I'm still curious why so many manufacturers decide to use overly longer cranks? i.e. I have a Pinarello F5 in a 43cm frame and it comes with 170mm crank arms. Many people that I speak to are between 5'9 - 6'0 and using 165mm cranks. I'm 5'2 with a 28" inseam, so my ideal crank arm is around 150mm. This was the first thing I changed, including the bb before riding my bike to prevent any further injuries. A 43cm frame fits those who are roughly 4'10 - 5'3, cranksets are the most used component on the bike, these should be sized accordingly. I would even go as far as blaming Shimano, SRAM, and Campagnolo for not manufacturing smaller crank arms, leaving us to seek third party manufacturers. My 2 cents
For people like me, with 37” true inseam. Long leg riders lave a lot of mass to move in just the legs themselves, it’s more efficient to have more torque of longer crank leverage at lower cadence, it’s also more comfortable. Trust me, and my leg length hip angle is still wide open with 180mm cranks.
Went from 172.5 to 165 and initially I thought it felt better. After a several week adjustment period it ended up feeling the same. Switched back to 172.5 after about a year, simply for the fact that I have multiple bikes and didn't want to change every crank. After a couple days the 172.5 felt, the same. You definitely won't gain any power switching cranks in either direction, after an adjustment period. Your body will simply get used to it.
Question. You are making observations about mm adjustments to crank length, saddle height and front end. How did you verify/guarantee that the running shoes were at the same exact place on those flat pedals every time, to within the mm? Secondly, on such a video, wouldn't it have been worth it to have rider in road cycling shoes with clip-in pedals? Seems like a massive oversight. I stopped the video when you showed side by side, and the right foot was about 10mm differently set on the pedal. Check it. I'm not saying your observations are incorrect, just that the person riding is giving feedback about "feel", so foot position matters, a lot.
Agreed that this was a bad test. They should have been using clipless pedals/shoes, AND they needed to test for watts at every 5mm crank length increment to show optimal output. Just as the 185 was too long, the 155 was probably too short for maximal output efficiency.
In early 2022 I purchased a bike that had 172.5 cranks. That has been my main bike for these last 2 1/2 years. I had been riding 175mm cranks for 12 years prior. A couple of months ago I spent some time riding my older bikes with the 175 cranks. After a week on the longer cranks knee discomfort & pain were greatly minimized and I was otherwise much more comfortable while pedalling. I ended up buying a new crank in 175mm for the newer bike and have never been happier. I'm 5'10" with a 34" inseam. I don't rock around or bounce off the saddle. I've spent a lot of time riding rollers indoors, especially during a period around 10 years ago. Smooth pedalling is a function of technique much more so than crank length.
Crank length is just part of drivetrain mechanical advantage that includes chainring, sprocket (any IGH etc) and wheel radius. It makes sense to optimise the crank length to an individual's musculoskeletal system and potentially psychology then adjust the other components to give the required gearing.
I went from 172.5 to 165 mm, Cadence increased instantly from 85-92 to 92-102 rpm sustained very easily. I can say with certainty that I can maintain the same power in the pedals much easier at a higher cadence, probably combined with a much reduced leg extension
Im sure what you type is true. Too bad you started at 172.5 . If you started at 180 you could have your torque at 172.5 and your current cadence. Imagine that 😮
Today you have easy gears so you can climb steep mountains while sitting. In the past you had to get out of the saddle. Did that have an impact on the crank length?
I've used 172.5 for 25 years and then switched to 175 last year. I've noticed no difference at all. After all - it's just 0.5cm increase in length overall.For me crank length is irrelevant if you have the right position. Saddle height and steam length are far more important. The fashion over the past 20 years for being fitted for the 'sportive' position - when you sit back in the saddle with high bars to relief weight on the shoulders is not something that suits all. Having a long back I have always raced pretty slammed and continue to do so with no problems. The only reason crank length is back in fashion is because Pog uses 165's. Pog is a champion because he's a superb cyclist - not because he uses short cranks.
2nd best decision I made was switching from 175mm to 170mm cranks riding XC mtb. Best decision was switching from 170 to 165mm. Spins up much quicker with all the stop & go - hairpin turns/roots in north GA single track. Not as beneficial for performance on gravel bike (less stop & go), but shorter cranks are more forgiving on the hips and lower back. I’m 5’11” 190lbs and built like a square, so hips prefer smaller circles. Mtb times are faster with shorter cranks.
A big part people miss concerning crank length is that you can train for longer crank lengths . While people with true hip impingement are out there its getting way too much airplay at the moment. I’m an older rider of 53y so it makes more sense for me to look at shorter cranks , 165mm, to look after my cartilage in later years. All my life ive used 175 and even 177.5 ! Inseam 94cm. There are wrong things said in the video like fulcrum being a myth, and demonstration of someone with out enough access making a meal of 185mm cranks. I understand it was for demonstration purposes but it still comes down to what you train for ! Its like saying someone who rides Audax all the time is no good at sprinting and wondering why shimano makes such tall gearing ! 😅 Very few people actually train through a range of motion that goes beyond what’s experienced on the bike. This whole ‘revelation ‘ around crank length is a farce, not to say its not true, but its simply because nobody trains accordingly with long cranks. Its not impossible that when muscles adapt to 165 they will eventually want something shorter again! The only counter argument is to observe power. Power is king and if shorter cranks bring you higher cadence and short term gains during a short crank adjustment period go for it 👍 statements in this video missed scientific. Initial demonstration thing is loaded so much biased video is short class. What about people working on workability and strength
I ve got an inseam of arround 79cm at 173cm height and my bike is a BMC Roadmachine 2023 in size 51. My large toes go numb after ~60 minutes at 90rpm. I ve tried several insoles (custom moulded, G8 2620s, Specialized etc) and I ve got wide shoes (Shimano and Fizik Decos). The only thing that helped so far were adapters to put the cleats into a midfoot position, but I dont want to use them, because pedaling is awkward and the muscle engagement is not optimal. I m running out of ideas. I had 2 bike fits, I tried different pedal systems. Nothing helped so far. Should I try 165mm cranks? Will that solve the issue or what else can you suggest. I am getting really desperate and frustrated because it takes all the joy out of cycling for me and I dont want to give it up yet.
My test would consider 3 factors, both perceived comfort/energy related 1. Abilty to hold 200W at 110 rpm for 20 minutes and 2,. ability to one legged cycle for 10 minutes at 100W. 3 ability to hold 300W at 60 RPM for 10 minutes (my threshold). Another thing to consider hip angle at peak force. this can be squat depth hip angle where you feel you can still return the weight i.e compare that angle to the same angle when on the bike.
I went from 170 to 160. I love the shorter cranks. The difference is too wide in your tests (155 to 185). Can you go through the rest of the sizes? maybe measure power, speed and cadence?
Agree, analysis with that too over wide range is not best and ideal, thus render sub-optimal explanation. Furthermore the use case is for women case in which usually have shorter inseam. It would be better analisis when introduce 165-175 cm on several persons with different inseam/body height, ie 165, 170, 175, 180 cm.
You got me on a 160 mm crank on my Tri bike when you did my bikefit, and a 165 mm crank on my road bike. I have been very happy with both. I would say going from 170 on the Tri bike to 165 seamed normal, going from 165 to 160 felt like a was spinning like a hamster for a few weeks but I have noticed a pretty big improvement in my self selected cadence and really like it now
An excellent video! Experimented with different crank lengths in last 12 months, as example to your explanation I’m 186cms and riding 165 (TT) and 170mm (road) cranks depending on bike. Landed on both after torque analysis but before I got to the numbers the main driver was how they felt Look forward to more quality content 👍
I’d like to buy shorter cranks but can’t seem to find too many options here in the states. I’m particularly looking for 155 mm that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg
years ago I used to ride a road bike with a crank length of 170-172.5, then I tried to ride a fixed gear, which usually has a shorter crank arm installed in stock (165). As far as i remember, it just feels smoother and easier to pedal, i can spin faster without my bum moving up and down on the saddle. my femur is long ,179cm height with 83cm inseam
Been riding 170mm cranks since the 1980's....fell for the hype of shorter cranks a couple years ago, so tried 165mm cranks (and got refitted for the shorter cranks). Went back to 170mm a few weeks later.
This only addresses one side of the question. A short rider with short legs. What about a rider with a PBH of 980mm? Every crank length calculator I’ve seen recommends 190-205 mm cranks. Furthermore did you measure power output or just assume it?
185.5cm and 172.5mm works great. I had 175mm and those also felt great, but I think my heart rate went up faster when it was longer because peak torque is greater. 170mm feels quite fast, but weak when standing or sprinting.
Indurain used 180 mm cranks. Greg Lemond 175. Ole Ritter also used long cranks. (he had the hour record before Merckx) Today Pogacar uses 165 mm. So, what's right or wrong?
Indurain was 6'1. Lemond was 5'10 and oddly flexible. Pogacar is 5'8. Plus we make improvements as we learn more. Guys used to win the Tour de France on 40lb single speeds while drinking beer.
What's right or wrong is entirely what feels right for the individual. Everyone's legs and riding style are different. Sad to see scorn and hate from those who think only their personal choice is correct.
Why do manufacturers build bikes with a standard crank length of 170 mm (even for small sizes) if this length is too long for many people? Don't they know what you know?
another thing for people to obsess about. will it make a massive difference .... no... ive a road bike with 172.5, a road bike with 170 & a track bike with 165. The increased cadence with the 165 & is noticeable from the 172.5 but unless you're aiming at peak performance or racing then whatever you feel most comfortable with is the right decision...
Key word being “in relation to your body type”. If you close your hip angle, you produce less power, so then either raise the seat (which may not be best thing to do - causing over extended knees and saddle rock) or use shorter cranks but only to the crank length you stop doing these things. Now, if your hip angle is open even with longer cranks - by all means - take the extra leverage for more torque, you will experience less fatigue, and ride for longer and faster than with cranks that are too short for you. There is no universal rule, crank length is a very specific thing to each individual, and recommending shorter cranks as it became fad today is simply wrong, but I understand and also see people toe down pedaling while rocking in the saddle more often than not. Anyway, advantage of either as analogy is short vs long stroke car engine pistons: short stroke revs faster and produces more power and less torque, while long stroke produces more torque and less power. Race car vs locomotive. At this point genetics and cardio engine size come into play. To produce more rpm, you must pedal faster, thus expend more energy - think of sprinters or track riders. You can maintain same speed through applying torque by pedaling at slower rpm and higher gear while expending less energy, having the aid of longer and heavier leg momentum - think of time trialists and strong domestiques. It all comes into play what works for you and you only.
5mm crank length difference between my road & gravel (170mm) and my MTB (175mm) Feel no tangible difference. Before this was a thing, I rode on stock cranks for years without even thinking, now we are clearly overthinking it.
I used to work with a guy in the Marines who chained smoked cigarettes and could run a sub 20min 5k. He quit smoking for a few months and said he could feel no tangible difference, so maybe we were all overthinking the impact of smoking. For me, I went from 175 to 165 and it stopped my hip swinging, alleviated my bike pain, increased my cadence, and made me feel like I wasn't squashing my guts on every pedal stroke. All to say maybe you don't feel a difference but many others may.
I can feel the difference with a 10mm change. 5mm I don't really notice it. 10mm and I spin probably 10rpm quicker and can't push as hard with the smaller cranks since I have longer legs. The harder and further you ride the more you will probably be able to tell.
@@impaledface7694 Agreed. My size medium trail bike came with 175 and I switched to 165 so 10mm difference. I also immediately was spinning faster, and now get less gassed on the 45min to 1hr climbs to the top of the trails I ride.
Shortening cranks INCREASES gain ratio, mathematically equivalent to up shifting to a harder gear, of course longer cranks "feel easier", it's Leverage 101. Find Sheldon Brown's Gain Ratio page. Basically it's the ratio between bike travel distance vs foot travel distance, usually considered through one revolution of the cranks though it extrapolates out and holds to any distances. Please, look up the definitions of "Scientific Theory" (if it's not a Scientific Theory, it's not a "theory" at all) and "hypothesis" and never conflate the two again. Sorry, your sharpie drawn graph is no substitute for measured and repeatable dynamometer numbers, if you've no dynamometer access, how are you a "bike fitter"? Is there an ideal ratio between crank length and upper and/or lower leg length and how was it determined and can any bike fitter empirically confirm and apply it?
The whole torque argument was always obvious BS, unless you were spinning out your top gear; otherwise you could just change up if you had excess leg force available.
It's important to lower your gearing if going shorter, too. If you just swap cranks alone, it will feel overgeared because of the reduced pedal speed. 48t works well instead of 50t or 52t on a 165mm.
You should have had her wear a shoe that didn't have such a large stack which would have made it feel worse. So straight away you have biased the talk . So I just turn off at 4.09 into the video .
Yeah, I don't buy it. When I went up to a 200mm crank, my average speed went up by 2mph. It was before I had power pedals. But the results were pretty obvious. As far as feel goes, the smaller crank felt like I was spinning in tiny circles. It felt so good to actually pedal with the larger crank. Power wise I pull around 500 watts for 30 minutes, but I'm big, 6'8". I had a coach who told me if I were lighter like him, I could be world class.
I think your 6'8" height answers the question of why 200mm works for you. Imagine a 4'8" lady on 200 mm cranks though. Might not even be able to pedal. When I worked at a bike shop years ago, every size road bike from XS to XL came with 170mm cranks. No way those were optimal for that entire range.
@@carlspringfels8503 Totally agree, which is part of my point. Just getting a smaller crank doesn't mean better performance. What matters, is getting a crank that fits you. And I'm not seeing that here.
6’6” and use 185 and 190mm cranks. Cadence lower, hr lower, power up. Top of the stroke is admittedly a dead spot, but I can spin these cranks at 110rpm if I want. Never going back.
Went from 172.5 to 165 and initially I thought it felt better. After a several week adjustment period it ended up feeling the same. Switched back to 172.5 after about a year, simply for the fact that I have multiple bikes and didn't want to change every crank. After a couple days the 172.5 felt, the same. You definitely won't gain any power switching cranks in either direction, after an adjustment period. Your body will simply get used to it.
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( หมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์โจ๊ะๆ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3krsyfWUeHU/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm still curious why so many manufacturers decide to use overly longer cranks? i.e. I have a Pinarello F5 in a 43cm frame and it comes with 170mm crank arms. Many people that I speak to are between 5'9 - 6'0 and using 165mm cranks. I'm 5'2 with a 28" inseam, so my ideal crank arm is around 150mm. This was the first thing I changed, including the bb before riding my bike to prevent any further injuries. A 43cm frame fits those who are roughly 4'10 - 5'3, cranksets are the most used component on the bike, these should be sized accordingly. I would even go as far as blaming Shimano, SRAM, and Campagnolo for not manufacturing smaller crank arms, leaving us to seek third party manufacturers. My 2 cents
I'm 4'11 and use 155. I'm considering buying some 130's. I don't have a problem I just want to experiment
I'm 4'3" and I'm looking at 95mm cranks next
For people like me, with 37” true inseam. Long leg riders lave a lot of mass to move in just the legs themselves, it’s more efficient to have more torque of longer crank leverage at lower cadence, it’s also more comfortable. Trust me, and my leg length hip angle is still wide open with 180mm cranks.
@@DDai-qd8uk The shortest I've seen is 105mm.
Because lazy manufacturers will just mass order one crank and put them on all the bikes
Went from 172.5 to 165 and initially I thought it felt better. After a several week adjustment period it ended up feeling the same. Switched back to 172.5 after about a year, simply for the fact that I have multiple bikes and didn't want to change every crank. After a couple days the 172.5 felt, the same. You definitely won't gain any power switching cranks in either direction, after an adjustment period. Your body will simply get used to it.
Question. You are making observations about mm adjustments to crank length, saddle height and front end. How did you verify/guarantee that the running shoes were at the same exact place on those flat pedals every time, to within the mm?
Secondly, on such a video, wouldn't it have been worth it to have rider in road cycling shoes with clip-in pedals? Seems like a massive oversight.
I stopped the video when you showed side by side, and the right foot was about 10mm differently set on the pedal. Check it.
I'm not saying your observations are incorrect, just that the person riding is giving feedback about "feel", so foot position matters, a lot.
Agreed that this was a bad test. They should have been using clipless pedals/shoes, AND they needed to test for watts at every 5mm crank length increment to show optimal output. Just as the 185 was too long, the 155 was probably too short for maximal output efficiency.
Agreed and baggy black clothes hide body motions. Poorly done.
I hava going from 172,5 to 165 cranks and it have helped me a lot. IAM much stronger on longer rides.
I used Dan and UK Bike Fit to setup a new bike. Would recommend if you're in thr area. Very professional, lovely guy and super valuable service.
I love longer cranks myself, tried many lengths over the years.
Great explanation
In early 2022 I purchased a bike that had 172.5 cranks. That has been my main bike for these last 2 1/2 years. I had been riding 175mm cranks for 12 years prior. A couple of months ago I spent some time riding my older bikes with the 175 cranks. After a week on the longer cranks knee discomfort & pain were greatly minimized and I was otherwise much more comfortable while pedalling. I ended up buying a new crank in 175mm for the newer bike and have never been happier. I'm 5'10" with a 34" inseam. I don't rock around or bounce off the saddle. I've spent a lot of time riding rollers indoors, especially during a period around 10 years ago. Smooth pedalling is a function of technique much more so than crank length.
Crank length is just part of drivetrain mechanical advantage that includes chainring, sprocket (any IGH etc) and wheel radius. It makes sense to optimise the crank length to an individual's musculoskeletal system and potentially psychology then adjust the other components to give the required gearing.
Great explanation. Thank you
Thank you 🙏
I went from 172.5 to 165 mm, Cadence increased instantly from 85-92 to 92-102 rpm sustained very easily. I can say with certainty that I can maintain the same power in the pedals much easier at a higher cadence, probably combined with a much reduced leg extension
Im sure what you type is true. Too bad you started at 172.5 . If you started at 180 you could have your torque at 172.5 and your current cadence. Imagine that 😮
Today you have easy gears so you can climb steep mountains while sitting. In the past you had to get out of the saddle. Did that have an impact on the crank length?
I've used 172.5 for 25 years and then switched to 175 last year. I've noticed no difference at all. After all - it's just 0.5cm increase in length overall.For me crank length is irrelevant if you have the right position. Saddle height and steam length are far more important. The fashion over the past 20 years for being fitted for the 'sportive' position - when you sit back in the saddle with high bars to relief weight on the shoulders is not something that suits all. Having a long back I have always raced pretty slammed and continue to do so with no problems. The only reason crank length is back in fashion is because Pog uses 165's. Pog is a champion because he's a superb cyclist - not because he uses short cranks.
2nd best decision I made was switching from 175mm to 170mm cranks riding XC mtb. Best decision was switching from 170 to 165mm. Spins up much quicker with all the stop & go - hairpin turns/roots in north GA single track. Not as beneficial for performance on gravel bike (less stop & go), but shorter cranks are more forgiving on the hips and lower back. I’m 5’11” 190lbs and built like a square, so hips prefer smaller circles. Mtb times are faster with shorter cranks.
A big part people miss concerning crank length is that you can train for longer crank lengths . While people with true hip impingement are out there its getting way too much airplay at the moment. I’m an older rider of 53y so it makes more sense for me to look at shorter cranks , 165mm, to look after my cartilage in later years. All my life ive used 175 and even 177.5 ! Inseam 94cm.
There are wrong things said in the video like fulcrum being a myth, and demonstration of someone with out enough access making a meal of 185mm cranks. I understand it was for demonstration purposes but it still comes down to what you train for ! Its like saying someone who rides Audax all the time is no good at sprinting and wondering why shimano makes such tall gearing ! 😅
Very few people actually train through a range of motion that goes beyond what’s experienced on the bike.
This whole ‘revelation ‘ around crank length is a farce, not to say its not true, but its simply because nobody trains accordingly with long cranks. Its not impossible that when muscles adapt to 165 they will eventually want something shorter again!
The only counter argument is to observe power. Power is king and if shorter cranks bring you higher cadence and short term gains during a short crank adjustment period go for it 👍
statements in this video missed scientific. Initial demonstration thing is loaded so much biased video is short class. What about people working on workability and strength
Why would you train for longer cranks when there’s no benefit?
That torque issue, i believe it is adressed if we have plenty of gears.
I ve got an inseam of arround 79cm at 173cm height and my bike is a BMC Roadmachine 2023 in size 51. My large toes go numb after ~60 minutes at 90rpm. I ve tried several insoles (custom moulded, G8 2620s, Specialized etc) and I ve got wide shoes (Shimano and Fizik Decos). The only thing that helped so far were adapters to put the cleats into a midfoot position, but I dont want to use them, because pedaling is awkward and the muscle engagement is not optimal. I m running out of ideas. I had 2 bike fits, I tried different pedal systems. Nothing helped so far. Should I try 165mm cranks? Will that solve the issue or what else can you suggest. I am getting really desperate and frustrated because it takes all the joy out of cycling for me and I dont want to give it up yet.
Try cycling in running shoes on flat pedals. If this ends up ok then you can discount external factors.
My test would consider 3 factors, both perceived comfort/energy related 1. Abilty to hold 200W at 110 rpm for 20 minutes and 2,. ability to one legged cycle for 10 minutes at 100W. 3 ability to hold 300W at 60 RPM for 10 minutes (my threshold).
Another thing to consider hip angle at peak force. this can be squat depth hip angle where you feel you can still return the weight i.e compare that angle to the same angle when on the bike.
I went from 170 to 160. I love the shorter cranks.
The difference is too wide in your tests (155 to 185). Can you go through the rest of the sizes? maybe measure power, speed and cadence?
Agree, analysis with that too over wide range is not best and ideal, thus render sub-optimal explanation. Furthermore the use case is for women case in which usually have shorter inseam.
It would be better analisis when introduce 165-175 cm on several persons with different inseam/body height, ie 165, 170, 175, 180 cm.
You got me on a 160 mm crank on my Tri bike when you did my bikefit, and a 165 mm crank on my road bike. I have been very happy with both. I would say going from 170 on the Tri bike to 165 seamed normal, going from 165 to 160 felt like a was spinning like a hamster for a few weeks but I have noticed a pretty big improvement in my self selected cadence and really like it now
Wow I’m excited about this channel!
Thanks! We're excited to put out more content soon 😁
An excellent video!
Experimented with different crank lengths in last 12 months, as example to your explanation I’m 186cms and riding 165 (TT) and 170mm (road) cranks depending on bike. Landed on both after torque analysis but before I got to the numbers the main driver was how they felt
Look forward to more quality content 👍
Perfect! 👌
I’d like to buy shorter cranks but can’t seem to find too many options here in the states. I’m particularly looking for 155 mm that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg
Contact "Fit Kit Systems" in the US, they have short crank options from a brand called Croder coming soon
Check out Appleman Bicycles. Made in Minnesota with a ton of sizes and options to fit most any bike. I'm super happy with mine.
years ago I used to ride a road bike with a crank length of 170-172.5, then I tried to ride a fixed gear, which usually has a shorter crank arm installed in stock (165). As far as i remember, it just feels smoother and easier to pedal, i can spin faster without my bum moving up and down on the saddle. my femur is long ,179cm height with 83cm inseam
Awesome video guys 🎉
Thanks 🙏
I'm going to be switching from 172.5 to 165's soon. So you only move saddle height up 7.5 not back at all?
Been riding 170mm cranks since the 1980's....fell for the hype of shorter cranks a couple years ago, so tried 165mm cranks (and got refitted for the shorter cranks). Went back to 170mm a few weeks later.
This only addresses one side of the question. A short rider with short legs. What about a rider with a PBH of 980mm?
Every crank length calculator I’ve seen recommends 190-205 mm cranks. Furthermore did you measure power output or just assume it?
185.5cm and 172.5mm works great. I had 175mm and those also felt great, but I think my heart rate went up faster when it was longer because peak torque is greater. 170mm feels quite fast, but weak when standing or sprinting.
Great to experiment 🙌👌
Indurain used 180 mm cranks.
Greg Lemond 175.
Ole Ritter also used long cranks. (he had the hour record before Merckx)
Today Pogacar uses 165 mm.
So, what's right or wrong?
Indurain was 6'1. Lemond was 5'10 and oddly flexible. Pogacar is 5'8. Plus we make improvements as we learn more. Guys used to win the Tour de France on 40lb single speeds while drinking beer.
@@carlspringfels8503 Well, it wasn't just beer they were drinking.
Pogacar is so much faster than Indurain or Lemond
@@henk-ottolimburg7947 Well, in '91 - 95 Indurain was the fastest rider on the planet.
What's right or wrong is entirely what feels right for the individual. Everyone's legs and riding style are different. Sad to see scorn and hate from those who think only their personal choice is correct.
Do you also adjust saddle fore-aft with a change in crank length?
Altering saddle height and crank length does affect saddle fore-aft too 👍
I have 2 bikes,one has 195mm cranks and the other has 225mm.
Why do manufacturers build bikes with a standard crank length of 170 mm (even for small sizes) if this length is too long for many people? Don't they know what you know?
another thing for people to obsess about. will it make a massive difference .... no... ive a road bike with 172.5, a road bike with 170 & a track bike with 165. The increased cadence with the 165 & is noticeable from the 172.5 but unless you're aiming at peak performance or racing then whatever you feel most comfortable with is the right decision...
Key word being “in relation to your body type”. If you close your hip angle, you produce less power, so then either raise the seat (which may not be best thing to do - causing over extended knees and saddle rock) or use shorter cranks but only to the crank length you stop doing these things. Now, if your hip angle is open even with longer cranks - by all means - take the extra leverage for more torque, you will experience less fatigue, and ride for longer and faster than with cranks that are too short for you. There is no universal rule, crank length is a very specific thing to each individual, and recommending shorter cranks as it became fad today is simply wrong, but I understand and also see people toe down pedaling while rocking in the saddle more often than not. Anyway, advantage of either as analogy is short vs long stroke car engine pistons: short stroke revs faster and produces more power and less torque, while long stroke produces more torque and less power. Race car vs locomotive. At this point genetics and cardio engine size come into play. To produce more rpm, you must pedal faster, thus expend more energy - think of sprinters or track riders. You can maintain same speed through applying torque by pedaling at slower rpm and higher gear while expending less energy, having the aid of longer and heavier leg momentum - think of time trialists and strong domestiques. It all comes into play what works for you and you only.
5mm crank length difference between my road & gravel (170mm) and my MTB (175mm) Feel no tangible difference. Before this was a thing, I rode on stock cranks for years without even thinking, now we are clearly overthinking it.
I used to work with a guy in the Marines who chained smoked cigarettes and could run a sub 20min 5k. He quit smoking for a few months and said he could feel no tangible difference, so maybe we were all overthinking the impact of smoking. For me, I went from 175 to 165 and it stopped my hip swinging, alleviated my bike pain, increased my cadence, and made me feel like I wasn't squashing my guts on every pedal stroke. All to say maybe you don't feel a difference but many others may.
@@carlspringfels8503 The reference to smoking was hardly necessary, if crank length is a serious as smoking, then I guess I better pay attention. ;-)
I can feel the difference with a 10mm change. 5mm I don't really notice it. 10mm and I spin probably 10rpm quicker and can't push as hard with the smaller cranks since I have longer legs. The harder and further you ride the more you will probably be able to tell.
@@impaledface7694 Agreed. My size medium trail bike came with 175 and I switched to 165 so 10mm difference. I also immediately was spinning faster, and now get less gassed on the 45min to 1hr climbs to the top of the trails I ride.
Shortening cranks INCREASES gain ratio, mathematically equivalent to up shifting to a harder gear, of course longer cranks "feel easier", it's Leverage 101.
Find Sheldon Brown's Gain Ratio page. Basically it's the ratio between bike travel distance vs foot travel distance, usually considered through one revolution of the cranks though it extrapolates out and holds to any distances.
Please, look up the definitions of "Scientific Theory" (if it's not a Scientific Theory, it's not a "theory" at all) and "hypothesis" and never conflate the two again.
Sorry, your sharpie drawn graph is no substitute for measured and repeatable dynamometer numbers, if you've no dynamometer access, how are you a "bike fitter"?
Is there an ideal ratio between crank length and upper and/or lower leg length and how was it determined and can any bike fitter empirically confirm and apply it?
The whole torque argument was always obvious BS, unless you were spinning out your top gear; otherwise you could just change up if you had excess leg force available.
Its not BS if you can spin it. Access access access. NOBODY trains for it. NOBODY.
All the people on here arguing that longer cranks are better 🤣🤣🤣
It's important to lower your gearing if going shorter, too. If you just swap cranks alone, it will feel overgeared because of the reduced pedal speed. 48t works well instead of 50t or 52t on a 165mm.
8:25 haha what
You should have had her wear a shoe that didn't have such a large stack which would have made it feel worse. So straight away you have biased the talk . So I just turn off at 4.09 into the video .
Yeah, I don't buy it. When I went up to a 200mm crank, my average speed went up by 2mph. It was before I had power pedals. But the results were pretty obvious. As far as feel goes, the smaller crank felt like I was spinning in tiny circles. It felt so good to actually pedal with the larger crank. Power wise I pull around 500 watts for 30 minutes, but I'm big, 6'8". I had a coach who told me if I were lighter like him, I could be world class.
I think your 6'8" height answers the question of why 200mm works for you. Imagine a 4'8" lady on 200 mm cranks though. Might not even be able to pedal. When I worked at a bike shop years ago, every size road bike from XS to XL came with 170mm cranks. No way those were optimal for that entire range.
@@carlspringfels8503 Totally agree, which is part of my point. Just getting a smaller crank doesn't mean better performance. What matters, is getting a crank that fits you. And I'm not seeing that here.
6’6” and use 185 and 190mm cranks. Cadence lower, hr lower, power up. Top of the stroke is admittedly a dead spot, but I can spin these cranks at 110rpm if I want. Never going back.
Went from 172.5 to 165 and initially I thought it felt better. After a several week adjustment period it ended up feeling the same. Switched back to 172.5 after about a year, simply for the fact that I have multiple bikes and didn't want to change every crank. After a couple days the 172.5 felt, the same. You definitely won't gain any power switching cranks in either direction, after an adjustment period. Your body will simply get used to it.