I think crank length is similar to bar width, seat height, reach, etc. All are about finding what fits you right. With a 31" inseam I can attest that 175mm cranks just kill my knees. I dropped to 165s and it was amazing the difference. I did find that a slightly smaller chainring also helped too though. Techy climbs are much easier now....and no more pedal strikes. There surely has to be a "sweet spot" for crank length for each rider given all of us are built different. Too bad cranks are not adjustable in some way. hmmm...product development idea.
I have been running 155MM Canfield, cranks on my bike recently, and really enjoy it. I dropped down to a 28 chain ring to make up for leverage loss and don’t get as much top end speed on the road but I’m able to accelerate a little bit quicker up punchy climbs. I used their formula and bumped up to 155 as I was in between. Also, I am short legged.
Just did this exact same thing, Canfield 155mm, and it's been game changing... Except I went the opposite direction like a masochistic fool and upped the chain ring to 34t.... 😅
I replaced the 175 mm crank arms that came stock on my trail bike with a 170 mm set. I can definitely notice less pedal strikes, while I can't feel any difference in the peddling efficiency or in the handling.
I have 155mm cranks on my emtb, yt decoy. I ended up getting 150mm backups for my levo and yt. On full power emtb's shorter cranks = more cadence. A lot less pedal strikes is also a plus.
man on bmx 20 years ago, had these profile 145mm cranks, and it was nuts they way they felt. Could feel every detail of the ramps or jumps as we sent them. I mtb now, and this seems like heaven rode a pair of 170 from 175, and that made a massive difference when i used them. So I would probably love these!
I just pulled the trigger on some 155mm cranks from canfield for my Patrol (came with 165). Going down in chain ring size as well. Really excited to see the difference it makes!
@@on1ytheb3st Yeah 2021/22 model. I love it. It was a huge upgrade from my 2015 Kona process 134. I though it would be better but I didn't expect it to make as much of a difference as it did. Within the first week I was hitting things that had scared me for a long time on my Kona. Not only is it more travel, more composed, with a better geo, it is more poppy and playful (I think due to the linkage) and easier on the non-technical uphills despite being a couple pounds heavier. I am not a bike reviewer or an above average rider. The Kona is the only other bike I have spent significant time on so I am sure any more modern bike would have been a similar upgrade. I will say that I am all in on the mullet. I am 5'9'' with a 30'' inseam and keeping the small wheel in the back has saved me more than a couple times on steep sections and slow drops. The only complaint I have is the low bottom bracket (hence the 155mm cranks), I peddle strike way more often on it than my Kona. It is not really a problem on the down hill but it can kill flow on uphill sections and I end up working harder to get momentum for sections that I could previously just spin through.
@@carterschichtel9678 Not a huge difference all together. I think it helped me marginally on down hill control, and I have a lot more confidence that I won't peddle strike on both the ups and the downs. I don't notice much difference in exertion on the up hill but I went with a smaller chain ring and oval at that. I think if you replaced them with 165s tomorrow I wouldn't notice until I started hitting some rocks again on climbs I frequent.
Like you mentioned, short cranks suck when pedalling up. So short cranks are all good if you're being shuttled up. And I'll tell you what else sucks: ultra low BB's So, being that I feel most comfortable with 190mm cranks (yes, I've used online length calculators, and they all say my ideal crank is between 197mm and 190mm), and I don't do Bike Parks so I have to pedal everywhere myself, I've settled on ultra slack geo, but not so low BB's, and going to order some 185mm cranks 😎
@@topspot4834 no bike parks around me, nor mountains with a road that goes to the top. All roads go around at the bottom. So no, everything I descend I have to climb first
Remember, when using short crankset will put you to a lower leg which means you need to rise the seat post! I run 28 5/8” from center of crankset to the top of saddle. By shortening the crank arms I will need to go higher 😊. I will stay with 170mm as for me I don’t need to go shorter.
On bikes with more BB drop, slightly shorter cranks are nice. Went from 175 to 170 on my Megatrail and considering 170 to 165 for my Shore. There’s nothing worse than a pedal strike that puts you over the bars. The benefits are likely accentuated on the longer and slacker bikes of today. I think 160-170mm is a reasonable range for sizes S-L
I switch between 150 and 155 on my e-bike. I feel you have more rpm’s with shorter cranks then big cranks which is better for the motor and batttery. I use the 150 more rocks and rooty trails for clearance and 155 everywhere else. I have notice my Kees don’t hurt as bad. Yes even on a e bike knees hurt. That’s his blown out they are!
I’ve thought for years that shorter cranks make more sense on a trail / enduro bike. They are definitely in the future for my Transition Spire. Please keep posting updates with how you’re getting on!
A Sasquatchian size 15 here, I went from 175 and 170mm to 165mm. I like that it makes me spin faster and keeps my traumatized big toe safe! I’ll stop here though, it works for me! Thanks for the videos Jeff!
I watched and listened to all the short crank talk and convinced myself I needed to go smaller. I ride a Mojo 3, standard build, so its got 175mm crank arms standard. I'm 5'4" and ride a small frame. I talked to a guy at Jensen and it appears it's almost near impossible to find short cranks right now. After watching this, I think I'm fine with my big ole cranks.
I'm 67" tall and been riding with 150 and love. It feels weird riding with my sons 170 crank and hes shorter than me. He likes longer cranks for some reason.i think it match perfectly with 10 speed short derailleur. You guys might want to try it out.
For downhill, you can use any length crank to avoid pedal strikes but for xc you gotta find a balance. Too short and its very hard to climb technical terrain.
I put some 165's on my bike when I ran it as mullet, but I've kept them now that its back to full 29. One of the best changes ive ever made on a bike. Pedal strikes are very very rare. I sometimes crank though risky sections to see what I can get away with and I'm always surprised. I always ride with a mate (also on a L 29r) with 175mm cranks and I guaranteed pull away from him on tech climbs.
I've moved down to 165 crank and my riding has been more efficient with less pedal strikes. Maybe the hardtail I get in the future for my secondary bike I plan on putting either another 165 or 160. Honestly one should go to low on the crank so I think the 165 is probably the sweet spot. Especially for short guys like me.
depends on how tall/inseam, but im 5'11 and using 165 and its absolutely fine. used it for years now. might be ok at 160 not sure, 155/150 prolly starts to feel unstable when standing up on the pedals (the taller your are the less stable it feels when its too short)
150 should feel MORE stable lol dirt bike pegs aren't staggered and they do much much bigger features that require much more control over the bike (especially mid air) @@kangsterizer the best "downhill" pedals aren't pedals at all, it would be just be pegs connected to the bottom bracket, that would give you the most control and stable position. The fact that you have to pedal is the ONLY reason you have a staggered foot position lol just remember dirt bikes already figured all this out. They were running mullets and 0mm stems 40 years ago.
I went from 170 down to 160mm cranks. I have a 29" inseam so the 160's seem to work very well for me. Im able to pedal more in gnar and turns without pedal strikes. I dont seem to get as tired either. I wouldn't want to go any lower than 160 tho. I can notice that i dont have quite the power on super steep uphills that i had with the 170's. Just my observations......
Kids and small folk need these. So hard to source this size. Spawn, trailcraft, Canfield, now praxis. 150-160mm is rarified territory. Come on Raceface!
Рік тому+1
Inthe 90's we used to have 175's on our bmx bikes, the bigger leaver helps on the 360's and other rotation tricks. Now im thinking about 155 mm on my mtb.
I just switcged to 170 after riding 172.5 for the last couple years. Everybody says I wouldn't notice that small a change but I definitely noticed and it took me a ride ir two to get used to it. I had thought about going to 165 when I bought these cranks but I am glad I didn't, it would have been far too short a pedal stroke for me.
I have 175mm cranks on my Spur and have been waiting to try 170mm cranks. Lighter and less pedal strikes is what I'm hoping for and hopefully it fits my anatomy better too.
Good video. Thank you for making this one. I see why you didn't answer my crank length question the other day on your other video...lol 5'9" with a new medium ripmo v2s. Only got 3 rides on it. I just replaced my 170mm with 165mm cranks.
Crank Length is extremely individual and I believe that one thing is often missed when discussing which factors will affect the length you feel comfortable... I'm just 183cm tall, but got shoe size 48... I can comfortably ride 175mm cranks down to 165... My feet seem to be big enough to cope with the length difference really really well... even when I'm trying to pedal the 130 cranks on my kids' bikes... the crank length isn't too annoying... (hitting the bars with knees and shins is)
I have some hope 155s on my enduro bike and 170s on my trail. I like the short cranks for just spinning up easy roads, and the clearance is nice, but truly not as life altering as i thought it would be. My revelation came when my new trail bike had 170s, like my previous stumpjumper, but had 17mm less bb drop! I suddenly felt little to no drawback to longer cranks, basically showing I mostly hated the dreaded pedal strike. So lesson learned, bb drop is important, and super low isn’t actually as good as commonly thought. I liked your perspective and still love my shorter cranks, but if picking again, maybe I’ll choose 165 for just a little more clearance with less of the drawbacks.
Nearly every short crank vid I've seen seems to have a brand pushing it (5dev) so although intrigued by the idea especially after losing a couple of big toe nails in the past thank to rock strikes, At this point I find it hard to take most articles and videos seriously as it just seems like sneaky marketing, trying recreate the wheel again. This vid was a refreshing take on it for once.
What is your inseam length? Canfield who has been pushing short cranks for a while recommends 20-20.5% of inseam for trail bikes, 19-19.5% for downhill. At 5'6", 29.5" inseam (I think I measured correctly) I put on 155s (20.6%) about a month ago and have been really happy with it. I never thought I should have the same length as my 6' friends. In general this means 5'6 = 155, 5'8" = 160 and 5cm differences every 2". If I remember right you are 5'8", so 150's would probably be 19%. That checks out that pedaling felt no good for you but downhill it didn't matter and additional clearance was welcome.
No, because I’m on 155s 😄 - for real though, they rock on chunky downhill bits (Bolton Valley, Sugarbush). And tech climbing (no more pedal strikes). I had to gear my 153 down a bit (26t F), but I still am a fan. Can’t see myself going back to 170s, maybe 160. But the whole not contacting the ground bit is highly preferable. Canfield AM cranks are affordable and burly, too!
I been running 160s all Summer on my HD5. Wife runs 150mm. What a lot of folks don't discuss is how your feet are closer together when doing DH (like a moto). Also, you can run the seat post higher (longer dropper possible), since at bottom of stroke your foot is not as low. I really like my 160s (5'9"), I can pedal thru tech sections which I have to be more careful on with longer arms (previous 170mm). I run 30T, wife runs 28T.
My girlfriend (5’1”) had knee pain from riding so we put her on some 140mm cranks, she pedaled with them for the last couple months but has been suffering on the ups. We just installed some 152mm cranks to see if those strike the right balance
I only ride SS hardtails. I'm likely the only ding dong running 180mm cranks and have been doing so for 10+ years now. I've never had issues with my knees. At 6'2" and 34 inseam, they just feel right for me. I tend to take really long strides when I walk too, so maybe there another component to the equation. Getting flicked off your bike from a pedal strike sucks, and you definitely have to be more aware and clock your cranks right. You do a lot of ratcheting on technical climbs with SS anyway. I will likely drop to 175mm with my next crankset, but my current XTs are still in decent shape and I have no reason change them at this point.
Started 155mm this past summer on 130mm bike with 45t cassette, still on 165mm on 161mm bike with 51t cassette. Heavier bike need more leverage compared to lighter bike. Even with this setup the lighter bike is still easier to climb with the same tires/pressures
You don’t get more usable or noticeable leverage with slightly longer cranks. You would really only be able to notice a difference at extreme lengths. I’m suggesting that what you feel is in your head on that one.
@@DaBinChe fair enough. I’m just saying what your brain notices about cadence and peddling efficiency doesn’t tend to actually or accurately reflect efficiency. Some may feel weird and I’m sure some may get used to it some people won’t. Personally I don’t care what people ride, but shorter cranks on lower BB bikes for aggressive riders seems like a no brainer to me, although I don’t care about climbing KOMs ever. But I have no doubt some people’s brain won’t adjust.
@@mikes.8305not everyone likes shorter cranks. People are getting too much in to a Fad and convincing themselves. 165 works really well for average height so 160-170 is going to be the sweet spot for most. 150 and 175 are a too short and too long for most. Stop convincing yourself you need these short cranks
@@deanemberley2333i would argue 165mm is less dependent on height or inseam and more dependant on riding terrain and BB height. Im 6' and I love my 160 cranks on my analog bike.
I put some 155mm on my Turbo Levo about a month ago and oh wow I love it. I'm 5'9 with most of my height in my torso so find the shorter cranks are awesome. I'm able to pedal though things much better and the downhill feels so much better, to me at least. Now I just need to find shorter cranks for my Norco Bigfoot VLT..
I think the shorter cranks are better on an eMTB than a peasant bike! Since you don't muscle much on the eMTB, and just spin, the shorter cranks disadvantage will be negated. THanks for the note!
Same size and set up as you and love also. Put 155's on my Sentinel and dig it....lots more shifting into the prime gear though. At my age I could care less how fast I go up as long as it's a little easier with not smashing pointy things.
I will listen to you as you have been silently reducing your crank length over the years and you are not saying that it is absolutely better. going from 175 to 150 yeah that makes sense because you save 1" off the crank length BUT as you said it shortens your gearing and pedaling ability or power output. i appreciate your honesty and transparency
Things I forgot to add about the short cranks you definitely can tell you need to spin more than power down so if you have a spin background, let’s say from road riding might work good for you, but if you’re used to putting power down the longer cranks will make a difference You’ll be in a harder gear I don’t know man I feel like I’m just as fast just because I can pedal where I can’t with longer cranks but if we were side-by-side on a sprinting race, the longer cranks I’m almost positive are going to be faster like I said, this is over a year of riding short cranks on one bike longer cranks on another definitely can tell the difference when you start getting over 10 mm
Great video, I am interested in how the Praxis cranks & chainring work with the Shimano 12s HG+ chain, cassette & derailleur work? I know I'd need to change BB's. Are there any noticeable differences in shifting? Appreciate your input!
@@topchoice1621 Completely ignoring people with knee pain that find the sweet spot that puts less strain on their knees and alleviates the pain but go on
@@JeffKendallWeed I'd agree with your findings, and can certainly notice the difference climbing. The other issue I've found with short(er) cranks, if you come across a pinch-climb mid-descent you'll often need to be +1 on the gears and be ready to spin the feet faster to get the power down - on flats it's easy to blow a foot off, and your foot-timing being out of whack - increasing the likelihood of a pedal strike.... I climb ALOT - no uplifts here - and it is certainly easier to manage pedal strikes on a 5min descent than the extra effort req'd on the 25min climb.
Have 170 on my bike and demoed an e-bike a few weeks ago (165 cranks).. noticed the difference. So just to check if I wasn’t just imagining it, I changed the length on my Wahoo Kikrbike (they have L shaped cranks with different holes for 175, 172.5, 170, 167.5 and 165 lengths) … left it on 165, to me it makes quite a difference. I’m not saying everyone should change to 165 and I do have a long torso and short legs… but crank length is an option when you’re trying to fit the bike to you. ua-cam.com/video/h7sKhKi9Bcc/v-deo.htmlsi=vf-IBJ_gDKutYEm1
You need to adjust your seat. Your knees are too low at the top of the stroke for full power. I think if you adjust your seat and retest it , you will feel different about it. The way I approach crank length is I set my seat hight for my knee at the top of the stroke to be just where I want it. If on the bottom stroke The pedals too far down then I need shorter cranks. 30" inseam, I'm liking 165mm cranks
So I’m 6’5 and over a year ago I went from 175 cranks on my enduro to 160 imo if your racing enduro 160 is amazing let’s you power down without worry of pedal strike but that being said if your over 6’ I’d stay around 16 15mm on your cranks is very noticeable Imo but I’d not suggest for trail xc
I'm 5'8", short inseam, maybe 29? I went down to 150 after breaking my 170's and its wayyyyy too short. Zero leverage on chunky. Makes you have to go in a much lower gear which gives you too much torque to get going while keeping your front down. Going to try 160 and hope that's a sweet spot.
I am 6'4'' and have 175s on both my bikes. I am a sit and spin kind of guy on the uphills. I am debating if I should go 170s or 165s when I upgrade soon...
The only problem is you lose leverage when peddling, making pushing each gear a bit harder, effectively like running a slightly bigger front chain ring, and you'll need to raise your seat to compensate, which also means it will change the relationship between your seat height and bar height.
you really don't though lol world tour level time trialist use 150 and 155 mm cranks, they have more leverage than you ever will lol I went from 175mm to 165mm and now I can pump 1000k watts over 30 seconds, before I could only do 5 seconds if I was lucky... spin = win.
Leverage only works in the front quarter of the pedal stroke… the other three quarters is where peddling efficiency comes in and that’s where the shorter cranks make it easier. Yes, you have two legs, so when the front leg get’s to the bottom and toward the back the other leg starts the torque stage, but being able to bring the rear pedal up and over easier, helps with the torque stage as well. Leverage produces torque and works via a lever… this is a crank you’re turning, not a lever your pushing. Power = torque x rpm !!
I initially thought the same but google a research test covered on Bikeradar website. They basically say it's not cut n' dry & cadence plays an important role in overall real world power. I hope it's true because I am going to try 165 or maybe even 160's for myself in hopes of less strikes.
@@BodieMTB Of course you do, try loosening a tight bolt by holding the wrench near the head and see how that works out, then try it again except this time move your hand to the very end of the wrench, a longer bar gives you more leverage.
@@benoosthuizen4961 I've had shorter cranks before, it effectively makes your gearing harder, sure you can spin slightly faster, but that doesn't make the gearing easier, when loosening a bolt you can rotate a socket wrench faster by holding it closer to the head, but it doesn't give you more leverage holding it that way, when you want more leverage you hold it at the end of the handle, because a longer bar gives you more leverage, horsepower is torque multiplied by rpm, with shorter cranks you're sacrificing torque for a slight increase in rpm, plus when climbing on your mountain bike you're peddling slow, so you've just made it harder for yourself.
Hi Jeff, for me I’ve learned to time my pedal strokes, use ratchet stroke and keep pedals at 3 and 6 when not pedaling. Besides you can actually have more clearance when you have 175 cranks if the obstacle on a narrow trail is on one side push pedal down on opposite side and clear it, with shorter crank maybe not🤔
Hi Jeff, love your channel and riding style. Was wondering if you could give me some help, trying to decide on a ripmo AF com0lete, or stumpjumper evo elite , or specialised Status ? As some great deals just now, I don’t get on bike a lot as spend a lot of time on my other hobbie. So it would be for more jibbing about : I see the Santa Cruz 5010 c s build is £3689 but don’t know your thoughts on them? I can get the evo elite for the same price . Would really appreciate your advice , keep up the great work, cheers from Scotland.
150mm, what's your inseam? I fell like those cranks were a bit small for you when it comes to actually doing a review on pedaling. I tell you that a short guy like me with an inseam of 27.5 inches, 165, 170 or 175 are way to large on my size XS bike. Can't wait to you can get your hands on some 155 or 160's to see what you think...
I'm 187 cm, and this week I purchased some 155mm cranks, but would have gone even shorter if it was possible. Can't wait to see how they feel, going down from 170mm.
Same here. 187cm and just got myself some 155s. It's gonna be a while until I can test it out though as winter in Norway is not really ideal for biking...
I currently have 175mm Scram 32T and crank center says DUB on my Trek Roscoe 7. I am about 5'8 height. I'm new to this. I struggle uphill. I would like to use 160mm instead. Where can I find a budget friendly replacement to a 160mm. I looked everywhere. So far, I only found 165mm. Can anyone help me? Point me in the right direction.
I want to try 150's on my e-bike. Figure with the motor I can sacrifice the extra leverage. Sounds like having your feet closer to the spindle gives you a bit more stability. Will stick with my 165's on my regular MTB though.
My man. Do yourself a favor: stand with your feet close together and ask someone to stand next to you and push you over. Then repeat the exercise with your feet placed about 2' apart. I'm sure you'll notice a bit more stability with your feet Further apart as opposed to being placed Closer together. Works the same on a bike. Narrower bars = less stability, Shorter reach = less stability, Shorter chainstays = less stability and Shorter cranks....yup, less stability.
@@onlysendsmtbthis makes no sense. You’re talking about q factor… not crank length. If I stood with my feet parallel to each other I’m way sturdier than if I move one foot forward.
@@onlysendsmtb I get what you’re saying but crank length doesn’t change your Q factor which is the width you’re talking about. Bringing your feet closer to parallel on your bike is known to be more stable as it’s more similar to riding moto where your feet are parallel.
You could just do the maths to figure out what the torque rating at the rear wheel is, in your lowest gear, with the 150mm crank and whatever front sprocket you choose. If you want the equivalent torque to your last setup, math will put you there.
@@jameswillemsen2609 I suppose at some point your inseam length and leg extension/contraction efficiencies come into play more than the actual crank geometry.
It doesn't matter that much between 30-28-26, as even with the 30t, I rarely ever climbed in 1st gear. What mattered a lot more was that the usable torque range for each gear was much narrower, so I had to shift a ton more. Wasn't that sweet for out of the saddle, tech climbs.
@@JeffKendallWeed Much more related to the circle your foot travels through while applying a given force. Sort of like, how much time does the combustion stroke of a given engine have to transmit power to the crankshaft? Short or long stroke?
Running Canfield 150 cranks going on two years now. First it was to tune bike fit and now I can't stand the "lopey" feeling of 175s. 165 should be the norm not 175 or heck don't include crank arms and save us some cash. I love the small circles with regular and oval chainrings and it's nice to not worry as much about pedal strikes.
Might be because you have too short cranks. If you where to ask 5DEV or Canfield witch both makes cranks from 150 to 175mm. They would tell you about want length cranks you should be riding biased on ether your height or inseam. For you those cranks would be too short as I'm 5'6 and I should be at 155-160mm cranks. 165mm My guess is the length that you should be running from your height. I'm looking to get shorter cranks to see if I notice a difference.
I just try to not pedal when I shouldn't. Every time I have caught a pedal is when I have taken a lazy pedal stroke at the wrong time, and it's gone bad. No length would change that.
You may have posted this already but how tall are you and what's your inseam? I'd barely be bending my legs on 150mm cranks. I'm 6'2 with a 34 inch inseam...curious to see how big you are
165 mm cranks are much easier for me to spin compared to 175 mm ones.I tried them initially because I had 26 inch wheels on a 27,5 inch frame, no turning back now.
I recently swapped from a 170mm to a 165mm and what i have noticed for myself going shorter is that I’m able to more easily keep a faster cadence. Before it fell awkward to spin fast but now with the slightly shorter cranks I’m able to spin quicker … now 165 is not 150 … but def a little shorter is better for me.
why the hell the majors are still putting long cranks on??? - my road bikes - the TT in paticular where I am pulling 60/11 in top with 160 cranks - lower tuck=more aero and no loss of power - my stumpy has 165's and occasionally i smack the floor and yes $$ permitting i will drop size or machine new holes !!!
I went from 170mm to 160mm. I can't tell a difference in pedaling but I can tell a 100% difference because of NO; foot, pedal, and crank strikes. I can actually ride better on tech climbs. AND NO strikes when bottoming out.
As long as the distance between the chain on the chainring to the pedal is the same when you go shorter cranks, it should not affect the pedaling and gearing
140mm makes my 57 year old legs, hips, and lower back feel 37. No joke. When you guys get older and still want to shred-the value shorter cranks may give more benefits.
Head to www.DrinkLMNT.com/Jeff to get your free sample pack with any purchase.
I think crank length is similar to bar width, seat height, reach, etc. All are about finding what fits you right. With a 31" inseam I can attest that 175mm cranks just kill my knees. I dropped to 165s and it was amazing the difference. I did find that a slightly smaller chainring also helped too though. Techy climbs are much easier now....and no more pedal strikes. There surely has to be a "sweet spot" for crank length for each rider given all of us are built different. Too bad cranks are not adjustable in some way. hmmm...product development idea.
I have been running 155MM Canfield, cranks on my bike recently, and really enjoy it. I dropped down to a 28 chain ring to make up for leverage loss and don’t get as much top end speed on the road but I’m able to accelerate a little bit quicker up punchy climbs. I used their formula and bumped up to 155 as I was in between. Also, I am short legged.
Just did this exact same thing, Canfield 155mm, and it's been game changing... Except I went the opposite direction like a masochistic fool and upped the chain ring to 34t.... 😅
Haa!! Another 34t w 155 Canfield checking in
I replaced the 175 mm crank arms that came stock on my trail bike with a 170 mm set. I can definitely notice less pedal strikes, while I can't feel any difference in the peddling efficiency or in the handling.
I have 155mm cranks on my emtb, yt decoy. I ended up getting 150mm backups for my levo and yt. On full power emtb's shorter cranks = more cadence. A lot less pedal strikes is also a plus.
man on bmx 20 years ago, had these profile 145mm cranks, and it was nuts they way they felt. Could feel every detail of the ramps or jumps as we sent them. I mtb now, and this seems like heaven rode a pair of 170 from 175, and that made a massive difference when i used them. So I would probably love these!
I just pulled the trigger on some 155mm cranks from canfield for my Patrol (came with 165). Going down in chain ring size as well. Really excited to see the difference it makes!
Report back if you like it or nah!
Patrol Mullet? How you like it?
@@on1ytheb3st Yeah 2021/22 model. I love it. It was a huge upgrade from my 2015 Kona process 134. I though it would be better but I didn't expect it to make as much of a difference as it did. Within the first week I was hitting things that had scared me for a long time on my Kona.
Not only is it more travel, more composed, with a better geo, it is more poppy and playful (I think due to the linkage) and easier on the non-technical uphills despite being a couple pounds heavier.
I am not a bike reviewer or an above average rider. The Kona is the only other bike I have spent significant time on so I am sure any more modern bike would have been a similar upgrade.
I will say that I am all in on the mullet. I am 5'9'' with a 30'' inseam and keeping the small wheel in the back has saved me more than a couple times on steep sections and slow drops.
The only complaint I have is the low bottom bracket (hence the 155mm cranks), I peddle strike way more often on it than my Kona. It is not really a problem on the down hill but it can kill flow on uphill sections and I end up working harder to get momentum for sections that I could previously just spin through.
What did you think?
@@carterschichtel9678 Not a huge difference all together. I think it helped me marginally on down hill control, and I have a lot more confidence that I won't peddle strike on both the ups and the downs.
I don't notice much difference in exertion on the up hill but I went with a smaller chain ring and oval at that.
I think if you replaced them with 165s tomorrow I wouldn't notice until I started hitting some rocks again on climbs I frequent.
Like you mentioned, short cranks suck when pedalling up. So short cranks are all good if you're being shuttled up.
And I'll tell you what else sucks: ultra low BB's
So, being that I feel most comfortable with 190mm cranks (yes, I've used online length calculators, and they all say my ideal crank is between 197mm and 190mm), and I don't do Bike Parks so I have to pedal everywhere myself, I've settled on ultra slack geo, but not so low BB's, and going to order some 185mm cranks 😎
Lol
Sounds like you need a shuttle!
@@topspot4834 no bike parks around me, nor mountains with a road that goes to the top. All roads go around at the bottom.
So no, everything I descend I have to climb first
Remember, when using short crankset will put you to a lower leg which means you need to rise the seat post! I run 28 5/8” from center of crankset to the top of saddle. By shortening the crank arms I will need to go higher 😊. I will stay with 170mm as for me I don’t need to go shorter.
that's not all: now your saddle will be higher and you will want to have a longer seatpost (I mean with more travel)
On bikes with more BB drop, slightly shorter cranks are nice. Went from 175 to 170 on my Megatrail and considering 170 to 165 for my Shore. There’s nothing worse than a pedal strike that puts you over the bars. The benefits are likely accentuated on the longer and slacker bikes of today. I think 160-170mm is a reasonable range for sizes S-L
I switch between 150 and 155 on my e-bike. I feel you have more rpm’s with shorter cranks then big cranks which is better for the motor and batttery. I use the 150 more rocks and rooty trails for clearance and 155 everywhere else. I have notice my Kees don’t hurt as bad. Yes even on a e bike knees hurt. That’s his blown out they are!
I’ve thought for years that shorter cranks make more sense on a trail / enduro bike. They are definitely in the future for my Transition Spire. Please keep posting updates with how you’re getting on!
A Sasquatchian size 15 here, I went from 175 and 170mm to 165mm. I like that it makes me spin faster and keeps my traumatized big toe safe! I’ll stop here though, it works for me! Thanks for the videos Jeff!
I watched and listened to all the short crank talk and convinced myself I needed to go smaller. I ride a Mojo 3, standard build, so its got 175mm crank arms standard. I'm 5'4" and ride a small frame. I talked to a guy at Jensen and it appears it's almost near impossible to find short cranks right now. After watching this, I think I'm fine with my big ole cranks.
Hahahaha!!! I do like 165s, and they are now pretty avail. Shimano cranks are affordable and very durable.
You can get Raceface everywhere too.
@throbbinwoodofcoxley6830 thanks!!!
5Dev is where I got mine for 155mm. There are options from 150-165mm I believe.
I'm 67" tall and been riding with 150 and love. It feels weird riding with my sons 170 crank and hes shorter than me. He likes longer cranks for some reason.i think it match perfectly with 10 speed short derailleur. You guys might want to try it out.
For downhill, you can use any length crank to avoid pedal strikes but for xc you gotta find a balance. Too short and its very hard to climb technical terrain.
I put some 165's on my bike when I ran it as mullet, but I've kept them now that its back to full 29. One of the best changes ive ever made on a bike. Pedal strikes are very very rare. I sometimes crank though risky sections to see what I can get away with and I'm always surprised. I always ride with a mate (also on a L 29r) with 175mm cranks and I guaranteed pull away from him on tech climbs.
I've moved down to 165 crank and my riding has been more efficient with less pedal strikes. Maybe the hardtail I get in the future for my secondary bike I plan on putting either another 165 or 160. Honestly one should go to low on the crank so I think the 165 is probably the sweet spot. Especially for short guys like me.
depends on how tall/inseam, but im 5'11 and using 165 and its absolutely fine. used it for years now. might be ok at 160 not sure, 155/150 prolly starts to feel unstable when standing up on the pedals (the taller your are the less stable it feels when its too short)
150 should feel MORE stable lol dirt bike pegs aren't staggered and they do much much bigger features that require much more control over the bike (especially mid air) @@kangsterizer
the best "downhill" pedals aren't pedals at all, it would be just be pegs connected to the bottom bracket, that would give you the most control and stable position. The fact that you have to pedal is the ONLY reason you have a staggered foot position lol just remember dirt bikes already figured all this out. They were running mullets and 0mm stems 40 years ago.
I went from 170 down to 160mm cranks. I have a 29" inseam so the 160's seem to work very well for me. Im able to pedal more in gnar and turns without pedal strikes. I dont seem to get as tired either. I wouldn't want to go any lower than 160 tho. I can notice that i dont have quite the power on super steep uphills that i had with the 170's. Just my observations......
Kids and small folk need these. So hard to source this size. Spawn, trailcraft, Canfield, now praxis. 150-160mm is rarified territory. Come on Raceface!
Inthe 90's we used to have 175's on our bmx bikes, the bigger leaver helps on the 360's and other rotation tricks. Now im thinking about 155 mm on my mtb.
I just switcged to 170 after riding 172.5 for the last couple years. Everybody says I wouldn't notice that small a change but I definitely noticed and it took me a ride ir two to get used to it. I had thought about going to 165 when I bought these cranks but I am glad I didn't, it would have been far too short a pedal stroke for me.
“Clipless”
LOL that made me laugh.
I started riding on 160mm NSB Talon's this season, and it was amazing to stop cringing riding over every rocky section!
I have 175mm cranks on my Spur and have been waiting to try 170mm cranks. Lighter and less pedal strikes is what I'm hoping for and hopefully it fits my anatomy better too.
Good video. Thank you for making this one.
I see why you didn't answer my crank length question the other day on your other video...lol
5'9" with a new medium ripmo v2s. Only got 3 rides on it. I just replaced my 170mm with 165mm cranks.
Good call with the 165s! Ibis uses really low BBs, I wish they wouldn't do that. It's my biggest complaint with their otherwise awesome bikes!
I put some 145 Pinned cranks on my E-bike and love them. Just got a set of 5DEV Zink signatures for my DH bike.
Crank Length is extremely individual and I believe that one thing is often missed when discussing which factors will affect the length you feel comfortable... I'm just 183cm tall, but got shoe size 48... I can comfortably ride 175mm cranks down to 165... My feet seem to be big enough to cope with the length difference really really well... even when I'm trying to pedal the 130 cranks on my kids' bikes... the crank length isn't too annoying... (hitting the bars with knees and shins is)
I have some hope 155s on my enduro bike and 170s on my trail. I like the short cranks for just spinning up easy roads, and the clearance is nice, but truly not as life altering as i thought it would be.
My revelation came when my new trail bike had 170s, like my previous stumpjumper, but had 17mm less bb drop! I suddenly felt little to no drawback to longer cranks, basically showing I mostly hated the dreaded pedal strike. So lesson learned, bb drop is important, and super low isn’t actually as good as commonly thought.
I liked your perspective and still love my shorter cranks, but if picking again, maybe I’ll choose 165 for just a little more clearance with less of the drawbacks.
Nearly every short crank vid I've seen seems to have a brand pushing it (5dev) so although intrigued by the idea especially after losing a couple of big toe nails in the past thank to rock strikes, At this point I find it hard to take most articles and videos seriously as it just seems like sneaky marketing, trying recreate the wheel again. This vid was a refreshing take on it for once.
Gear gain ratio is a simple way to calculate relative 'hardness' of pedaling with wheel diameter, crank length, chainring size & cassette sprocket size as the variables, for instance:
Wheel dia: 29
Crank L: 165
Chainring: 30
10T sprocket = 6.7 GGR (higher number = harder, lower number = easier)
52T sprocket = 1.29 GGR
Wheel dia: 29
Crank L: 150
Chainring: 30
10T sprocket = 7.37 GGR
52T sprocket = 1.42 GGR
Wheel dia: 29
Crank L: 150
Chainring: 28
10T sprocket = 6.87 GGR
52T sprocket = 1.32 GGR
Wheel dia: 29
Crank L: 150
Chainring: 26
10T sprocket = 6.38 GGR
52T sprocket = 1.23 GGR
So you can see how rear wheel size affects this value.. here are those numbers for 27.5:
Wheel dia: 27.5
Crank L: 165
Chainring: 30
10T sprocket = 6.35 GGR (higher number = harder, lower number = easier)
52T sprocket = 1.22 GGR
Wheel dia: 27.5
Crank L: 150
Chainring: 30
10T sprocket = 6.99 GGR
52T sprocket = 1.34 GGR
Wheel dia: 27.5
Crank L: 150
Chainring: 28
10T sprocket = 6.52 GGR
52T sprocket = 1.25 GGR
Wheel dia: 27.5
Crank L: 150
Chainring: 26
10T sprocket = 6.05 GGR
52T sprocket = 1.16 GGR
What is your inseam length? Canfield who has been pushing short cranks for a while recommends 20-20.5% of inseam for trail bikes, 19-19.5% for downhill. At 5'6", 29.5" inseam (I think I measured correctly) I put on 155s (20.6%) about a month ago and have been really happy with it. I never thought I should have the same length as my 6' friends. In general this means 5'6 = 155, 5'8" = 160 and 5cm differences every 2". If I remember right you are 5'8", so 150's would probably be 19%. That checks out that pedaling felt no good for you but downhill it didn't matter and additional clearance was welcome.
No, because I’m on 155s 😄 - for real though, they rock on chunky downhill bits (Bolton Valley, Sugarbush). And tech climbing (no more pedal strikes). I had to gear my 153 down a bit (26t F), but I still am a fan. Can’t see myself going back to 170s, maybe 160. But the whole not contacting the ground bit is highly preferable. Canfield AM cranks are affordable and burly, too!
I been running 160s all Summer on my HD5. Wife runs 150mm. What a lot of folks don't discuss is how your feet are closer together when doing DH (like a moto). Also, you can run the seat post higher (longer dropper possible), since at bottom of stroke your foot is not as low. I really like my 160s (5'9"), I can pedal thru tech sections which I have to be more careful on with longer arms (previous 170mm). I run 30T, wife runs 28T.
I was hoping I'd like the "feet close together" thing, but I didn't notice it much. I actually disliked it for hard pumping moves.
My girlfriend (5’1”) had knee pain from riding so we put her on some 140mm cranks, she pedaled with them for the last couple months but has been suffering on the ups. We just installed some 152mm cranks to see if those strike the right balance
I only ride SS hardtails. I'm likely the only ding dong running 180mm cranks and have been doing so for 10+ years now. I've never had issues with my knees. At 6'2" and 34 inseam, they just feel right for me. I tend to take really long strides when I walk too, so maybe there another component to the equation. Getting flicked off your bike from a pedal strike sucks, and you definitely have to be more aware and clock your cranks right. You do a lot of ratcheting on technical climbs with SS anyway. I will likely drop to 175mm with my next crankset, but my current XTs are still in decent shape and I have no reason change them at this point.
Started 155mm this past summer on 130mm bike with 45t cassette, still on 165mm on 161mm bike with 51t cassette. Heavier bike need more leverage compared to lighter bike. Even with this setup the lighter bike is still easier to climb with the same tires/pressures
You don’t get more usable or noticeable leverage with slightly longer cranks. You would really only be able to notice a difference at extreme lengths. I’m suggesting that what you feel is in your head on that one.
@@mikes.8305 It is noticeable, not a huge change but enough to notice, just as Jeff said. It is kinda like a difference of 1psi change in your tires.
@@DaBinChe fair enough. I’m just saying what your brain notices about cadence and peddling efficiency doesn’t tend to actually or accurately reflect efficiency. Some may feel weird and I’m sure some may get used to it some people won’t. Personally I don’t care what people ride, but shorter cranks on lower BB bikes for aggressive riders seems like a no brainer to me, although I don’t care about climbing KOMs ever. But I have no doubt some people’s brain won’t adjust.
@@mikes.8305not everyone likes shorter cranks. People are getting too much in to a Fad and convincing themselves. 165 works really well for average height so 160-170 is going to be the sweet spot for most. 150 and 175 are a too short and too long for most. Stop convincing yourself you need these short cranks
@@deanemberley2333i would argue 165mm is less dependent on height or inseam and more dependant on riding terrain and BB height. Im 6' and I love my 160 cranks on my analog bike.
I put some 155mm on my Turbo Levo about a month ago and oh wow I love it. I'm 5'9 with most of my height in my torso so find the shorter cranks are awesome. I'm able to pedal though things much better and the downhill feels so much better, to me at least. Now I just need to find shorter cranks for my Norco Bigfoot VLT..
I think the shorter cranks are better on an eMTB than a peasant bike! Since you don't muscle much on the eMTB, and just spin, the shorter cranks disadvantage will be negated. THanks for the note!
Same size and set up as you and love also. Put 155's on my Sentinel and dig it....lots more shifting into the prime gear though. At my age I could care less how fast I go up as long as it's a little easier with not smashing pointy things.
I hated it on My Heckler SL.I don’t get this short crank Fad other than pedal strikes
I will listen to you as you have been silently reducing your crank length over the years and you are not saying that it is absolutely better. going from 175 to 150 yeah that makes sense because you save 1" off the crank length BUT as you said it shortens your gearing and pedaling ability or power output.
i appreciate your honesty and transparency
Things I forgot to add about the short cranks you definitely can tell you need to spin more than power down so if you have a spin background, let’s say from road riding might work good for you, but if you’re used to putting power down the longer cranks will make a difference You’ll be in a harder gear I don’t know man I feel like I’m just as fast just because I can pedal where I can’t with longer cranks but if we were side-by-side on a sprinting race, the longer cranks I’m almost positive are going to be faster like I said, this is over a year of riding short cranks on one bike longer cranks on another definitely can tell the difference when you start getting over 10 mm
I got 170 at 6'2" for my new bike. Should've gone 165.
Any chance you could add the megatower to compare to the rallon and sb160 at some point?
Im running 155mm Canfields. Love them. Very few pedal strikes.
Great video, I am interested in how the Praxis cranks & chainring work with the Shimano 12s HG+ chain, cassette & derailleur work? I know I'd need to change BB's. Are there any noticeable differences in shifting? Appreciate your input!
I have been using 170 and 165mm cranks on both my most used bikes. I absolutely cannot tell the difference 😂
@@topchoice1621 Completely ignoring people with knee pain that find the sweet spot that puts less strain on their knees and alleviates the pain but go on
Hahahaha yeah it's a subtle difference! I notice more between 175 and 170 than 170 and 165.
@@JeffKendallWeed I'd agree with your findings, and can certainly notice the difference climbing.
The other issue I've found with short(er) cranks, if you come across a pinch-climb mid-descent you'll often need to be +1 on the gears and be ready to spin the feet faster to get the power down - on flats it's easy to blow a foot off, and your foot-timing being out of whack - increasing the likelihood of a pedal strike....
I climb ALOT - no uplifts here - and it is certainly easier to manage pedal strikes on a 5min descent than the extra effort req'd on the 25min climb.
Once you find yourself in a chunky terrain where you need to put few cranks in, those 5mm make the difference between a pedal strike or not 👍🏼
Have 170 on my bike and demoed an e-bike a few weeks ago (165 cranks).. noticed the difference. So just to check if I wasn’t just imagining it, I changed the length on my Wahoo Kikrbike (they have L shaped cranks with different holes for 175, 172.5, 170, 167.5 and 165 lengths) … left it on 165, to me it makes quite a difference.
I’m not saying everyone should change to 165 and I do have a long torso and short legs… but crank length is an option when you’re trying to fit the bike to you.
ua-cam.com/video/h7sKhKi9Bcc/v-deo.htmlsi=vf-IBJ_gDKutYEm1
You need to adjust your seat. Your knees are too low at the top of the stroke for full power. I think if you adjust your seat and retest it , you will feel different about it. The way I approach crank length is I set my seat hight for my knee at the top of the stroke to be just where I want it. If on the bottom stroke The pedals too far down then I need shorter cranks. 30" inseam, I'm liking 165mm cranks
I use 155 cranks with a 34 inch chain ring and cassette is 9-52 from ethirteen very happy all this on mullet setup 29 front 27.5 rear
Right on! Same but different cassette
155 are too short.
Love the Aussie on the lift.
"Yeah, nah mate. Gunna hav'ta ride round".
I've been wanting to put some short cranks on my hard tails, just cause the bb is "tres low".
So I’m 6’5 and over a year ago I went from 175 cranks on my enduro to 160 imo if your racing enduro 160 is amazing let’s you power down without worry of pedal strike but that being said if your over 6’ I’d stay around 16 15mm on your cranks is very noticeable Imo but I’d not suggest for trail xc
My gf has 150mm cranks installed on her Liv Intrigue X E+ 1 and loves them 😎 Too many pedal strikes with her 165s
I'm 5'8", short inseam, maybe 29? I went down to 150 after breaking my 170's and its wayyyyy too short. Zero leverage on chunky. Makes you have to go in a much lower gear which gives you too much torque to get going while keeping your front down. Going to try 160 and hope that's a sweet spot.
I am 6'4'' and have 175s on both my bikes. I am a sit and spin kind of guy on the uphills. I am debating if I should go 170s or 165s when I upgrade soon...
The only problem is you lose leverage when peddling, making pushing each gear a bit harder, effectively like running a slightly bigger front chain ring, and you'll need to raise your seat to compensate, which also means it will change the relationship between your seat height and bar height.
you really don't though lol world tour level time trialist use 150 and 155 mm cranks, they have more leverage than you ever will lol
I went from 175mm to 165mm and now I can pump 1000k watts over 30 seconds, before I could only do 5 seconds if I was lucky... spin = win.
Leverage only works in the front quarter of the pedal stroke… the other three quarters is where peddling efficiency comes in and that’s where the shorter cranks make it easier. Yes, you have two legs, so when the front leg get’s to the bottom and toward the back the other leg starts the torque stage, but being able to bring the rear pedal up and over easier, helps with the torque stage as well. Leverage produces torque and works via a lever… this is a crank you’re turning, not a lever your pushing. Power = torque x rpm !!
I initially thought the same but google a research test covered on Bikeradar website. They basically say it's not cut n' dry & cadence plays an important role in overall real world power. I hope it's true because I am going to try 165 or maybe even 160's for myself in hopes of less strikes.
@@BodieMTB Of course you do, try loosening a tight bolt by holding the wrench near the head and see how that works out, then try it again except this time move your hand to the very end of the wrench, a longer bar gives you more leverage.
@@benoosthuizen4961 I've had shorter cranks before, it effectively makes your gearing harder, sure you can spin slightly faster, but that doesn't make the gearing easier, when loosening a bolt you can rotate a socket wrench faster by holding it closer to the head, but it doesn't give you more leverage holding it that way, when you want more leverage you hold it at the end of the handle, because a longer bar gives you more leverage, horsepower is torque multiplied by rpm, with shorter cranks you're sacrificing torque for a slight increase in rpm, plus when climbing on your mountain bike you're peddling slow, so you've just made it harder for yourself.
Hi Jeff, for me I’ve learned to time my pedal strokes, use ratchet stroke and keep pedals at 3 and 6 when not pedaling. Besides you can actually have more clearance when you have 175 cranks if the obstacle on a narrow trail is on one side push pedal down on opposite side and clear it, with shorter crank maybe not🤔
I think you did the other way around; with shorter cranks you can reduce chainring tooth and with longer crank levers you can add ring tooth
Hi Jeff, love your channel and riding style.
Was wondering if you could give me some help, trying to decide on a ripmo AF com0lete, or stumpjumper evo elite , or specialised Status ? As some great deals just now, I don’t get on bike a lot as spend a lot of time on my other hobbie. So it would be for more jibbing about : I see the Santa Cruz 5010 c s build is £3689 but don’t know your thoughts on them? I can get the evo elite for the same price . Would really appreciate your advice , keep up the great work, cheers from Scotland.
150mm, what's your inseam? I fell like those cranks were a bit small for you when it comes to actually doing a review on pedaling. I tell you that a short guy like me with an inseam of 27.5 inches, 165, 170 or 175 are way to large on my size XS bike. Can't wait to you can get your hands on some 155 or 160's to see what you think...
I'm 187 cm, and this week I purchased some 155mm cranks, but would have gone even shorter if it was possible. Can't wait to see how they feel, going down from 170mm.
I’m 193mm. I would love to know how the 155mm cranks work for you.
Same here. 187cm and just got myself some 155s. It's gonna be a while until I can test it out though as winter in Norway is not really ideal for biking...
I'm 188cm and went to 152mm from 175mm. Love them.
@@Bertie..why? makes no sense at all. Spinning and shifting
Glad i warched this vid after i switched from 170s to 155s. For me everything is better and i dont really feel any issues going uphill.
I currently have 175mm Scram 32T and crank center says DUB on my Trek Roscoe 7. I am about 5'8 height. I'm new to this. I struggle uphill. I would like to use 160mm instead. Where can I find a budget friendly replacement to a 160mm. I looked everywhere. So far, I only found 165mm.
Can anyone help me? Point me in the right direction.
6'2" going from 175mm 32t to 170mm 30t feels really nice. Not sure if I want shorter than that.
So interesting to think about pumping with the 150 cranks. Do you think it’s because of the narrower stance you have to take with shorter cranks?
what is that saddle on the dirtbike?
I want to try 150's on my e-bike. Figure with the motor I can sacrifice the extra leverage. Sounds like having your feet closer to the spindle gives you a bit more stability. Will stick with my 165's on my regular MTB though.
My man. Do yourself a favor: stand with your feet close together and ask someone to stand next to you and push you over. Then repeat the exercise with your feet placed about 2' apart. I'm sure you'll notice a bit more stability with your feet Further apart as opposed to being placed Closer together. Works the same on a bike. Narrower bars = less stability, Shorter reach = less stability, Shorter chainstays = less stability and Shorter cranks....yup, less stability.
@@onlysendsmtbthis makes no sense. You’re talking about q factor… not crank length. If I stood with my feet parallel to each other I’m way sturdier than if I move one foot forward.
@@NorthernSkiAndCycle Go pasdleboarding some time and try it with a narrow stance... parallel or otherwise. See how long you remain dry 🤣🤣🤣
@@onlysendsmtb I get what you’re saying but crank length doesn’t change your Q factor which is the width you’re talking about. Bringing your feet closer to parallel on your bike is known to be more stable as it’s more similar to riding moto where your feet are parallel.
@@onlysendsmtb Then why in Moto do they not run big platform pegs?
i predict a crank length to chainring chart coming into the future really really soon
You could just do the maths to figure out what the torque rating at the rear wheel is, in your lowest gear, with the 150mm crank and whatever front sprocket you choose. If you want the equivalent torque to your last setup, math will put you there.
150mm is about 10% different in length so a 28t from a 30t would feel reasonably similar
@@jameswillemsen2609 I suppose at some point your inseam length and leg extension/contraction efficiencies come into play more than the actual crank geometry.
It doesn't matter that much between 30-28-26, as even with the 30t, I rarely ever climbed in 1st gear. What mattered a lot more was that the usable torque range for each gear was much narrower, so I had to shift a ton more. Wasn't that sweet for out of the saddle, tech climbs.
@@JeffKendallWeed Much more related to the circle your foot travels through while applying a given force. Sort of like, how much time does the combustion stroke of a given engine have to transmit power to the crankshaft? Short or long stroke?
All I want to do is reduce pedal strikes. I don’t want to feel like I’m riding a circus bike.
Running Canfield 150 cranks going on two years now. First it was to tune bike fit and now I can't stand the "lopey" feeling of 175s. 165 should be the norm not 175 or heck don't include crank arms and save us some cash. I love the small circles with regular and oval chainrings and it's nice to not worry as much about pedal strikes.
Might be because you have too short cranks. If you where to ask 5DEV or Canfield witch both makes cranks from 150 to 175mm. They would tell you about want length cranks you should be riding biased on ether your height or inseam. For you those cranks would be too short as I'm 5'6 and I should be at 155-160mm cranks. 165mm My guess is the length that you should be running from your height. I'm looking to get shorter cranks to see if I notice a difference.
I just try to not pedal when I shouldn't. Every time I have caught a pedal is when I have taken a lazy pedal stroke at the wrong time, and it's gone bad. No length would change that.
You may have posted this already but how tall are you and what's your inseam? I'd barely be bending my legs on 150mm cranks. I'm 6'2 with a 34 inch inseam...curious to see how big you are
Depends on the style of riding/trails
But def, maybe 🤷♂️
Def maybe because yea
Im 6'1 and use 175 mtb and 172.5 on road. I tried 170 last week on mtb and didnt like it. Felt less stable when standing and not pedaling downhill.
For cranks you definetely need a happy medium. I am happy with my 165mm.
What a surprise an Aussie in Canada :”)
Hahaha!!!!
Muy bien Jeff! cuándo vienes por Alicante tío!!
Israel! Esp k Estes bien! No he visitado España por demasiados años - lo hecho de menos! Abrazos tío!
Short cranks work for going down hill.
If you actually petal xc trails, short cranks kill hammer power.
165 mm cranks are much easier for me to spin compared to 175 mm ones.I tried them initially because I had 26 inch wheels on a 27,5 inch frame, no turning back now.
Very happy with my 160's. I'm 5 foot 8 inches
I recently swapped from a 170mm to a 165mm and what i have noticed for myself going shorter is that I’m able to more easily keep a faster cadence. Before it fell awkward to spin fast but now with the slightly shorter cranks I’m able to spin quicker … now 165 is not 150 … but def a little shorter is better for me.
Praxis has 160mm Cadet HD.
Short cranks are the bomb on Emtb....
I am thinking about going from 170 to 165 cranks i wonder how different it will be 🤔
why the hell the majors are still putting long cranks on??? - my road bikes - the TT in paticular where I am pulling 60/11 in top with 160 cranks - lower tuck=more aero and no loss of power - my stumpy has 165's and occasionally i smack the floor and yes $$ permitting i will drop size or machine new holes !!!
Benn riding since 83' Wished I had tried shorter earlier. Went to 135mm 7 yrs ago, never going back....
Thanks for telling me that I am allowed to be wrong. My wife punishes me every time I am wrong.
I went from 170mm to 160mm. I can't tell a difference in pedaling but I can tell a 100% difference because of NO; foot, pedal, and crank strikes. I can actually ride better on tech climbs. AND NO strikes when bottoming out.
Modern bikes are stupid low so short cranks are a safer option. Maybe best for Ebikes though?
Unfortunately 150mm cranks (which I love) are in my past. My super nice Levo was stolen last monday
As long as the distance between the chain on the chainring to the pedal is the same when you go shorter cranks, it should not affect the pedaling and gearing
It affects because the lever arm changes....
155mm on my Status 160 and Santa Cruz Hightower. Will never go longer ever again.
Serendipity or coincidence that Remy Morton drops a sick edit on the same day Jeff shouts him out?
Probably worth considering that Remy is on a 24 rear also, definitely gonna need some extra clearence.
What 165mm cranks do yall run?
Shimano SLX
Must be great not only getting everything for free but also earning money with this.
I’m running 155mm cranks. Can’t tell a thing other than less pedal strikes…. I think 😜
140mm makes my 57 year old legs, hips, and lower back feel 37. No joke.
When you guys get older and still want to shred-the value shorter cranks may give more benefits.
Definitively maybe baby!
SOrt of
For the ultimate experience, just bolt a straight rod through the bottom bracket!
Ditching my 170 for 150
Bad idea
So longer cranks if you have steep climbs. Shorter cranks if you have punchy tech climbs. Or just 160mm and be good at both