I'm 6' with a 86.8cm inseam. I tried 165mm for two months (~2000km) on both my Canyon Ultimate and my trainer bike. I really loved the position change, how it felt over longer efforts, and managed to win a crit and demolish my personal best on a 150k ride with them, but I am a fast-twitch rider (95th-percentile for 5s power, 40th-percentile for 3 hour power) and on 165mm I just could never hit the same sprint speeds and power When I swapped back to 172.5mm as a reverse experiment, in two days I set a whole bunch of new personal records in the sub-5 minute range; snappy sprints just felt so much better and more natural because of the longer throw in the 12-oclock to 3-oclock position, so after talking with my fitter I'm going to stick with 172.5mm because it plays to my strengths and is therefore more fun I know I am an outlier - if I was more of an endurance rider I'd love 165mm for how it let me stay locked in position on the bike for longer more easily (it's what I'm going to recommend to my wife), but I wanted to offer this alternative perspective in case there are others out there like me
Glen - this is an excellent point, I’m really glad you mentioned this. I would actually like to make a follow-up video discussing crank length and bike racing. Please shoot me an email if you are willing to discuss more: tim@greshfit.com
Thanks, I completely agree, the bike industry needs to change this antiquated de facto standard of 170mm+ cranks. I'm 5'8", got myself some 152mm cranks (originally for ebikes). The old belief that there's less torque is only because when measured at the center of the crank arms, not at the wheels, which goes through gearing. So crank length affects body geometry, power is comparable *at the wheels* through gearing.
I am 177 cm. tall and I just switched from 170 to 165. Improvement in many ways including comfort, cadence, more aero position, etc., except for the out-of-saddle pedalling where it feels a bit awkward due to the smaller circle I'm dancing on.
Poggie is 5'9" and uses 165mm cranks for what that's worth! I am 5'9.5" and just installed 165mm tonight in place of 170mm. First ride is tomorrow but on the trainer, a few mm higher saddle height, things felt really good and smooth. Weight on hands still feels good even without changing setback (minus the small amt from the saddle height increase). I had a bike fit a couple years ago on 172.5s and the fitter said I had a little right side hip impingement. I figure going down another size from 170mm couldn't hurt and will probably be easier on my aging hips and knees. Why not.
Holy crap, who sold you a 175 at 5’8 in the first place? Unless you got crazy long femurs. I ride 175 and I’m 6’2. I ran 170 for a bit and felt like my cadence was off so switched back.
Put 165mm on ones of my race bikes, felt fine. Went fast, got a pb on a hill last weekend in a tt so no downside. Im 5'8"... used 155mm back in the 90s... all good.
I think the only factor to consider is leg lenght. You have shorter legs, you can go a bit longer, but longer legs could use 165 in order to ease effort on the joints. I am 5'10, but i have long legs when compared to my upper body. Another person with the same height could have shorter legs depending on the anatomy proportion.
Im 178cm and changed to 165mm cranks some years ago, no negatives except the potential small loss in sprint power in like a 5s window, everything else is just massive positives, smaller hip angle, less pedal strikes and feels better in general
Tbh i dont understand reasoning behind comparing crank length and height, i think more logical something about femur or leg total length? Im exact 6ft, 89cm inseam, but my shins longer than my things so 165mm feels fine for me, but i never tried anything shorter
Due to an injury I have one leg shorter than the other and my bike has 170 cranks. I want my short leg side to use a shorter crank as I think my bike will fit better. I'm thinking of 160 or 165 on the left side and leaving the 170 on the right. My right leg wasn't injured so it's still capable of compensating for whatever my left leg isn't able to do as well as the slight difference in pedal stroke I will experience. If cranks weren't so expensive I would have tried it already.
I hate short cranks. I paid a lot of money for a used 175mm crank during the covid period to replace the 172.5mm cranks the bike came with, because no new 175mm cranks were available. In fact, I loved the 177.5mm cranks on my old road bike. Can't afford Dura Ace these days though. I'm 6', don't know my inseam. Just recently replaced the 170mm cranks on an old steel bike I use for commuting with 175mm Claris cranks (God, they are heavy, the steel chainrings, ridiculous), I'm so happy I finally can pedal properly.
I'm 5'5 with 29" inseam. I have 170mm cranks on my hardtail mtb with a 1x12 drivetrain and 30t chainring. I think it feels just fine. I have 165mm cranks on my emtb Levo SL and that feels good too. I would like to try 160mm on the emtb mainly to reduce pedal strikes.
With the (by now established) trend of higher cadences and lower gears, it makes sense, unless you're me and don't want to change :-) Also makes sense as track cranks were always shorter - 165 was the standard even if you were tall like me, and cadences are much higher on the track (thinking endurance events, not sprints or TTs).
See, I disagree. I think that shorter cranks do benefit those who mash their pedals vs. the spinners. At 90-100 rpm, the 175 is no problem. One of the comments I see from people that switch to 165, 160, 155, is that their cadence picks up. So, they feel better and feel less stress on their knees, thus the shorter crank was the fix, when in reality, they have been pushing too big a gear.
hey Tim. I went from 172.5 to 165. Zero downsides. Been using them for 10 months. Regarding Peak Power sprints (1sec) or even 5, 10, 20, 30sec, ect. Also zero difference; I did not lose any wattage. Best change i’ve ever made in 20 years. I’m 5’11 with 34 inch inseam.
Thanks for sharing! That’s great to hear. Many riders seem to fear they will loose power. But more and more the results come in as not the case ! Enjoy every ride !
@@greshfit yeah, i think you are correct. even a research paper from 20 years ago said the same thing with regards to peak power. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11417428/?
I think inseam length might be a better metric than height. I see below someone is 5-5 with 31" legs. I'm 5-8 with 28" legs. Based on height we would both be wrongly assessed. Maybe grossly. Cheers!
If/when a cyclist's hips/pelvis rocks when seated, the saddle is set too high. PERIOD. If/when crank length is shortened, the effective gear ratio (actually, the Gain Ratio) proportionally INCREASES across the entire gear range, it's very simple arithmetic, see Sheldon Brown's Gain Ratio page. @1:10 “...now the other thing is with shorter cranks there's less load on the joints...” Completely the opposite is true, with shorter cranks every chainring/cog ratio is, effectively and actually a HIGHER gain ratio than with longer cranks, EVERY gear is harder to push with shorter cranks.
I'm wholly unconvinced by your whiteboard use. If you've not got empirical data to support your hypotheses, you're just making things up. If you've no bicycle dynamometer access nor repeatable, confirm-able data from others' data, how are you a “Bike Fitter” qualified to make such pronouncements as you have? “If you can't show it, you don't know it”. ~Aron Ra
IMO the crank length discussion has become overly complicated...Physics defines that in the closed system of the drivetrain and legs for a given propulsive force at the rear cassette, and resulting speed (through the chain) longer cranks require less foot force, greater foot speed, greater muscular range of motion and increased joint angles. Shorter cranks require more foot force, less foot speed, less muscular range of motion and less joint angle (+ slight aero gain due to greater seat vs bar diff.). Accordingly performance focussed riders will tend towards optimized foot force at a cost of necessarily faster foot speed, and more muscular range of motion enabled by longer cranks while non-performance recreation (comfort focussed) riders will sacrifice speed for lower foot speed and less joint range of motion. Each rider will have a crank length "sweet spot" which will be generally proportional to leg length.
> Shorter cranks require more foot force This is one of the points why my bike shop owner is not agreeable with my TH-cam inspired curiosity for changing my cranks. He said that unless either when I get 75 years old, or contrary, get race-rated stronger legs by training, he wouldn’t recommend such a change too much to holiday cyclists like me. Is he right or old-headed?
@@Keeazul he is smart and has a fundamental understanding of physics that seems to be lacking in those following the short cranks are better fad…you can not escape physics…
I want to go shorter. I'm 1.68m. Used 172.5 and now 170. I ve moved my saddle multiple times up and down to adjust it. Still have some lateral movement. Want to go 160 as per your suggestion. Only problem that I have is powermeters. I have stages and 4iiii on my bikes and they don't make powermeters for 160m cranks. This sucks. The only option is to get powermeter pedals which as quite pricey and heavy.
Yeah, that’s a pretty common scenario. My suggestion would be, if you can do without power for a little bit, buy an inexpensive 160 crank (for one of your bike) and just focus on riding with that length and enjoy how it’s working for you. If you really love it, then perhaps the benefits will outweigh some of the , anxiety of meter details. Good luck !
I am concerned would need to change the saddle height to a higher setting for the lesser leg extention at the bottom of the pedaling cycle, hence making the reach to the floor at road junctions uncomfortable from the saddle, as I commute and negotiate stop start quite alot, this is deal breaker, does the geomtry of the bottom bracket need adjusting to compensate?
@@chrisyoung8062"Body height" is only a small portion, arguably irrelevant. Femur, tiba, and foot length would be more important factors...let alone any injuries/impingement one may have.
hello. I want to go to shorter cranks. 33 years old, I am 5.44 feet tall and have a 2.5 foot inseam. I've always used 170. In your opinion it should go to 165 or 160
@@greshfit or just a forgotten time. Seriously considering going from 175 to 165 though. After my pelvis reconstruction and full hip replacement I had some trouble walking after riding my Zurich a few days in a row . I thought it was my saddle or riding position. After seeing this the big culprit is probably the fact that my range of motion is reduced especially the hip flexor. I have been riding my recumbent now , but really miss the road bike. Yeah a split second after slipping of a curb ( we have excellent winter tires for automobiles and bicycles... but not really anything like those tread compounds for shoes .., Michelin how about X-Ice shoe tread. ) and every thing changed.
Hi Tim, I’m a big fan of Steve Hogg. I’m 180 cm tall, inseam 89.5, femur 51.6 confirmed with a MRI cat scan. Been riding 175 cranks for over 30 years and I do at times rock while warming up when riding. Do I go to 170 or 165? Your thoughts well be appreciated. Thanks, Eric Heim
Hi Eric - Steve Hogg is who got me into fitting years ago - he's an amazing fitter! I'd recommend 165mm. Feel free to email me if you want to keep me posted from here - tim@greshfit.com
You only recommend the 165 but you don’t make a case as to “why”. What are the benefits over the over the “industry” standards. So can you share pros and cons? Compared to standard issued
Would this affect the type of gearing someone goes with? For example smaller chainrings and/or bigger cassette? For example it would make sense to me if going to a smaller crank to also switch from my current 52/36 to a 50/34. Is my reasoning correct here? Also I'm 5'11" with a 32" inseam. Would the 165 be what you'd recommend in my case? Thanks in advance and good video.
I’d recommend 165mm For gearing you can go either way. I know some who do go to smaller chainrings and like it. But most of the time I don’t usually advise it since riders tend to get strong anyone and the current hearing workout out fine. Good luck and enjoy every ride !!!
I went from a 170 52 chainring to 165 53 ring I noticed my splits now in the same courses are slower. My inseam is at 30 in. Now I'm curious would a 170 be better due to the fact I have more power with the longer lever on the downstroke. I don't have too many issues with my hips on a 170 mm legs aren't that long However your thoughts should I go back to a 170 on a 53 ring to get a little bit more power on the downstroke
@@greshfit 65 mile ride I had problems punching through the wind when the 170 52 teeth was not a problem I'm just wondering should I go a 170 at 53 to get more torque typically I'm just doing half Iron Man races for the most part every now and then I'll jump into a sprint maybe I changed too much too quick from the chain ring to the crank length your thoughts should I go back to 170 at a 53 ring to get more of that torque
It usually takes around a month (or more) or regular riding for shorter cranks to really "sink in". My advice would be to either 1. stick with the 165s and let your body adapt. Or 2. if you are in season, table it and go back to the previous setup - and wait till off season to go 165. Good luck!
I would say for road. For mountain bike, sure that’s fine too. But generally not quite as pressing because you’re sitting in a more “opened up” position. It would be best to try it on the road bike first, get the hang of it, and if you really like it, check out 5dev for mountain bike cranks. Good luck, please like subscribe and share. Enjoy every ride!
I'm 6' with a 86.8cm inseam. I tried 165mm for two months (~2000km) on both my Canyon Ultimate and my trainer bike. I really loved the position change, how it felt over longer efforts, and managed to win a crit and demolish my personal best on a 150k ride with them, but I am a fast-twitch rider (95th-percentile for 5s power, 40th-percentile for 3 hour power) and on 165mm I just could never hit the same sprint speeds and power
When I swapped back to 172.5mm as a reverse experiment, in two days I set a whole bunch of new personal records in the sub-5 minute range; snappy sprints just felt so much better and more natural because of the longer throw in the 12-oclock to 3-oclock position, so after talking with my fitter I'm going to stick with 172.5mm because it plays to my strengths and is therefore more fun
I know I am an outlier - if I was more of an endurance rider I'd love 165mm for how it let me stay locked in position on the bike for longer more easily (it's what I'm going to recommend to my wife), but I wanted to offer this alternative perspective in case there are others out there like me
Glen - this is an excellent point, I’m really glad you mentioned this. I would actually like to make a follow-up video discussing crank length and bike racing. Please shoot me an email if you are willing to discuss more: tim@greshfit.com
I used to ride 165 cranks, now being older, I prefer 175 with a lower cadence.
Thanks, I completely agree, the bike industry needs to change this antiquated de facto standard of 170mm+ cranks. I'm 5'8", got myself some 152mm cranks (originally for ebikes). The old belief that there's less torque is only because when measured at the center of the crank arms, not at the wheels, which goes through gearing. So crank length affects body geometry, power is comparable *at the wheels* through gearing.
I am 177 cm. tall and I just switched from 170 to 165. Improvement in many ways including comfort, cadence, more aero position, etc., except for the out-of-saddle pedalling where it feels a bit awkward due to the smaller circle I'm dancing on.
Poggie is 5'9" and uses 165mm cranks for what that's worth! I am 5'9.5" and just installed 165mm tonight in place of 170mm. First ride is tomorrow but on the trainer, a few mm higher saddle height, things felt really good and smooth. Weight on hands still feels good even without changing setback (minus the small amt from the saddle height increase). I had a bike fit a couple years ago on 172.5s and the fitter said I had a little right side hip impingement. I figure going down another size from 170mm couldn't hurt and will probably be easier on my aging hips and knees. Why not.
I went from 175 to 165 about 6 months ago. I’m 5’8. There isn’t a single negative I can think of. They feel so much better for me.
Glad they helped! Enjoy every ride!
Holy crap, who sold you a 175 at 5’8 in the first place? Unless you got crazy long femurs.
I ride 175 and I’m 6’2. I ran 170 for a bit and felt like my cadence was off so switched back.
Did you have to lower the saddle much? I'm curious because I consider to go from 175 to 165 :) thank you
There's absolutely no reason for you to have been on 175s. If you were on the typical 170s at your height, you'd probably barely notice going to 165s
@@lalo12254 You need to raise the saddle since the distance from it to the pedal with shorter cranks is lower.
I'm 5'5" tall (31" inseam) and went to 165 cranks six months ago. Loving them, knees feeling great!
Awesome to hear! Enjoy every ride !
Put 165mm on ones of my race bikes, felt fine. Went fast, got a pb on a hill last weekend in a tt so no downside. Im 5'8"... used 155mm back in the 90s... all good.
I think the only factor to consider is leg lenght. You have shorter legs, you can go a bit longer,
but longer legs could use 165 in order to ease effort on the joints.
I am 5'10, but i have long legs when compared to my upper body.
Another person with the same height could have shorter legs depending on the anatomy proportion.
I am 165cms tall. It was only after putting on 165mm cranks I felt I wanted to keep riding. I was ready to give up with all the pain.
Wow… thrilled to hear this, enjoy every ride!
Im 178cm and changed to 165mm cranks some years ago, no negatives except the potential small loss in sprint power in like a 5s window, everything else is just massive positives, smaller hip angle, less pedal strikes and feels better in general
Good stuff!! Enjoy every ride!!
Tbh i dont understand reasoning behind comparing crank length and height, i think more logical something about femur or leg total length?
Im exact 6ft, 89cm inseam, but my shins longer than my things so 165mm feels fine for me, but i never tried anything shorter
Due to an injury I have one leg shorter than the other and my bike has 170 cranks. I want my short leg side to use a shorter crank as I think my bike will fit better. I'm thinking of 160 or 165 on the left side and leaving the 170 on the right. My right leg wasn't injured so it's still capable of compensating for whatever my left leg isn't able to do as well as the slight difference in pedal stroke I will experience. If cranks weren't so expensive I would have tried it already.
I have some thoughts - email me if you want some input here - tim@greshfit.com
I hate short cranks. I paid a lot of money for a used 175mm crank during the covid period to replace the 172.5mm cranks the bike came with, because no new 175mm cranks were available. In fact, I loved the 177.5mm cranks on my old road bike. Can't afford Dura Ace these days though. I'm 6', don't know my inseam. Just recently replaced the 170mm cranks on an old steel bike I use for commuting with 175mm Claris cranks (God, they are heavy, the steel chainrings, ridiculous), I'm so happy I finally can pedal properly.
I'm 5'5 with 29" inseam. I have 170mm cranks on my hardtail mtb with a 1x12 drivetrain and 30t chainring. I think it feels just fine. I have 165mm cranks on my emtb Levo SL and that feels good too. I would like to try 160mm on the emtb mainly to reduce pedal strikes.
Check out 5dev
With the (by now established) trend of higher cadences and lower gears, it makes sense, unless you're me and don't want to change :-) Also makes sense as track cranks were always shorter - 165 was the standard even if you were tall like me, and cadences are much higher on the track (thinking endurance events, not sprints or TTs).
Great input!
See, I disagree. I think that shorter cranks do benefit those who mash their pedals vs. the spinners. At 90-100 rpm, the 175 is no problem. One of the comments I see from people that switch to 165, 160, 155, is that their cadence picks up. So, they feel better and feel less stress on their knees, thus the shorter crank was the fix, when in reality, they have been pushing too big a gear.
hey Tim. I went from 172.5 to 165. Zero downsides. Been using them for 10 months. Regarding Peak Power sprints (1sec) or even 5, 10, 20, 30sec, ect. Also zero difference; I did not lose any wattage. Best change i’ve ever made in 20 years. I’m 5’11 with 34 inch inseam.
Thanks for sharing! That’s great to hear. Many riders seem to fear they will loose power. But more and more the results come in as not the case ! Enjoy every ride !
@@greshfit yeah, i think you are correct. even a research paper from 20 years ago said the same thing with regards to peak power.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11417428/?
Thank you for sharing this!
I think inseam length might be a better metric than height. I see below someone is 5-5 with 31" legs. I'm 5-8 with 28" legs. Based on height we would both be wrongly assessed. Maybe grossly. Cheers!
If/when a cyclist's hips/pelvis rocks when seated, the saddle is set too high. PERIOD.
If/when crank length is shortened, the effective gear ratio (actually, the Gain Ratio) proportionally INCREASES across the entire gear range, it's very simple arithmetic, see Sheldon Brown's Gain Ratio page.
@1:10 “...now the other thing is with shorter cranks there's less load on the joints...”
Completely the opposite is true, with shorter cranks every chainring/cog ratio is, effectively and actually a HIGHER gain ratio than with longer cranks, EVERY gear is harder to push with shorter cranks.
I'm wholly unconvinced by your whiteboard use.
If you've not got empirical data to support your hypotheses, you're just making things up.
If you've no bicycle dynamometer access nor repeatable, confirm-able data from others' data, how are you a “Bike Fitter” qualified to make such pronouncements as you have?
“If you can't show it, you don't know it”. ~Aron Ra
Lol, you are funny.
IMO the crank length discussion has become overly complicated...Physics defines that in the closed system of the drivetrain and legs for a given propulsive force at the rear cassette, and resulting speed (through the chain) longer cranks require less foot force, greater foot speed, greater muscular range of motion and increased joint angles. Shorter cranks require more foot force, less foot speed, less muscular range of motion and less joint angle (+ slight aero gain due to greater seat vs bar diff.).
Accordingly performance focussed riders will tend towards optimized foot force at a cost of necessarily faster foot speed, and more muscular range of motion enabled by longer cranks while non-performance recreation (comfort focussed) riders will sacrifice speed for lower foot speed and less joint range of motion. Each rider will have a crank length "sweet spot" which will be generally proportional to leg length.
Great input! I would agree with what you said in that there is a sweet spot for each individual.
> Shorter cranks require more foot force
This is one of the points why my bike shop owner is not agreeable with my TH-cam inspired curiosity for changing my cranks.
He said that unless either when I get 75 years old, or contrary, get race-rated stronger legs by training, he wouldn’t recommend such a change too much to holiday cyclists like me. Is he right or old-headed?
He is old-headed
@@Keeazul he is smart and has a fundamental understanding of physics that seems to be lacking in those following the short cranks are better fad…you can not escape physics…
If it’s all about physics - why not ride 200mm cranks ?
Good video, Tim.
Thanks! 🙏
Im 182 cm tall and i use 165 mm cranks, my knees and back is not hurting anymore and im faster, never going back to 172 👌
I want to go shorter. I'm 1.68m. Used 172.5 and now 170. I ve moved my saddle multiple times up and down to adjust it. Still have some lateral movement. Want to go 160 as per your suggestion. Only problem that I have is powermeters. I have stages and 4iiii on my bikes and they don't make powermeters for 160m cranks. This sucks. The only option is to get powermeter pedals which as quite pricey and heavy.
Yeah, that’s a pretty common scenario.
My suggestion would be, if you can do without power for a little bit, buy an inexpensive 160 crank (for one of your bike) and just focus on riding with that length and enjoy how it’s working for you. If you really love it, then perhaps the benefits will outweigh some of the , anxiety of meter details. Good luck !
@@greshfit yeap exactly what I was planning to do. I just wait for the 105 160mm cranks to get back on stock.
Best of luck! Enjoy every ride
I am concerned would need to change the saddle height to a higher setting for the lesser leg extention at the bottom of the pedaling cycle, hence making the reach to the floor at road junctions uncomfortable from the saddle, as I commute and negotiate stop start quite alot, this is deal breaker, does the geomtry of the bottom bracket need adjusting to compensate?
Yeah the saddle would go higher - typically I suggest increasing 50% of the crank length change.
As a shorter man, I already can't touch the ground from the saddle if the bike is upright. The answer, get off the saddle and/or tilt the bike.
Couldn't disagree more. (6"3) 175 feels like heaven. 165 feels like I'm on kids tricycle.
Out of curiosity - around how many hours / rides were logged with the 165s?
I would also ask how tall you are?
@@greshfit 2000km or so
@@chrisyoung8062"Body height" is only a small portion, arguably irrelevant. Femur, tiba, and foot length would be more important factors...let alone any injuries/impingement one may have.
@@greshfit More importantly, were the 165s on a bike that person typically uses, and was the saddle height/fore/aft adjusted?
hello.
I want to go to shorter cranks.
33 years old, I am 5.44 feet tall and have a 2.5 foot inseam. I've always used 170.
In your opinion it should go to 165 or 160
Most of the Chicago made Schwinns came with 165mm onr piece crank sets ... regardless of size.
Ahead of their time
@@greshfit or just a forgotten time. Seriously considering going from 175 to 165 though. After my pelvis reconstruction and full hip replacement I had some trouble walking after riding my Zurich a few days in a row . I thought it was my saddle or riding position. After seeing this the big culprit is probably the fact that my range of motion is reduced especially the hip flexor. I have been riding my recumbent now , but really miss the road bike. Yeah a split second after slipping of a curb ( we have excellent winter tires for automobiles and bicycles... but not really anything like those tread compounds for shoes .., Michelin how about X-Ice shoe tread. ) and every thing changed.
Hi Tim,
I’m a big fan of Steve Hogg. I’m 180 cm tall, inseam 89.5, femur 51.6 confirmed with a MRI cat scan.
Been riding 175 cranks for over 30 years and I do at times rock while warming up when riding. Do I go to 170 or 165?
Your thoughts well be appreciated.
Thanks, Eric Heim
Hi Eric - Steve Hogg is who got me into fitting years ago - he's an amazing fitter! I'd recommend 165mm. Feel free to email me if you want to keep me posted from here - tim@greshfit.com
You only recommend the 165 but you don’t make a case as to “why”. What are the benefits over the over the “industry” standards. So can you share pros and cons? Compared to standard issued
The main Why - improved pelvic stability in the saddle
Would this affect the type of gearing someone goes with? For example smaller chainrings and/or bigger cassette? For example it would make sense to me if going to a smaller crank to also switch from my current 52/36 to a 50/34. Is my reasoning correct here? Also I'm 5'11" with a 32" inseam. Would the 165 be what you'd recommend in my case? Thanks in advance and good video.
I’d recommend 165mm
For gearing you can go either way. I know some who do go to smaller chainrings and like it. But most of the time I don’t usually advise it since riders tend to get strong anyone and the current hearing workout out fine. Good luck and enjoy every ride !!!
160cm height, is 165mm for xc racing okay?
Yeah - that would be very reasonable. 160 may be better yet.
Are you familiar with Bikesmith Design out of Minneapolis? He does custom crank shortening, down to 80mm!
I have not…. But I checked out their site and looks really interesting! Thanks for sharing - I’ll look into it more
@@greshfit Cheers, Mark is a great guy, real iconoclast.
so if you're 5'7" which of the shorter lengths would you suggest?
Just a guess - 160 or 155. 160 would be the easiest to source and install. 155 would require a more expensive aftermarket brand like Jcob or Rotor
@@greshfit My Ultegra R8000 only comes in a 165mm shortest. I see the R8100 12 speed set is also being made with a 160mm option.
Get the R8100 in 160 or R7100. I do it all the time and works great with 11 speed stuff.
I went from a 170 52 chainring to 165 53 ring I noticed my splits now in the same courses are slower. My inseam is at 30 in. Now I'm curious would a 170 be better due to the fact I have more power with the longer lever on the downstroke. I don't have too many issues with my hips on a 170 mm legs aren't that long However your thoughts should I go back to a 170 on a 53 ring to get a little bit more power on the downstroke
Around how many miles do you have on the 165 cranks?
@@greshfit 65 mile ride I had problems punching through the wind when the 170 52 teeth was not a problem I'm just wondering should I go a 170 at 53 to get more torque typically I'm just doing half Iron Man races for the most part every now and then I'll jump into a sprint maybe I changed too much too quick from the chain ring to the crank length your thoughts should I go back to 170 at a 53 ring to get more of that torque
It usually takes around a month (or more) or regular riding for shorter cranks to really "sink in". My advice would be to either 1. stick with the 165s and let your body adapt. Or 2. if you are in season, table it and go back to the previous setup - and wait till off season to go 165. Good luck!
The most obvious question. What is the performance advantage?
You will be able to beat Pantani's time up Alpe D' Huez
just pedalling a smaller circle!!1 thanks good!!
so if you're 169cm which of the shorter
lengths would you suggest?
160 or 155
160 will be easiest to source in most cases
Thanks
@@greshfit 160 for road bike or mtb?
I would say for road. For mountain bike, sure that’s fine too. But generally not quite as pressing because you’re sitting in a more “opened up” position. It would be best to try it on the road bike first, get the hang of it, and if you really like it, check out 5dev for mountain bike cranks. Good luck, please like subscribe and share. Enjoy every ride!