mm but didn’t like the loss of torque) & road bike 170 from 175mm.
6ft 1 inch, 73kgs reasonable mobility but I am aging….hit 42 later this year 😢
You can change gears and get the torque back... You lose horsepower which is the "over time" portion of the equation. Short cranks don't make your muscles weaker
Did you notice an improvement ?
@@Gk9311cadence up 2-3 rpm immediately. Otherwise too early to tell really.
@GazRadCycling I have the same height, but ~ 10kg heavier. Seriously considering getting to 170 from 175. I am mostly doing long distance riding.
@@Gk9311actually I don’t see any drawback as to why you shouldn’t go for especially if you’re on the lower end of the cadence schedule currently. I plan to do a couple of videos on my channel on both bikes that have made changes this year as also gone narrower on bars too following expert bike fitter advice
but but but.... is the force not roughly the same with shorter cranks at a higher cadence?
This could only mean that there should be a "5 reasons why you should be using longer cranks" video :)
Very informative discussion thanks. Another comment alluded to taking into account the relative length of the upper and lower leg bones. I’d be really interested to hear whether that’s something to consider. Unless the ratio is very unusual, would that really be a factor in bike fitting?
I've got zero hip flection issues, but bringing the knee near or past 90° gives massive recovery pain in ligaments. Short cranks help but I need more help
I went from 175 to 170mm on all my bikes a few years ago and I can't say I have noticed any difference at all either way. I'm not a tall rider (5' 9") but certainly not considering another costly switch to 165mm as "the industry" seemingly discovers yet another new thing. Scroll down for the placebo effect statements
How tall is Neil ? I’d love to know in relation to his saddle height. Another great video, love this .
Adam Hansen - used 180mm cranks (max allowed?) at 1.86m/6'1" tall. Crazy handlebar drop/extension, and record for most consecutive Grand Tours.
(I only bring this up for shits and giggles)
Seat goes down with longer cranks and up with shorter so that doesn't make it more. You are right he had crazy The seat drop and stem length and saddle-to-bar and a very forward biased position.
This topic gets me going all the time... pretty much every pro is on 172.5s even Pozzovivo at 5'4" is on 170s..... Everyone on this thread is going down to 160s and feeling great...wtf... Is this just a bunch of fat weekend warriors commenting🤷
how short you have to be to go as low as 160mm cranks?
I change from 170 to 172.5 and never ride with higher average speed og better in mountains. Im 170 cm and been riding for more than 50 years, so its different for each person
Leg proportion is also important. I have a 86cm inseam, saddle height 80.5, but I can't run cranks longer than 170mm because my femurs are quite short.
Not very many women are in your “average” height range of 5’8” to 6’. I read once that average height of women in Australia is 5’4”, same as here in North America.