@@Daniel-kb3mf It is not really height that matters. It will be Inseam more. A tall person with short legs is not going to need long cranks. Height will influence Reach
Thank you for pointing this out about Pogachar. I switched to 152mm (I'm 172cm tall), for relieving knee pain on longer rides, I'm not going back either. Hope the bike industry takes notice, it's also less weight.
Pog also won in clothes size small and shoes size 42. I will cut a part of my toes and squeeze my feet in those same shoes. Clothes are stretch so no problem.
@@RazorBlade86 I'm just saying, that crank length is rider-specific. There is a tendency for shorter cranks but like in all trends, it is a trend and any application of the trend on your person can turn out positive or negative.
Many riders are less then 6 feet tall and can profit a lot from shorter cranks. Many bikes are still delivered with cranks that tend to be to long . Going down from 175 to 172.5 or 170mm is already helping a lot
@@paxundpeace9970 I agree the default should at least be 25 or 50mm shorter, as a start. Just like handlebars on road bikes should be default at 40cm, and anything higher than 42cm is just stuff for freaks. Aero bikes are still sold with standard 44cm wide bars, in the XL configuration. Go figure. Aero bikes with parachute bars.
@@paxundpeace9970 Hopefully the bike industry will start making more options available for riders so they can choose their crank length at time of purchase
Mate thanks for this fantastic video! Well edited, well researched, and informative. I recently went from 175mm on my old triathlon bike to 165mm on a new one. Cadence increased naturally, and there seemed to be no learning curve. The less realised advantages are having no pedals hitting the ground in sharp corners, and a more relaxed transition to the run thanks to higher cadence. Makes a huge difference.
I'm no triathaloner and only bike and run for hobby and really would have thought that my running cadence would've actually been SLOWER than my cycling cadence I was wrong. I checked my Strava.
Thanks David. Really appreciate that! I think triathlon and time trial are the very obvious disciplines where shorter cranks are a must. It would be interesting to see research on how riding shorter cranks directly benefits transition to running. I have not looked into that as yet.
I changed to smaller cranks two decades ago. Shorter crank and using an oval chainring for my triathlon bike allowed me to get more watts out at lower RPMs which helped with all the issues noted in this video. It also helped with friction. The RPMs were closer to that of my run pace, too.
It has already been proven that using oval chainrings plays tricks on the strain gauges of power meters, causing them to register higher power than the rider is actually producing. Chris Froome fell for this same phenomenon. Do a little research.
Some good stuff here. My fitter, who is a big fan of short cranks, said that I have long femurs and am not really sensitive to crank length - so he didn't recommend going to shorter. Was having some breathing problems in my position a few years later and went from 175 to 165 mm and it certainly helped the lungs and power was normal. I felt that I was missing a bit on the hills - couple of 1-2 min steep hills on our regular TT course and I was always a few seconds slower than I expected on these segments. I'm a rouleur on the heavier side who does better than average when climbing - think the long femurs help. Went to 170s to get back some punchy climbing power. Will experiment with shorter cranks on a couple of local crits coming up to help with accelerating out of corners.
I think relative leg length is only part of the equation. A big factor for me is I have NO FAST TWITCH. Me trying to sprint with long cranks over 100 RPM just isnt possible.
I worked part time in a bike shop between 1999 and 2001 and was using wider tyres and 165mm cranks ( I'm 6'1") back then , everyone looked at me like I was crazy but it seems I was right all along !
I hope shorter cranks become more optional from bike manufacturers. I’ve been using Rotor 155 mm crank on my SWorks Aethos for years. This is the future of cycling. Thanks for explaining the importance of using shorter crank.
Ppl are so naive. It's not about what is best crank size. But rather what crank size is for you. It's determine by leg strength, leg length, type of riding you like to do and what rotation size feels the best. It's not 1 thing or another but overall. Someone who is 183cm+ with long legs on 165 crank is probably not good fit. Just like someone who is 170cm short leg probably shouldn't be using 175crank
yup. and overwhelmingly roadies have probably been on cranks that are too long. Im predominately and mountain biker and I am so so glad mtbing has final started to resolve is roadie-itis it has had since the 80s. Bike geo largley based/influenced by road bikes, stems that were 100+mm, ppl running 170+ cranks.
@@CPSolutionsLLC you do know your body can calculate by how it feels? like feels too long or too short. your body also knows how much power you are able to dish out on those rotations or not. if you have no leg strength for it? you cant go short because it takes much more torque vs longer cranks. like i said.. it all depends on person and how they are and their physics.
Informative, thanks. New SRAM Red now even available in 160mm🤩 (previous shortest was 165mm). Wouldn't be surprised to see some pros experimenting with 160mm next year. Went to 165 on one of my three bikes last year. To be honest, can't tell much difference between 165 and 170mm. But appreciate being able to raise the saddle. At some point on other two bikes will switch to 165 to raise saddle. Also might avoid some rock strikes and be able to pedal out of corners faster, or even pedal through corners with shorter cranks.
Brilliant analysis and explanation. Best I’ve seen, subscribed. Just got 165mm cranks on a new frame instead of all the 170 and 172.5’s I now have. Like the feel and speed so far.
I did it on my mountain bike.. knees were happy and I have not looked back. It's cool to know Tadej did this.. bet there will be more to follow once the word gets out !!
I recently went from 170mm to 165mm, and agree, it's more comfortable. My performance hasn't changed, but I've never really pushed it to find out. I'm certainly not any slower and might be a little faster. I'm 5'9.5", so about Poggies height. I raised my saddle (by 5mm) but made no other changes.
Same scenario, height everything. I ride a 56 SL7 with a 120 stem. I think the shorter cranks eat higher cadences, it loves it and wants it. Slower cadences feel like I am behind the gear.
@charlesmansplaining Yeah, nothing has changed in cycling industry, nor the pro peloton, in "3 decades", that would warrant faster times. May want to look into the under 18yo juniors as well, given that their race pace is also faster, upwards of 20%.
Thanks for making a video about this topic and I too was intrigued when I found out Tadej Pogacar won the GIRO on 165s! To share about my own experience with shorter cranks.. Am 176cm or 5ft 9 with an 820mm or 32 inch inseam. Used 175, 172.5, 170, 165 and running 145mm at the moment. Before settling on 145s, I've shuffled between long and short cranks multiple times over the past few years while figuring my fit. What I've noticed is that the shorter cranks allows me to deliver much smoother pedal strokes and this was the most significant with 145s. The pedaling just feels more granular and I feel that I can deliver power in the forward and down stroke more efficiently. I'm unable to replicate this same feeling with longer cranks. 165mm and shorter is when I start to feel this. The loss in leverage felt significant when I went down to 165mm yet I kind of enjoy mashing more with shorter cranks. Surprisingly, I didn't notice any difference in leverage when I eventually went down to 145mm from 165mm. While speed may not be an accurate indicator, I do notice completing my usual loops with almost the same time compared to the longer cranks with a lower perceived effort. Recovery also seems easier when riding on consecutive days. Riding with a power meter is insightful. Go to a lower gear and spin 10 - 15rpm higher and noticed that I'm able to easily produce the same power or higher on the same hill compared to the longer cranks. I think it could be the adaptation kicking in since I'm able to mash on my 145s better than when I started using them about a 1.5 months ago. Highly encourage anyone who has chanced upon this topic to experiment. Here are a few brands for cranks shorter than 165mm Sugino & Shimano 105 does 160mm cranks Croder - Starts from 140mm (I'm using this) Dixna La - Starts from 130mm. Appleman Crank - Starts from 100mm Rotor - Starts from 155mm
Brilliant! Thanks for your contribution Jin! I agree that we would expect a smoother stroke (less stabilisation needed and less dead spots). Similar power outputs, lower perceived effort and better recovery is very interesting! Your list of short crank providers is much appreciated!
@@podiumphysio657 Welcome! Had my fair share of struggles searching for short cranks for road bikes so hope that this list of short crank providers help!
Very well explained, Im 173cm tall and tried between 172.5 and 170 crank. But i find the shorter 170 comfortable. Thinking of going down a bit maybe 167.5/165 mm crank. Thank you
Best discussion of this topic as most people fail to mention that you will be required to make corresponding changes to saddle and handlebar height which are major considerations to take into account when shortening crank arm length.
Cheers! Yes making any bike fit change has a cascade of downstream/ upstream effects. Sometimes people forget this. However when you have unalterable components like a one piece bar and stem, then you need to find a middle ground.
Glad to see the detailed explanation of why “shorter” cranks are better. I remain curious as to why the group set makers and bike builders went to too long cranks. In the 1970s and 1980s cranks were shorter than on same size frames now. I don’t know when they migrated to too long cranks but I do know my M size 1986 Specialized HardRock has 170mm cranks and my M size 2013 HardRock had 175. All of my other bikes from 2015 on have come with 175mm cranks. I can sustain a higher speed and longer on my 1986 with 170 cranks than any bike I’ve owned since then! It wasn’t until a couple years ago that I realized the crank length issue and how newer bikes (longer cranks) degraded my physiological performance. Ironic that so much other tech is touted for weight savings, aero improvements, etc but then they basically crippled us with excessively long cranks. Somewhere at some time this was a high level decision. I simply would like to know what was the belief or the supply chain issue that moved us away from the more efficient crank lengths of the past.
I would suspect that a few high profile athletes were touting longer cranks as the reason behind their strong performances, and in the absence of scientific scrutiny the trend became folklore.
Thank you for the detailed analysis! I am 6’-2” and have always rode 175mm cranks. I even experimented with 180mm back in the day when Lennard Zinn was promoting longer cranks for tall guys. I now have multiple stents in my left common iliac vein. The stents cross the hip joint so high flexion could restrict flow. I am considering going to shorter cranks to alleviate this potential overuse issue. Many thanks!
Sorry to hear about your medical issues. Yes as I said there really are no downsides that I can see. If you are in the stage of your cycling career where you are more enjoyment focussed rather than race/ performance focussed, then Id say you have nothing to lose
After 16 years on 180s, I'm about to fit my 165mm 9000 arms. I stand at 183cm. I've also just ordered a 'budget' Shimano R510 x 165 crankset so I can continue using my Q & QXL rings which won't fit the 2 last DA, Ult or 105 groupsets. Used top level 165 cranks are now so rare, thanks Pog! ;-) Congrats too, I wish he was also in the Olympics road race I'm watching now. Nine dropped the race from the TV, thanks again, whilst the 9now sound has thankfully dropped out with inferior commentators. Grrr! We'll see how those crank changes pan out at next month's Amy's GF, my 12th.
When I raced XC in the early 90s, everyone was using 175-180mm cranks. I was the only person I knew of that rode 170s. It seemed natural to me having short legs. And it helped me learn to ride with a higher cadence.
I ride a 150mm by ROTOR, have done for the past 10 years and it's a game changer. The late legendary engineer Mike Burrows also made me a 150mm from an Ultegra crank. Mike who designed the original Lotus bike was a pioneer for short cranks. He would make anything from an 80mm to get people back on there bikes and advocated that 100mm was a sweet spot for time trials. Matt Jackson at TheFootLab in Norfolk was a good friend of Mikes and is an advocate of shorter crank lengths where necessary. So if your based in the UK, give him a try.
Hey thanks for the intel. True bespoke cranks! I think I'm happy where I've settled for now, with 160mm. Norfolk UK is quite a long day in the saddle from Adelaide Australia (you didnt pick up the Aussie accent😁?)
Great video! I am tall (not as tall as you), and I was worried that the shorter cranks were not suitable for tall people. Your video gives me confidence that it will be suitable for me too.
I've recently changed from 175 to 165 cranks with higher seat. I found that my cadence naturally increased from something rather low. Happy to hear that Pogacar has done the same thing. I'm 170 tall, so even shorter might be useful. But they are hard to find.
There are many smaller manufacturers making shorter cranks. This selection was provided by @Jin_KX Sugino & Shimano 105 does 160mm cranks Croder - Starts from 140mm Dixna La - Starts from 130mm. Appleman Crank - Starts from 100mm Rotor - Starts from 155mm
Another advantage of a shorter crank is greater clearance above the ground when the pedal is at the bottom of the stroke, so can pedal through turns more easiily, which is one reason track bikes have shorter crank arms
Kinda makes sense but as a non- trackie talking here, aren't they leaning in at roughly the same angle as the pitch of the track? I guess only at top speed.
I don't understand why are there people making silly comments, like "How could I not think of that" referring to the crank length, of course changing to shorter crank length wasn't the only thing that made him improving his performance during this tour, and I think you also did't intend to say that. So, I want to say: great opinion and great video.
A great analysis of crank lengths. Y'know, trackies have been using 165mm cranks for years. Not only are they great for rapid fixed gear acceleration, but they won't hit the banked track!
Thanks Paul. Ive never ridden on the track but I'd love to give it a go. I think it is amazing that people worry their power will drop off with shorter cranks, when you give the perfect and obvious example of why it doesn't. The strongest riders in the world use shorter 165mm cranks. Cheers!
Probably but not definitely. Bike fitting is both a science and an art. Sometimes you make a change, expect certain results and get something different.
Yes. You will be moving back slightly and that will mean the Bars will be further away and your knees will be further back from the correct position. But a raise of 15mm is not huge so it will depend if the gap between saddle nose and bars is still comfortable. Depending on how far you shorten the cranks may even require a shorter stem
@@daveoram7249 I have 2 different Specialized bikes, a Tarmac and an Aethos. The Aethos has a higher stack and I definitely appreciate that extra half cm or so.
This i think is part of the explanation why i love oval Chainrings, they give the same leverage as a short crank and slows down muscle contraction. The Studys on Ovals also support sprint power mainly
@@podiumphysio657 could be fun to see you do some testing on Ovals, but i am sure u need to put them on your long cranks, otherwise the lever becomes to short, i have tried 167 and went back up to 172 cranks with my Ovals, it felt better
Nice! Pete Torque done a technical video on this too. I was hoping to grab a newer 4iiii left side so let’s see what the future holds. I agree, I ride a XS frame and my road bike came with 172.5 and my MTB 165. 160 is easily a shout
I’ve been using 150mm cranks for 17 years. I had a set of SRM power meter cranks reduced to 150mm to measure the difference. I won a lot of races using them.
Theres this thing in the cycling community, where if you dont have an expensive bike, then what you own is a pile of junk. Its insane. Like not all people can afford to pay 5k for a bike.
@@jackmehoff2363 In my cycling group the chaps are fairly respectful of people riding older or cheaper bikes, its just that average cost of the bikes being ridden rises more steeply each year.
I am truly amazed by your analysis! While watching Pogacar on the final TT in Nice, he seemed to corner more aggressively, pedaling further into the turn and starting earlier coming out of the turn - yet he never scraped a pedal (although I feared it). Did his bike perhaps have a higher bottom bracket?? Now I understand why. I’m 184cm and we always thought cranks should be 175 or at least 172.5. I’m excited to try shorter cranks. Any guess why Pogacar isn’t using 160’s? You can be sure he’s experimented with them. Well done. Very well done.
It started when I was told I needed a carbon frame, then carbon wheels, then disc brakes, then aero frame, followed by skinnier handle bars. Now I need a 165 crank? After all those previous upgrades, I'm still a slow ass sloth on the bike.
@@podiumphysio657 Thank you for the heart and reply. I confess that I was being a little bit cheeky with my question, implying that whatever crank length Merckx rode, Eddie would have dominated. I did a little research and the best I could find is a list of crank lengths posted by "phourgenres" at the weightweenies.starbike forum which claimed Merckx rode 175mm cranks. Loved your initial video because we athletes should be testing and measuring and trying new ideas instead of just doing the accepted. A few years back I read a study which explored whether runners should stretch before running or not. The result? Runners run better on tight muscles. Warm up? Yes. Stretch before? No. Stretch afterwards? Sure. I tested this idea. Worked for me. I changed my pre-run warmup for the better.
Gone back to 165mm after years on 170mm, feel less sore after races and recovery seems quicker. Its vague but times are the same on given courses so no obvious downside. Used 155 for ages, haven't got any of those to try at the moment, but according to my old log book notes it was efficient . 5ft 8inch tall.
Rotor do down to 145. I have bikes with 155 and Shimano 165. You need to consider gearing below 155. Pluses are a bigger saddle drop, can use a smaller frame with a long stem (more aero) as you aren’t as cramped. For every mm of difference you create 2mm of space. The bottom of the pedal stroke is higher, which mean you increase the height of your seat post. The top of the pedal stroke is lower and that gives you space again. You can therefore hold aero positions comfortably. Shorter cranks allow for better acceleration. Foot speed remains the same, so the distance traveled if you associate a crankset with a 400m track is no different between inside lane and the outside lane. You just do more or less laps.
@@podiumphysio657 Thanks for replying. It’s an interesting topic and you are right. It will adjust your lowest and highest gearing, so for any given gear you’ll be applying more force. It lends for having a 32 Tooth cassette for steep inclines to get to your regular cadence. If you go from say a 172.5 to a 155, that’s a 11% difference meaning that say you ride at 90rpm at 172.5, then to apply the same foot speed, your cadence would increase to 100 in order to reach the same distance travelled related to applied force. The upshot is that cadence is really a misnomer. It is entirely tied to crank length and you can’t compare one cadence to another without factoring in proportional differences on crank length. For myself, I have quite a strange combination that seems to work for me. I found through trial and error that I’m more efficient with low cadence/high torque and I don’t fatigue over long distances. So using 155-165 cranks I am at the 60-80 rpm range. This helps put me less to the extremes of my cassette related to my ability, so it’s a bit more efficient for the chain line. One other thing is acceleration. The pivot axis is shorter, therefore the moment of force acts more immediately. This lends to the application of higher torque being more efficient perhaps.
@@benfinesilver2250 Yes I think in this stream of discussion there is a fine nuance between talking "cadence" and "footspeed". It may well be that foot speed is the more useful parameter to know.
Where to buy these cranks of 165mm, with a medium drive for road bike, in Belgrade ? There is desperately little specific goods, here. Planet Bike , as the largest importer does not have it in stock except for MTB bike ? Thanks for the comprehensive presentation !
@@podiumphysio657 Thank You Sir, serbia is a Black Hole for many useful and necessary things. Only for modern things like e-bikes, there are parts, for classic not enough. people loves only, If it`s easy for him, so that he doesn`t sweat. They just eat, sit and gain weight, the vast majority
I would imagine that all of the teams have awareness of the trend, and I'm sure we will see more and more riders dropping down 5-10 mm in coming years. However there obviously still needs to be room for individual preference, different rider roles and different physiologies.
As a shorter rider, the stock 170mm cranks which came on my 48 size frame were just too long for me. Moved to shorter step by step from 160, 155 to 150mm with Rotor cranks, also offsetting the gearing 1-2 cogs. Ideal might be to have a frame with lower compensated BB drop, so you don't sit as high on the bike.
It's like tuning a race car-you wouldn't leave that option on the table if you could. Some might benefit from shorter cranks, some might not. Expecting to go from zero to hero with this change alone is a bit of a stretch.
@@podiumphysio657 My old rim-brake Cervelo R2 came with 170 mm cranks as stock. I'm not sure if this has changed, as crank length isn't listed in the current specifications. I've seen 165 mm cranks on similarly sized frames from other brands, but I can't recall which ones.
Loved my fixed gear race bike with shortish cranks (can't remember exact length) which I gave away in Covid lockdown. Stupidly, I missed the chance to get shorter cranks when my Ultegra crankset was recalled and replaced earlier this year. Had the cranks on my wife's folding Mezzo cut down to 155mm (she is 64.5" = 164 cm tall with short legs). QUESTION: shorter cranks means higher saddle means... can't touch toe down at traffic lights or any other pause. With higher saddle and fatter tyres, DO WE NEED SMALLER WHEELS, eg 650B? Or lower bottom bracket in relation to 700C wheel hub height from ground?
You are really going to terrify bike manufacturers with that suggestion! Seriously though, people do need to be warned that the ground gets further away when the saddle goes up (for any reason)
Being curious about this subject, I decided to get a set of shorter crank arms to replace my Ultegra 170mm. Since Shimano doesn't make the R8000 group set in a 160mm arm length, I got a pair of 105 arms which do come in 160mm. BTW, I can tell no difference between the Ultegra arms and the 105 arms. They look identical and the 105s were actually lighter (probably due to being shorter in length) than the Ultegra. I'm installing them tomorrow and can't wait to give them a try. If anyone is curious, I'm about 5'6" with about a 30.5" inseam.
I switched to 165 from 170 two years ago. The difference was so positive I tried 160 and it was even better. The main benefit for me is reduced knee pain and hips feel better. I can ride longer as well.
@@podiumphysio657 so true many other benefits…another thing you pointed out is that legs can go up and down more in a vertical plane. Sometimes mine feel like they are pistons with more power and a more efficient pedal stroke which is a sensation I never had before.
Let us stop generalizing! I am 184 tall, quite strong for my age; switching from 170mm to 175mm cranks on my MTB helped reduce my general knee pain and fatigue. I can also get out of steep sudden climbs easier, without the need to change a gear down. For my road bike I use 172.5mm and for my cyclocross 170mm, which I am ready to change to 172.5 or 175mm ones.
Hey there. So you present one good personal example of going the other direction being beneficial. The entire bike industry "generalises" by offering 170 - 175mm cranks as the standard options, despite huge numbers of cyclists preferring or likely benefitting from something else. Same goes for other components like saddles and handlebars. The number of saddles that get taken off new bikes straight away and binned or resold is crazy
i am a short guy 5 foot 2 but i used very long crank 175 mm and i do a lot of out of saddle while riding only to avoid knee pain while performing 60 to 80 rpm on the crank because i preferred low cadence high gear
I believe Jim Martin used this study in his presentation: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12183473/ And another quoted on the same topic is cdnsciencepub.com/doi/abs/10.1139/h97-027#.XnkXtZNKiqA
I'm not a cyclist. I love watching. When I was watching the tour I noticed Jonas would be pedaling and his knees would flare out at times. I thought this was due to his injuries he was still healing from.
The saddle height on my new bike is about at the limit of the (oval) seat post. I am currently on 175 cranks but my bike does not allow me to go shorter than 170. So the bike size might limit the possibility to shorten the cranks. Something to consider!
Yes that is another complicating factor that comes up occasionally. I've even found on my old Trek Emonda, in a size 62 frame, I was at the limit of seat post height when still on my 175mm cranks
Annoyingly, I seem to be the only person that creates far less power on shorter cranks. I wanted shorter cranks for better position, but my power dropped off hugely - even after 6 months of trying. And I only went from 175 to 170. Sprint power went up though, particularly longevity of sprint. 20 minute power 175: 344 20 minute power 170: 323 5 minute power 175: 398 5 minute power 170: 375
The graph at 7:00 can also be interpreted as "just don't go too short or too long and you're good". If Pogi dropped to 165 and is STILL winning the Tour as he did on two occasions with 172.5 - then you can conclude that a 7.5 mm change in crank length DOESN'T MATTER for him. It's an insignificant change just like dropping your saddle 10 mm or bolting a 20 mm longer stem. If a change is noticeable and measurable, it doesn't mean it's significant. Disclaimer: my argument is under the assumption your bike fit is good to begin with - that you're not imited with your bike fit. If you have him impingement then shorter cranks are better, yes. Anyway, I'm just irritated how YT made me almost order 170 mm cranks on multiple occasions, this time bein no different :P
I found this video interesting and informative. The breakdown and accompanying video on the effect of the longer crank arm at the top of rotation was well done. Having started riding back in the days of 10 speeds and toe clips, I've sort of clung to old ideas. Now, in my late 60's I'm willing to experiment with something that seems to offer improved biomechnical efficency. How did you determine that 160 was better for you than 165 considering your height?
Well I reflected on Jim Martin's work that said going down as low as 145s was still very viable, and considering my hip issues I thought that I'd make a significant change, not just the next size down. SRAM makes 160s in Rival spec which is the group set on both my Specialized roadies so I thought I'd give it a try.
Wow! Simply, clearly & beautifully presented. Now, I prefer saying that I have "a long crank" but if any of this info is true I may be switching to 165 and voluntarily compromise my masculinity. But thanks!
I predict Jonas Vingegaard switching to shorter cranks this year or off season he's currently on 172.5mm. His former Visma biomechanics guru Javier Soler is now at UAE and Is said to have helped with getting Pogi on board with 165mm.
You need to widen your view of the variables in the pedal stroke. I swapped from 175 to 170 (6'1'), and several years ago. I find the biggest factor in feel is the horizontal factor of the pedal being further back at 3 o'clock and further forward at 9 o'clock. Thus making you extend less for the same vertical load, and then on the up stroke, it's easier to get your leg back over the top. It is this you are feeling, and which makes the shorter cranks more comfortable for most people. But the vertical aspect is a factor in power production. I moved my saddle up 3mm and back 1.5mm when I changed over. You need to address both vertical and horizontal planes when discussing this subject, unfortunately almost nobody thinks about both planes.
Hey. I can see some merit in those points, however it is not something I have come across much in bike fit literature. I did explain in the video that making a crank length change is likely to have some flow on effects that a professional bike fit may need to address. I would say though that the one and only key factor for me feeling better with my cycling was having a more open hip angle at Top Dead Centre. Everything else for me (including performance) was a secondary concern. Also having the knee more extended at 3 O'Clock would be beneficial for power production based on my point about mechanical advantage.
@@podiumphysio657 👍 It may be that what you feel as open hip angle is actually due in large part to the reduced rearward travel of your foot thru the 8-11 o'clock position, and the reduced effort to get your leg/foot over the top of the stroke as its further in front of your hip joint. Our perceptions are often follow on sensations of something that has occurred upstream. Anyway, I am always mindful of the fact that our actual pedal stroke is a full 360 degrees of rotation, whether we "feel it" or not. As with bike fit in general, each single adjustment or change, has follow on affects. But, shorter cranks are helpful for most people. Just as tire width has increased from the days of 20mm tubs, crank length is now being looked at. Its a good thing.
As a tall trail runner (2 decades experience), a bicycle always feels like a restricted range of motion. Could optimal crank length be much longer for me?
As someone with tight hamstrings and hips, definitely feel tight and pinched in the aero position. Gonna be trying 165s, maybe 160. 64 year old runner dude...
Indeed. I remember for a laugh many years ago I tried to get into the puppy paws aero position for a short stretch of road and my hamstrings complained LOUDLY!
I have been using 170 Cranks for most of my life. I did try 165 on my Wahoo Kickr Bike but it didn't make any noticeable difference. Had a Bike Fit recently and trying a 160 crank length resulted in a much smoother, more comfortable and faster ride. The Bike Industry has a lot to answer for. I have also been using 40cm width bars (42 on the Wahoo Kickr Bike) and I felt a noticeable difference using a 38cm Bar. I cannot stress enough the importance of a proper Bike Fit, preferably not a Bike Shop who sells Bikes as they want to sell you one of their Bikes so there is some conflict of interest
I guess it all comes down to cost savings and product line optimisation. Many cyclists dont know what they want or need in a bike, they are happy enough with what is recommended. I was like that once. However a degree of more choice and more options for the rest of us would be greatly appreciated.
I got into 165mm cranks because I really liked them on my track bike. I'd notice when I went to one of my bikes with longer cranks (172.5) I had greater chance of knee pain on longer rides (I also felt like it was harder to maintain a higher cadence). Here I thought I was just a weirdo liking them more than longer variants.
Have to admit as a triathlete 5’8” 32.5” inseam, I switched from 170 to 165 and just feel “stronger” on the run. I think my hips just feel less tight. Still run 170 on my road bike. But considering dropping down to 165 on that bike too.
Shorter cranks are an absolute must for Tri/ TT bikes. I've never done a triathlon however my hips were always much tighter (and sore) even walking after riding with my old 175mm cranks, and now far more comfortable after riding with 160mm
Good video again . I raced for years on 175mm, relying on my powerfull quads ( I am 1.76cm ) Then I moved to 172.5mm , was slightly better. Last year I changed to 165mm but did not feel any benefits apart from no back pain and less stress on the knees. I changed to 170mm ( as advised by a local top ex pro who has a bikefitting business as well ) I am about to build a second bike for climbing. What crank lenghts would you suggest? Many thanks.
Depends on your height/leg length and the climbs you are gone be doing. If those climbs are mostly 5.5/6% or less on average like for example many climbs on Mallorca then keep you might keep it as it. If climbs are steeper like those i the alps with 7% or more for longer durations you could tend to shorter cranks. Still even on time trail bikes they are tend to go for shorter cranks. Less back pain and less knee pain should be worth it to tend shorter. You have to choose what fits you best.
Hey Thanks K2822. There is a bit to unpack here. You said 172.5 was better than 175, but in what way? How was it better? Better performance in FTP or sprints or VO2 or something else? You then went to 165s and felt more comfortable. I would say this is pretty important, as - if your body is dealing with the shorter cranks with less pain, and pain is warning sign of potential tissue injury/ overload, then avoiding pain would be a high priority. You cant train well when you are injured. I came to 160s to reduce load on my hip arthritis but stayed for the performance benefits.... You didnt feel any (other) benefits on 165s, so was it at least "as good" as 172.5s? What did you find when you went back up to 170s? If you have strong quads then you seem to fit the profile of someone who could use shorter cranks, benefit from same cadence, slower foot speed and greater force output to maximise torque. If your performance on 165s is equivalent to that on 172.5, with less pain, then I'd be sticking to 165s! That said, my key point is don't just accept what the bike industry dishes up out of habit, low cost (to them) and tradition....
@@paxundpeace9970 Thanks for your reply. My point here really is that it isnt as simple as height and leg length. I'm one of the tallest cyclists I know (six foot four) and have greatly benefitted from moving to the shortest available cranks from SRAM (160s). I agree that it is an "individual" solution and you need to choose what fits you best!
This is very scientific and well explained. thanks a lot. im wondering with all the techs out there and teams like Jumbo that are crazy about the numbers, they dont go for shorter cranks. there is no body characteristics that probably facilitate one or another rider for shorter cranks? or this would be independently of body sizes? btw, have you try to calculate somehow how much Pogi would save in wattage or more output compared to Vingegaard on a specific stage? on that stage were both disputed by a sprint, i would expect that longer crank would give an edge over the shorter.....but what do i know? :P thanks
Thanks Gledii. I'm sure all of the teams have their own "marginal gains" they are working on, depending on who is involved and their personal experience, expertise and beliefs. Not that long ago Sky wanted to bring along a motor home for their GC rider so they slept in the same bed every night. Obviously Pogi's support people believe strongly in this so they have pursued it. I changed cranks because I have terrible hip arthritis and found that there were a lot of good outcomes along the way I didnt really anticipate.
@@leedorney I recommend dual side power meter pedals. The Assiomas are great and relatively cheap. Then I changed to speedplay powerlnk which are also great, but far from cheap
Sorry you had 165 likes and I ruined that ;). All my bikes are 165 as of this year coming down from 175 on the fleet. I also run egressive on cleat placement depending on which bike and how long said bike is used time wise too not wipe out my calves. I am currently finishing up my new carbon shoes and have more options to play with cleat placement.
That's it! It was his cranks. How could I not think of that.
Wait! I've seen this one before!----Just like Lance beat Ullrich due to his higher cadence!
@@tmb1065 Exactly! It was right in front of our eyes.
just say you're not able to comprehend the video without saying you're just dumb
😂
😂😂😂😂
randomly got recommended this. I switched from 172.5 to 165. my knees and hips feel much better.
My hips are SO much more comfortable now.
What is your height?
@@Daniel-kb3mf all presented in the video
@@Daniel-kb3mf It is not really height that matters. It will be Inseam more. A tall person with short legs is not going to need long cranks. Height will influence Reach
Thank you for pointing this out about Pogachar. I switched to 152mm (I'm 172cm tall), for relieving knee pain on longer rides, I'm not going back either. Hope the bike industry takes notice, it's also less weight.
Less weight for the weight weenies out there is also a bonus
Pog also won in clothes size small and shoes size 42. I will cut a part of my toes and squeeze my feet in those same shoes. Clothes are stretch so no problem.
ok sure. Let me know how you go with that
@@RazorBlade86 I'm just saying, that crank length is rider-specific. There is a tendency for shorter cranks but like in all trends, it is a trend and any application of the trend on your person can turn out positive or negative.
Many riders are less then 6 feet tall and can profit a lot from shorter cranks.
Many bikes are still delivered with cranks that tend to be to long . Going down from 175 to 172.5 or 170mm is already helping a lot
@@paxundpeace9970 I agree the default should at least be 25 or 50mm shorter, as a start. Just like handlebars on road bikes should be default at 40cm, and anything higher than 42cm is just stuff for freaks. Aero bikes are still sold with standard 44cm wide bars, in the XL configuration. Go figure. Aero bikes with parachute bars.
@@paxundpeace9970 Hopefully the bike industry will start making more options available for riders so they can choose their crank length at time of purchase
Mate thanks for this fantastic video! Well edited, well researched, and informative.
I recently went from 175mm on my old triathlon bike to 165mm on a new one. Cadence increased naturally, and there seemed to be no learning curve. The less realised advantages are having no pedals hitting the ground in sharp corners, and a more relaxed transition to the run thanks to higher cadence. Makes a huge difference.
I'm no triathaloner and only bike and run for hobby and really would have thought that my running cadence would've actually been SLOWER than my cycling cadence
I was wrong. I checked my Strava.
Thanks David. Really appreciate that! I think triathlon and time trial are the very obvious disciplines where shorter cranks are a must. It would be interesting to see research on how riding shorter cranks directly benefits transition to running. I have not looked into that as yet.
@@mydearriley I believe that most people would have a faster running cadence than cycling cadence
@@podiumphysio657 I think that's correct!
It's just intuitively it seems backwards - even though I have been cycling and running my entire life!
@@mydearriley Keep cycling and running so you can have a longer and better life!
I changed to smaller cranks two decades ago. Shorter crank and using an oval chainring for my triathlon bike allowed me to get more watts out at lower RPMs which helped with all the issues noted in this video. It also helped with friction. The RPMs were closer to that of my run pace, too.
It has already been proven that using oval chainrings plays tricks on the strain gauges of power meters, causing them to register higher power than the rider is actually producing. Chris Froome fell for this same phenomenon. Do a little research.
Well that’s how I trained so I used same measurements training and racing. Statistically the same measurement system. Worked out fine.
@@RB-xv4sislightly lower heart rate more noticable during climbs using ovals and 165mm cranks. Less knee pain and faster run times in a triathlon
I havent tried oval rings. Interesting concept. How did they feel in terms of pedalling dynamics? Did you notice any difference?
@@skullleaderx4986 Brilliant!
Some good stuff here. My fitter, who is a big fan of short cranks, said that I have long femurs and am not really sensitive to crank length - so he didn't recommend going to shorter. Was having some breathing problems in my position a few years later and went from 175 to 165 mm and it certainly helped the lungs and power was normal. I felt that I was missing a bit on the hills - couple of 1-2 min steep hills on our regular TT course and I was always a few seconds slower than I expected on these segments. I'm a rouleur on the heavier side who does better than average when climbing - think the long femurs help. Went to 170s to get back some punchy climbing power. Will experiment with shorter cranks on a couple of local crits coming up to help with accelerating out of corners.
I think relative leg length is only part of the equation. A big factor for me is I have NO FAST TWITCH. Me trying to sprint with long cranks over 100 RPM just isnt possible.
@@podiumphysio657 I hear ya. I can only hit 1000W maybe once per season and it's all about how fast I can spin in a lower gear.
I can't believe the new trends in cycling- first, wider tires. Now, shorter cranks. It's the old saying " If it feels good do it!".🤙
I worked part time in a bike shop between 1999 and 2001 and was using wider tyres and 165mm cranks ( I'm 6'1") back then , everyone looked at me like I was crazy but it seems I was right all along !
@@kevinsylvester770 Haha, I'm sure they did. We benefited years ahead of the Crowds :)
Marketing cr@p
cant argue with that!
Ahead of your time. When I told the Specialized dealership I wanted my new 61 cm Aethos specced with 160 cranks they had quite a chuckle!
I hope shorter cranks become more optional from bike manufacturers. I’ve been using Rotor 155 mm crank on my SWorks Aethos for years. This is the future of cycling. Thanks for explaining the importance of using shorter crank.
You are welcome. Love my new Aethos too. Made a few videos on that also - they are on my channel
I just installed 100mm cranks on my bike. I’m sure I’ll win the Tour next year.
@@timgroves7916 and snag at least 12 stages in the process.
Ha ha, good one! Or is it?
Go for 145 instead 6:51 and win the 3 GT :D
I'm going with no pedals. If shorter is better, then none is best right?
@@BufordDuckworth then install a motor on bike
Ppl are so naive. It's not about what is best crank size. But rather what crank size is for you. It's determine by leg strength, leg length, type of riding you like to do and what rotation size feels the best. It's not 1 thing or another but overall. Someone who is 183cm+ with long legs on 165 crank is probably not good fit. Just like someone who is 170cm short leg probably shouldn't be using 175crank
yup. and overwhelmingly roadies have probably been on cranks that are too long.
Im predominately and mountain biker and I am so so glad mtbing has final started to resolve is roadie-itis it has had since the 80s. Bike geo largley based/influenced by road bikes, stems that were 100+mm, ppl running 170+ cranks.
I’m 178cm tall but my inseam corresponds to an above average 190cm individual. 160s are great for me.
Podium Physio is right on the money and no, it is not about what rotation feels the best, it is about the science.
@@CPSolutionsLLC you do know your body can calculate by how it feels? like feels too long or too short. your body also knows how much power you are able to dish out on those rotations or not. if you have no leg strength for it? you cant go short because it takes much more torque vs longer cranks. like i said.. it all depends on person and how they are and their physics.
@@tylerbruce5731
Silly comment about “roadies” - more cyclists polarisation and this generalisation substantiated with zero facts. 😂
Awesome analysis, thank you for breaking this down!🎉
Cheers. Appreciate the feedback!
Informative, thanks. New SRAM Red now even available in 160mm🤩 (previous shortest was 165mm). Wouldn't be surprised to see some pros experimenting with 160mm next year. Went to 165 on one of my three bikes last year. To be honest, can't tell much difference between 165 and 170mm. But appreciate being able to raise the saddle. At some point on other two bikes will switch to 165 to raise saddle. Also might avoid some rock strikes and be able to pedal out of corners faster, or even pedal through corners with shorter cranks.
unfortunately only 165 in the power meter version 😭
Yes my 160s are SRAM - but Rival spec.
Brilliantly described. Well done. No holds barred.
Thanks Greg!
Brilliant analysis and explanation. Best I’ve seen, subscribed. Just got 165mm cranks on a new frame instead of all the 170 and 172.5’s I now have. Like the feel and speed so far.
Cheers. Hope it works well for you long term!
I did it on my mountain bike.. knees were happy and I have not looked back. It's cool to know Tadej did this.. bet there will be more to follow once the word gets out !!
Win on Sunday, sell on Monday!
I recently went from 170mm to 165mm, and agree, it's more comfortable. My performance hasn't changed, but I've never really pushed it to find out. I'm certainly not any slower and might be a little faster. I'm 5'9.5", so about Poggies height. I raised my saddle (by 5mm) but made no other changes.
In flat you run faster with shorter crankarm ..170 is just right for climbing
Same scenario, height everything. I ride a 56 SL7 with a 120 stem. I think the shorter cranks eat higher cadences, it loves it and wants it. Slower cadences feel like I am behind the gear.
@@rafscindaydreamer5616agree
Hey UCD. In making my 15mm change I found I did not need any other adjustments besides a saddle/ HB raise. Same gearing worked just fine.
@@rafscindaydreamer5616 Hey there. I've been quite happy climbing our local hills here with 160s. Works well for me.
Pogi has made Lance’s and Pantani’s greatest exploits look natural.
Based on?
@@StopTheRot Eyes?
pogi. mr " i dont know what that is", switches to " we only use that for training"
@charlesmansplaining Yeah, nothing has changed in cycling industry, nor the pro peloton, in "3 decades", that would warrant faster times. May want to look into the under 18yo juniors as well, given that their race pace is also faster, upwards of 20%.
@charlesmansplaining The truth is EVERY SINGLE PRO ATHELETE is on PEDs. There, you happy?
It’s not the equipment, it’s the motor.
He is an enigma, for sure!
Very interesting! I've been meaning for a while to try shorter cranks, and this is really motivating me to give it a shot...
Yup. I went from 175 to 160 and love it. Less pain, better performance. Simple
Thanks for making a video about this topic and I too was intrigued when I found out Tadej Pogacar won the GIRO on 165s!
To share about my own experience with shorter cranks..
Am 176cm or 5ft 9 with an 820mm or 32 inch inseam.
Used 175, 172.5, 170, 165 and running 145mm at the moment. Before settling on 145s, I've shuffled between long and short cranks multiple times over the past few years while figuring my fit.
What I've noticed is that the shorter cranks allows me to deliver much smoother pedal strokes and this was the most significant with 145s. The pedaling just feels more granular and I feel that I can deliver power in the forward and down stroke more efficiently. I'm unable to replicate this same feeling with longer cranks. 165mm and shorter is when I start to feel this.
The loss in leverage felt significant when I went down to 165mm yet I kind of enjoy mashing more with shorter cranks. Surprisingly, I didn't notice any difference in leverage when I eventually went down to 145mm from 165mm. While speed may not be an accurate indicator, I do notice completing my usual loops with almost the same time compared to the longer cranks with a lower perceived effort. Recovery also seems easier when riding on consecutive days.
Riding with a power meter is insightful. Go to a lower gear and spin 10 - 15rpm higher and noticed that I'm able to easily produce the same power or higher on the same hill compared to the longer cranks. I think it could be the adaptation kicking in since I'm able to mash on my 145s better than when I started using them about a 1.5 months ago.
Highly encourage anyone who has chanced upon this topic to experiment. Here are a few brands for cranks shorter than 165mm
Sugino & Shimano 105 does 160mm cranks
Croder - Starts from 140mm (I'm using this)
Dixna La - Starts from 130mm.
Appleman Crank - Starts from 100mm
Rotor - Starts from 155mm
Highly personal. I am the opposite in climbs. I can generate the same watts but with lower HR at lower rpm
Brilliant! Thanks for your contribution Jin! I agree that we would expect a smoother stroke (less stabilisation needed and less dead spots). Similar power outputs, lower perceived effort and better recovery is very interesting!
Your list of short crank providers is much appreciated!
Grinding a big gear by the sounds. You must be a torque machine
@@podiumphysio657 Welcome! Had my fair share of struggles searching for short cranks for road bikes so hope that this list of short crank providers help!
@@Jin_KX Wonderful thanks again
I'm 189cm tall with shoe size UK13. I switched from 170mm cranks to 175 years ago and never looked back.
Glad that worked well for you Paul. Suits your physiology
going to smaller cranks only works when doping
@@MichaelMackenzie-sb4hx It has worked well for me and I'm not doping
Somebody posted a video of Pogi actually having 165 cranks on his bike. In every video I've seen he has 172.5
I understand he dropped from 172.5 to 170s in 2023 then to 165 in 2024. Must be an old video (or an old bike)
Very well explained, Im 173cm tall and tried between 172.5 and 170 crank. But i find the shorter 170 comfortable. Thinking of going down a bit maybe 167.5/165 mm crank. Thank you
165mm do seem reasonable it does depend a bit on what you gone be riding.
Glad you found the info useful!
Best discussion of this topic as most people fail to mention that you will be required to make corresponding changes to saddle and handlebar height which are major considerations to take into account when shortening crank arm length.
Cheers! Yes making any bike fit change has a cascade of downstream/ upstream effects. Sometimes people forget this. However when you have unalterable components like a one piece bar and stem, then you need to find a middle ground.
Glad to see the detailed explanation of why “shorter” cranks are better. I remain curious as to why the group set makers and bike builders went to too long cranks. In the 1970s and 1980s cranks were shorter than on same size frames now. I don’t know when they migrated to too long cranks but I do know my M size 1986 Specialized HardRock has 170mm cranks and my M size 2013 HardRock had 175. All of my other bikes from 2015 on have come with 175mm cranks. I can sustain a higher speed and longer on my 1986 with 170 cranks than any bike I’ve owned since then! It wasn’t until a couple years ago that I realized the crank length issue and how newer bikes (longer cranks) degraded my physiological performance. Ironic that so much other tech is touted for weight savings, aero improvements, etc but then they basically crippled us with excessively long cranks. Somewhere at some time this was a high level decision. I simply would like to know what was the belief or the supply chain issue that moved us away from the more efficient crank lengths of the past.
I would suspect that a few high profile athletes were touting longer cranks as the reason behind their strong performances, and in the absence of scientific scrutiny the trend became folklore.
Thank you for the detailed analysis! I am 6’-2” and have always rode 175mm cranks. I even experimented with 180mm back in the day when Lennard Zinn was promoting longer cranks for tall guys.
I now have multiple stents in my left common iliac vein. The stents cross the hip joint so high flexion could restrict flow. I am considering going to shorter cranks to alleviate this potential overuse issue. Many thanks!
Sorry to hear about your medical issues. Yes as I said there really are no downsides that I can see. If you are in the stage of your cycling career where you are more enjoyment focussed rather than race/ performance focussed, then Id say you have nothing to lose
After 16 years on 180s, I'm about to fit my 165mm 9000 arms. I stand at 183cm.
I've also just ordered a 'budget' Shimano R510 x 165 crankset so I can continue using my Q & QXL rings which won't fit the 2 last DA, Ult or 105 groupsets. Used top level 165 cranks are now so rare, thanks Pog! ;-) Congrats too, I wish he was also in the Olympics road race I'm watching now.
Nine dropped the race from the TV, thanks again, whilst the 9now sound has thankfully dropped out with inferior commentators. Grrr!
We'll see how those crank changes pan out at next month's Amy's GF, my 12th.
Nice. Good luck at Amy's Grand Fondo!
Top work AB. 👌
Appreciate that Bill!
I’ve been on 165s after a bike fit. Unfortunately, still couldn’t make the TDF squad.
Maybe ask for a transfer to a new team?
Very informative video. Will have to go shorter with my next bike build. Thank you!
Thanks Sven
I went to 165 3 years ago and would never change again. Watch lots changing to 165 and Tom Pidcock is testing out currently!!
Pidcock is 5ft nothing, he should be on 150mm cranks.
Yes. Damn I forgot about Pidcock. Should have given him a shout out also!
@@siy01 Have to start dropping the bottom bracket for him so he can keep railing those descents!
When I raced XC in the early 90s, everyone was using 175-180mm cranks. I was the only person I knew of that rode 170s. It seemed natural to me having short legs. And it helped me learn to ride with a higher cadence.
Yep. Our sport is mired in tradition. I think there will be more options available in the future as manufacturing techniques become cheaper
I ride a 150mm by ROTOR, have done for the past 10 years and it's a game changer. The late legendary engineer Mike Burrows also made me a 150mm from an Ultegra crank. Mike who designed the original Lotus bike was a pioneer for short cranks. He would make anything from an 80mm to get people back on there bikes and advocated that 100mm was a sweet spot for time trials. Matt Jackson at TheFootLab in Norfolk was a good friend of Mikes and is an advocate of shorter crank lengths where necessary. So if your based in the UK, give him a try.
Hey thanks for the intel. True bespoke cranks! I think I'm happy where I've settled for now, with 160mm. Norfolk UK is quite a long day in the saddle from Adelaide Australia (you didnt pick up the Aussie accent😁?)
@@podiumphysio657 😂 I did, was just in case you had any viewers from Blighty.
@@MM-xr6tz Good lad!
Great video! I am tall (not as tall as you), and I was worried that the shorter cranks were not suitable for tall people. Your video gives me confidence that it will be suitable for me too.
Thanks. I honestly have not seen any downside. I really enjoy using them and it is nice to pedal through corners without concern about ground strike
This is an excellent video.
Thanks Benson. I really appreciate your feedback!
165 on all my cranks, and now Im considering 160 based on my Big Sur Sport
Go for it!
What a nice and knowledgeable guy!
thank you!
I've recently changed from 175 to 165 cranks with higher seat. I found that my cadence naturally increased from something rather low. Happy to hear that Pogacar has done the same thing. I'm 170 tall, so even shorter might be useful. But they are hard to find.
There are many smaller manufacturers making shorter cranks. This selection was provided by @Jin_KX
Sugino & Shimano 105 does 160mm cranks
Croder - Starts from 140mm
Dixna La - Starts from 130mm.
Appleman Crank - Starts from 100mm
Rotor - Starts from 155mm
I think the idea of lowering knee height at the top makes a lot sense
I hope my explanation was clear
@@podiumphysio657 It was
@@daveoram7249 Thanks Dave. Appreciate your feedback!
Never would've thought just a crank length alone could make such a difference!
I'm sure his natural talent and training helps!
@@podiumphysio657 For sure 😅
Another advantage of a shorter crank is greater clearance above the ground when the pedal is at the bottom of the stroke, so can pedal through turns more easiily, which is one reason track bikes have shorter crank arms
Kinda makes sense but as a non- trackie talking here, aren't they leaning in at roughly the same angle as the pitch of the track? I guess only at top speed.
I don't understand why are there people making silly comments, like "How could I not think of that" referring to the crank length, of course changing to shorter crank length wasn't the only thing that made him improving his performance during this tour, and I think you also did't intend to say that. So, I want to say: great opinion and great video.
Thank you!
Nice explanation.
Thank you Salik
Great content!
Thanks for that!
A great analysis of crank lengths. Y'know, trackies have been using 165mm cranks for years. Not only are they great for rapid fixed gear acceleration, but they won't hit the banked track!
Thanks Paul. Ive never ridden on the track but I'd love to give it a go. I think it is amazing that people worry their power will drop off with shorter cranks, when you give the perfect and obvious example of why it doesn't. The strongest riders in the world use shorter 165mm cranks. Cheers!
I just switched to 160mm cranks down from 170mm. Brilliant! Set a personal best average speed on my first ride. Just felt easier overall.
Glad to hear it worked well for you. Awesome!
You will also have to move the saddle forward due to raising the saddle to maintain optimum riding position
Probably but not definitely. Bike fitting is both a science and an art. Sometimes you make a change, expect certain results and get something different.
Yes. You will be moving back slightly and that will mean the Bars will be further away and your knees will be further back from the correct position. But a raise of 15mm is not huge so it will depend if the gap between saddle nose and bars is still comfortable. Depending on how far you shorten the cranks may even require a shorter stem
@@daveoram7249 I have 2 different Specialized bikes, a Tarmac and an Aethos. The Aethos has a higher stack and I definitely appreciate that extra half cm or so.
This i think is part of the explanation why i love oval Chainrings, they give the same leverage as a short crank and slows down muscle contraction. The Studys on Ovals also support sprint power mainly
Interesting thought. I dont know a lot about Oval Chainrings but I can see the potential there
@@podiumphysio657 could be fun to see you do some testing on Ovals, but i am sure u need to put them on your long cranks, otherwise the lever becomes to short, i have tried 167 and went back up to 172 cranks with my Ovals, it felt better
Nice! Pete Torque done a technical video on this too. I was hoping to grab a newer 4iiii left side so let’s see what the future holds. I agree, I ride a XS frame and my road bike came with 172.5 and my MTB 165. 160 is easily a shout
Supplying a XS bike frame with 172.5 cranks just makes no sense to me
But he's a little lad.
Littler than me!
I’ve been using 150mm cranks for 17 years. I had a set of SRM power meter cranks reduced to 150mm to measure the difference. I won a lot of races using them.
Brilliant. Glad to hear it!
I miss the days when riders were on affordable bikes and it was the dope that made the difference.
The horse has definitely bolted regarding affordable bikes
Theres this thing in the cycling community, where if you dont have an expensive bike, then what you own is a pile of junk. Its insane. Like not all people can afford to pay 5k for a bike.
@@jackmehoff2363 In my cycling group the chaps are fairly respectful of people riding older or cheaper bikes, its just that average cost of the bikes being ridden rises more steeply each year.
I removed my cranks. Will probably win the tour in 2025.
LOL 😅
Zero mm cranks - the natural evolution...
😂
I am truly amazed by your analysis! While watching Pogacar on the final TT in Nice, he seemed to corner more aggressively, pedaling further into the turn and starting earlier coming out of the turn - yet he never scraped a pedal (although I feared it). Did his bike perhaps have a higher bottom bracket?? Now I understand why. I’m 184cm and we always thought cranks should be 175 or at least 172.5. I’m excited to try shorter cranks. Any guess why Pogacar isn’t using 160’s? You can be sure he’s experimented with them. Well done. Very well done.
Thanks Gordon
It started when I was told I needed a carbon frame, then carbon wheels, then disc brakes, then aero frame, followed by skinnier handle bars. Now I need a 165 crank? After all those previous upgrades, I'm still a slow ass sloth on the bike.
Bike industry execs gotta eat!
I switched to 165 after watching one of your other videos, and it's been for the better, not that some of my local Spainish cycling group agree.
Cheers for that! Yes not many of my cycling compadres are buying shorter cranks yet either
OMG BUYING SHORTER CRANKS NOW
Go get em
@charlesmansplaining definitely watts to be saved right there
Fascinating. Thanks. So…what did Eddie Mercks ride?
Hmm. Dont have that info at hand sorry
@@podiumphysio657 Thank you for the heart and reply. I confess that I was being a little bit cheeky with my question, implying that whatever crank length Merckx rode, Eddie would have dominated. I did a little research and the best I could find is a list of crank lengths posted by "phourgenres" at the weightweenies.starbike forum which claimed Merckx rode 175mm cranks. Loved your initial video because we athletes should be testing and measuring and trying new ideas instead of just doing the accepted. A few years back I read a study which explored whether runners should stretch before running or not. The result? Runners run better on tight muscles. Warm up? Yes. Stretch before? No. Stretch afterwards? Sure. I tested this idea. Worked for me. I changed my pre-run warmup for the better.
Eddie jeździł na 140 mm
@@antymisiek2972 Wow
@@antymisiek2972 Thanks! Appreciated! Source?
Gone back to 165mm after years on 170mm, feel less sore after races and recovery seems quicker. Its vague but times are the same on given courses so no obvious downside.
Used 155 for ages, haven't got any of those to try at the moment, but according to my old log book notes it was efficient .
5ft 8inch tall.
Sounds like you have tried a few crank length options. Glad to hear that 165s suit you well! Less pain and better recovery is good for your cycling!
Rotor do down to 145. I have bikes with 155 and Shimano 165. You need to consider gearing below 155.
Pluses are a bigger saddle drop, can use a smaller frame with a long stem (more aero) as you aren’t as cramped. For every mm of difference you create 2mm of space. The bottom of the pedal stroke is higher, which mean you increase the height of your seat post. The top of the pedal stroke is lower and that gives you space again. You can therefore hold aero positions comfortably.
Shorter cranks allow for better acceleration. Foot speed remains the same, so the distance traveled if you associate a crankset with a 400m track is no different between inside lane and the outside lane. You just do more or less laps.
Yup. Pretty much what I said in 1/10th of the time! But unless you change gearing foot speed will be slower, hence more muscle force capacity
@@podiumphysio657 Thanks for replying. It’s an interesting topic and you are right. It will adjust your lowest and highest gearing, so for any given gear you’ll be applying more force. It lends for having a 32 Tooth cassette for steep inclines to get to your regular cadence.
If you go from say a 172.5 to a 155, that’s a 11% difference meaning that say you ride at 90rpm at 172.5, then to apply the same foot speed, your cadence would increase to 100 in order to reach the same distance travelled related to applied force.
The upshot is that cadence is really a misnomer. It is entirely tied to crank length and you can’t compare one cadence to another without factoring in proportional differences on crank length.
For myself, I have quite a strange combination that seems to work for me. I found through trial and error that I’m more efficient with low cadence/high torque and I don’t fatigue over long distances. So using 155-165 cranks I am at the 60-80 rpm range. This helps put me less to the extremes of my cassette related to my ability, so it’s a bit more efficient for the chain line. One other thing is acceleration. The pivot axis is shorter, therefore the moment of force acts more immediately. This lends to the application of higher torque being more efficient perhaps.
@@benfinesilver2250 Yes I think in this stream of discussion there is a fine nuance between talking "cadence" and "footspeed". It may well be that foot speed is the more useful parameter to know.
I'm a Doble hip replacent guy and 165s on this week. Feels weird but numbers look good and comfy
Hope it goes well for you
Where to buy these cranks of 165mm, with a medium drive for road bike, in Belgrade ? There is desperately little specific goods, here. Planet Bike , as the largest importer does not have it in stock except for MTB bike ? Thanks for the comprehensive presentation !
In Australia we have multiple online shops that can help, but I'm not sure what you have access to in Belgrade sorry!
@@podiumphysio657 Thank You Sir, serbia is a Black Hole for many useful and necessary things. Only for modern things like e-bikes, there are parts, for classic not enough. people loves only, If it`s easy for him, so that he doesn`t sweat. They just eat, sit and gain weight, the vast majority
@@consumtion-is-destruction Sadly that sounds like much of the western world I'm afraid. Most would benefit from eating less and moving more.
I went from 170mm to 155mm. I can't imagine going back!
I went from 175 to 125, best thing i did in my life !
Love to see some video of that
Visma LAB has surely looked into it as well. Will be interesting to see if they go that route as well next year.
I would imagine that all of the teams have awareness of the trend, and I'm sure we will see more and more riders dropping down 5-10 mm in coming years. However there obviously still needs to be room for individual preference, different rider roles and different physiologies.
As a shorter rider, the stock 170mm cranks which came on my 48 size frame were just too long for me. Moved to shorter step by step from 160, 155 to 150mm with Rotor cranks, also offsetting the gearing 1-2 cogs.
Ideal might be to have a frame with lower compensated BB drop, so you don't sit as high on the bike.
It's like tuning a race car-you wouldn't leave that option on the table if you could. Some might benefit from shorter cranks, some might not. Expecting to go from zero to hero with this change alone is a bit of a stretch.
170 cranks on a 48cm frame is insane. Who sold you that? What brand / model bike? Absolutely crazy
@@podiumphysio657 My old rim-brake Cervelo R2 came with 170 mm cranks as stock. I'm not sure if this has changed, as crank length isn't listed in the current specifications. I've seen 165 mm cranks on similarly sized frames from other brands, but I can't recall which ones.
@@myNamezMe Just doesnt make sense. I think you have been poorly served with that setup
Loved my fixed gear race bike with shortish cranks (can't remember exact length) which I gave away in Covid lockdown. Stupidly, I missed the chance to get shorter cranks when my Ultegra crankset was recalled and replaced earlier this year. Had the cranks on my wife's folding Mezzo cut down to 155mm (she is 64.5" = 164 cm tall with short legs).
QUESTION: shorter cranks means higher saddle means... can't touch toe down at traffic lights or any other pause. With higher saddle and fatter tyres,
DO WE NEED SMALLER WHEELS, eg 650B? Or lower bottom bracket in relation to 700C wheel hub height from ground?
You are really going to terrify bike manufacturers with that suggestion! Seriously though, people do need to be warned that the ground gets further away when the saddle goes up (for any reason)
I bought a new bike with larger cranks about a year ago. It’s been a noticeable downgrade. Thanks for reminding me to deal with it some time asap.
Shame you have to go and spend extra now...
@@podiumphysio657 yup. With so many things to consider it just slipped my attention
Thanks!
Hi John. I've never received a SuperThanks before. I'm extremely grateful for the gesture. Very much appreciated and glad you enjoyed the video!!!
I went from 172.5 to 165 on my tt bike and then did the same on my road bike, never looked back...
But are you faster?
Definitely makes sense on TT bike, glad it also worked for your road bike
Being curious about this subject, I decided to get a set of shorter crank arms to replace my Ultegra 170mm. Since Shimano doesn't make the R8000 group set in a 160mm arm length, I got a pair of 105 arms which do come in 160mm. BTW, I can tell no difference between the Ultegra arms and the 105 arms. They look identical and the 105s were actually lighter (probably due to being shorter in length) than the Ultegra. I'm installing them tomorrow and can't wait to give them a try. If anyone is curious, I'm about 5'6" with about a 30.5" inseam.
Good luck with the test.TBH at 5'6" you could probably go shorter (if you could find suitable cranks). I'm 6'3" and use 160s
My saddle height bb-seat is 88cm. I'm on 175mm
That's high. I thought I had long legs my bb to seat is 83.5cm.
@@markusseppala6547 194 cm
You must either be a giant or you point your toes when pedalling (or both)
@@markusseppala6547 My saddle height is 85cm ish and I'm 192cm tall
@@podiumphysio657 194cm long legs short body
I switched to 165 from 170 two years ago. The difference was so positive I tried 160 and it was even better. The main benefit for me is reduced knee pain and hips feel better. I can ride longer as well.
Hey Charles. Yes I came to this juncture to help my hips also, but saw so much beyond just the pain relief. Glad you are really benefitting!
@@podiumphysio657 so true many other benefits…another thing you pointed out is that legs can go up and down more in a vertical plane. Sometimes mine feel like they are pistons with more power and a more efficient pedal stroke which is a sensation I never had before.
@@charlesblithfield6182 Yes more vertical leg drive and smoother stroke - I agree
Let us stop generalizing! I am 184 tall, quite strong for my age; switching from 170mm to 175mm cranks on my MTB helped reduce my general knee pain and fatigue. I can also get out of steep sudden climbs easier, without the need to change a gear down. For my road bike I use 172.5mm and for my cyclocross 170mm, which I am ready to change to 172.5 or 175mm ones.
Hey there. So you present one good personal example of going the other direction being beneficial. The entire bike industry "generalises" by offering 170 - 175mm cranks as the standard options, despite huge numbers of cyclists preferring or likely benefitting from something else. Same goes for other components like saddles and handlebars. The number of saddles that get taken off new bikes straight away and binned or resold is crazy
i am a short guy 5 foot 2 but i used very long crank 175 mm and i do a lot of out of saddle while riding only to avoid knee pain while performing 60 to 80 rpm on the crank because i preferred low cadence high gear
That is highly unusual. But if it works for you thats great
Spot on!
All the best
Could you reference some of the studies showing no increased metabolic cost of crank length?
I believe Jim Martin used this study in his presentation: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12183473/
And another quoted on the same topic is cdnsciencepub.com/doi/abs/10.1139/h97-027#.XnkXtZNKiqA
I'm not a cyclist. I love watching. When I was watching the tour I noticed Jonas would be pedaling and his knees would flare out at times. I thought this was due to his injuries he was still healing from.
That may be a contributing factor. it is amazing Jonas was healthy enough to ride the Tour at all!
The saddle height on my new bike is about at the limit of the (oval) seat post. I am currently on 175 cranks but my bike does not allow me to go shorter than 170. So the bike size might limit the possibility to shorten the cranks. Something to consider!
Yes that is another complicating factor that comes up occasionally. I've even found on my old Trek Emonda, in a size 62 frame, I was at the limit of seat post height when still on my 175mm cranks
Annoyingly, I seem to be the only person that creates far less power on shorter cranks. I wanted shorter cranks for better position, but my power dropped off hugely - even after 6 months of trying. And I only went from 175 to 170. Sprint power went up though, particularly longevity of sprint.
20 minute power 175: 344
20 minute power 170: 323
5 minute power 175: 398
5 minute power 170: 375
(Would love to know why it doesn’t work for me. But my climbing is definitely weakened - unlike Pog’s!).
No responses for opposing evidence it seems. Shame
Did you test your performance on the road? Was there any aero benefit that offset that loss of power?
Not sure. I guess if it was a panacea then we would all already be on short cranks. It is going to help some folks but not everyone
Hey there. Trying to answer as many as I can. I get email notifications for primary responses but not secondary.
I loved riding kids road bikes with 145mm cranks, now i only have adult bikes with 170mm, im trying to switch to 165 mm
Go for it!
The graph at 7:00 can also be interpreted as "just don't go too short or too long and you're good".
If Pogi dropped to 165 and is STILL winning the Tour as he did on two occasions with 172.5 - then you can conclude that a 7.5 mm change in crank length DOESN'T MATTER for him. It's an insignificant change just like dropping your saddle 10 mm or bolting a 20 mm longer stem. If a change is noticeable and measurable, it doesn't mean it's significant.
Disclaimer: my argument is under the assumption your bike fit is good to begin with - that you're not imited with your bike fit. If you have him impingement then shorter cranks are better, yes.
Anyway, I'm just irritated how YT made me almost order 170 mm cranks on multiple occasions, this time bein no different :P
Ah. But WHY did he go to 165mm cranks? He and his team perceive it to be beneficial.
I found this video interesting and informative. The breakdown and accompanying video on the effect of the longer crank arm at the top of rotation was well done. Having started riding back in the days of 10 speeds and toe clips, I've sort of clung to old ideas. Now, in my late 60's I'm willing to experiment with something that seems to offer improved biomechnical efficency. How did you determine that 160 was better for you than 165 considering your height?
Well I reflected on Jim Martin's work that said going down as low as 145s was still very viable, and considering my hip issues I thought that I'd make a significant change, not just the next size down. SRAM makes 160s in Rival spec which is the group set on both my Specialized roadies so I thought I'd give it a try.
Wow! Simply, clearly & beautifully presented. Now, I prefer saying that I have "a long crank" but if any of this info is true I may be switching to 165 and voluntarily compromise my masculinity. But thanks!
Yup I get my share of chuckles and sniggers from other riders looking at my 160s. Then I drop them on the climbs and I cant hear them any more!
I predict Jonas Vingegaard switching to shorter cranks this year or off season he's currently on 172.5mm. His former Visma biomechanics guru Javier Soler is now at UAE and Is said to have helped with getting Pogi on board with 165mm.
Yes Sola is listed at UAE and he is credited now as being Pogacar's coach. All teams will be chasing these sorts of "Marginal Gains"
You need to widen your view of the variables in the pedal stroke. I swapped from 175 to 170 (6'1'), and several years ago. I find the biggest factor in feel is the horizontal factor of the pedal being further back at 3 o'clock and further forward at 9 o'clock. Thus making you extend less for the same vertical load, and then on the up stroke, it's easier to get your leg back over the top. It is this you are feeling, and which makes the shorter cranks more comfortable for most people. But the vertical aspect is a factor in power production. I moved my saddle up 3mm and back 1.5mm when I changed over. You need to address both vertical and horizontal planes when discussing this subject, unfortunately almost nobody thinks about both planes.
Hey. I can see some merit in those points, however it is not something I have come across much in bike fit literature. I did explain in the video that making a crank length change is likely to have some flow on effects that a professional bike fit may need to address.
I would say though that the one and only key factor for me feeling better with my cycling was having a more open hip angle at Top Dead Centre. Everything else for me (including performance) was a secondary concern. Also having the knee more extended at 3 O'Clock would be beneficial for power production based on my point about mechanical advantage.
@@podiumphysio657 👍 It may be that what you feel as open hip angle is actually due in large part to the reduced rearward travel of your foot thru the 8-11 o'clock position, and the reduced effort to get your leg/foot over the top of the stroke as its further in front of your hip joint. Our perceptions are often follow on sensations of something that has occurred upstream. Anyway, I am always mindful of the fact that our actual pedal stroke is a full 360 degrees of rotation, whether we "feel it" or not. As with bike fit in general, each single adjustment or change, has follow on affects. But, shorter cranks are helpful for most people. Just as tire width has increased from the days of 20mm tubs, crank length is now being looked at. Its a good thing.
I switched to 20mm cranks, next tourwinner here peeps, my hips and knees feel so much better now
Cool. Which team has signed you up?
@@podiumphysio657 McDonald's
As a tall trail runner (2 decades experience), a bicycle always feels like a restricted range of motion. Could optimal crank length be much longer for me?
Yes, especially if you're tall with large feet.
Possibly. Like all elements of bike fit it is a person by person activity
As someone with tight hamstrings and hips, definitely feel tight and pinched in the aero position.
Gonna be trying 165s, maybe 160.
64 year old runner dude...
Indeed. I remember for a laugh many years ago I tried to get into the puppy paws aero position for a short stretch of road and my hamstrings complained LOUDLY!
I have been using 170 Cranks for most of my life. I did try 165 on my Wahoo Kickr Bike but it didn't make any noticeable difference. Had a Bike Fit recently and trying a 160 crank length resulted in a much smoother, more comfortable and faster ride. The Bike Industry has a lot to answer for. I have also been using 40cm width bars (42 on the Wahoo Kickr Bike) and I felt a noticeable difference using a 38cm Bar. I cannot stress enough the importance of a proper Bike Fit, preferably not a Bike Shop who sells Bikes as they want to sell you one of their Bikes so there is some conflict of interest
I guess it all comes down to cost savings and product line optimisation. Many cyclists dont know what they want or need in a bike, they are happy enough with what is recommended. I was like that once. However a degree of more choice and more options for the rest of us would be greatly appreciated.
I got into 165mm cranks because I really liked them on my track bike. I'd notice when I went to one of my bikes with longer cranks (172.5) I had greater chance of knee pain on longer rides (I also felt like it was harder to maintain a higher cadence). Here I thought I was just a weirdo liking them more than longer variants.
We are wearing lycra weaving through traffic before sunup. Of course we are weirdos
Have to admit as a triathlete 5’8” 32.5” inseam, I switched from 170 to 165 and just feel “stronger” on the run. I think my hips just feel less tight. Still run 170 on my road bike. But considering dropping down to 165 on that bike too.
Shorter cranks are an absolute must for Tri/ TT bikes. I've never done a triathlon however my hips were always much tighter (and sore) even walking after riding with my old 175mm cranks, and now far more comfortable after riding with 160mm
Good video again . I raced for years on 175mm, relying on my powerfull quads ( I am 1.76cm ) Then I moved to 172.5mm , was slightly better. Last year I changed to 165mm but did not feel any benefits apart from no back pain and less stress on the knees. I changed to 170mm ( as advised by a local top ex pro who has a bikefitting business as well ) I am about to build a second bike for climbing. What crank lenghts would you suggest? Many thanks.
Depends on your height/leg length and the climbs you are gone be doing. If those climbs are mostly 5.5/6% or less on average like for example many climbs on Mallorca then keep you might keep it as it.
If climbs are steeper like those i the alps with 7% or more for longer durations you could tend to shorter cranks.
Still even on time trail bikes they are tend to go for shorter cranks.
Less back pain and less knee pain should be worth it to tend shorter.
You have to choose what fits you best.
Hey Thanks K2822. There is a bit to unpack here. You said 172.5 was better than 175, but in what way? How was it better? Better performance in FTP or sprints or VO2 or something else?
You then went to 165s and felt more comfortable. I would say this is pretty important, as - if your body is dealing with the shorter cranks with less pain, and pain is warning sign of potential tissue injury/ overload, then avoiding pain would be a high priority. You cant train well when you are injured. I came to 160s to reduce load on my hip arthritis but stayed for the performance benefits....
You didnt feel any (other) benefits on 165s, so was it at least "as good" as 172.5s?
What did you find when you went back up to 170s?
If you have strong quads then you seem to fit the profile of someone who could use shorter cranks, benefit from same cadence, slower foot speed and greater force output to maximise torque.
If your performance on 165s is equivalent to that on 172.5, with less pain, then I'd be sticking to 165s!
That said, my key point is don't just accept what the bike industry dishes up out of habit, low cost (to them) and tradition....
@@paxundpeace9970 Thanks for your reply. My point here really is that it isnt as simple as height and leg length. I'm one of the tallest cyclists I know (six foot four) and have greatly benefitted from moving to the shortest available cranks from SRAM (160s). I agree that it is an "individual" solution and you need to choose what fits you best!
I gotta call my bike shoo asap and order shorter cranks and a bike fit
Good luck
Also less pedal strike risk when pedaling through curves and less toe overlap for smaller frames.
Also great points
Subscribed.
Appreciate that thanks!
This is very scientific and well explained. thanks a lot. im wondering with all the techs out there and teams like Jumbo that are crazy about the numbers, they dont go for shorter cranks. there is no body characteristics that probably facilitate one or another rider for shorter cranks? or this would be independently of body sizes? btw, have you try to calculate somehow how much Pogi would save in wattage or more output compared to Vingegaard on a specific stage? on that stage were both disputed by a sprint, i would expect that longer crank would give an edge over the shorter.....but what do i know? :P thanks
Thanks Gledii. I'm sure all of the teams have their own "marginal gains" they are working on, depending on who is involved and their personal experience, expertise and beliefs. Not that long ago Sky wanted to bring along a motor home for their GC rider so they slept in the same bed every night.
Obviously Pogi's support people believe strongly in this so they have pursued it.
I changed cranks because I have terrible hip arthritis and found that there were a lot of good outcomes along the way I didnt really anticipate.
I have been using 165mm Cranks for 42 years
Before your time Simon!
Rode 170's for yrs, tried 175's + 172.5's, would like to try 167'5 or even 160's 👍 - reckon Tadej is definitely onto something here
😂😂😂😂😂
@@marcdaniels9079🤣🤣🤣 🙄
Wont know until you try!
@@podiumphysio657 Yeh I'd like to get hold of power meter (chainset) as I've a Stages in 170mm, but open to that.. 👍
@@leedorney I recommend dual side power meter pedals. The Assiomas are great and relatively cheap. Then I changed to speedplay powerlnk which are also great, but far from cheap
Sorry you had 165 likes and I ruined that ;). All my bikes are 165 as of this year coming down from 175 on the fleet. I also run egressive on cleat placement depending on which bike and how long said bike is used time wise too not wipe out my calves. I am currently finishing up my new carbon shoes and have more options to play with cleat placement.
Cleats rearward on the shoe you mean? I think this works well for many people