Huge shout-out to Steve for having an open mind and taking the time to do this video! We've been proponents of the benefits of shorter cranks for a long time, and of course, every body and riding style is different. But there's a good chance you've been riding cranks that are too long. To add a little context to crank length vs. gearing, the four things that effect your gear ratio are: 1. front ring, 2. rear cassette, 3. wheel and tire overall diameter and 4. crank length. A shorter crank arm is a shorter lever with less mechanical advantage. So, for every 10mm shorter you go on your crank length, it is mathematically equivalent to going approx. two teeth bigger on your front ring. That's why it felt harder for Steve to get up the steeper climbs and he had to shift down with the shorter cranks. However, you are also spinning smaller circles, which feels easier and negates some of the perceived increase in effort. So, if you want to change crank length and maintain similar gearing, you may want to consider changing your chainring as well. But for the sake of this video, keeping the cranks as the only variable was excellent for a side-by-side comparison!
You guys rock. Thanks for supporting the channel and making this video possible. I learned WAY more than I thought I would. A few other things I picked up on (that I'm sure you know about): - The longer cranks mean your pedal is higher at the 12 o'clock position, meaning an increased bend at the hips. This is why it was engaging my hip flexors more. We adjust our saddles to the 6 o'clock position to get proper leg extension, but we don't often think about the effect crank length has on our 12 o'clock position. This was eye-opening to me. - Shorter cranks make your seat angle feel steeper. Here's my theory: With 155mm cranks, the 2-3 o'clock position (which I assume is where the most power is generated) is closer to the bb. So it's not quite as far in front of you as with 175mm cranks. That makes the seat angle feel steeper at this part of the stroke, since it feels like you're more "on top" of this position, than behind it. That was fascinating as well. It's time people think about crank length beyond pedal strikes.
@@hardtailparty related: I'm 5'9" and I had 175mm cranks on my gravel bike. I thought knee pain was just from the long miles I ride some days. as it turns out, getting the saddle high enough for an efficient downstroke means the pedal was too high at the top due to the length, which was hurting my knees. as soon as I went to 170s, that knee pain went away. I didn't change anything else. TL;DR, it is possible that your cranks are too long but almost impossible that they are too short.
Sal, did you try widened Q-factor with pedal extenders? Also wrong forward/backward position of foots on the pedals can cause persistent stress to the knees and tendons.
@@hardtailparty I guess a tire demo would tell you what tires are good on that trail on that day. Depending on where you live that might mean they're good year round, here in New Hampshire what's good in July might not be so good in November or April.
handlebars with high rise should definitely be present I suffered for years of shoulders and wrist pain but blamed my body not the bike setup, bought an ebike immediately horrible lower back pain, had to find a solution bought a high rise handlebar 60mm rise problem was gone completely now I realize I should have fixed my XC years ago >
I'm 5'9" with 32" inseam and 160mm cranks are absolutely perfect for me. Immediately improved my endurance... didn't expect that and better all around for technical riding.
Thanks for doing this video. As a 5'6" rider with a 30" inseam, I found your comparisons relatable and helpful. I've been riding with 170mm crankarms for years, but for the past couple of weeks, I've been experimenting with some Canfield 155s. I've been a singlespeed rider for over 20 years, but now that I'm in my 60s and crashing more than I used to, I mostly stick to gravel roads and light trails. Like you, I was amazed by how quickly my body adapted to the shorter crank arm length. But even though it feels like I'm working harder on steeper climbs, I'm actually faster with the shorter cranks. In fact, I rode the same 9-mile loop with a long steep climb at the end, 3 minutes faster with the 155s than I did with my 170s. However, as positive as my experience has been, I'm thinking that 160s would be better.
I am 6’2 and have forever, even on my trials bikes as a youth, had 175’s. Just switched to 165’s on my stache a year ago and it has rejuvenated my body on the bike. Also had set pr’s on all my local trails. The handling and spinning are fantastic. Great video Steve! (Demo stems, cranks and bars YES!)
I'm 6'2 as well, or 187cm in metric. I was just calculating the difference with 5'6/167cm. That's about an 11% difference. So for us a 175mm crank is the equivalent of a 155mm for a person who is 5'6/167cm. Or, a 170mm crank for 5'6/167cm person would be almost a 190mm crank for us 😮. I am about to change my 175 crank to a 170 crank, which is the same as I have on my city bikes an feels like it leaves my hip more open. Though the equivalent of that for 5'6/167cm person would be a 150-152,5 crank, which seems quite short.
I got my 150mm cranks and a 28T chainring yesterday, got them swapped in and went for a test ride. I love them and they helped perfect my bike fit on my large Polygon D7. Stock setup was 175mm and 32T. Only difference I notice is slightly smaller circles and a little higher cadence. I definitely recommend following Canfield's advice on going to a smaller chainring when going down in crank arm length.
I noticed a different in your bike moving in a “bobbing” motion between the 165 and 160’s, it went from semi smooth to smooth. I payed attention to it between the 160 and 155’s, it went from smooth to basically staying still. When you went from the 155 to 170 your bike frame was all over the place, like you were “chopping wood”. This would only lead me to think, that’s a lot more stress and fatigue on your body trying to control the bike front to back with the 170’s, even though you probably didn’t know you were doing it. Great content, I’d love to see a follow up with maybe a 165 with 32t vs a 160/155 with a 30t. You know, just more experimental stuff.
I feel like "chopping wood" engages the hips and quads better. For me, I'm in it for the conditioning, as opposed to minimizing the stress of the ride. Great points about smoothness. If I were competing or on difficult terrain, I can see the benefit of shorter cranks. Now it seems we need more bikes in the quiver. lol
I had 185mm cranks years ago and loved them. But as bikes lowered their BB shells I had to stop using them. Pedal strikes were happening far too often. Won't run longer than 175mm now. I have 36" inseam.
Same boat. Whats weird is the lower bb is supposed to help lower the center of gravity, but then requires you to run shorter cranks which then requires you to raise the seat in turn raising your center of gravity back up. So...@hardtailparty you could be revolutionary with the new bike design and make your larger size frames with taller BB's.
@@djjazzynic but you don't need a low cog when your seat is all the way up. Also, shorter cranks allow you to run longer droppers, which is a bonus for me as well.
As a 60 yr old, 6'4" bike fitter, THANK YOU for an excellent video! Frankly I was stunned that you experienced and explained so well so many of the crank length issues I deal with regularly. Of course, you general do an excellent job. I believe Leonard Zinn has never quite gotten it. And, I think the missguided long-crank BMX ideas somehow carried into mountain bikes to all of our detriment. Lower knee stress, lower bottom brackets with fewer pedal strikes and smoother cadence all have significant advantages! It also seems to me that the popularity of oval chainrings is likely in response to the need to smooth out pedaling with cranks that are otherwise too long. Yay to slightly shorter cranks for most of us.
One thing that's overlooked with the knee stress argument, is that to make the same power at the same cadence requires more force. Obviously, the answer to this is to change gears, but that's true in both directions. While I believe that lots of people _would_ be better on shorter cranks, there's also people who would be better off on longer ones. There's always been an odd one-sidedness to arguments posted on the subject. I mean, If there's an ideal crank length for an average/short legged person, and there is some length that's too short for that same person. How is the same not going to be true for an especially long legged person?
I have always used 170 as they came with the bike and since I am 6'2" they have never "presented" a problem for the type of bike riding (mostly trail, not too technical) that I do, but was wondering if at 6'4" what size crank are you running? Thanks!
I love these ExpireMENTAL videos. Just plain entertaining! Especially this one. The BB height on my Big Al is significantly lower than my last bike, but I have the same crank length (170). Initially, I was getting a lot more pedal strikes. I need to try a 165 or 160, and see how it feels.
In 2020 I spent several months sorting out this very question. I wanted to eliminate knee/body discomfort improve riding performance and decrease pedal strikes if possible. I found several bike fit calculators that recommended 162mm cranks. I ended up removing the 170 cranksets on both my FS MTBs and replacing them with Canfield cranks. I put a 160s on my 27.5" wheel FS Trail bike and 165s on my 29" wheel FS "Down Country" bike. Both have 30T chain rings. I picked different lengths for each bike based on wheel size and the different riding styles for each bike (and because it's hard to find 162mm cranks for MTBs). The improvement in comfort, performance and ease of riding was very noticeable; bonus, way less pedal strikes. Exploring crank length is definitely a next level riding improvement. It can really help improve your body health and overall riding performance. It would be great to see crank length as an option when buying an MTB especially from online retailers.
Really interesting video. I've been using 170s for a couple years now but never really considered going lower. I always thought 165s were for DH bikes. It is interesting how so many bikes are just shipped with 175s and people think they need the longest pedal to generate power.
I ordered my new Orbea with 170s rather than the standard 175s. Unfortunately it was built and shipped with 175s so I'm working with Orbea to get a pair of 170s sent to me. Interestingly it looks like they might have removed the option to select a different crank length when you order your bike!!!!
depends upon inseam leg length. I have a 39" inseam, I'm 6'6". I run 190mm. When I ran 175mm, my thighs burned out and I didn't have to torque to move my bulk up hill. Once I went to 190's, I discovered that I am in the strength of the muscle and the leverage of the 190's gave me an unbelievable ability to keep up in the pack when they left me in the dust. If your inseam is 36" 180mm or if you're like me, 39" inseam, 190's on a Cross country MTB like a hardtail, works wonders...
YES!!! My first thought was "The Circles Feel Rounder!!" LoL I'm 5'2" and went from 170 stock cranks w/ 32 tooth chainring to 155 Canfields w/ 30 tooth and it's amazing! I feel like I have the exact same climbing ability with each ring in the back with the same amount of effort, but Loads more stability when pedaling out of the saddle, which allows me to actually use more of the power I have when I need to get in and out of the saddle for tech climbs or any sprinting. There's no pauses or lags in the power output going from seated to standing unless I Want there to be for the terrain, is how I would say it feels. I've had 165's on a previous women's specific bike, and those were better than 170 (noticeable drop in sprinting ability going from 165 to 170 cranks - I'm probably just enough shorter than you that I really don't have long enough legs or enough body weight to push the 170's up to speed as quickly.), but the 155's are still a big jump better for my leg length :) In addition to better tech climbing bc of being able to go more smoothly between seated and standing pedaling, balance lines improved (not charging in stomping hard right before them with too much speed to try to avoid destabilizing standing ratchets with the 170 cranks once I slowed down across a longer section), descending and accelerating through corners improved, wheelies made a huge progression (I could instantly Feel how much power I have and can get up to peek power faster to initiate and maintain at a wider range of speeds and gear choice, but it still hasn't instantly made me a wheelie wizard - but it feels attainable now!). I'm so glad I didn't settle for just swapping down to the 165 version of the stock cranks my bike came with! Pedal strikes didn't even factor in to my reason to switch, but I do also smash a few less things now, bc that is what I do rather than give up on a tech climb that I Might still be able to squeak out lol
Oh, and I saw you were clipped in in this video - have you ridden the shorter cranks with flats yet? I love the extra Foot stability too of the shorter cranks. I can spin faster when I accidentally find myself in too light of a gear and still be much less likely to spin my feet off or shift around on my flat pedals. One more benefit to a platform that matches my size better 😄
Thanks for the report. I got 152mm, 28t setup coming in. Down from 170mm/32t. Hopefully the 28t will balance out for the 18mm length drop and allow me to climb steeps without interruption.
I am plowing through your videos and learning so much. More so than GMBN and Pinkbike. Definitely getting 160mm cranks. They're much harder to come by here in the PH though.
New sub. Thanks for this video it's very informative. I'm 5'-10" 64 yrs aged with severe degenerative disc disease. Riding posture makes a huge difference in my being able to ride at all mine is very vertical. Unlike most all of the comments here I do best with 180s having tried 165 thru 180.
Steve thanks for this video. You may recall we talked about crank length during one of our consultations and you recommended a shorter length because of my size (5'6" with 28" inseam). That recommendation was spot on because it was the only way I could fit a 150 dropper on my Chameleon - medium size frame, seat tube slammed. If I had gone with the 170s on my former bike, I never could have fit the dropper. I really like the 165 and do not miss the 170s, but I may try going to 160s.
I recently went from 175 to 165… i love it 100% / zero desire to go back/ i ride technical cen tex / please do the single speed test while you have all the cranks! Sweet video! Thanks Steve!
Good topic i'm 6'2" and run a set of 155mm cranks you have covered most of the pro s and cons the biggest thing i notice is the shorter cranks dont brake traction on slippery steep climbs and you can wheelie for eva as the power is smoother .
Excellent vid! I put some 170's on my roadie (stock 175) in 2013. Had months of GPS history on a local hill. 175's ave speed 7mph. 170's 9mph. I was exceeding my range of motion! Couldn't start applying power until after TDC. Also, was able to start using the handlebar drops for extended periods. Speed on the flats improved markedly, as well as reduced hip pain.
This year I switched from 172.5 mm cranks to 165s on my road bike, and that made a *huge* difference. I have long limbs and it really opened up my hips a bit. My current mountain bike has 175 mm cranks, and I will definitely opt for something shorter on my next one.
I love that the ol' Paradox is the experiment bike. Hope Banshee is boosting their production for these bad boys, lots of winter builds going to happen for sure!
Nice video! Went from 175 to 170 and now on 165. 6’ and 33” inseam, but the 165 actually feels much better for me riding compared to the longer cranks.
That was really informative Steve.... thanks. The timing is good too as I'm in the process of buying new cranks. It certainly wont be the default 175s that I've bought over the past 20 years without even considering other options. Keep up the great work.
I learned a TON in this experiment. What did you learn? Which crank length do you use most? How tall are you? Have you ever experimented with crank length? One other thing I've learned with crank length: shorter cranks make your seat angle feel steeper, since your peer position is closer to the seat tube than with longer cranks.
I'm super short like 5'4" and im sporting a 175mm cranks. The bike is super light but i still have difficulty climbing. I think Im gonna experiment starting with a 165mm.
I want to try 165mm cranks as I'm on 175mm cranks currently and I would definitely like more pedal clearance. Shimano makes them in that size and they're some of the cheaper ones, but of course once I decided I wanted to buy them the supply was gone...
@@baddriversofcolga canfield has these smaller cranks in stock, check 'em out. They usually sell out fast though, so I'd act sooner than later. I believe they may actually have the same spindle size as shimano cranks, so no need to get a new bb (definitely verify with canfield on that).
This is absolutely one of your best videos. It answers so many of my questions about crank length. I have a 29" inseam and I am using 165 mm cranks. I get pain just above my knees and at my hips. Also, I hit my cranks and pedals all the time. Now I am in market for a set of 155 mm crankset. Thanks.
In my case, my physical therapist diagnosed some tendonosis in my knees (where the tendons connecting the quads to my knees go together). Strengthening the glutes and hamstrings will help balance this out, which is something I'm working on to reduce knee pain.
@@hardtailparty Was interesting to hear about your muscle imbalance and PT you were going to. I've been doing the same thing recently. I got back into riding in 2018, bought an indoor trainer and some adjustable dumbbells and dropped my gym membership...I was going to be "lean cycling guy". Turns out ONLY cycling for leg work created a horrible imbalance and started getting some more chronic "back" pain. I went to a spinal ortho, got xrays, started PT. I was stunned at how weak my core was! After all, I can ride all day and am in good shape! Virtually no ham and glute strength, no ab or lower back support. 7 weeks later I'm virtually pain free. I lowered my saddle a touch to get more glute activation. I feel like my legs can now outlast my cardio...which is a first! I'm 6' with 30" inseam riding 175 cranks on both my bikes. Thinking some 170 or even 165 might suite my 54 yo body a little more.
I've been experimenting short cranks since 1995 and I love them, today I use 150mm, I'm 5,8 , I use 155mm for my road bike and I do feel the difference. My first experience was when I decided to use 135mm. Anyways I've learn a lot about comfort and endurance thanks to them.
Thank you for this actual use review of different length crank arms. Your real time comments are a revelation....obviously to you, but to your viewers as well. I am considering trying 165's in place of 175's on one of my bikes. I'm 5'8" 150 lbs and I feel that 175's are a little long on this bikepacking bike. Be well.........
After many years of fighting my bike fit, I switched from 175mm to 170mm, and the change was so dramatic that I immediately ordered 165mm cranksets for both my mtn bikes to see if they worked even better - yes! Amazing difference. Solved my saddle pain issues, knee pain went away, and endurance rides are more enjoyable.
Steve, Fabulous documentary video. You touched on many great points. My big concern of short cranks which you discovered was the need to raise the seat height thereby raising your center of gravity slightly. I didn't seem bother you at all. I remember Bobby “The Baltimore Bullet” Phillips had a Sterling Criterium bicycle with a very high bottom bracket and he spun 165 cranks. Bobby could attack and peddle hard through corners where others leaned their bikes and could not peddle till they exited. Bobby was perhaps the greatest crit racer of his era and he told me a lot had to do with that set up. Short cranks certainly allow you to spin at high cadence but long cranks help drive the big gears for speed. Everyone needs to find what works for them. I am however interested in your automatic length adjusting crank arms when they become available.
Cog when seated isn't very important to me. Cog when standing however, is. Since the bb height doesn't change, it doesn't have much of an affect at all on my MTB riding.
I'm 6'4" and run 165mm cranks. I had a bike that came with 180mm and was forever hitting pedals. Changed to 170mm and immediately wished I went to 165mm. One factor often overlooked for larger bikes, is that the wheelbase means there is a greater chance to beach as you go over obstacles. My last three bikes have been 165mm and I'd never go back.
I'm 68", 30" inseam. I've been running 175mm cranks since 1993, when I upsized from a 170 with biopace chainrings. I loved the feeling of extra torque then. In retrospect it was a big mistake that took nearly 30 years to correct. As I aged torque has been gradually replaced by a higher cadence that favors my knees better. I put a 170mm on my latest bike build, and it's very nice. Less butt bob at high cadence, and easier on my knees. The shorter crankset plus larger diameter wheels makes me want to drop down a couple teeth on the front chaining, but better fitness has negated that issue. I think I won't go lower than 170, since my saddle would have to go to high, and I would have to drop down to a 28tooth chaining for sure.
I'm 5'11" with 33" inseam. I went from 175mm cranks to 170s and found that the back ache I always get after an hour or so in the saddle doesn't happen anymore. I've put up with this aching for decades and thought it was just me. I only changed cranks due to fitting a works components 1.5 degree slacker headset that caused a lower BB. Did a similar thing for my little boy after he complained of back ache with similar results.
Great stuff! I've always ran the 170mm that came with my bike, but I recently switched to 175mm cuz thats the part I had. No pain or anything, but now I'ma try some 160s to see if I can eek some fun out of it.
I picked up RaceFace 165mm cranks of eBay and I love them... I really felt the difference on the flats. Once on the ups and downs the sensation goes away. IDK, hard to describe!
im a physco and ride a hardtail everywhere. tbh its mainly a cost thing. but i like the control on the hardtail and the feel you get. going to look into this crank arm switch.
Steve, great vid as usual. I am 5' 6" with a 28.75 inch inseam. I have 175mm 170mm and 165mm cranks, and yeah I prefer the 165mm cranks because I noticed my legs didnt hurt as much, and felt like I was using less energy to pedal, but still get get rock strikes, lol. Great vid
I put 153's on my bike last fall. 6'2", somewhat limited range of motion. I have one significant thing to add to your 1 day test, which correlates almost completely to my experience. I can accelerate massively better using a pedal stroke I was taught but could not do on longer cranks. A cycling coach taught me to pedal forward and back about 20 years ago and I never could do it well. With the 153s I was able to do it easily. This is the most important benefit of short cranks, IMO. It took about 3 months to fully develop the muscles for that pedal stroke (6 hours/wk riding) When my cranks were too long, I could only get power pushing down from about 1-5 o'clock. Also, my power band didn't start until about 75 rpm and tapped out about 92. Now I have almost bottomless torque from about 50 rpm, and power starts at about 60 to well over 100 rpm. The amount of power using this technique seems to be about 40% higher because I had to raise my gearing related to 12 speed chain shortages (see the Canfield post about relative gearing) I just went up the same hills on a 40% harder gear at the same effort. Now when I'm cruising at 85-90 rpm I can shift up 2 gears, pedal front to back and accelerate 3x as well as before. I will never use a crank longer than 153 on any bike ever again.
Fantastic info, thank you! I'm 5' 9" and have been using 175mm cranks. I love to stand up and get as much of my hips and legs moving. My rides are 2-3 hours long and it's more about getting a full-body workout that I enjoy, rather than minimizing effort. No knee pain ever. However, I can see trying shorter cranks to reduce pedal strikes and to help with balancing manuals and other finesse moves. Would love to see a comparison video on very technical terrain to see the impact of crank lengths.
Great idea for a video. Always thought a standard crank length was weird given how much cyclists obsess over every other possible ergo dimension. Glad you found what works best for you, good luck with your PT.
I'm 6'1" and have always run 175mm cranks, but I think I am going to try either 170mm or 165mm to reduce pedal strikes. Also good to know that it doesn't hurt climbing much, if any :) Super interesting video and glad you shared - cheers!
Very interesting. I started riding again at 40 and got lots of knee pain. Im 6'3 on an xxl and through my struggles figured out my right leg is almost an inch shorter than my left! Makes sense since my right knee hurts more. So ive been considering swapping one crank to help even things out.... thanks for the vid
I went from having at set of 175mm cranks on my old Specialized Rockhopper to 170mm cranks on my GT Force, both size medium, and it was the first thing I noticed when I took the first pedal stroke, it felt so much better and even though the Force is much larger than the Rockhopper, it feels easier to place it exactly where I want.
Wow, I did NOT expect to find this video to be so interesting. But it makes so much sense. A great gig seems like the most important quality in a bike. Works that way fir me. I’m 6’. My mid-90s GT had 175s and they often felt too long. My new HT has 170s and I really like them. Not sure shorter would be great but who knows?
This is really interesting and the explanations are excellent. Your description of clips vs flats at the end was the perfect description. I went from 175 on my previous bike to 170 on my current bike. I’m 5’11 with decently long legs and have felt slower on the 170’s just because I feel like I’m spinning more. But the more I ride them the more I like them.
I am 5'11.5" with a 35.5" cycling inseam and run 165 XT on my geared hardtail. After switching from 180, I have gained a ton of confidence in rock gardens and just pedal straight on through.
So you also have a very good taste in cars.. As for bikes it is obvious how you care about personal preferences and sensation over trends and brands. I love this guy
very informative . i don't ride that much anymore because of age and injury but what got my attention was you mentioning Specialized " ground control" tires . those were the first real mt. bike tires i had back in the eighties on my schwinn Cimarron which is now called a gravel bike . 😂
I’ve tried 165s but didn’t like it that much. 170mm is a sweet spot for my XC bike. I’m 5’7 with 31 inseam. I like to go fast & pedal hard. No knee pain or quad burn yet...
Great video! I'm 6'0 and LOVE 165mm crank arms. I spec'd my bike with 170s because that was the smallest they offered from Ibis. Unfortunately pedal strikes are a Major issue. It makes some technical climbs impossible because you can't pedal! I'll gladly sacrifice a little power for less strikes and smooth circles when pedaling.
Lol..... Yeah sometimes the editing process is harder than the ride. I'm 6.4 and hate spinning, I spend most of my time on the big chainring (road biking) and hate a long seat post. Only because of that, I ran 180's. But you bring up some very interesting points. Also being 67 now I'm considering going e-bike, fat tire and was worried about how it's specked out with smaller cranks. Might have to embrace it now, thanks.
I run different length cranks on different bikes, depending on how wide I want my stance for that discipline, but I 100% agree with different length cranks for different stock bike sizes.. At the minimum the manufacturers could do small 165, medium 170 and large 175 (IMO 175 is quite long unless you're 6 foot or over).
I've always upgraded to longer cranks, because I'm 6'4". Went from the standard 160mm on my 24" BMX Cruiser to 180mm... & I loved the leveraged I had with the longer cranks, & the transfer of power. They made hill climbing easier for me, because each crank propelled me up with more force. When I started riding MTBs, I got stuck with 170mm cranks...& the loss of leverage was not as noticeable, because of the wider choice of gear ratios.. but when set in the same gear ratio as my BMX, the loss in leverage & power I could put into the crank was very noticeable. Looking at upgrading to 175s now.
I immediately recognized your Miata in the vid! I parked by it at the Broken Arrow trailhead last year when I was visiting Sedona and just discovered your channel! Such a cool setup! Ride on!
Your offhand comment about stem lengths is spot on, too. I borrowed a range of sizes from a buddy when building up my Signal St (you should test one, or its Ti brother) and was amazed at the difference.
What made me choose to shorter crank 165mm is due to my Downhill bike but from then on I love 165mm for my trail bikes but not many companies offer shorter than 165mm.
Nice video. I'm not surprise the shorter cranks were less stressful on your joints. I wonder if people forget or don't realize, the BB and crank is just one point of leverage. You also have a fulcrum and lever at the hip /femur. Another at the knee/lower leg... and the last at the ankle/foot. Would you rather squat your body weight 100 times knees to chest or just half way? One revolution of the crank, no matter it's length, covers the same distance(unless you change gearing).
My wife and I ride a 1993 Miyata DupliCross MTB tandem that I turned into an All-Road Touring bike. It is a Large/Medium size. I am 5'11" and my wife is 5'6". I am the Captain of our team and she is the Stoker. I ride every day as a commuter and adventure cyclist. My wife is a very casual bike rider and does not have the same level of fitness. The bike came with 175mm cranks F/R, which to me always seemed odd. I really had to lower my natural cadence when riding the tandem since she had trouble keeping up. After much searching to find a matching Shimano Deore FC-MT60 rear 170mm set of Tandem Cranks and swapping them out, I was able to bring up the cadence since she is spinning smaller circles and it is easier for her to keep up. Crank length matters. Great video! Thanks for the content.
I’ll tell you what I’ve noticed with the shorter (my 160mm Lekkie’s) On my BBSHD powered Banshee Sirocco, I can run the saddle lowered all the time without my knees coming up so high. With stretch jeans, I might add.... I just glad there are shot crank arms for shorter people with short legs. I’ve shrunk to 5’7” and the 160’s feel perfect.
Thanks for doing this review and I couldn’t agree more about having components at demo days. I am 6’7” and trying to find the right stem is always a challenge… it isn’t as simple as get the longest stem. In terms of cranks, I have subscribed to the longer is better, especially on my single speed mtb and single speed CX rigs. You comments about the strain on your hips and knees got my attention because those are both problem areas for me. On my CX race rig, I made the switch to shorter (175mm from 180mm) to help avoid pedal strikes at lower speeds but a side benefit seemed to be less of the dread CX back pain. I am definitely going to play around with this a bit more. Thanks!
Great review. I'm 6'1" and currently riding 175 cranks but do mostly endurance rides so I'm definitely going to try out some shorter cranks and see how that feels. I would certainly appreciate less pedal strikes.
I wish I had the chance to try out some 160 or 155's My inseam is roughly 27" and it seems a set of 155's might work well paired with a 30t AB oval ring.
We need more videos like this rather than the "studies show no benefit" vids. I'm 5"11 and am fed up with the 175 mm length for road riding. For consistent even tempo, longer cranks are good. But as soon as I need to stand up or alter my cadence I think smaller cranks are best. I've ridden smaller cranks in races dozens of years ago and liked them so eager to test again with new short cranks coming this week. Appreciate the video effort
Great information Steve! You're definitely uncovering new ideas on bike design! Crank length, chainstays.. They are one-size fits all from X-small to XL on so many bikes. They shouldn't be. Now if we could just devise a reverse fly weight design for the 10mm auto adjusting crank length... Oh, forgot to mention, I'm 6'4" with the torso of someone 6'4"...
Sweet comparison! I rode 185's in BMX for 20+ years! (I'm 6'3") I also liked taller gears so it kinda made sense to me. When I got into MTB's I knew geared bikes wouldn't need such a long arm so 175's it is. Now I have been meaning to get 175's for the BMX bike for a while! Talk about chopping wood!!!!
I have a medium size bike, I am 5' 10 1/2" . I had 175mm cranks. I used to get knee pain when riding for too long. My knee was flexing too much when the pedal was at 12 of clock. I changed to 170mm and I feel more comfortable and the knee pain went away.
Great video Steve. I didn't think there would be a big difference but, at 178cm (5'10.5") tall, I do notice a big difference in crank length in one particular scenario: Standing up while slowly climbing my HT over difficult big chunky tech like tree roots and bumpy rock gardens. I find the 175's (vs 170's) tire me quicker, feel less smooth and stable. Also, riding flats, I've had more feet slip off the pedals (and into my shins) on 175's than 170's. Maybe the 175's give me slightly more torque? but it's not worth it in my experience.
Great info. I like the leverage from a 180mm. I use to ride 170, 175. The 180 works well for me especially on steep climbs. It’s a personal choice and fits my training goals. Enjoy.
I'm 6' with 32-33" inseam. I have to say I miss my 175mm cranks. I know they would be an issue with the modern geo, but I really liked the more power and leverage I could put through the pedals when climbing. My current 170s are okay, but I'm guessing I would def NOT like anything shorter.
This is such a perfect for video for me. I have a P7 and do get pedal strikes if I’m not careful. Been thinking of changing to shorter cranks but wasn’t sure if it was a good idea.
Steve, thank you so much for this incredible content! You really hit it outta the park! I’ve always thought of my cranks as levers, longer equals more mechanical advantage. I’m realizing how short sighted that was, especially now that I’m beating a body in its 40’s. The time and effort you put into these videos is inspiring! I’m definitely gonna try some shorter crank lengths and see how they feel! You are the on the bleeding edge of changing the bicycle industry’s philosophy of fitting bikes. Keep up the hard work, high quality content and your increasing audience will definitely be the bullhorn to get bike manufacturers to listen!
I'm short like you. My Fuel EX came with 175 cranks and I can feel hip and knee stress. Later I talked to my LBS guy about moving to 165 cranks but he couldn't get any at that time. After watching this I'm motivated to go back and talk to him again.
I'm 6ft and I've tried 175, 172,5 and 170mm. For me 172.5mm is ideal. Hope that helps. If you want to spin higher cadence up climbs more you could try a cassette with a larger 1st gear or more compact cranks. Some of this is fashion, some dufus will end up with 50mm eventually and swear they are better and look ridiculous.. Check out mtb bar width fashion if you need confirmation of fashion brainwashing nonsense..
I have 170mm cranks on most of my bikes and 175mm on one of them. I really feel like the 175 is too long and my pedal rotations are oversized. I would really like to test out 165 and 160mm cranks in the future! Great video!
I switched from the stock 175 to 165 and am very happy. At first I noticed it but soon forgot about it. It feels nice. They are the SRAM NX. I believe that they use the same crank for the 170 and 165. I also ride with a 30 Wolf Tooth oval. I’m 5’10”. I recommend shorter cranks for most people.
This is great! The lack of shorter cranks for shorter-legged riders has annoyed me for years. If bike manufacturers had the support from drivetrain manufacturers with a proper range of lengths (140-185mm?) then we could have lower BB heights on smaller frames and higher BBs on larger frames, which would also keep ground clearance and stability more consistent (worse break angle on longer wheelbase). Chainring size needs to scale with crank length or the gearing will be out because although power is consistent over a wide range of lengths, torque drops with the crank length. I’m 5’11 with 33.5” legs, so on the longer legged end of the spectrum but I’ve found I prefer 165 or 170 to 175 by quite a wide margin. I think 170 fits me best but I think 165 is a bit easier on my slightly faulty right knee.
hardtail party absolutely but on an XXL bike with 1300mm+ wheelbase, big reach, tall stack, longer chainstays, then you’re not short of stability and the tall stack keeps you in the bike. My kids are on Islabikes which have super short cranks and very low BB heights, so by comparison my low slung adult bikes are high.
Steve made a video and the entire bike Industry finally started offering cranks in different lengths ! hallelujah If only I was able to find some that’s what I would of put on my new build. Great tip about Canfield. Let’s hope there still in stock. Love the experimental videos and can’t wait to try shorter cranks
@@hardtailparty thanks steve just ordered a pair of 170. Was hoping for 165 but they were sold out of that one. I figure I’ll go down 5 mm at time (or is it ten since there’s two feet?) Can’t wait to get experimental!!!
Excellent video! I watched this with keen interest because I recently bought an XS 29er hardtail for my son that has 155mm cranks. It replaced his older Med 26er with 175mm cranks. We did a 30 min 7-10% climb yesterday and he really struggled on the climb. He had to use cadence instead of leverage but in loose conditions, the lower gears meant more tire slippage. Around here there isn't much flat stuff, so I think I will move him to 170s.
Great video! I'm 5'3" and have been mountain biking for 30 years. When I started, it was hard to find 170mm cranks. They felt really short and less powerful, but I adapted and wouldn't think about using 175 mm cranks. I've often wondered if the 170 cranks are still too long and bike fit has always been an issue for me to be comfortable. I'm going to experiment with the 155's to see if it helps. Thanks, Tom
I had the same BMX influence so had even run 180mm cranks on my mountain bike. Then, because I do some bike fitting/sizing (bike shop owner) I started reading more on the topic. There's some interesting information out there essentially saying most people are (were) on excessively long cranks. I'm 6'2 and happily switched to 170mm a few years ago and am interested in trying 165mm (when the industry finally gets stock again). Great video. Shorter cranks are almost a necessity on modern full suspension bikes with the low bbs. I'm glad to see 170mm becoming much more common and the occasional 165 on stock smaller bikes.
When tripel cranks were still in fashion I had some Suganos that were 152mm (if I remember correctly). The "secret" to shorter crakes is changing the gearing to match.
What an awesome video Steve. First time I have seen this type of test. Love your observations. I guess I assumed there wouldn’t be much difference except that pedal strikes would not happen as often. I will definitely try shorter cranks. Thanks to Canfield as well for sending the cranks to you.
I’m 1.73m, 79cm inseam, have 170mm cranks and an “32t” elliptical chain ring on my HT and 175mm cranks and 34t round chain ring on my FS. The HT weighs 2.5kg less than the FS. The HT is more comfortable than the FS when I’m steady state pedaling for 8 hours. Now I am trying to decide whether to change the FS to shorter cranks for XC marathon. I hate the idea of giving up the quick acceleration of the longer cranks but when grinding away the shorter cranks are much more comfortable. 170s are probably a good compromise.
I'm 5'9 and have been using 170mm cranks since the beginning. Always felt my circle was too big (ie. Knees came up too far for comfort). Thanks for this video, Steve. I've ordered my 160mm Canfields and can't wait to slap them on my bike. 😁
I recently swapped out my stock 175mm crank, down to a 170mm. And it was definitely a step in the right direction for me. I would like to try 165mm. But I didn't want to risk going to short when I ordered the 170mm, just incase I didn't like it.
Huge shout-out to Steve for having an open mind and taking the time to do this video! We've been proponents of the benefits of shorter cranks for a long time, and of course, every body and riding style is different. But there's a good chance you've been riding cranks that are too long.
To add a little context to crank length vs. gearing, the four things that effect your gear ratio are: 1. front ring, 2. rear cassette, 3. wheel and tire overall diameter and 4. crank length. A shorter crank arm is a shorter lever with less mechanical advantage. So, for every 10mm shorter you go on your crank length, it is mathematically equivalent to going approx. two teeth bigger on your front ring. That's why it felt harder for Steve to get up the steeper climbs and he had to shift down with the shorter cranks.
However, you are also spinning smaller circles, which feels easier and negates some of the perceived increase in effort.
So, if you want to change crank length and maintain similar gearing, you may want to consider changing your chainring as well. But for the sake of this video, keeping the cranks as the only variable was excellent for a side-by-side comparison!
You guys rock. Thanks for supporting the channel and making this video possible. I learned WAY more than I thought I would. A few other things I picked up on (that I'm sure you know about):
- The longer cranks mean your pedal is higher at the 12 o'clock position, meaning an increased bend at the hips. This is why it was engaging my hip flexors more. We adjust our saddles to the 6 o'clock position to get proper leg extension, but we don't often think about the effect crank length has on our 12 o'clock position. This was eye-opening to me.
- Shorter cranks make your seat angle feel steeper. Here's my theory: With 155mm cranks, the 2-3 o'clock position (which I assume is where the most power is generated) is closer to the bb. So it's not quite as far in front of you as with 175mm cranks. That makes the seat angle feel steeper at this part of the stroke, since it feels like you're more "on top" of this position, than behind it. That was fascinating as well.
It's time people think about crank length beyond pedal strikes.
So that mean if i were to run 155 mm Cranks with 30 T chainring it will have similar performance of 34/36 with 170/175 crank .
@@mumenraider sort of. You'll use the same range of the cassette that you use now. But you'll have less leverage.
@@hardtailparty related: I'm 5'9" and I had 175mm cranks on my gravel bike. I thought knee pain was just from the long miles I ride some days. as it turns out, getting the saddle high enough for an efficient downstroke means the pedal was too high at the top due to the length, which was hurting my knees. as soon as I went to 170s, that knee pain went away. I didn't change anything else. TL;DR, it is possible that your cranks are too long but almost impossible that they are too short.
@Canfield Bikes Can we get these cranks in the UK? I"m definitely interested, especially if the BB is included.
Great info. I'm 5'7" been riding with 175 started getting knee pain(72yr old knees) riding 165 no pain and I spin more. Thanks for a great video!
I switched from 170 to 165 and the same for me , knee pain gone , I'm now 62 and 5ft 6
I went from 175 to 170 and knee pain is gone.
I'm 6'2", ride with 175 for years with no pain. I'm 39.
I'm 179cm and SAME! Shorter lengths are easier on the knees.
Sal, did you try widened Q-factor with pedal extenders? Also wrong forward/backward position of foots on the pedals can cause persistent stress to the knees and tendons.
I've often said to a friend of mine that demo days for components would be great, wheels, tires, bars, saddles etc...
100%. Outerbike would ROCK with component demos. That's how I fell in love with my ZIPP 3ZERO Motos.
@@hardtailparty I guess a tire demo would tell you what tires are good on that trail on that day. Depending on where you live that might mean they're good year round, here in New Hampshire what's good in July might not be so good in November or April.
@@hardtailparty What's the current update on your experience with shorter cranks? I ask because it's been 9 months since you made this video.
@@nogoogle6349 same thoughts as here. I like the shorter cranks.
handlebars with high rise should definitely be present I suffered for years of shoulders and wrist pain but blamed my body not the bike setup, bought an ebike immediately horrible lower back pain, had to find a solution bought a high rise handlebar 60mm rise problem was gone completely now I realize I should have fixed my XC years ago >
I'm 5'9" with 32" inseam and 160mm cranks are absolutely perfect for me. Immediately improved my endurance... didn't expect that and better all around for technical riding.
Thanks for doing this video. As a 5'6" rider with a 30" inseam, I found your comparisons relatable and helpful. I've been riding with 170mm crankarms for years, but for the past couple of weeks, I've been experimenting with some Canfield 155s. I've been a singlespeed rider for over 20 years, but now that I'm in my 60s and crashing more than I used to, I mostly stick to gravel roads and light trails. Like you, I was amazed by how quickly my body adapted to the shorter crank arm length. But even though it feels like I'm working harder on steeper climbs, I'm actually faster with the shorter cranks. In fact, I rode the same 9-mile loop with a long steep climb at the end, 3 minutes faster with the 155s than I did with my 170s. However, as positive as my experience has been, I'm thinking that 160s would be better.
I am 6’2 and have forever, even on my trials bikes as a youth, had 175’s. Just switched to 165’s on my stache a year ago and it has rejuvenated my body on the bike. Also had set pr’s on all my local trails. The handling and spinning are fantastic. Great video Steve!
(Demo stems, cranks and bars YES!)
I’m 6’2 as well and ride a Stache too! What is your inseam, and did you go up or down in crank teeth or stay the same? Thanks!
@@tacomaamocat4309
Sweet! Yeah 42 inseam. I ride a medium. Kept the same chainring. I think a 32, really didn’t notice the ‘higher gear feel’
I'm 6'2 as well, or 187cm in metric. I was just calculating the difference with 5'6/167cm. That's about an 11% difference. So for us a 175mm crank is the equivalent of a 155mm for a person who is 5'6/167cm. Or, a 170mm crank for 5'6/167cm person would be almost a 190mm crank for us 😮. I am about to change my 175 crank to a 170 crank, which is the same as I have on my city bikes an feels like it leaves my hip more open. Though the equivalent of that for 5'6/167cm person would be a 150-152,5 crank, which seems quite short.
I got my 150mm cranks and a 28T chainring yesterday, got them swapped in and went for a test ride. I love them and they helped perfect my bike fit on my large Polygon D7. Stock setup was 175mm and 32T. Only difference I notice is slightly smaller circles and a little higher cadence. I definitely recommend following Canfield's advice on going to a smaller chainring when going down in crank arm length.
I have a polygon t7. What exact parts/link did you use. Looking for as close as possible to a direct replacment
I noticed a different in your bike moving in a “bobbing” motion between the 165 and 160’s, it went from semi smooth to smooth. I payed attention to it between the 160 and 155’s, it went from smooth to basically staying still. When you went from the 155 to 170 your bike frame was all over the place, like you were “chopping wood”. This would only lead me to think, that’s a lot more stress and fatigue on your body trying to control the bike front to back with the 170’s, even though you probably didn’t know you were doing it. Great content, I’d love to see a follow up with maybe a 165 with 32t vs a 160/155 with a 30t. You know, just more experimental stuff.
I feel like "chopping wood" engages the hips and quads better. For me, I'm in it for the conditioning, as opposed to minimizing the stress of the ride. Great points about smoothness. If I were competing or on difficult terrain, I can see the benefit of shorter cranks. Now it seems we need more bikes in the quiver. lol
This is a very informative video.
Real world testing not all theory.
After watching this video, i believe ill stick to 175mm-180mm on my SS.
I had 185mm cranks years ago and loved them. But as bikes lowered their BB shells I had to stop using them. Pedal strikes were happening far too often. Won't run longer than 175mm now. I have 36" inseam.
'The Rise Of BB' coming out soon…
Love those long cranks too. Same inseam. Same issue.
Same boat. Whats weird is the lower bb is supposed to help lower the center of gravity, but then requires you to run shorter cranks which then requires you to raise the seat in turn raising your center of gravity back up. So...@hardtailparty you could be revolutionary with the new bike design and make your larger size frames with taller BB's.
@@djjazzynic but you don't need a low cog when your seat is all the way up. Also, shorter cranks allow you to run longer droppers, which is a bonus for me as well.
As a 60 yr old, 6'4" bike fitter, THANK YOU for an excellent video! Frankly I was stunned that you experienced and explained so well so many of the crank length issues I deal with regularly. Of course, you general do an excellent job. I believe Leonard Zinn has never quite gotten it. And, I think the missguided long-crank BMX ideas somehow carried into mountain bikes to all of our detriment. Lower knee stress, lower bottom brackets with fewer pedal strikes and smoother cadence all have significant advantages! It also seems to me that the popularity of oval chainrings is likely in response to the need to smooth out pedaling with cranks that are otherwise too long. Yay to slightly shorter cranks for most of us.
One thing that's overlooked with the knee stress argument, is that to make the same power at the same cadence requires more force. Obviously, the answer to this is to change gears, but that's true in both directions. While I believe that lots of people _would_ be better on shorter cranks, there's also people who would be better off on longer ones. There's always been an odd one-sidedness to arguments posted on the subject.
I mean, If there's an ideal crank length for an average/short legged person, and there is some length that's too short for that same person. How is the same not going to be true for an especially long legged person?
I have always used 170 as they came with the bike and since I am 6'2" they have never "presented" a problem for the type of bike riding (mostly trail, not too technical) that I do, but was wondering if at 6'4" what size crank are you running? Thanks!
Love the content! As a single speeder I would love to see a video on crank length and single speed riding!
I love these ExpireMENTAL videos. Just plain entertaining! Especially this one. The BB height on my Big Al is significantly lower than my last bike, but I have the same crank length (170). Initially, I was getting a lot more pedal strikes. I need to try a 165 or 160, and see how it feels.
same here, i just cracked my crank on my kona wozo hitting a large root
In 2020 I spent several months sorting out this very question. I wanted to eliminate knee/body discomfort improve riding performance and decrease pedal strikes if possible. I found several bike fit calculators that recommended 162mm cranks. I ended up removing the 170 cranksets on both my FS MTBs and replacing them with Canfield cranks. I put a 160s on my 27.5" wheel FS Trail bike and 165s on my 29" wheel FS "Down Country" bike. Both have 30T chain rings. I picked different lengths for each bike based on wheel size and the different riding styles for each bike (and because it's hard to find 162mm cranks for MTBs). The improvement in comfort, performance and ease of riding was very noticeable; bonus, way less pedal strikes. Exploring crank length is definitely a next level riding improvement. It can really help improve your body health and overall riding performance. It would be great to see crank length as an option when buying an MTB especially from online retailers.
Fantastic video. I agree we need more manufactures with shorter crank lengths. I'd love if sram had 160mm xo1 cranks in 73mm bb.
Really interesting video. I've been using 170s for a couple years now but never really considered going lower. I always thought 165s were for DH bikes. It is interesting how so many bikes are just shipped with 175s and people think they need the longest pedal to generate power.
I ordered my new Orbea with 170s rather than the standard 175s. Unfortunately it was built and shipped with 175s so I'm working with Orbea to get a pair of 170s sent to me.
Interestingly it looks like they might have removed the option to select a different crank length when you order your bike!!!!
@@chiefsilverback you will definately notice the difference. Good luck!
depends upon inseam leg length. I have a 39" inseam, I'm 6'6". I run 190mm. When I ran 175mm, my thighs burned out and I didn't have to torque to move my bulk up hill. Once I went to 190's, I discovered that I am in the strength of the muscle and the leverage of the 190's gave me an unbelievable ability to keep up in the pack when they left me in the dust.
If your inseam is 36" 180mm or if you're like me, 39" inseam, 190's on a Cross country MTB like a hardtail, works wonders...
YES!!! My first thought was "The Circles Feel Rounder!!" LoL I'm 5'2" and went from 170 stock cranks w/ 32 tooth chainring to 155 Canfields w/ 30 tooth and it's amazing! I feel like I have the exact same climbing ability with each ring in the back with the same amount of effort, but Loads more stability when pedaling out of the saddle, which allows me to actually use more of the power I have when I need to get in and out of the saddle for tech climbs or any sprinting. There's no pauses or lags in the power output going from seated to standing unless I Want there to be for the terrain, is how I would say it feels. I've had 165's on a previous women's specific bike, and those were better than 170 (noticeable drop in sprinting ability going from 165 to 170 cranks - I'm probably just enough shorter than you that I really don't have long enough legs or enough body weight to push the 170's up to speed as quickly.), but the 155's are still a big jump better for my leg length :) In addition to better tech climbing bc of being able to go more smoothly between seated and standing pedaling, balance lines improved (not charging in stomping hard right before them with too much speed to try to avoid destabilizing standing ratchets with the 170 cranks once I slowed down across a longer section), descending and accelerating through corners improved, wheelies made a huge progression (I could instantly Feel how much power I have and can get up to peek power faster to initiate and maintain at a wider range of speeds and gear choice, but it still hasn't instantly made me a wheelie wizard - but it feels attainable now!). I'm so glad I didn't settle for just swapping down to the 165 version of the stock cranks my bike came with! Pedal strikes didn't even factor in to my reason to switch, but I do also smash a few less things now, bc that is what I do rather than give up on a tech climb that I Might still be able to squeak out lol
Oh, and I saw you were clipped in in this video - have you ridden the shorter cranks with flats yet? I love the extra Foot stability too of the shorter cranks. I can spin faster when I accidentally find myself in too light of a gear and still be much less likely to spin my feet off or shift around on my flat pedals. One more benefit to a platform that matches my size better 😄
Glad the 155s are working for you!
I'm 5'3" and wondered if 30tooth or 32tooth ring would give you the better torque to climb or power through flat trails.
Thanks for the report. I got 152mm, 28t setup coming in. Down from 170mm/32t. Hopefully the 28t will balance out for the 18mm length drop and allow me to climb steeps without interruption.
Wow that sounds amazing! I gotta get rid of my giant cranks haha
I am plowing through your videos and learning so much. More so than GMBN and Pinkbike. Definitely getting 160mm cranks. They're much harder to come by here in the PH though.
New sub. Thanks for this video it's very informative. I'm 5'-10" 64 yrs aged with severe degenerative disc disease. Riding posture makes a huge difference in my being able to ride at all mine is very vertical. Unlike most all of the comments here I do best with 180s having tried 165 thru 180.
Steve thanks for this video. You may recall we talked about crank length during one of our consultations and you recommended a shorter length because of my size (5'6" with 28" inseam). That recommendation was spot on because it was the only way I could fit a 150 dropper on my Chameleon - medium size frame, seat tube slammed. If I had gone with the 170s on my former bike, I never could have fit the dropper. I really like the 165 and do not miss the 170s, but I may try going to 160s.
I recently went from 175 to 165… i love it 100% / zero desire to go back/ i ride technical cen tex / please do the single speed test while you have all the cranks!
Sweet video! Thanks Steve!
Good topic i'm 6'2" and run a set of 155mm cranks you have covered most of the pro s and cons the biggest thing i notice is the shorter cranks dont brake traction on slippery steep climbs and you can wheelie for eva as the power is smoother .
Excellent vid! I put some 170's on my roadie (stock 175) in 2013. Had months of GPS history on a local hill. 175's ave speed 7mph. 170's 9mph. I was exceeding my range of motion! Couldn't start applying power until after TDC. Also, was able to start using the handlebar drops for extended periods. Speed on the flats improved markedly, as well as reduced hip pain.
This year I switched from 172.5 mm cranks to 165s on my road bike, and that made a *huge* difference. I have long limbs and it really opened up my hips a bit. My current mountain bike has 175 mm cranks, and I will definitely opt for something shorter on my next one.
This video is one of the best crank length comparisons I've found. Very useful, thank you a lot!
I love that the ol' Paradox is the experiment bike. Hope Banshee is boosting their production for these bad boys, lots of winter builds going to happen for sure!
Thanks for taking the time to compare the cranks. I’ve been trying to locate 165mm cranks but having a hard time like most folks. Great video!!!
Canfields of course, and Hope EVO's!
recommend Raceface 165 very durable. Fsa way too soft.
Nice video! Went from 175 to 170 and now on 165. 6’ and 33” inseam, but the 165 actually feels much better for me riding compared to the longer cranks.
That was really informative Steve.... thanks. The timing is good too as I'm in the process of buying new cranks. It certainly wont be the default 175s that I've bought over the past 20 years without even considering other options. Keep up the great work.
I learned a TON in this experiment. What did you learn? Which crank length do you use most? How tall are you? Have you ever experimented with crank length?
One other thing I've learned with crank length: shorter cranks make your seat angle feel steeper, since your peer position is closer to the seat tube than with longer cranks.
I'm super short like 5'4" and im sporting a 175mm cranks. The bike is super light but i still have difficulty climbing. I think Im gonna experiment starting with a 165mm.
@@rekamniar my girlfriend is 5'4" (short legs, long torso). Switched her to Canfield 155s and she is much happier! I'm 6'4" and running 165.
I want to try 165mm cranks as I'm on 175mm cranks currently and I would definitely like more pedal clearance. Shimano makes them in that size and they're some of the cheaper ones, but of course once I decided I wanted to buy them the supply was gone...
@@baddriversofcolga canfield has these smaller cranks in stock, check 'em out. They usually sell out fast though, so I'd act sooner than later. I believe they may actually have the same spindle size as shimano cranks, so no need to get a new bb (definitely verify with canfield on that).
@@hardtailparty the spindle is the same size, but different interface. It is a SRAM GXP style interface, and all of our cranks include bottom bracket.
I've never tried lower than 170 but I definitely prefer it more than 175 at 6' tall. Curious to try some 165s on my 26er.
Exactly
This is absolutely one of your best videos. It answers so many of my questions about crank length. I have a 29" inseam and I am using 165 mm cranks. I get pain just above my knees and at my hips. Also, I hit my cranks and pedals all the time.
Now I am in market for a set of 155 mm crankset. Thanks.
In my case, my physical therapist diagnosed some tendonosis in my knees (where the tendons connecting the quads to my knees go together). Strengthening the glutes and hamstrings will help balance this out, which is something I'm working on to reduce knee pain.
@@hardtailparty I have achilles tendinitis on both ankles. Need to do my stretching and exercise too.
@@tsalesto it sounds like your saddle might be slightly high too. At least I have similar pain when my saddle is high.
@@hardtailparty Was interesting to hear about your muscle imbalance and PT you were going to. I've been doing the same thing recently. I got back into riding in 2018, bought an indoor trainer and some adjustable dumbbells and dropped my gym membership...I was going to be "lean cycling guy". Turns out ONLY cycling for leg work created a horrible imbalance and started getting some more chronic "back" pain. I went to a spinal ortho, got xrays, started PT. I was stunned at how weak my core was! After all, I can ride all day and am in good shape! Virtually no ham and glute strength, no ab or lower back support. 7 weeks later I'm virtually pain free. I lowered my saddle a touch to get more glute activation. I feel like my legs can now outlast my cardio...which is a first! I'm 6' with 30" inseam riding 175 cranks on both my bikes. Thinking some 170 or even 165 might suite my 54 yo body a little more.
I've been experimenting short cranks since 1995 and I love them, today I use 150mm, I'm 5,8 , I use 155mm for my road bike and I do feel the difference. My first experience was when I decided to use 135mm.
Anyways I've learn a lot about comfort and endurance thanks to them.
I was thinking of going 165mm. Im 5’7”
@@Anthony-nw4je enough not to feel a huge difference but enough to notice speed and better endurance on your rides.
Thank you for this actual use review of different length crank arms. Your real time comments are a revelation....obviously to you, but to your viewers as well. I am considering trying 165's in place of 175's on one of my bikes. I'm 5'8" 150 lbs and I feel that 175's are a little long on this bikepacking bike. Be well.........
After many years of fighting my bike fit, I switched from 175mm to 170mm, and the change was so dramatic that I immediately ordered 165mm cranksets for both my mtn bikes to see if they worked even better - yes! Amazing difference. Solved my saddle pain issues, knee pain went away, and endurance rides are more enjoyable.
Steve, Fabulous documentary video. You touched on many great points. My big concern of short cranks which you discovered was the need to raise the seat height thereby raising your center of gravity slightly. I didn't seem bother you at all. I remember Bobby “The Baltimore Bullet” Phillips had a Sterling Criterium bicycle with a very high bottom bracket and he spun 165 cranks. Bobby could attack and peddle hard through corners where others leaned their bikes and could not peddle till they exited. Bobby was perhaps the greatest crit racer of his era and he told me a lot had to do with that set up. Short cranks certainly allow you to spin at high cadence but long cranks help drive the big gears for speed. Everyone needs to find what works for them. I am however interested in your automatic length adjusting crank arms when they become available.
Cog when seated isn't very important to me. Cog when standing however, is. Since the bb height doesn't change, it doesn't have much of an affect at all on my MTB riding.
I'm 6'4" and run 165mm cranks. I had a bike that came with 180mm and was forever hitting pedals. Changed to 170mm and immediately wished I went to 165mm. One factor often overlooked for larger bikes, is that the wheelbase means there is a greater chance to beach as you go over obstacles. My last three bikes have been 165mm and I'd never go back.
I'm 68", 30" inseam. I've been running 175mm cranks since 1993, when I upsized from a 170 with biopace chainrings. I loved the feeling of extra torque then. In retrospect it was a big mistake that took nearly 30 years to correct. As I aged torque has been gradually replaced by a higher cadence that favors my knees better. I put a 170mm on my latest bike build, and it's very nice. Less butt bob at high cadence, and easier on my knees. The shorter crankset plus larger diameter wheels makes me want to drop down a couple teeth on the front chaining, but better fitness has negated that issue. I think I won't go lower than 170, since my saddle would have to go to high, and I would have to drop down to a 28tooth chaining for sure.
I'm 5'11" with 33" inseam. I went from 175mm cranks to 170s and found that the back ache I always get after an hour or so in the saddle doesn't happen anymore. I've put up with this aching for decades and thought it was just me. I only changed cranks due to fitting a works components 1.5 degree slacker headset that caused a lower BB.
Did a similar thing for my little boy after he complained of back ache with similar results.
Great stuff! I've always ran the 170mm that came with my bike, but I recently switched to 175mm cuz thats the part I had. No pain or anything, but now I'ma try some 160s to see if I can eek some fun out of it.
I picked up RaceFace 165mm cranks of eBay and I love them... I really felt the difference on the flats. Once on the ups and downs the sensation goes away. IDK, hard to describe!
im a physco and ride a hardtail everywhere. tbh its mainly a cost thing. but i like the control on the hardtail and the feel you get. going to look into this crank arm switch.
Steve, great vid as usual. I am 5' 6" with a 28.75 inch inseam. I have 175mm 170mm and 165mm cranks, and yeah I prefer the 165mm cranks because I noticed my legs didnt hurt as much, and felt like I was using less energy to pedal, but still get get rock strikes, lol. Great vid
I put 153's on my bike last fall. 6'2", somewhat limited range of motion. I have one significant thing to add to your 1 day test, which correlates almost completely to my experience. I can accelerate massively better using a pedal stroke I was taught but could not do on longer cranks. A cycling coach taught me to pedal forward and back about 20 years ago and I never could do it well. With the 153s I was able to do it easily. This is the most important benefit of short cranks, IMO. It took about 3 months to fully develop the muscles for that pedal stroke (6 hours/wk riding) When my cranks were too long, I could only get power pushing down from about 1-5 o'clock. Also, my power band didn't start until about 75 rpm and tapped out about 92. Now I have almost bottomless torque from about 50 rpm, and power starts at about 60 to well over 100 rpm. The amount of power using this technique seems to be about 40% higher because I had to raise my gearing related to 12 speed chain shortages (see the Canfield post about relative gearing) I just went up the same hills on a 40% harder gear at the same effort. Now when I'm cruising at 85-90 rpm I can shift up 2 gears, pedal front to back and accelerate 3x as well as before. I will never use a crank longer than 153 on any bike ever again.
Fantastic info, thank you!
I'm 5' 9" and have been using 175mm cranks. I love to stand up and get as much of my hips and legs moving. My rides are 2-3 hours long and it's more about getting a full-body workout that I enjoy, rather than minimizing effort. No knee pain ever. However, I can see trying shorter cranks to reduce pedal strikes and to help with balancing manuals and other finesse moves. Would love to see a comparison video on very technical terrain to see the impact of crank lengths.
Great idea for a video. Always thought a standard crank length was weird given how much cyclists obsess over every other possible ergo dimension. Glad you found what works best for you, good luck with your PT.
I'm 6'1" and have always run 175mm cranks, but I think I am going to try either 170mm or 165mm to reduce pedal strikes. Also good to know that it doesn't hurt climbing much, if any :) Super interesting video and glad you shared - cheers!
I'm 6'2" and recently went from 175 to 165, I like the 165 better
Very interesting. I started riding again at 40 and got lots of knee pain. Im 6'3 on an xxl and through my struggles figured out my right leg is almost an inch shorter than my left! Makes sense since my right knee hurts more. So ive been considering swapping one crank to help even things out.... thanks for the vid
I'd recommend seeing a bike fitter, they can really help in a situation like that.
I went from having at set of 175mm cranks on my old Specialized Rockhopper to 170mm cranks on my GT Force, both size medium, and it was the first thing I noticed when I took the first pedal stroke, it felt so much better and even though the Force is much larger than the Rockhopper, it feels easier to place it exactly where I want.
Wow, I did NOT expect to find this video to be so interesting. But it makes so much sense. A great gig seems like the most important quality in a bike. Works that way fir me. I’m 6’. My mid-90s GT had 175s and they often felt too long. My new HT has 170s and I really like them. Not sure shorter would be great but who knows?
This is really interesting and the explanations are excellent. Your description of clips vs flats at the end was the perfect description. I went from 175 on my previous bike to 170 on my current bike. I’m 5’11 with decently long legs and have felt slower on the 170’s just because I feel like I’m spinning more. But the more I ride them the more I like them.
I am 5'11.5" with a 35.5" cycling inseam and run 165 XT on my geared hardtail. After switching from 180, I have gained a ton of confidence in rock gardens and just pedal straight on through.
So you also have a very good taste in cars.. As for bikes it is obvious how you care about personal preferences and sensation over trends and brands. I love this guy
very informative . i don't ride that much anymore because of age and injury but what got my attention was you mentioning Specialized " ground control" tires . those were the first real mt. bike tires i had back in the eighties on my schwinn Cimarron which is now called a
gravel bike . 😂
I’ve tried 165s but didn’t like it that much. 170mm is a sweet spot for my XC bike. I’m 5’7 with 31 inseam. I like to go fast & pedal hard. No knee pain or quad burn yet...
Great video! I'm 6'0 and LOVE 165mm crank arms. I spec'd my bike with 170s because that was the smallest they offered from Ibis. Unfortunately pedal strikes are a Major issue. It makes some technical climbs impossible because you can't pedal! I'll gladly sacrifice a little power for less strikes and smooth circles when pedaling.
Lol..... Yeah sometimes the editing process is harder than the ride. I'm 6.4 and hate spinning, I spend most of my time on the big chainring (road biking) and hate a long seat post. Only because of that, I ran 180's. But you bring up some very interesting points. Also being 67 now I'm considering going e-bike, fat tire and was worried about how it's specked out with smaller cranks. Might have to embrace it now, thanks.
I run different length cranks on different bikes, depending on how wide I want my stance for that discipline, but I 100% agree with different length cranks for different stock bike sizes.. At the minimum the manufacturers could do small 165, medium 170 and large 175 (IMO 175 is quite long unless you're 6 foot or over).
I've always upgraded to longer cranks, because I'm 6'4".
Went from the standard 160mm on my 24" BMX Cruiser to 180mm... & I loved the leveraged I had with the longer cranks, & the transfer of power.
They made hill climbing easier for me, because each crank propelled me up with more force.
When I started riding MTBs, I got stuck with 170mm cranks...& the loss of leverage was not as noticeable, because of the wider choice of gear ratios.. but when set in the same gear ratio as my BMX, the loss in leverage & power I could put into the crank was very noticeable.
Looking at upgrading to 175s now.
I immediately recognized your Miata in the vid! I parked by it at the Broken Arrow trailhead last year when I was visiting Sedona and just discovered your channel! Such a cool setup! Ride on!
Your offhand comment about stem lengths is spot on, too. I borrowed a range of sizes from a buddy when building up my Signal St (you should test one, or its Ti brother) and was amazed at the difference.
What made me choose to shorter crank 165mm is due to my Downhill bike but from then on I love 165mm for my trail bikes but not many companies offer shorter than 165mm.
Nice video. I'm not surprise the shorter cranks were less stressful on your joints. I wonder if people forget or don't realize, the BB and crank is just one point of leverage. You also have a fulcrum and lever at the hip /femur. Another at the knee/lower leg... and the last at the ankle/foot. Would you rather squat your body weight 100 times knees to chest or just half way? One revolution of the crank, no matter it's length, covers the same distance(unless you change gearing).
My wife and I ride a 1993 Miyata DupliCross MTB tandem that I turned into an All-Road Touring bike. It is a Large/Medium size. I am 5'11" and my wife is 5'6". I am the Captain of our team and she is the Stoker. I ride every day as a commuter and adventure cyclist. My wife is a very casual bike rider and does not have the same level of fitness. The bike came with 175mm cranks F/R, which to me always seemed odd. I really had to lower my natural cadence when riding the tandem since she had trouble keeping up. After much searching to find a matching Shimano Deore FC-MT60 rear 170mm set of Tandem Cranks and swapping them out, I was able to bring up the cadence since she is spinning smaller circles and it is easier for her to keep up.
Crank length matters. Great video!
Thanks for the content.
Went from 50*14 and 170mm on my track bike last week to 52*15 and 165mm. Immediate improvement in top end and repeated efforts.
steve, my 30" inseam is going to be running 5dev 155's soon. i finally broke down and ordered a set ;)
I’ll tell you what I’ve noticed with the shorter (my 160mm Lekkie’s)
On my BBSHD powered Banshee Sirocco, I can run the saddle lowered all the time without my knees coming up so high.
With stretch jeans, I might add....
I just glad there are shot crank arms for shorter people with short legs.
I’ve shrunk to 5’7” and the 160’s feel perfect.
Thanks for doing this review and I couldn’t agree more about having components at demo days. I am 6’7” and trying to find the right stem is always a challenge… it isn’t as simple as get the longest stem. In terms of cranks, I have subscribed to the longer is better, especially on my single speed mtb and single speed CX rigs. You comments about the strain on your hips and knees got my attention because those are both problem areas for me. On my CX race rig, I made the switch to shorter (175mm from 180mm) to help avoid pedal strikes at lower speeds but a side benefit seemed to be less of the dread CX back pain. I am definitely going to play around with this a bit more. Thanks!
Great review. I'm 6'1" and currently riding 175 cranks but do mostly endurance rides so I'm definitely going to try out some shorter cranks and see how that feels. I would certainly appreciate less pedal strikes.
I wish I had the chance to try out some 160 or 155's My inseam is roughly 27" and it seems a set of 155's might work well paired with a 30t AB oval ring.
Totally makes sense, after seeing this demonstration. Thanks for the content!
We need more videos like this rather than the "studies show no benefit" vids. I'm 5"11 and am fed up with the 175 mm length for road riding. For consistent even tempo, longer cranks are good. But as soon as I need to stand up or alter my cadence I think smaller cranks are best. I've ridden smaller cranks in races dozens of years ago and liked them so eager to test again with new short cranks coming this week. Appreciate the video effort
Great information Steve! You're definitely uncovering new ideas on bike design! Crank length, chainstays.. They are one-size fits all from X-small to XL on so many bikes. They shouldn't be. Now if we could just devise a reverse fly weight design for the 10mm auto adjusting crank length... Oh, forgot to mention, I'm 6'4" with the torso of someone 6'4"...
Sweet comparison! I rode 185's in BMX for 20+ years! (I'm 6'3") I also liked taller gears so it kinda made sense to me. When I got into MTB's I knew geared bikes wouldn't need such a long arm so 175's it is. Now I have been meaning to get 175's for the BMX bike for a while! Talk about chopping wood!!!!
I have a medium size bike, I am 5' 10 1/2" . I had 175mm cranks. I used to get knee pain when riding for too long. My knee was flexing too much when the pedal was at 12 of clock. I changed to 170mm and I feel more comfortable and the knee pain went away.
Great video Steve. I didn't think there would be a big difference but, at 178cm (5'10.5") tall, I do notice a big difference in crank length in one particular scenario: Standing up while slowly climbing my HT over difficult big chunky tech like tree roots and bumpy rock gardens. I find the 175's (vs 170's) tire me quicker, feel less smooth and stable. Also, riding flats, I've had more feet slip off the pedals (and into my shins) on 175's than 170's. Maybe the 175's give me slightly more torque? but it's not worth it in my experience.
Great info. I like the leverage from a 180mm. I use to ride 170, 175. The 180 works well for me especially on steep climbs. It’s a personal choice and fits my training goals. Enjoy.
I'm 6' with 32-33" inseam. I have to say I miss my 175mm cranks. I know they would be an issue with the modern geo, but I really liked the more power and leverage I could put through the pedals when climbing. My current 170s are okay, but I'm guessing I would def NOT like anything shorter.
This is such a perfect for video for me. I have a P7 and do get pedal strikes if I’m not careful. Been thinking of changing to shorter cranks but wasn’t sure if it was a good idea.
Hope the fingers heeling well Steve! Need your dexterity to build that Sherpa TI 😎
Steve, thank you so much for this incredible content! You really hit it outta the park! I’ve always thought of my cranks as levers, longer equals more mechanical advantage. I’m realizing how short sighted that was, especially now that I’m beating a body in its 40’s. The time and effort you put into these videos is inspiring! I’m definitely gonna try some shorter crank lengths and see how they feel! You are the on the bleeding edge of changing the bicycle industry’s philosophy of fitting bikes. Keep up the hard work, high quality content and your increasing audience will definitely be the bullhorn to get bike manufacturers to listen!
I'm short like you. My Fuel EX came with 175 cranks and I can feel hip and knee stress. Later I talked to my LBS guy about moving to 165 cranks but he couldn't get any at that time. After watching this I'm motivated to go back and talk to him again.
The world is oos of bike parts right now. It will probably be on you to find them.
I got some Canfield 160’s a few weeks ago. Super helpful support and very quick shipping.
I'm 6ft and I've tried 175, 172,5 and 170mm. For me 172.5mm is ideal. Hope that helps. If you want to spin higher cadence up climbs more you could try a cassette with a larger 1st gear or more compact cranks. Some of this is fashion, some dufus will end up with 50mm eventually and swear they are better and look ridiculous.. Check out mtb bar width fashion if you need confirmation of fashion brainwashing nonsense..
I have 170mm cranks on most of my bikes and 175mm on one of them. I really feel like the 175 is too long and my pedal rotations are oversized. I would really like to test out 165 and 160mm cranks in the future! Great video!
I switched from the stock 175 to 165 and am very happy. At first I noticed it but soon forgot about it. It feels nice. They are the SRAM NX. I believe that they use the same crank for the 170 and 165. I also ride with a 30 Wolf Tooth oval. I’m 5’10”. I recommend shorter cranks for most people.
This is great! The lack of shorter cranks for shorter-legged riders has annoyed me for years.
If bike manufacturers had the support from drivetrain manufacturers with a proper range of lengths (140-185mm?) then we could have lower BB heights on smaller frames and higher BBs on larger frames, which would also keep ground clearance and stability more consistent (worse break angle on longer wheelbase). Chainring size needs to scale with crank length or the gearing will be out because although power is consistent over a wide range of lengths, torque drops with the crank length.
I’m 5’11 with 33.5” legs, so on the longer legged end of the spectrum but I’ve found I prefer 165 or 170 to 175 by quite a wide margin. I think 170 fits me best but I think 165 is a bit easier on my slightly faulty right knee.
Higher BBs reduce stability and make it feel like you're "on" the bike instead of "in" the bike.
hardtail party absolutely but on an XXL bike with 1300mm+ wheelbase, big reach, tall stack, longer chainstays, then you’re not short of stability and the tall stack keeps you in the bike. My kids are on Islabikes which have super short cranks and very low BB heights, so by comparison my low slung adult bikes are high.
@@BarefacedAudio sounds like we need 36" wheels for the XXL bikes.
Steve made a video and the entire bike Industry finally started offering cranks in different lengths ! hallelujah
If only I was able to find some that’s what I would of put on my new build.
Great tip about Canfield. Let’s hope there still in stock.
Love the experimental videos and can’t wait to try shorter cranks
As of this morning, they had the cranks in all sizes, but you need to hurry, they sell out fast.
@@hardtailparty thanks steve just ordered a pair of 170. Was hoping for 165 but they were sold out of that one. I figure I’ll go down 5 mm at time (or is it ten since there’s two feet?)
Can’t wait to get experimental!!!
Super down to earth and honest into hommie
Excellent video! I watched this with keen interest because I recently bought an XS 29er hardtail for my son that has 155mm cranks. It replaced his older Med 26er with 175mm cranks. We did a 30 min 7-10% climb yesterday and he really struggled on the climb. He had to use cadence instead of leverage but in loose conditions, the lower gears meant more tire slippage. Around here there isn't much flat stuff, so I think I will move him to 170s.
Great video! I'm 5'3" and have been mountain biking for 30 years. When I started, it was hard to find 170mm cranks. They felt really short and less powerful, but I adapted and wouldn't think about using 175 mm cranks. I've often wondered if the 170 cranks are still too long and bike fit has always been an issue for me to be comfortable. I'm going to experiment with the 155's to see if it helps.
Thanks,
Tom
Awesome video Steve!!!! So good and the little reminder in the lower right showing crank size: brilliant!!
Thanks Tim.
I had the same BMX influence so had even run 180mm cranks on my mountain bike. Then, because I do some bike fitting/sizing (bike shop owner) I started reading more on the topic. There's some interesting information out there essentially saying most people are (were) on excessively long cranks. I'm 6'2 and happily switched to 170mm a few years ago and am interested in trying 165mm (when the industry finally gets stock again). Great video. Shorter cranks are almost a necessity on modern full suspension bikes with the low bbs. I'm glad to see 170mm becoming much more common and the occasional 165 on stock smaller bikes.
When tripel cranks were still in fashion I had some Suganos that were 152mm (if I remember correctly). The "secret" to shorter crakes is changing the gearing to match.
What an awesome video Steve. First time I have seen this type of test. Love your observations. I guess I assumed there wouldn’t be much difference except that pedal strikes would not happen as often. I will definitely try shorter cranks. Thanks to Canfield as well for sending the cranks to you.
I’m 1.73m, 79cm inseam, have 170mm cranks and an “32t” elliptical chain ring on my HT and 175mm cranks and 34t round chain ring on my FS. The HT weighs 2.5kg less than the FS. The HT is more comfortable than the FS when I’m steady state pedaling for 8 hours. Now I am trying to decide whether to change the FS to shorter cranks for XC marathon. I hate the idea of giving up the quick acceleration of the longer cranks but when grinding away the shorter cranks are much more comfortable. 170s are probably a good compromise.
I'm 5'9 and have been using 170mm cranks since the beginning. Always felt my circle was too big (ie. Knees came up too far for comfort).
Thanks for this video, Steve. I've ordered my 160mm Canfields and can't wait to slap them on my bike. 😁
I really enjoyed this. I’m 5’5”, so your insights were super useful to me. Thanks!
I recently swapped out my stock 175mm crank, down to a 170mm. And it was definitely a step in the right direction for me. I would like to try 165mm. But I didn't want to risk going to short when I ordered the 170mm, just incase I didn't like it.
I'm thinking more of decreasing pedal strickes. I get a lot with my 175mm cranks. I'd prefer 165mm cranks. Maybe with 30T rather than the current 32T.