Hi all, I know there are a lot of people out there hanging for the Elves review. Next Wednesday I will publish a video where Neill Stanbury gives his thoughts on the geometry, which is worth noting. Then, I expect to have the review LIVE by the 16th or 23rd of March (at at latest). I know some people won't be happy with that timeline, but I'd rather not rush things and test the bike properly. Stay tuned! Cheers, Cam
Their first attempt at a large size (61) is a clown car. They increased top tube 3cm and head tube 1cm. It went from low reach on the 59 to yuuuuugģgggee reach on the 61. Usually the big size adds a bunch of HT / stack.
@@pmcmpc the 59 isn't great either being shorter and lower than a typical 58 cm frame from a Western brand. The stack and reach of their frames all seem a little off.
I'll share my story: I live in Peru, paid $250 here for a retul bike fit back in 2018. With exchange rates it's a large sum of money. Was never comfortable, but could produce a lot of power. Then the pandemic hit, and back to square one as I was no longer that flexible. If it wasn't for your videos and Neill's advice, I would have not realized my seat was 3 centimeters higher than it should have been, among other things. Most youtube and Instagram fitters, as well as reddit tell you: just get a proper bike fit mate. You and Neill are helping tons of people like me who cannot afford these services, by giving us enough general information to understand our bodies and experiment within safe limits. I cannot thank you both enough. Cheers!
Can i ask you, was retul fit worth it? It is the only bike fitting option in my town, And i am not sure if it not better to just figure it out on your own?
@@alexmichl3137 Safe the money and get yourself familiar with the topic. I did the retul once in 2020 and found out in another special 3D bike fit analysis that my seat was far too high and the overall position wrong. Cannot recommend retul.
The problem is not retul, is the fitter, retul is just the tool, find a bike fitter with great experience and it doesn’t matter the methodology hit uses, it is going to fit you well in the bike
I think the main thing that has allowed people to go to shorter cranks is the gearing available now. When a 12 -27 cassette with a 39-53 crank, you needed the longer crank arm for leverage to pull the gears. When you can now easily have an 11-34 (maybe even a 10-36) rear cassette and a 34-50 or 34-48 crank / chain rings. Its much more feasible to go to a 170 or 165 mm crank arm. I'm 71 and have seen many renditions of gearing and crank arm length over my 50 years of riding.
I switched to 165 last year and noticed such a difference in comfort, less knee pain, seems easier to spin.. hips felt less strained. It was a great moment for me.
@@brody5211 yeah but not the full 5mm, more like 4. I switched from 170. Since then I tried 160 on a different bike. It was SO much better that on my main bike I’m now waiting for a 150mm crank to arrive. I’m 5 foot 8 but a bike fitter I know of who is 6 feet is using 150 now too
I have finally made my move from 175 to 165 watching all your videos. I must say not easy to get new cranks this size. But one thing is immediate I couldn't believe is how more fluid my pedal stroke is. I have a 10+ yrs history in road cycling on amateur gran fondo level, recently recovered from cancer and not only this 165 mm cranks but all other things Neil explained improved my position on the bike and gives me motive to start again and ride more.
How tall are you ? I'm about 1m83-1m84, always been using 175mm but been thinking about going to shorter ones for a long time. What's holding me back for now is the need to also buy another power-meter.
@@GoustiFruit Exact same hight. Tell me about it... It took me months! I couldn't get a new set of165 mm. So I had to sell my trusty 4iiii as a bargin and get a left only Stages instead and brand new but compact set. So I have a left arm on sale :)
I tried the 165mm crankarm fad, turned out to be a waste of $200. I'm not exactly tall at 5 feet 7 inches and around a 30 inch pant inseam, but after a few weeks, went back to 170's. Even had a re-fit on the bike for the 165's (waste of $300 in total) - pedaling dynamics were weird, my right front foot wanted to point toes down at the top of the pedal stroke (like my foot/leg wanted to stretch out a bit more forward but it obviously couldn't), and the overall position didn't feel right. It also hurt my lower back more with the tighter pedaling radius (my body is suuuuuuuuuuuper picky with bike fit). The only positive was that it was more comfortable in the drops due to the lessened hip angle. Cadence stayed around the same as my 170's. On the flip side, I tried 172.5mm cranks about 12 years ago on one of my bikes, and those didn't really work either.....cadence dropped off and hip angle was way too closed (but climbing felt better). 170's it is for me.
You are still just a young boy! (OK, I am 66). I have been riding 165mm for about 3 years now. I used to race as well. It made a huge improvement for a few reasons. One, my knee is trashed but to the point I needed a hip replacement but due to motorcycle accident as a teen, I cannot have one. Due to the short cranks I can still ride. My back is now close to parallel when I ride now. I now ride with so much more ease. With me, the bottom of the stroke is MUCH better. I am significantly faster. All my riding buddies noticed it as it was obvious. Thanks for the video and I especially appreciate the health aspect you mention to your hip.
Additionally, 165s are an advantage in criteriums because they allow pedaling deeper into corners (and pedaling earlier when exiting corners) than with longer cranks!
I always regret moving to 175s, which all the riders were on back in the day. It caused no end of hip and lower back issues. Now on 170s, and could probably go lower.
Just two days ago I switched from a 175 to 165 on my road bike and from 170 to 165 on my mountain bike. I have not been out yet but I have been a bit on my roller trainer. The difference is so much improved on my leg balance, and my perceived rate of exertion seems to have reduced. I feel this change is truly a positive one.
I’ve made the change on my mountain bikes (170 > 165) and it’s been much more noticeable than I thought it would be. My knees definitely feel better and I can spin up a lot faster without as much strain.
I'm a strong advocate for short cranks too. Riding 105 R7000 160 cranks for 3 years since my transition from 170s and I've never ever once contemplated going back to them. Possibly one of the best upgrades I've ever made to my bike. As for height, I'm just slightly shorter (175cm). For me, I raised the seat by 1cm but I moved it back my 3mm felt great.
WOW! Thanks for sharing. I am 175cm and still on 172.5 cranks. Have been debating 165 cranks for a few years. I think this summer I will do it. Not sure if 160 is in the future just yet. Glad you shared that.
@@EmpoweredEntrepreneur I'd say go for it. 👍 You'll be fine with 165s or 160s especially coming from a 172.5. The difference was night and day especially on long rides on the drops.
@@MrPotatoUA-camr i would say inseam * 2.12. Or more accurately refer to BikeDynamics, i have made a formula to calculate with Bikedynamics formula if you want to measure the inseam and GT (greater trochanter)
Two years ago I switched from 175mm to 170mm, and the expereince was so good that I immediately ordered 165mm cranksets for both my bikes, figuring that even shorter would be better yet. Yes, greater comfort, many more saddles work for me than before, and the change cured most of my asymetrical hip issues, ditto knee pain. Perhaps placing an international ban on cranks greater than 165mm would bring world peace? Oh, and I'm a 'tad' over 70 years old.
I was riding 172.5 cranks and bought a 165 at the similar time you released your video a couple of yrs ago. What I noticed was I was quicker up hills, but I was never able to be as fast going down hill or on the flat. I personally felt it was harder to get the same amount of torque on 165 cranks. I’m gonna try 170s in the future as I sold the 165s.
When I tried really short cranks 150 and 155 I had to put the saddle more forward so I could lift my legs through on the upstroke. Putting the saddle back according to that knee over the spindle thing made it difficult to spin up a high cadence. The historical belief of pros as far as I can gather is not to change anything when the crank length is changed. They just used to leave the saddle where it was. My experiment proved to myself that it's better to do the opposite of what the magazines used to tell us.
Been on 165mn cranks for awhile now after bikefit suggested them no complaints here. I have had a total hip replacement in both hips at the ripe old age of 44. Definitely helps with the hips.
I finally decided to take the leap. With an 80cm inseam on a 172.5mm crank arm and never managing to feel comfortable I took the leap to 165mm crank arms. Just completed a 90km ride on zwift and never felt so fresh. Also noticed I was able to hold higher w/kg far longer without any strain. Thanks so much for this great content. I would go as far as to say this has revolutionised my cycling.
When I swapped 172.5 cranks to 165 some years ago. I also raised saddle and moved forward at first, because I read about it from internet. But then I did not have any power. In my case I had to lower saddle some millimeter instead and move aft also. But I never had also any professional bike fit done on my bike. And still haven't. But improvement was so great. I feel that after I changed to 165mm cranks I don't need any professional bike fit anymore. My diy position on bike isn't ideal, but it does not need to be ideal. I can ride comfortably enough now. Best upgrade I made.
Dude, this video is full of good info. Helped me tremendously in picking out my next crank arm length. Thanks man and keep up the good work! Cheers from L.A.
Obviously, the main reason that on track bikes the cranks are shorter, is because you don't want to hit the track on the banking when driving slow. And it allows to reach more comfortably higher cadences (which is an advantage on a fixed-gear (i.e. track) bike, to increase the range of speeds you feel comfortable with at the rpm needed for that speed). Honestly, I don't feel such a big difference between my track bike (165cm cranks) and my regular race bike (172.5cm cranks). Surely, on the track bike I can hold a slightly higher cadence for the same power output a little longer, but I don't feel a particular advantage or disadvantage in my power output from that. On my race bike, I'ld rather just choose a bigger gear for that reason instead.
I'm glad someone else feels the same, my road and TT are both 172.5 because I'm built like a giraffe and look for extra leg length where I can. That being said I can't see why having shorter cranks would really be all that different, you're gonna have to likely raise your seat/adjust something else swapping to shorter cranks so all your doing is changing the ratio between moveable components. I can understand if you have a 175mm crank and you're all of 5'5 that being an issue but I think most middle of the road crank lengths should work for the average cyclist.
Loved my 165mm cranks on my specialized Steel Langster fixed gear bike which I gave away during covid lockdown and after I'd had a massive heart attack (family history regardless of fitness and health). Fantastic for 35 miles around Poole Harbour (Dorset, England). Thrilling to overtake articulated lorries at 30+ mph down hill to Woolwich (London, England). I had a chance to switch to 165 mm when my 2018 Ultegra cranks had to be replaced in the recall but forgot to request it - blast! As a pensioner, I can't yet afford to change those cranks on my 2018 Roubaix. I did get the cranks on my wife's folding Mezzo cut down from 172.5 (far too long for a folding bike that will be used by people of different heights. Went down to 155 mm as she is only 163 cm tall with long torso and short legs. She was very uncomfortable with 172.5 mm! There was a company somewhere near Norwich who did it - just googled, phoned, sent the cranks away and the cut them down and drilled new holes
At 6' 1" tall and 48 years old, I decided to try 165mm cranks last year and haven't looked back. An added benefit not mentioned is slightly more ground clearance when pedaling through turns. I also see that Shimano now offers Ultegra and Dura Ace 12 speed cranksets in 160 mm versus 165 mm for the 11 speed. Hmm...
Great switch! Is swapped to 165mm a few years ago and never looked back, just awesome 👍 I do hope however the industry catches up, its hard to get your hands on a set of crancks....
Glad to see you’ve changed back to 165s. ( I changed to them when you did, and never looked back!). Speaking of track cyclists, back in the early ‘70s, when I moved from Wisconsin back to Southern California, I started spending Friday and Saturday evenings at the Encino Velodrome, totally rapt in the world-class bicycle track racing that was happening there. With the exception of the pursuiters, all of the competitors used 165s. This applied totally to the match sprinters, but also to most of the riders in the points races. (Match sprinters, often coming to complete stops during a race and using, necessarily, the technique of track standing, found the 165s an advantage, or even necessary, due to the inclination of the banking. With the longer cranks, they would occasionally clip a pedal on the surface of the track, with disastrous results!
going a bit over 2yrs with a 165mm crank, I also have a hip impingement so it really helped with reducing stress and pains, but also with the cadence and having a better pedaling technique. Gotta say that your bikefit video together with Peak Torque's video on short cranks were the main basis to make that change, so thanks a lot for tackling this kind of theme, and also bringing an expert like Neil.
My trek slash came with 175mm cranks. I swapped to 165mm to reduce rock strikes but found it’s pedalling nicer with them to the point where I did a 100k race on them with flat pedals and didn’t have any problems.
Watching back over these while attempting to try to self diagnose the reasons for my most recent niggling injury and ever worsening discomfort over time, I'd be really keen on giving this a try. I'm sure I have impingement in my right hip, and it's funny how good I felt on someone else's track bike last week and how crap I felt getting back on my road bike. I didn't know it at the time, but the track bike had 165s on it. My road bike... 172.5.
I also ride 165mm. I believe the use of 165 on the track is a practical reason also due to the curvature of the track in the velodrome, and so shorter crank length means less chance of contact between track and crank.
My road, xc and enduro bikes, i changed from a 175mm to a 165mm crank. I am 5ft 7 and in my 50s, I think the shorter crank helped me reduce my knee pain; however, I could easily tire out my leg muscles. I felt this when I am doing my routine indoor cycling and road cycling using my road bike. I do not have any gadgets to measure my leg fatigue muscles using a shorter crank but for me the leg thigh muslces easily tire out when I use a shorter cranks. Good video here! Thanks!
Shortening by 10mm would benefit from a smaller chainring to maintain similar pedal speed to the longer crank. I dropped 2 teeth and it was a revelation!
You've talked me into it. Changing to 114mm cranks now. I'm older and left hip is beyond impingement stage. Watching Neill spreading his knowledge is always amazing.
Thanks Cam for that valuable information! As I am building my “forever-bike” this year and I will have a professional bike fit (before buying the components and after the build) I will pay extra attention to crank length and see what they are suggesting. To be honest, up to now I am hardly riding in the drops, due to the length of my pedal stroke making me feel uncomfortable and not efficient at all! Cheers mate and keep the good content coming 🙋🏻♂️
I have word by word the same experience with transitioning from 172.5 to 165. After festive 500 2021 I suffered from discomfort in my right hip for almost nine months. After the same event in 2022 and riding it with 165mm cranks there were no issues (touching wood).
Great info on the why's and results. I am awaiting parts, and will be doing this soon. I'm hopeful to be liking the changes as well. thank you for the useful information !
One day , Cameron , you will learn about osteoarthritis and cycling and how it can limit you more . I have to learn to cycle with it and it taints my enjoyment of the discipline . I am 52 and ride with an over 50's social group now . I don't ride as often as my mind wants to . I ride with friends in my sleep figuratively speaking . I started to develop osteoarthritis mid 2018 . I have spurs in a few distal finger joints ( four of them ) . Light action trigger shifters are a bit hard to find in any brand . I have to use older versions to address this . I have a good quantity of Sram twist shifters of all grades , MRX , SRT 300 , 400 , 600 and up to Attack and Rocket versions . I can''t ride my Pinarello road bicycle now as road buzz causes pain after half an hour or so . The mountain bike in road configuration ( gearing and tyre selections ) is less painful but I need to have a break at least once an hour . I haven't been for a decent ride for over 3 months now . I am waiting to have pereneal surgery .
Changed to 165mm 2 years ago. Increased my cadence. Didn’t experience any big loss of torque either. (172.5mm VS 165mm is only about 5% difference in length anyway)
I've been suffering from one side leg numbness and shoulder pain for about a year now. Being 176cm on a frame 54 bike. The bike came stock with 172.5's. I got a bike fit at my LBS and they adjusted some things, slamming the stem lower, other saddle type and also moved the saddle position lower. However, the issue still remains. It's less prevalent, but sure enough 40-50km into the ride, my right leg (or at least foot) goes numb. A day or so after, i have some mild low back pain, and sometimes a sore knee. All calculators online point me towards a 165mm crank, based on either body height or inseam (80.5cm). So i bit the bullet and ordered a 165mm crankset, here's hoping it improves my situation, as according to my bikefitter, al my joint angles are within the optimal range...
WOW, this is great information and highlights what a good bike fit can do for your performance and comfort on a bike. Looks like its time to go visit the LBS and get fit for the upcoming season. Great video Cam!
@@glennoc8585 yeah, and KOPS fit can actually be done at home instead of paying for it in a LBS. There aren't any bike fitters near me so i resort to "youtube" bike fit, basically starts with a KOPS bike fit then move the saddle a bit forward and up.
I have been riding 175mm for many years. I was shopping for 170 or 172.5 for my new build. I found an amazing deal on some NOS Ultegra that came with 175mm cranks. Oh well!
I am 5ft 7, was riding172.5s and had a lot of hip pain in my right hip. Went to 160s and it is night and day. I am no longer crowded at the top of the stroke, and the pain is gone.
I'm going to have to seriously look at changing over to 165. I had minor back surgery for a left leg sciatica a few years ago and am experiencing a little discomfort on long rides. This might be the answer. Great video. Keep them coming. 👍
In the last week I've changed from 175mm to 170mm and the difference is quite staggering. Wasn't sure if it was all going to be UA-cam 'Hype' but feels a lot more comfortable and seem to be easier to push out a high power.
Great video. Consider cross training with inline, nordic XC skiing and K-1 on water. All this helps a great deal. SpikeBoarding Skiing is handy and will cross train exceedingly well.
Another great video its so informative for us all young and mature RCA & Neill really pushing us all into bike fit awareness i said it before NO one is producing such in depth cycling videos as you are mate great stuff Cam love this vid thanks.
Hi i'm 171cm 61kg 45y old rider ( i ride 5/6 times a week). A few weeks ago i recieved my canyon grail xs. This bike came with 165mm cranks, it was from the beginning clear i was less tired in my legs afther my long Z2 rides on this bike vs my canyon ultimate (170mm cranks). (almost same setback and sadlehight to pedalaxe). First i thought it was the more shorter stack but when i looked at my powermeter data (did a test both powermeters between my suito trainer) ( i saw that i had for the same heartrate, 5watt more avg power with the shorter cranks vs my 170mm bike. Also i was able to put more power from my quads into the cranks. Now i have also 165mm rotor Aldhu24 on my roadbike and even on lower rpms i put more power than on my longer cranks at he same bike and powermeter (power2max) vs hrf, can train more and longer from the first week i switched to the shorter cranks. Even i can spin at lower rpms with more power and my legs feel more fresh. can ride longer and easyer with my body and arms flat on the hoods (remco evenepoel style).It's a total gamechanger for me
Just wanted to say ,i also switched to 165 from 172 and 170 this year and can say..wow so much more comfortable getting into lower position with a bump up in cadence and at the end of ride i don't feel all warner out/sore .Feel like i could another round. But leave it for the next day ride.
oh and another note that i really noticed ..just getting out of the saddle to put in the power into the cranks to pick up speed was just effortless. Legs just felt fresh even though i put some Km's in the saddle already.
I've watched your fit videos (and like) what Neill says. I've been struggling with fit/saddle issues for 15 years now on and off and have read everything under the sun that I can find and have had 3 different professional fits before I gave up on them. Over the last 2 years I switched from a 172.5 to 170 and now 165. As a sprinter I just cannot recover my max WpK - I've gone from mid 14's, to low 13's with the 170's and now mid 10's with the 165's (basing power off of my Neo 2T, but is in alignment with my P2Max and Garmins). I never have been a spinner, per se, but can hang around 90 outside - heavy muscular legs take more effort to spin it would seem. Indoors I'm usually in the 70-80's. 164 is the calculated perfect crank arm length per the published formula for my inseam of 76cm. The smaller cranks seem to feel better and allow me to adjust my fit but I don't think it is quite as black and white as has been made out. Part of my long standing issue is saddle shape and I have a feeling the SMP might help, but there is no way I can put one of those on my bike! ("It is better to look good than to feel good" - Fernando) Wished I lived in Aus to give Neill a crack at my issue...
When transitioning to shorter cranks, it might be beneficial to offset your gearing and cadence, spinning faster on cogs that are 1-2T larger than before.
my old bike had 172.5. cranks. I was getting a sore right hip after longer rides. Went to 165mm after watching the shorter cranks vid,when I built my new bike, No more sore hip.
yes... on the track. I use 175mm. Every time I go to 170mm, performance suffers. However, I tried using pedal extenders and this removed any hip issues.
I switched all my bikes to 170 from 172.5 and all my mountain bikes which were 175 years ago because of knee problems and it just made sense to me that it would help. It did, and I was immediately more comfortable. In the town line sprint there seemed to be a little detriment. But the comfort was way worth it.
I'm also a convert from 172.5's (for 6 years) to 170's (for 18 months) and then ultimately 165's (for about 6 months now). Never going back! I'm 178cm tall, 84cm inseam.
At 183cm height I dropped to 165's first time you explored the topic, they've been great. A more stable pedalling platform, 50/50 balance and some improved PRs on strava that have stood for several years. Have felt climbing to be a little more demanding from a leverage viewpoint but I've adjusted the gear ratios to encourage a higher cadence 👍
Shorter cranks, mechanically, offer less leverage and a smaller rotation circumference. You’re effectively riding in a slightly higher gear. So your cadence would surely be LOWER , not higher, unless you downshift to compensate. Also, your feet and legs will move a little LESS because of the lower circumference. Imo, it’s simple mathematics! I am 175cm ‘tall’ and happen to prefer 165s too, for the slight reduction in joint flexion and the extra space between thigh and belly at the top of the stroke…so more comfortable overall and especially in the drops.
Cadence is preferable in the higher range with much shorter cranks since there is a lack of torque , keeping the cadence high helps with acceleration (Surges), climbing and overall performance.... I run 100mm cranks due to a knee injury.
@@MyFloridaSRTcom Thanks. I hadn’t thought of that. To achieve that higher cadence you have to drop a gear or two though. Would you agree that a shorter crank lever is effectively a higher gear? You are trying to move the bike the same distance, with a shorter distance of pedal stroke.
@@hisdadjames4876 Cadence still a preference for most rider , you must adapt to higher or lower ,I use to spin 75-80 but recently adapted 85-90 while riding solo... 95-110 while group rides since it keeps the legs fresh and helps with surges due to lack of torque , Yes a smaller crank is like riding a bigger gear , according to Sheldon's Brown Gear Gain Calculator in my case (extreme) riding 100mm cranks with my current setup of 52-11 is like also riding a 85-11 with 170mm cranks, Btw your travel further with 1 pedal stroke of a said 175mm crank vs my case 100mm for the same cadence.
Been on 165s for about 6 years, gets kind of expensive having 6 bikes, one of my bug bears when buying a new bike is dealing with 172.5mm cranks every time, it's the reason that when I bought my TCR I bought the model that came without the power meter. I never noticed any change in cadence but I naturally spin faster than most that I used to ride with anyway, but one of my bikes is a single speed so quite comfortable pushing big gears or spinning.
I have been so curious about making this type of switch. But, where I ride there's flat with a little bit of rolling hills, but what we have mostly are long climbs that are steep.10-25% gradients with often 300-700 meters (1000-2000 + feet) of climbing often with no flats. Just straight up. I'm currently running a 36 in the front with a 28 in the back for maximum low range. I can try to put a 34 in the front, so I'd have a 34-50, which I've read many people do. But, going to a 30 in the rear would make for such a funky spacing for the rear cassette. Point being, I've held off because I'm concerned about the leverage losses with the shorter cranks. When you run out of gears it's just you and the lever. Unless I were to go to a 12 speed system which I don't really want to do right now, I'm not sure it would be as simple as throw on some shorter cranks and get on down the road. Anyone else have any experience with this type of situation?
I can relate to being 41 :) A couple years back I moved from 172.5 to 170 cranks and the change is much bigger than the 2.5mm would've antecipated.165 could be worth trying now, as back then there were no powermeter options ...
As always, there is no "right" crank length. It depends on the length of your legs, and also the amount of leverage you like. For example, I switched from 165 to 175 and I'm loving it! I got really long legs though, so I guess it's just the right size for me.
I'm 5'10". I have 30.5" inseam, at most, so really short legs. 1.09 method puts me at 33.25" saddle height. It's HORRIBLE. 34" is PERFECT. Everyone saying in theory too high is bad, but in reality too high is AWESOME. What am I missing here? I'm using 170mm stock cracks on a Medium size Polygon Xtrada 7 that in all fairness is probably a touch too small for me - would that be why my saddle height is off? Too small a bike?
One thing you can see most was the amount your upper body rocked on the longer cranks. Seems hard to believe that with a higher seat and it being pushed forwards your overall height is still lower. You learn something every day
The aspect I am not so sure about is getting the same power from increased cadence - I fatigue from high cadence just like I fatigue from a resisted low cadence
Each human has a prefered/ideal cadence, where he can get the best effort for longer duration (say FTP-level), but I'm sure the longer the cranks are, the lower the ideal cadence will be. To get the same power output (in Watts), for the same rpm you need the same torque, and therefore less force on longer crank. But that doesn't mean it is easier to apply that (less) force, as you have to "chase" a pedal which is moving around faster on a long crank (at the same rpm). OTOH, it is pretty clear, that for starting from a standing start, (with the same gearing) a longer cranks would (initially) give more torque and acceleration, as you can only apply so much max force independent from crank length. OTOH, with a smaller gear you get the same effect. Everybody knows it is easier to accelerate (from standing still) on a smaller gear. Another interesting comparison is with the old Penny Farth bikes, where the "gearing" is limited to the size of wheel radius you can span with your legs. On Penny Farth track racing this typically meant they had to push crazy high rpm, and unsurprisingly they also used crazy short cranks for that (I read in the order of 125mm).
I rode with 175 mm cranks for at least 15 years, until I bought a new Trek Emonda last year with 172.5 cranks, and immediately noticed I didn't have hip pain. It's amazing what a small difference in in crank length makes!
Crank length must be seen in combination with cleat position, if your foot is stable with cleats far forward with no issues you may be able to fit 172,5 with no problems in the same position
A really interesting topic... I am running 175mmm cranks since ... ever... but I am really thinking of switching them out for 170 or even 165. Never thought about these drastic possible changed on the bike with it.
Fan of shorter cranks, but not sure why your leg speed or rpm would be faster on shorter cranks. For the same speed on the bike the rpm of the crank is the same, nothing to do with crank length. On a shorter crank you make a smaller circle, so you foot is travelling slower in pure speed but the same rads per second. Because the distance in the circle is smaller you have to apply slightly more force to the pedal to obtain the same torque as a longer pedal pedal . Power is proportional to applied force and the rads/s (RPM) you are doing. One effect that this will have is that for a given incline you are having to apply more force when climbing in a particular gear, not quite losing a whole cog, but part of the one that you are on. You might find that you change in to an easier gear earlier as at any given speed and gear you are applying slightly more force on the pedals, but the same power, than before.
Dam, i just got a new ultegra groupset with 172.5mm cranks.. love to try the 165's. I'm also middle age with some niggles here and there. great video thank you. I didn't see any discussion there about a person's height and crank length though, i'm assuming with this video that it doesn't matter. I'm 6 foot tall...
I'd like to give this a go as well. Unfortunately it is a bit expensive. As someone who is primarily a runner and am able to gold well over 400watts while running I feel like the 300 ish watts I do on the bike could be improved by mimicking the higher cadence I'm used to while running.
![Ep 66 [ENG] - Yay or Meh? Specialized Aethos Full Review](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CkM-nu0LIe8/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi all, I know there are a lot of people out there hanging for the Elves review. Next Wednesday I will publish a video where Neill Stanbury gives his thoughts on the geometry, which is worth noting. Then, I expect to have the review LIVE by the 16th or 23rd of March (at at latest). I know some people won't be happy with that timeline, but I'd rather not rush things and test the bike properly. Stay tuned! Cheers, Cam
Their first attempt at a large size (61) is a clown car. They increased top tube 3cm and head tube 1cm. It went from low reach on the 59 to yuuuuugģgggee reach on the 61. Usually the big size adds a bunch of HT / stack.
Long time to wait to see if I should cancel my EVO order or not 😬😬
Computer Cam Nicholls with hat on, " aaahhh just get on with the review already " lol...
@@pmcmpc the 59 isn't great either being shorter and lower than a typical 58 cm frame from a Western brand. The stack and reach of their frames all seem a little off.
Looked at an Elves bike geometry a few years back, it all seemed a bit off compared to what we are used too, decided it wouldn't work for me.
I'll share my story: I live in Peru, paid $250 here for a retul bike fit back in 2018. With exchange rates it's a large sum of money. Was never comfortable, but could produce a lot of power. Then the pandemic hit, and back to square one as I was no longer that flexible. If it wasn't for your videos and Neill's advice, I would have not realized my seat was 3 centimeters higher than it should have been, among other things. Most youtube and Instagram fitters, as well as reddit tell you: just get a proper bike fit mate. You and Neill are helping tons of people like me who cannot afford these services, by giving us enough general information to understand our bodies and experiment within safe limits. I cannot thank you both enough. Cheers!
Can i ask you, was retul fit worth it? It is the only bike fitting option in my town, And i am not sure if it not better to just figure it out on your own?
@@alexmichl3137 Safe the money and get yourself familiar with the topic. I did the retul once in 2020 and found out in another special 3D bike fit analysis that my seat was far too high and the overall position wrong. Cannot recommend retul.
The problem is not retul, is the fitter, retul is just the tool, find a bike fitter with great experience and it doesn’t matter the methodology hit uses, it is going to fit you well in the bike
I think the main thing that has allowed people to go to shorter cranks is the gearing available now. When a 12 -27 cassette with a 39-53 crank, you needed the longer crank arm for leverage to pull the gears. When you can now easily have an 11-34 (maybe even a 10-36) rear cassette and a 34-50 or 34-48 crank / chain rings. Its much more feasible to go to a 170 or 165 mm crank arm.
I'm 71 and have seen many renditions of gearing and crank arm length over my 50 years of riding.
I switched to 165 last year and noticed such a difference in comfort, less knee pain, seems easier to spin.. hips felt less strained. It was a great moment for me.
Did you raise or move saddle ?
Più confort ma meno prestazioni
@@brody5211 yeah but not the full 5mm, more like 4. I switched from 170. Since then I tried 160 on a different bike. It was SO much better that on my main bike I’m now waiting for a 150mm crank to arrive. I’m 5 foot 8 but a bike fitter I know of who is 6 feet is using 150 now too
I have finally made my move from 175 to 165 watching all your videos. I must say not easy to get new cranks this size. But one thing is immediate I couldn't believe is how more fluid my pedal stroke is. I have a 10+ yrs history in road cycling on amateur gran fondo level, recently recovered from cancer and not only this 165 mm cranks but all other things Neil explained improved my position on the bike and gives me motive to start again and ride more.
Great to hear, thanks for sharing on the thread
How tall are you ? I'm about 1m83-1m84, always been using 175mm but been thinking about going to shorter ones for a long time. What's holding me back for now is the need to also buy another power-meter.
@@GoustiFruit Exact same hight. Tell me about it... It took me months! I couldn't get a new set of165 mm. So I had to sell my trusty 4iiii as a bargin and get a left only Stages instead and brand new but compact set. So I have a left arm on sale :)
Industry standard for MTB is 175. Went to 170, moved the seat forward, cleats moved forward, and got faster with less pedal strikes.
I tried the 165mm crankarm fad, turned out to be a waste of $200. I'm not exactly tall at 5 feet 7 inches and around a 30 inch pant inseam, but after a few weeks, went back to 170's. Even had a re-fit on the bike for the 165's (waste of $300 in total) - pedaling dynamics were weird, my right front foot wanted to point toes down at the top of the pedal stroke (like my foot/leg wanted to stretch out a bit more forward but it obviously couldn't), and the overall position didn't feel right. It also hurt my lower back more with the tighter pedaling radius (my body is suuuuuuuuuuuper picky with bike fit). The only positive was that it was more comfortable in the drops due to the lessened hip angle. Cadence stayed around the same as my 170's. On the flip side, I tried 172.5mm cranks about 12 years ago on one of my bikes, and those didn't really work either.....cadence dropped off and hip angle was way too closed (but climbing felt better). 170's it is for me.
I’ve been running 165mm cranks on my road bike and mountain bike for years. Im very happy with them!
You are still just a young boy! (OK, I am 66). I have been riding 165mm for about 3 years now. I used to race as well. It made a huge improvement for a few reasons. One, my knee is trashed but to the point I needed a hip replacement but due to motorcycle accident as a teen, I cannot have one. Due to the short cranks I can still ride. My back is now close to parallel when I ride now. I now ride with so much more ease. With me, the bottom of the stroke is MUCH better. I am significantly faster. All my riding buddies noticed it as it was obvious. Thanks for the video and I especially appreciate the health aspect you mention to your hip.
Additionally, 165s are an advantage in criteriums because they allow pedaling deeper into corners (and pedaling earlier when exiting corners) than with longer cranks!
Even better when paired with Speedplays.
As you said, “even better with Speedplays”. Yup, I use Speedplay pedals also.
I always regret moving to 175s, which all the riders were on back in the day. It caused no end of hip and lower back issues. Now on 170s, and could probably go lower.
Just two days ago I switched from a 175 to 165 on my road bike and from 170 to 165 on my mountain bike.
I have not been out yet but I have been a bit on my roller trainer.
The difference is so much improved on my leg balance, and my perceived rate of exertion seems to have reduced.
I feel this change is truly a positive one.
I thought you moved and stayed on 165 for ever. I switched to 165mm after watching your previous one, made a nice difference.
7:30 You look so much more comfortable and natural in this side-by-side. Great shot!
I’ve made the change on my mountain bikes (170 > 165) and it’s been much more noticeable than I thought it would be. My knees definitely feel better and I can spin up a lot faster without as much strain.
I'm a strong advocate for short cranks too. Riding 105 R7000 160 cranks for 3 years since my transition from 170s and I've never ever once contemplated going back to them. Possibly one of the best upgrades I've ever made to my bike. As for height, I'm just slightly shorter (175cm). For me, I raised the seat by 1cm but I moved it back my 3mm felt great.
I think by going shorter you benefit from going up.
WOW! Thanks for sharing. I am 175cm and still on 172.5 cranks. Have been debating 165 cranks for a few years. I think this summer I will do it. Not sure if 160 is in the future just yet. Glad you shared that.
@@EmpoweredEntrepreneur I'd say go for it. 👍 You'll be fine with 165s or 160s especially coming from a 172.5. The difference was night and day especially on long rides on the drops.
How did you decide between 160 and 165?
@@MrPotatoUA-camr i would say inseam * 2.12. Or more accurately refer to BikeDynamics, i have made a formula to calculate with Bikedynamics formula if you want to measure the inseam and GT (greater trochanter)
Two years ago I switched from 175mm to 170mm, and the expereince was so good that I immediately ordered 165mm cranksets for both my bikes, figuring that even shorter would be better yet. Yes, greater comfort, many more saddles work for me than before, and the change cured most of my asymetrical hip issues, ditto knee pain. Perhaps placing an international ban on cranks greater than 165mm would bring world peace? Oh, and I'm a 'tad' over 70 years old.
I was riding 172.5 cranks and bought a 165 at the similar time you released your video a couple of yrs ago. What I noticed was I was quicker up hills, but I was never able to be as fast going down hill or on the flat. I personally felt it was harder to get the same amount of torque on 165 cranks. I’m gonna try 170s in the future as I sold the 165s.
That is interesting to hear, thanks for sharing on the thread.
exact same experience as mine. took one month to adapt but after the period, i dont miss anything anymore from the longer crank
that's exactly what I had with my 180mm and NOBODY passes it to me
I come here purely to listen to Cam laughing behind the camera. I jest! Great content guys - keep it up!
When I tried really short cranks 150 and 155 I had to put the saddle more forward so I could lift my legs through on the upstroke. Putting the saddle back according to that knee over the spindle thing made it difficult to spin up a high cadence. The historical belief of pros as far as I can gather is not to change anything when the crank length is changed. They just used to leave the saddle where it was. My experiment proved to myself that it's better to do the opposite of what the magazines used to tell us.
Been on 165mn cranks for awhile now after bikefit suggested them no complaints here. I have had a total hip replacement in both hips at the ripe old age of 44. Definitely helps with the hips.
I finally decided to take the leap. With an 80cm inseam on a 172.5mm crank arm and never managing to feel comfortable I took the leap to 165mm crank arms. Just completed a 90km ride on zwift and never felt so fresh. Also noticed I was able to hold higher w/kg far longer without any strain. Thanks so much for this great content. I would go as far as to say this has revolutionised my cycling.
Awesome to hear 👍
How tall are you?
@@vincentverstappen7351 179cm
@plu06jcn how tall are you?
When I swapped 172.5 cranks to 165 some years ago. I also raised saddle and moved forward at first, because I read about it from internet. But then I did not have any power. In my case I had to lower saddle some millimeter instead and move aft also. But I never had also any professional bike fit done on my bike. And still haven't. But improvement was so great. I feel that after I changed to 165mm cranks I don't need any professional bike fit anymore. My diy position on bike isn't ideal, but it does not need to be ideal. I can ride comfortably enough now. Best upgrade I made.
This is great insight. I started cycling last year at 41 and hip and overall flexibility is my biggest issue.
Dude, this video is full of good info. Helped me tremendously in picking out my next crank arm length. Thanks man and keep up the good work! Cheers from L.A.
Obviously, the main reason that on track bikes the cranks are shorter, is because you don't want to hit the track on the banking when driving slow. And it allows to reach more comfortably higher cadences (which is an advantage on a fixed-gear (i.e. track) bike, to increase the range of speeds you feel comfortable with at the rpm needed for that speed). Honestly, I don't feel such a big difference between my track bike (165cm cranks) and my regular race bike (172.5cm cranks). Surely, on the track bike I can hold a slightly higher cadence for the same power output a little longer, but I don't feel a particular advantage or disadvantage in my power output from that. On my race bike, I'ld rather just choose a bigger gear for that reason instead.
I'm glad someone else feels the same, my road and TT are both 172.5 because I'm built like a giraffe and look for extra leg length where I can. That being said I can't see why having shorter cranks would really be all that different, you're gonna have to likely raise your seat/adjust something else swapping to shorter cranks so all your doing is changing the ratio between moveable components. I can understand if you have a 175mm crank and you're all of 5'5 that being an issue but I think most middle of the road crank lengths should work for the average cyclist.
Loved my 165mm cranks on my specialized Steel Langster fixed gear bike which I gave away during covid lockdown and after I'd had a massive heart attack (family history regardless of fitness and health). Fantastic for 35 miles around Poole Harbour (Dorset, England). Thrilling to overtake articulated lorries at 30+ mph down hill to Woolwich (London, England). I had a chance to switch to 165 mm when my 2018 Ultegra cranks had to be replaced in the recall but forgot to request it - blast! As a pensioner, I can't yet afford to change those cranks on my 2018 Roubaix.
I did get the cranks on my wife's folding Mezzo cut down from 172.5 (far too long for a folding bike that will be used by people of different heights. Went down to 155 mm as she is only 163 cm tall with long torso and short legs. She was very uncomfortable with 172.5 mm! There was a company somewhere near Norwich who did it - just googled, phoned, sent the cranks away and the cut them down and drilled new holes
At 6' 1" tall and 48 years old, I decided to try 165mm cranks last year and haven't looked back. An added benefit not mentioned is slightly more ground clearance when pedaling through turns. I also see that Shimano now offers Ultegra and Dura Ace 12 speed cranksets in 160 mm versus 165 mm for the 11 speed. Hmm...
Im 187cm tall and i went from a 175 to a 170 and it made a difference in the slight hip pain i had..now i spin in the drops without a problem
Have that to with back issues,Will try the 170mm cranks
I went from 172.5 to 165 on a new bike build and it really made dialing in my fit much easier and has made things more comfy on the road.
Spd platform pedals, cleats as far back as possible, mtb shoes, lower saddle 👌
Shorter cranks 👌
Great switch! Is swapped to 165mm a few years ago and never looked back, just awesome 👍 I do hope however the industry catches up, its hard to get your hands on a set of crancks....
Glad to see you’ve changed back to 165s. ( I changed to them when you did, and never looked back!). Speaking of track cyclists, back in the early ‘70s, when I moved from Wisconsin back to Southern California, I started spending Friday and Saturday evenings at the Encino Velodrome, totally rapt in the world-class bicycle track racing that was happening there. With the exception of the pursuiters, all of the competitors used 165s. This applied totally to the match sprinters, but also to most of the riders in the points races. (Match sprinters, often coming to complete stops during a race and using, necessarily, the technique of track standing, found the 165s an advantage, or even necessary, due to the inclination of the banking. With the longer cranks, they would occasionally clip a pedal on the surface of the track, with disastrous results!
going a bit over 2yrs with a 165mm crank, I also have a hip impingement so it really helped with reducing stress and pains, but also with the cadence and having a better pedaling technique. Gotta say that your bikefit video together with Peak Torque's video on short cranks were the main basis to make that change, so thanks a lot for tackling this kind of theme, and also bringing an expert like Neil.
Thank you for all the info you and Neill share👍 This helps me a lot being over 50, new to cycling and having issues after a possible bad bike fit.
My trek slash came with 175mm cranks. I swapped to 165mm to reduce rock strikes but found it’s pedalling nicer with them to the point where I did a
100k race on them with flat pedals and didn’t have any problems.
Watching back over these while attempting to try to self diagnose the reasons for my most recent niggling injury and ever worsening discomfort over time, I'd be really keen on giving this a try. I'm sure I have impingement in my right hip, and it's funny how good I felt on someone else's track bike last week and how crap I felt getting back on my road bike. I didn't know it at the time, but the track bike had 165s on it. My road bike... 172.5.
I also ride 165mm. I believe the use of 165 on the track is a practical reason also due to the curvature of the track in the velodrome, and so shorter crank length means less chance of contact between track and crank.
My road, xc and enduro bikes, i changed from a 175mm to a 165mm crank. I am 5ft 7 and in my 50s, I think the shorter crank helped me reduce my knee pain; however, I could easily tire out my leg muscles. I felt this when I am doing my routine indoor cycling and road cycling using my road bike. I do not have any gadgets to measure my leg fatigue muscles using a shorter crank but for me the leg thigh muslces easily tire out when I use a shorter cranks. Good video here! Thanks!
Shortening by 10mm would benefit from a smaller chainring to maintain similar pedal speed to the longer crank. I dropped 2 teeth and it was a revelation!
Great vid Cam.. I remember moving from 172.5 to 170 and the change for me was awesome straight away.. may try shorter in the future 👍🤩🏅🚴
You've talked me into it. Changing to 114mm cranks now. I'm older and left hip is beyond impingement stage.
Watching Neill spreading his knowledge is always amazing.
114mm really?
Maybe 140mm
Thanks Cam for that valuable information! As I am building my “forever-bike” this year and I will have a professional bike fit (before buying the components and after the build) I will pay extra attention to crank length and see what they are suggesting. To be honest, up to now I am hardly riding in the drops, due to the length of my pedal stroke making me feel uncomfortable and not efficient at all! Cheers mate and keep the good content coming 🙋🏻♂️
I have word by word the same experience with transitioning from 172.5 to 165. After festive 500 2021 I suffered from discomfort in my right hip for almost nine months. After the same event in 2022 and riding it with 165mm cranks there were no issues (touching wood).
Great info on the why's and results. I am awaiting parts, and will be doing this soon. I'm hopeful to be liking the changes as well. thank you for the useful information !
Pogi and Evenpoel have gone 165mm this year! Cam onto it
One day , Cameron , you will learn about osteoarthritis and cycling and how it can limit you more . I have to learn to cycle with it and it taints my enjoyment of the discipline . I am 52 and ride with an over 50's social group now . I don't ride as often as my mind wants to . I ride with friends in my sleep figuratively speaking . I started to develop osteoarthritis mid 2018 . I have spurs in a few distal finger joints ( four of them ) . Light action trigger shifters are a bit hard to find in any brand . I have to use older versions to address this . I have a good quantity of Sram twist shifters of all grades , MRX , SRT 300 , 400 , 600 and up to Attack and Rocket versions . I can''t ride my Pinarello road bicycle now as road buzz causes pain after half an hour or so . The mountain bike in road configuration ( gearing and tyre selections ) is less painful but I need to have a break at least once an hour . I haven't been for a decent ride for over 3 months now . I am waiting to have pereneal surgery .
Changed to 165mm 2 years ago. Increased my cadence. Didn’t experience any big loss of torque either. (172.5mm VS 165mm is only about 5% difference in length anyway)
Still happy with both 160 and 165 on my road and gravel bikes (both down from 172.5).
Sorry ..how tall are you? I'm 5.7 using 172.5 for years and want to change to 160 or 165, thanks
I've been suffering from one side leg numbness and shoulder pain for about a year now.
Being 176cm on a frame 54 bike. The bike came stock with 172.5's.
I got a bike fit at my LBS and they adjusted some things, slamming the stem lower, other saddle type and also moved the saddle position lower.
However, the issue still remains. It's less prevalent, but sure enough 40-50km into the ride, my right leg (or at least foot) goes numb. A day or so after, i have some mild low back pain, and sometimes a sore knee.
All calculators online point me towards a 165mm crank, based on either body height or inseam (80.5cm).
So i bit the bullet and ordered a 165mm crankset, here's hoping it improves my situation, as according to my bikefitter, al my joint angles are within the optimal range...
Neil is the rain man of bike fitters
So fluid with the assessment analysis and adjustments.
WOW, this is great information and highlights what a good bike fit can do for your performance and comfort on a bike. Looks like its time to go visit the LBS and get fit for the upcoming season. Great video Cam!
Get a decent fitter though as sometimes your local shop does the basic Kops fit. It's ok but only a ball park
@@glennoc8585 Yeah I've seen some terrible bike shop fits that friends have paid for.
@@glennoc8585 yeah, and KOPS fit can actually be done at home instead of paying for it in a LBS.
There aren't any bike fitters near me so i resort to "youtube" bike fit, basically starts with a KOPS bike fit then move the saddle a bit forward and up.
I have been riding 175mm for many years. I was shopping for 170 or 172.5 for my new build. I found an amazing deal on some NOS Ultegra that came with 175mm cranks. Oh well!
I am 5ft 7, was riding172.5s and had a lot of hip pain in my right hip. Went to 160s and it is night and day. I am no longer crowded at the top of the stroke, and the pain is gone.
Great! Thanks!
Still waiting for my 165s to arrive.
I'm going to have to seriously look at changing over to 165. I had minor back surgery for a left leg sciatica a few years ago and am experiencing a little discomfort on long rides. This might be the answer. Great video. Keep them coming. 👍
In the last week I've changed from 175mm to 170mm and the difference is quite staggering. Wasn't sure if it was all going to be UA-cam 'Hype' but feels a lot more comfortable and seem to be easier to push out a high power.
I'm literally contemplating this and I see your video. Awesome.
I just bought them 20 minutes ago, cheers mate
Great video. Consider cross training with inline, nordic XC skiing and K-1 on water. All this helps a great deal. SpikeBoarding Skiing is handy and will cross train exceedingly well.
Another great video its so informative for us all young and mature RCA & Neill really pushing us all into bike fit awareness i said it before NO one is producing such in depth cycling videos as you are mate great stuff Cam love this vid thanks.
I just love these discussions with Neill. Thanks for the great content
I have the same problem although I am running with a 167.5 crank length and still uncomfortable. Very informative video.. Thanks!
You will never beat my friend's daughters . They are 21 and very quick as they are very young and have been at it for 10 years .
Hi i'm 171cm 61kg 45y old rider ( i ride 5/6 times a week). A few weeks ago i recieved my canyon grail xs. This bike came with 165mm cranks, it was from the beginning clear i was less tired in my legs afther my long Z2 rides on this bike vs my canyon ultimate (170mm cranks). (almost same setback and sadlehight to pedalaxe). First i thought it was the more shorter stack but when i looked at my powermeter data (did a test both powermeters between my suito trainer) ( i saw that i had for the same heartrate, 5watt more avg power with the shorter cranks vs my 170mm bike. Also i was able to put more power from my quads into the cranks. Now i have also 165mm rotor Aldhu24 on my roadbike and even on lower rpms i put more power than on my longer cranks at he same bike and powermeter (power2max) vs hrf, can train more and longer from the first week i switched to the shorter cranks. Even i can spin at lower rpms with more power and my legs feel more fresh. can ride longer and easyer with my body and arms flat on the hoods (remco evenepoel style).It's a total gamechanger for me
Just wanted to say ,i also switched to 165 from 172 and 170 this year and can say..wow so much more comfortable getting into lower position with a bump up in cadence and at the end of ride i don't feel all warner out/sore .Feel like i could another round. But leave it for the next day ride.
oh and another note that i really noticed ..just getting out of the saddle to put in the power into the cranks to pick up speed was just effortless. Legs just felt fresh even though i put some Km's in the saddle already.
I've watched your fit videos (and like) what Neill says. I've been struggling with fit/saddle issues for 15 years now on and off and have read everything under the sun that I can find and have had 3 different professional fits before I gave up on them. Over the last 2 years I switched from a 172.5 to 170 and now 165. As a sprinter I just cannot recover my max WpK - I've gone from mid 14's, to low 13's with the 170's and now mid 10's with the 165's (basing power off of my Neo 2T, but is in alignment with my P2Max and Garmins). I never have been a spinner, per se, but can hang around 90 outside - heavy muscular legs take more effort to spin it would seem. Indoors I'm usually in the 70-80's. 164 is the calculated perfect crank arm length per the published formula for my inseam of 76cm. The smaller cranks seem to feel better and allow me to adjust my fit but I don't think it is quite as black and white as has been made out. Part of my long standing issue is saddle shape and I have a feeling the SMP might help, but there is no way I can put one of those on my bike! ("It is better to look good than to feel good" - Fernando) Wished I lived in Aus to give Neill a crack at my issue...
When transitioning to shorter cranks, it might be beneficial to offset your gearing and cadence, spinning faster on cogs that are 1-2T larger than before.
My 165s arrived last week. I am looking forward to seeing how they affect my sustained power output when doing Merckx style TTs
my old bike had 172.5. cranks. I was getting a sore right hip after longer rides. Went to 165mm after watching the shorter cranks vid,when I built my new bike, No more sore hip.
Interesting to hear that, thanks for sharing on the thread Brendan
yes... on the track. I use 175mm. Every time I go to 170mm, performance suffers. However, I tried using pedal extenders and this removed any hip issues.
I switched all my bikes to 170 from 172.5 and all my mountain bikes which were 175 years ago because of knee problems and it just made sense to me that it would help. It did, and I was immediately more comfortable. In the town line sprint there seemed to be a little detriment. But the comfort was way worth it.
You have to rise your saddle after switch the cranks?
Great content Cam, very helpful.
I'm also a convert from 172.5's (for 6 years) to 170's (for 18 months) and then ultimately 165's (for about 6 months now). Never going back! I'm 178cm tall, 84cm inseam.
Hi Cam - there's always so much to learn from these videos with you and Neill. Thanks a bunch for covering so many aspects of sitting on a bike.
At 183cm height I dropped to 165's first time you explored the topic, they've been great. A more stable pedalling platform, 50/50 balance and some improved PRs on strava that have stood for several years. Have felt climbing to be a little more demanding from a leverage viewpoint but I've adjusted the gear ratios to encourage a higher cadence 👍
Interesting to hear that mate, thanks for sharing on the thread
Shorter cranks, mechanically, offer less leverage and a smaller rotation circumference. You’re effectively riding in a slightly higher gear. So your cadence would surely be LOWER , not higher, unless you downshift to compensate. Also, your feet and legs will move a little LESS because of the lower circumference. Imo, it’s simple mathematics!
I am 175cm ‘tall’ and happen to prefer 165s too, for the slight reduction in joint flexion and the extra space between thigh and belly at the top of the stroke…so more comfortable overall and especially in the drops.
Have to say when I changed to 165 cranks six years ago I never noticed any changes to cadence.
Cadence is preferable in the higher range with much shorter cranks since there is a lack of torque , keeping the cadence high helps with acceleration (Surges), climbing and overall performance.... I run 100mm cranks due to a knee injury.
@@MyFloridaSRTcom Thanks. I hadn’t thought of that. To achieve that higher cadence you have to drop a gear or two though. Would you agree that a shorter crank lever is effectively a higher gear? You are trying to move the bike the same distance, with a shorter distance of pedal stroke.
@@hisdadjames4876 Cadence still a preference for most rider , you must adapt to higher or lower ,I use to spin 75-80 but recently adapted 85-90 while riding solo... 95-110 while group rides since it keeps the legs fresh and helps with surges due to lack of torque , Yes a smaller crank is like riding a bigger gear , according to Sheldon's Brown Gear Gain Calculator in my case (extreme) riding 100mm cranks with my current setup of 52-11 is like also riding a 85-11 with 170mm cranks, Btw your travel further with 1 pedal stroke of a said 175mm crank vs my case 100mm for the same cadence.
Been on 165s for about 6 years, gets kind of expensive having 6 bikes, one of my bug bears when buying a new bike is dealing with 172.5mm cranks every time, it's the reason that when I bought my TCR I bought the model that came without the power meter. I never noticed any change in cadence but I naturally spin faster than most that I used to ride with anyway, but one of my bikes is a single speed so quite comfortable pushing big gears or spinning.
Great video. Just to let you know that Chris Hoy maximum watts were closer to 2500w 🙌🏻
I use fit kit as Steve Hogg and Paul Hillbrick have done for most fitting tasks .
I have been so curious about making this type of switch. But, where I ride there's flat with a little bit of rolling hills, but what we have mostly are long climbs that are steep.10-25% gradients with often 300-700 meters (1000-2000 + feet) of climbing often with no flats. Just straight up. I'm currently running a 36 in the front with a 28 in the back for maximum low range. I can try to put a 34 in the front, so I'd have a 34-50, which I've read many people do. But, going to a 30 in the rear would make for such a funky spacing for the rear cassette. Point being, I've held off because I'm concerned about the leverage losses with the shorter cranks. When you run out of gears it's just you and the lever. Unless I were to go to a 12 speed system which I don't really want to do right now, I'm not sure it would be as simple as throw on some shorter cranks and get on down the road. Anyone else have any experience with this type of situation?
Love these bike fit videos.
I can relate to being 41 :) A couple years back I moved from 172.5 to 170 cranks and the change is much bigger than the 2.5mm would've antecipated.165 could be worth trying now, as back then there were no powermeter options ...
Power pedals make this so much easier now
As always, there is no "right" crank length. It depends on the length of your legs, and also the amount of leverage you like. For example, I switched from 165 to 175 and I'm loving it! I got really long legs though, so I guess it's just the right size for me.
May i know your inseam and your height please.?
I also have long legs, 1.83m tall, and have 88.3 inseam, and going 172.5mm to 165mm and the shorter crank are much better!
I'm 5'10". I have 30.5" inseam, at most, so really short legs. 1.09 method puts me at 33.25" saddle height. It's HORRIBLE. 34" is PERFECT. Everyone saying in theory too high is bad, but in reality too high is AWESOME. What am I missing here? I'm using 170mm stock cracks on a Medium size Polygon Xtrada 7 that in all fairness is probably a touch too small for me - would that be why my saddle height is off? Too small a bike?
I ride 170s right now Definitely going 165 next crank 30in Inseam
believe it or not Bradley Wiggins, at 6ft 4 in? used 165s
One thing you can see most was the amount your upper body rocked on the longer cranks. Seems hard to believe that with a higher seat and it being pushed forwards your overall height is still lower. You learn something every day
Cheers, great video. I wonder, however, if some of these benefits can be achieved with only raising seat height.
Why have you ever reverted to 172.5 after a good experience with 165?
Any chance you could have a video on setting up your Bonts? Great content on your channel.
I’m a fairly short rider at 5’5 and I’m riding 155mm cranks
The aspect I am not so sure about is getting the same power from increased cadence - I fatigue from high cadence just like I fatigue from a resisted low cadence
From my experience there is less fatigue with 165s. It’s noticeable on any intense ride
Each human has a prefered/ideal cadence, where he can get the best effort for longer duration (say FTP-level), but I'm sure the longer the cranks are, the lower the ideal cadence will be. To get the same power output (in Watts), for the same rpm you need the same torque, and therefore less force on longer crank. But that doesn't mean it is easier to apply that (less) force, as you have to "chase" a pedal which is moving around faster on a long crank (at the same rpm). OTOH, it is pretty clear, that for starting from a standing start, (with the same gearing) a longer cranks would (initially) give more torque and acceleration, as you can only apply so much max force independent from crank length. OTOH, with a smaller gear you get the same effect. Everybody knows it is easier to accelerate (from standing still) on a smaller gear. Another interesting comparison is with the old Penny Farth bikes, where the "gearing" is limited to the size of wheel radius you can span with your legs. On Penny Farth track racing this typically meant they had to push crazy high rpm, and unsurprisingly they also used crazy short cranks for that (I read in the order of 125mm).
Awesome information! This helps a lot! Thanks!
How about a detailed video on saddle and fit solutions for men who have prostate issues, you may include advice on way type of bib pad is best too
I rode with 175 mm cranks for at least 15 years, until I bought a new Trek Emonda last year with 172.5 cranks, and immediately noticed I didn't have hip pain. It's amazing what a small difference in in crank length makes!
Crank length must be seen in combination with cleat position, if your foot is stable with cleats far forward with no issues you may be able to fit 172,5 with no problems in the same position
A really interesting topic... I am running 175mmm cranks since ... ever... but I am really thinking of switching them out for 170 or even 165. Never thought about these drastic possible changed on the bike with it.
2 months ago I got myself a 160mm 105 crank (I am 1.76m tall and was running a 170mm) and my knee pain is gone. Give it a try!
What kind of kneepain? Ive been suffering itband pain
Mine was a kind of pain that is behind the knee cap and makes climbing up stairs a bit painful (abt 3-to-4/10 on the pain scale)
I'm 185 tall and switched to 160mm with smaller oval ring. Best decision ever!
@@stijnschaerlaeken7529 Strengthen your glutes, and core, and do some ITB exercises. I was have a long ITB pain, and finally, now it's gone.
Fan of shorter cranks, but not sure why your leg speed or rpm would be faster on shorter cranks. For the same speed on the bike the rpm of the crank is the same, nothing to do with crank length. On a shorter crank you make a smaller circle, so you foot is travelling slower in pure speed but the same rads per second. Because the distance in the circle is smaller you have to apply slightly more force to the pedal to obtain the same torque as a longer pedal pedal . Power is proportional to applied force and the rads/s (RPM) you are doing. One effect that this will have is that for a given incline you are having to apply more force when climbing in a particular gear, not quite losing a whole cog, but part of the one that you are on. You might find that you change in to an easier gear earlier as at any given speed and gear you are applying slightly more force on the pedals, but the same power, than before.
Dam, i just got a new ultegra groupset with 172.5mm cranks.. love to try the 165's. I'm also middle age with some niggles here and there. great video thank you. I didn't see any discussion there about a person's height and crank length though, i'm assuming with this video that it doesn't matter. I'm 6 foot tall...
I'd like to give this a go as well. Unfortunately it is a bit expensive. As someone who is primarily a runner and am able to gold well over 400watts while running I feel like the 300 ish watts I do on the bike could be improved by mimicking the higher cadence I'm used to while running.