One thing I've learned from these videos/going to a bike fitter: the fastest bike is the one that fits you best. Thanks for breaking down some of these trends.
James does rock and roll every time, his passion and expertise are truly commendable and one of these days I'd like to visit his shop as a paying customer. And James always reminds me of Heath Ledger who, in the movie Lords of Dogtown, did a great job portraying the surf shop owner who created a famous game-changing Southern California skateboard team in the Seventies.
Hi, your comment about functionality of the rider is, of course, spot on. I'm 6'2", 35" inseam. My bikes come with 175s. I started with 170s 9 years ago, 165s 5 years ago. But the first crank I could pedal efficiently (round, steady pedal stroke) was 155, which I put on 3 years ago. My acceleration, speed and endurance improved 50%. I climbed everything 4 gears harder, and doubled my daily mileage over a few months. I've been riding since the 1970s. I have about 1500 hours on 155, 140, 130, 137 and now 145. My useful powerband on 165+ runs from 65rpm to about 90. My useful powerband on 145s runs from 50rpm to 100+. I can pedal as hard as I want without cramping, for hours. I size cranks by powerband, the same way a motocrosser is sized: A 450 is all bottom end, a 125 is all top end. 155s are like a big bore dirt bike, 135s like a 125. And the 155-135 range, for me, are the only ridable sizes. Thanks for all of your work, it's really helpful!
Wow! 155 mm for that inseam is very short! I'll have to get a modern bike fit to see what's right for me. I'd assumed I should drop to 165 mm and that's what one web site says. I did love my Specialized Steel Langster which came with shortish cranks but I gave it away in the first lockdown to someone who needed a bike to get to work and I'd had a massive heart attack
I’ve learned so much from these videos. I’m 5”4 with 28 in inseam. I road 165 cranks for many years. Despite three different fittings, I could not get rid of low back pain, knee pain, and some subtle bouncing on the saddle at 90+ RPM’s. I ordered Ultegra 160 crankset. I waited 8 months for the crankset. Once installed, at least 90% of my back pain is gone and no bouncing on the saddle. Knee pain reduced similarly as well. The shortened cranks helped with what I’m pretty certain is a right hip impingement. Short, appropriate cranks have helped with all of this.
keep going! it sounds like you found relief. I had hip surgery supposedly for impingement and it did not go well. Don't take nasty meds or get surgery if you can avoid it!
@@Fliegercantfly cycling, for us enthusiasts, should be centered around comfort. If not having pain, I’d recommend keeping your current setup. I went this route only out of necessity. Plus it cost me 350$ and long back order wait to get a Shimano 160 crankset with 50/34 compact gearing. While this has helped a ton, I need to do more off-bike, isolateral work to even out asymmetrical muscle groups and compensatory patterns I developed. So, cost is one downside. Sprinting or jumping out of the saddle is another downside, less leverage to apply power via crank arms, higher rpm to get up top end speed. Spinning “out” much more than previously. Better for climbing which is a positive. Just my take tho. Pain free riding is the best. Good for my situation. 👌🏾
Good my brother I’m 5.4 to I’m going to order the shimano 160mm my road bike came with 170mm it’s to long and same here back pain to thank you 🙏 for the tip
I’m 178cm and ride 165mm cranks. I’m much happier with this. No knee pain - but was reluctant to change initially. So I think this shows the value of a good fitting. This has overcome major knee issues.
Interesting. I'm 175 cm and dropped cranks from 175 mm to 170... No knee issues, but simply felt like I'm tossing my legs forward and back just to make a full circle.
Thank you for commenting on this subject. Crank length looks simple for many, but I find it to be very complex and relative. 87,5leg inseam, 1,82 height. I’ve been riding 175 and 172,5 when I was 15 years younger, fairly competitive. Now, with less hip mobility and plenty of hours sitting on a chair, I have been using 165mm indoors for two years, and somehow helped at first instance to open the angle of the knee, but it does not necessarily mean it will allow to handle more torque. Recently I’m back to ride more and more outdoors and I notice that having short cranks it makes the bike way less stable when standing with harder gears. I can’t pull the pedals back in the same way I used with 175-172,5, and it’s harder to stabilize feet and activate glutes or hamstrings properly. Too short I guess. It is very tricky to switch from 175 to 165mm for example, and what I thought would be an advantage, lately it became handicap. Ideally, in my opinion regarding what I have learn testing different cranks, I would not move anything on the fit at first instance, specially for riders who are very sensitive and have round pedaling form. Personally , when changing cranks, I would prefer to keep same fit and keep BB within the same pedaling spot, so we are just simply reducing the circular movement, which already is a big change. Then apply tiny adjustments Personal reference, biggest crank possible according to individual’s measurements, and be able to handle high cadence when needed. A proper fit with 172-175 , to me it should allow a big range of cadence, and allowing to apply big torque at the same time, with higher torque when necessary, which somehow I do not find productive having short cranks. Yes with 1cm shorter cranks you can raise the saddle by one cm, and you get the same leg extension, and you also feel like wow! “I feel like I was raising the saddle 2cm with my old 175mm cranks”…. “Now I feel more strong sitting in the saddle”… “Now I feel I can give it more torque”… well it probably allows to apply more torque by opening the knee angle at the top of the stroke, but more torque you will need to move the same gears which at the end affects your knee in a different way. Also, switching to 1cm shorter cranks, it changes the setback by 1 cm, but if you move saddle backwards by 1cm to compensate then the leg which is placed backwards when crank is in horizontal position, feels like you have moved the saddle 2cm backwards, so you can’t pull the pedals back the same way you was able to do it before, so with a tiny change on the saddle setback and height, the dynamics of the pedaling stroke might change radically A tiny less than the biggest crank I can ride comfortably, will be my next choice. Back to 172,5. It is very relative and it depends on each individual . Wow… what a mess
I'm 2m tall - and have a custom built Zinn cycle that has 210mm cranks. Lennard Zinn designs his bike around proportional crank length and specialises in bikes for tall and short riders. Complete game changer for me. When I got this bike I jumped two groups in the local racing I was doing and that year got the most improved rider award - because I just improved so much - and it was all due to the bike and position. Zinn Cycles has custom-length cranks for sale. My mountain bike has 175mm cranks and I don't have a problem going back and forwards between the two. My TT bike has 172.5 and I think that's too short for me. But I'm experimenting with what I can do there (I only ever ride flat TT's). But my road bike with my 210mm cranks just lets me get over the top of gears that I couldn't before. Means I can hang on on small rises that used to spit me out the back of the group.
I am 6‘7“ and recently bought a 177,5 9200 dura ace crank. Best decision for a long time, especially climbing out of the saddle feels so much more natural. Unfortunately not available for lower tier groupsets
I ride 172.5 dura ace on my road bike and 165 on my fixed gear and I would definitely shorten my road cranks if they weren't so damn expensive and I have a power meter in the spider which is another road block. Awesome video!
In the past though, crank length seemed to correspond to the rider's style, their peddling, and where they liked to sit on the bike. I'm 5'7-5'8 and I should be on 160-170mm cranks, but I hate the spinning feeling of a crank shorter than 170. In fact, 170 bothers me somewhat because of the smaller circle I have to pedal, which is usually the selling point. I peddle with a classic heel drop before reaching the top of my stroke, I can't stand the lack of leverage with anything smaller than 172.5. Also I find that a shorter crank makes me feel like I'm on top of the bike, which really changes the handling, I like the feeling of sitting inside the bike's cock-pit, which feels more responsive, which is where slightly longer cranks put you. I find a medium-long crank, 172.5, to be the sweetspot for a heel drop peddling style, which usually corresponds with a slightly lower saddle and more set-back. Also road bikes seem to come with higher bottom brackets than they used to, so a shorter cranks seems to put the rider extremely high up on a medium sized and up bike.
Yup. As someone who is has odd body measurements, I'm 5'7 but have a very short inseam, my 170mm cranks are too long (on a Small sized bike) for me. So after a bike fit (at Bicycle 😉 although not with James, but his equally capable staff of fitters), a 165mm helped a lot with my cadence and power and a lot smoother pedalling motion than before.
Same with me. I luckily fit on the 48cm Cervelo Caledonia standing 5'6" and that bike came with the 165mm. Way better feel. If I went to the 51cm bike, I would have 170mm which based on my last bike fit are too long for me. The bike industry needs to give people options.
@@grantmcalpine6364 yeah, wished manufacturers offered more options. Ribble do allow some changes to the component sizes. I think Obea does as well. But you won't get the full spectrum of sizes of the components. But definitely they should allow Crank lengh and handlebar width changes of the most popular sizes.
@@allyp7 that is my overall height, but you might have longer legs, more flexibility, etc. So even though a 165mm works for me, it may be too short for you and a 170mm would be better. I'd recommend you have a bike fit first if you can before buying a new crankset.
I had a bike fitting with James a few days ago off the back of this channel (cannot recommend going to see him enough by the way). I feel I almost could have inspired todays topic! I'm a 5'7" male new to road riding. I was having a lot of issues based off the fact my right hip was so tight and I was struggling to get my body comfortable. After James worked his magic on 100 other things (which all helped)...we ended up going down to 155mm cranks and that totally sorted any issues with my hip. As the video says it's all about what YOUR body needs not some study on professional athletes. Do yourself a favour and go see him!
@AJ XOXO if you didn't read my first comment fully - i went to James and got fit in person - I had zero input in any of the specs as I have no idea what i'm doing. James is a seasoned professional fitter and someone I trust 100%. He is the one who chose 155mm for me. I don't know the technicalities of it - but we tried ALL crank lengths from 180mm down to 155mm and it was only at 155mm that my right hip stopped being painful and I was able to up my max watts and comfort on the bike. If you are wondering about your own setup - I can only suggest going to see someone as knowledgeable as james and finding out for yourself. *the whole point of a fitting with an expert like James is to get away from comments like yours of "you're 5'7" so 165mm will be about right". It clearly wasn't right for me at all. There are no setups that should be of any concern to you - other than the one that works for your own body.
I tried 165mm and I absolutely did get the feeling of falling off the front. James definitely speaks a lot of sense and I like how he isn't sensational about one particular type of trend i.e short cranks. In the end I had to move back to 175mm cranks. As someone 5'9 with a relatively long inseam even 170mm was too short.
@@oldanslo yeah I have no clue what James is referring to when he talks about falling off the front. Maybe he positions the saddle strictly relative to the bottom bracket instead of the pedal when it's at the 3 o clock position? But that's an amateur mistake...
I'm 188 cm (6'2) and on my old XC bike I have 175mm cranks and I always felt like pedaling circle is too large and my comfortable cadence was 70-80 rpm, so on my new road bike I went for 165mm cranks. I feel no difference comfort vise, but now I can go ~90 rpm consistently, higher rpm reduces pressure on my knees and shorter cranks allows more comfortable low aero position.
Same here in terms of cadence and benefits that you describe, except I went from 170 - 165. It also made my pedal stroke smoother - on the longer cranks I was doing too much work on the downstroke and not enough on the up - the thing about opening up the hips has definitely helped for me. It also reduces toe overlap as well. Really happy with the switch.
Same height. Was on 175, but switched to 172.5 when Ingot new Ultegra. As you’d expect, the difference is slight, but it feels better. I’m generally in the 90s for cadence.
Im nearly 5’11”. Always felt something was wrong. I went from 175 to 170. Better. I reinjured my surgically operated knee and decided to try 165-way better still!
As a shorter guy, I replaced my cranks with 165mm what an improvement. I wish I could have found 160. What REALLY ticks me off is that even when factory ordering very high end bikes. It is almost always impossible to choose crank length. I have been looking at several bikes with Ultegra range groupset I can choose stem length, handlebar width.. different seat options, wheel options... But the basic option of choosing the correct crank length doesn't exist...
5'7'' (barely), 30" inseam and my 54cm touring bike came with 175mm cranks. My two most recent rides (60mi and 70mi) gave me terrible knee pain and I've been going down this crank length rabbit hole. Pretty much the exact situation you described at 3:20. Ordering a 170mm crankset once they are back in stock (all my other bikes are 170mm, never had knee pain). Thanks guys!
The day I have the disposable income to get a bike fit, I definitely will. It would be an absolute pleasure to meet James, the knowledge plus the personality, brilliant👌🏽
Living in Taiwan, I easily got a Croder(MIT) crankset. Had been using a 140mm one (I do have severe hip impingement (checked)) for a while and felt awesome with it. Average 95 rpm rather than 75 with a 165mm. However, 1. It may be that the two bottom bracket holes have a bad concentricity (giant TCR advanced 2016) that the spindle had significantly different wear 180°-ly. Or 2. the spindle is not made with good enough tolerance or hard enough material (howbeit it says 7075 T6, hence may not be the problem) that the non drive side crank came up with a teeny tiny gap which ended up creeking. I've changed to a 150mm gossamer pro from FSA.
My GF had a BikeFit with James. 5'2'' on a 48cm bike. Now riding 155mm Cranks along with 0mm set back seat post, narrower bars and shorter stem. She's now able to ride with normal saddles and has zero discomfort on the bike. she does however now spin those pedals like crazy with average cadence being 90+. So had to change her compact chainrings for subcompact (48/32) as she found herself riding cross chained on the flat with only 1 or 2 gears to go before having to drop to the inner chainring.
Ive been absolutely binge watching all of your stuff and i got a bike a few weeks back and loving it so much thanks for making high quality videos love it
160mm 105s have worked out for me. Leg length and height aren't the only key variables. To indicate as much is straight up group-think defined. The ratio of tibia to leg length was, for me, the determining factor. BTW, TH-camr Peak Torque covered this from a mechanical engineering perspective over a year ago.
Overall, a more sensible discussion of crank length than I've seen from many other sources on the internet. Shorter cranks seem to be the fad right now. They may well be an improvement for many people. Especially smaller riders who are constantly given the short end by the bike companies, although, in this case, the long crank. Personally, I don't want to spin in tight circles. If that works for some folks, good on them. I suspect many riders are more affected by their choice of gear than their crank length. I see comments here about people improving their cadence speed by switching to shorter cranks. How about just shifting down one gear and training to spin at a higher cadence? The other problem that I see with many cyclists seems to be this ingrained belief that they should always stay seated. Somewhere along the way I suspect that they were told that it was more aerodynamic and more efficient. It is also harder on your knees to have that tightly circumscribed motion without a break. Watch the pros. Even though they have trained to stay low and aero, when given the opportunity, they will take short breaks of standing on the pedals to stretch out the ham strings and glutes.
Best thing I did was moving from 175 to 165 for ultra distance. I am 5ft 11 and 175 was close to manufacturers recommended blah, but 165 was so very much more comfortable….. for me anyway.
Got a mix now of 172.5 and 170 on my road bikes. Had 175 for a while and that length worked nice for out of the saddle climbing. I find I'm liking the 170s more now
Another thing to consider is that there are a lot of us missing a leg and ridding with a prosthetic leg limits how far you can bend your knee due to all of the material. I'm 5'11" on a 56 frame and have to ride with 165mm. There are a lot more of us than people think.
1 point that wasn't made, is how to do a first estimate, before a fit, on the "probably" correct crank length for yourself. All my youth I ran 170mm crank, and I always felt they were too short. I later measured my inseam at 87 cm, and found out that Federico Bahamontès had the same and was running 175mm, so I got 175s for myself, and things were much better from then on. And that's what I've been running ever since. And I have no problem spinning at over 100 RPM, indoors and outdoors and don't feel anything wrong at my hips. I wish I could try 177,5 & 180s without having to buy them, just to see how it feels. In a old GCN video, Simon Richardson shows 2 methods to calculate the appropriate crank length, and for 87cm legs, they both come 173,75 mm cranks, smack dab in the middle between 172,5 and 175 ! And Neil Stanbury, in the RCA videos, says that if you want to test, test with a big difference, because if you test by changing only 2,5 mm, you might not even notice the difference !
I experimented with everything from 165 up to 175. What I found was that as the cranks got shorter I found myself riding increasingly higher cadence as I was simply changing gear to compensate for a reduction in leverage. At the small end of the spectrum I found that this made it slightly more difficult to change pace quickly, however easier to hold a steady power output for longer. The feeling James mentions of “spilling over the front of the bike” certainly seems spot on. On the longer end of the spectrum it simply became uncomfortable as I started to rock a bit on the saddle as pointed out, but also when trying to get lower on the front of the bike, my knees felt like they were wanting to start hitting my chest. (closed off hip angle) For reference, I’m 6ft tall, longer torso than legs, but my femurs are relatively long and my tibias relatively short. The other consideration I’d say is that depending on the bike, I’d be happy with different crank lengths. For a TT bike I’d insist on no longer than a 170 mm crank. If I were buying a bike only to climb with, with a slightly relaxed geometry compared to say an Aero bike, I’d be curious to try 175 again. I’ve settled on 172.5 now. However no matter how much I think about all of this I wonder if cassette selection plays a part as well.
Interesting, as I’m 183cm tall and have been on 165mm cranks for years on all my bikes and 100% it’s magic on my TT bike and mountain bike but I have noticed I’m a little off the accelerations required for when I’m in a road or crit race so might go up to 170mm for my road bike
While it *might* be useful to change gearing slightly with big crank length changes, that's putting the cart before the horse. First one needs to determine crank length, then adjust gearing if necessary. FWIW, I'm ~178cm tall, have a saddle height around 745mm, and have tried cranks between 165 and 180mm over the years. I hated the 180s, could tolerate 178 (just) and 175 on MTBs, but find anything with a freewheel works better for me with 172.5. 170 is better on fixed (for descending), and for me 165 felt inefficient, and I'm a spinner. As James said, people vary and need individual evaluation and/or experimentation.
@@stephenpoole6015 It sounds like we’re similar size. Your experience pretty much matches mine. I agree with you on gearing, crank length should be considered before gearing. I suppose it’s just a bit strange as no one mentions the interplay between the two. I understand that’s largely because the two shouldn’t be used as a supplement for one another, but it’s still a part of the equation.
I have a fat tyred e bike with 170mm cranks and I feel at 5ft 10 and an inseam of 33-34 they are too long. My knees on the top stroke are way too high and it's uncomfortable on my knees and hips. I want to go down to about a 150mm crank but don't know if that might be too big a leap. I just want to be comfortable riding and at the moment I'm not.
I’m 68 yo, 5’ 9” with an inseam 31”. I’ve been riding for 50 years. I currently ride a 54 cm gravel bike with 172.5 cranks. I’m perfectly comfortable on my bike. No issues! In this case would you take an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it attitude? I’ve ridden everything from a 165 on the track to a 175 on my road bike in my early days because that’s what Greg Lemonde rode. 😂 I like the little extra length on my gravel bike for the leverage on the the steeper hills you find on gravel trails. The only real issue I have on my bike is that I really don’t want to do 100 mile rides anymore. 50 is enough! I really like the bike fit videos. I’ve made adjustments to my position over the years from the content of these videos.
It ain't broke by what you say.. Why meddle ? I'm 5.9 1/2 (31.6 inseam) 172.5 cranks. No issues. If your pedal style is fluid stick with what you have. FYI my avg cadence on most rides is 85rpm which I consider a sweetspot and my pedalling is fluid with a neutral ankle.
It's partially personal preference even at the pro level. Some guys like smaller cranks they spin up and some guys like lots of leverage. I'd say there is a range that works vs a "right size" for everyone.
There is A SUPER EASY WAY to find out which crank lenght is right for you. Get tested. Find a bike shop with a size cycle + power meter. Have them set up the size cycle to match your bike. Then do a series of tests with different cranks. I had this done. I tested 175, 177.5 and 180 cranks. After a 30 minute warm up, I did 5 minute steady power hold for each crank length. I found my heart rate was 10 beats lower on the 180. I.e. for the same effort, my heart rate was 10 beats lower using 180 cranks vs 175 cranks. (Note, I have a 38" inseam). I now have 180 cranks on all my bikes.
I must be sipping a good cup of coffee this morning because I pretty much understood most of what James was saying. And usually, his explanations fly right over my head, lol. But I can always rewind and watch again and so I do. And at six-feet exactly, I mostly ride 170s as the sure and steady same ol' same ol', no worries and no problems, tho' I do have a sweet Campagnolo 175 NOS triple ready for my commuter once I get around to buying a new eight-speed cassette--root root for the old school--and I'm looking forward to giving that a go, if only to see what's what with it. And I went from my childhood Sting-Ray to a new BMX bike in '76--a CYC Stormer with Skyway wheels--and talk about long cranks, that bad boy must've had one-piece 180s, they were enormous compared to Schwinn cranks. But BMX races were drag races to the first turn and jumbo cranks were evidently the thing--and I didn't personally experience that as I had mail-ordered the bike in West Germany and didn't compete in BMX races until '79 just for kicks as a 19/20 year old in California. But I rode my CYC BMX bike all over Frankfurt, always standing on the pedals as it was too small for seated pedaling and I quickly grew to like those long cranks for that and, even now, I enjoy getting out of the saddle on my commuter to lay the power down up a rise or hill and I figure that goes back to always standing on the gas on that BMX bike. And I also had a Rixie ten-speed from the Kaufhof in Frankfurt and it was good for commuting to school through the downtown streets and chasing mopeds en route. 😀
Very good video! I was surprised when people claimed to feel different crank lengths when the differences were so small. Then I experienced it myself. I found 175mm very uncomfortable. I haven't found my lower limit. As an experiment, I built one of my bikes with 155mm cranks, and it is a bit strange but not at all uncomfortable. I'm 5'8" tall. Most of my cranks are 170mm which is fine, but I would not mind them to be shorter.
I’m 6-3 1/2” 35” inseam, rode predominantly 175 my whole biking career. I really think it’s also about the type of bike you ride. Ripmo 175 cranks, Spire 165 cranks, I prefer the 165’s and I would have never thought that to be the case. Less leg soreness etc. after the ride, less pedal strikes during the ride. May have something to do with the 12 speed single ring setups also making 165 more effective and efficient on the climbing.🤷🏼♂️
My big-brand-name bike came with a 175mm crank, for a size 47 frame (smallest women size)... Nowadays, manufacturers just put on whatever they have laying around, that's it 🤷♂
im 5'5" and suffering knee pain on 175s rn lol its amazing that a small womens bike with 26" inch wheels comes with such long cranks its horrible i spent so long messing with my seat height and reducing my gearing but nothing ever stops the knee pain, no bike fit videos i ever looked at even mentioned crank length i hope shorter cranks does become a trend because theres probably alot of other short riders like my suffering knee pain and not knowing why
Yes the best crank design I ever owned was Look ZED that had a triangle threaded nut that you could remove and rotate 130 degrees to switch between 170/172.5/175 so could change depending on ride discipline like TT vs. climbing
Miguel Indurái (1.86 metres tall ) famously rode 180 cm cranks, as did Marc Madiot (1.79 metres ) and Marco Pantani (1.72 m ) ... They all on a few races so that worked out fine for them, so everyone is different...
There is a mathematical formula for crank length. It is 20% of inseam length. While not perfect based on where your knee is in that equation, it works very well and is a good starting point. I have a 31" inseam.According to the formula 165mm is a tiny bit long. For me 165mm works perfectly.I do not think I want to go shorter. However I would rather go shorter to the prescribed length than back to 172.5 mm.
shorten the cranks , saddle needs to be raised and moved back slightly , shorter stem required. The answer is a shallower seat tube angle , therefore manufacturers need to change frames depending on frame size , more than they currently do
Very nice and timely. I've been haunted ever since I heard from some guys I might need shorter cranks. There's also how longer cranks than is your more optimal range nets you lower cadence. Maybe I'm not a masher at all and I just need shorter cranks on my bike.
110% agree. i've tried various crank arms over the years and to cut to the chase. i think what you said is spot on. only thing to add is on MTB, depending on what you ride, i have found slightly shorter is good. my road size is 172.5 but i prefer 170 on MTB over the common 175. less binding, you run a lower saddle height than road even at extension. less rock strikes
I'm an odd build. 191cm with a 32.5" inseam. Massive torso. I always ran 175mm crank arms for years. Shifted down to 160mm recently and already notice less knee and hip pain as well as less bounce in the saddle. It became the most noticeable on the dually where i'm in a 46-51t low gear.
Lots of great information but a little tuff to figure out what I should really be using. Thanks for the video. I can tell you really care about the riders
Great video., thanks so much! Biggest problem are imo kids'/youths' bikes, so many come with standard 170-175mm cranks because a) cheap mass components and b) just because 28" wheels fit, it seems - in marketeers' eyes - to need medium length cranks. I found it quite tough to get reasonably priced low q-factor cranks at max. 155mm. (FSA Gossamer Pro in 46/30 are a positive example.)
These videos, and my own experience, remind me how the bike industry has over-sized everything. I am 6ft 2 (1.92) and I used to ride a 56 with 170 cranks, changed to a 60 with 175 cranks as it was supposed to fit me and it has been terrible for my power output.
I am 5 foot 9 / 175cm tall and for me, I found 160mm (105 R7000 Cranks) my favourite and I never had the feeling of 'falling over the bike'. I increased my setback by about 3mm, and increased the saddle height by 1cm. It felt really good and never once looked back to my trying old 170mm cranks. Weight distribution felt the same to me and pedalling felt way much smoother on the 160s.
Ding, Ding, Ding! We have a winner!. If you shorten the cranks then move the saddle up and back to compensate so that the powerstroke is in the same place and then shorten and raise the stem as well so that the torso and arms are at the same angles. Simple geometry.
@@oldanslo opposite for me, I went lower and slammed my stem. 😂 With the 160s I felt like I can roll my hips alot further down much easier than with the 170s. I also swapped to a SMP Composit saddle. Feels really good!
As a (still growing) 6’+ kid, I preferred/was steered toward 165mm. In my 30s, I switched to 170mm simply because it became almost impossible to find 165mm at that time. At 6’ 4”, I still think about how much better it might feel to go back to 165mm. Besides, the longer the crank, the lower I am on the bike, and I do not like that
I'm 1640mm height with 782mm inseam. I started with 165mm Shimano and when 105 R7000 came in 160mm, I took to it. It is was better but I was looking to spin with close ration cassettes better (14-28). Then came 155mm which I find the most comfortable. I find the pedal technique of pushing forward, down, scrapping mud was easier on the 155mm. High cadence, results in consistent changing of gears. My bikes are usually XS or S depending on the make and model..
I’ve a M/L Merida and I’m 178cm. I went from 172.5 to 177.5 and it’s the best switch I’ve made. I’ve no more knee pain and my average speed is up too. Much more comfortable for me.
For me on a TT switching from 172.5 to 165 was an amazing update. It's SO much better. I am trying it now on my road bike, however out of the saddle it feels a bit weird. Not 100% sure if that will become familiar at any point. I am 176cm, rather flexible and ride very aggressive positions, also for ultra distance races. On the TT bike it really changed a lot for me and if there's problems with hip angle i can only reccomend trying it.
From my experience going from 175 to 172.5 means I can comfortable pedal at a higher cadence, without feeling like I'm bouncing around. Esp my right hip starts to cramp up a bit as well then. This also seems to correlate quite closely with me needing to take a bit of a wider stance to squat low, or my right hip has a habit of cramping up. That's on an L frame (but I could also fit on a large ML with a longer stem).
I'm 192cm. After many years of riding 175mm I have been riding 170mm for about 3 years and can't say a bad word about 170mm. Less stress on my knees and slightly higher cadence. Now got a a bike factory fitted with 175mm crank. Once it wears, I'mgonna get a shorter crank
I'm no expert but as a 5'2 Asian guy I could have told the bike industry cranks were too long about 40 yrs ago.. lol I rode a bmx since around age 7 and then when i got tall enough (broke 5 feet) my dad got me a huffy 10sp in 1982 when I turned 12ry old. Even though it was the smallest size it was still kind of big for me but with the seat and stem slammed I could manage it. However, due to the long stock crank I was having trouble with the pedal stroke, so my dad, the Korean Mcgyuver that he is, had the brilliant idea to take cranks off an old kid's bmx and swap it onto the huffy 10sp. Not sure the length, maybe 150-155, but man, after that I was flying , beating every kid in the neighborhood and then some. Overnight I became the Asian sensation with my 10sp and short cranks. After that even into adulthood, I've always got cranks off kids bmx and put them on my mtb since you literally couldn't find short cranks before online shopping. Fortunately the industry finally realized there are plenty of us short guys who bike (just think Asians.. lol) and have started offering aftermarket cranks. But what gets me is why the major brands still don't offer shorter stock cranks on 'S' sized bikes. My most recent purchase was a Cannondale Trail 4 size 'S' in 2020 and only comes in a 170. They're so fixated on progressive geometry, stack height, reach, this n that angles, but they seemed to have forgotten one very crucial factor.
My 54 sized superbike (wilier zero slr) came with 175mm cranks. I have a long torso and short legs (81cm inseam) i went down to 165mm and it is day and night for me. More power, better position, better cadence, better everything. I will never buy anything longer. Ps: i ride 5000km a year painfree.
Dura ace-Shimano use to make a crank set where they made a drop peddle with a larger peddle hole in the crank, where the ball of your foot was in the centre of the axel point. this came about 5 years before the mechanical LOOK lock peddles, when we use to use toe clips and toe straps. sadly with the complex cleat peddles and mechanism, we lost this short period of technology where we gain a drop of 5mm on the pedals. the peddle was rather thin as a solid aerodynamic triangle. thus your getting the 5mm on even on a slightly shorter crank, and less likely for the peddle to bottom out on a a corner or rock. but there also might have been a smoother peddling motion, that might have been also good for the knees.
I have a recurring dream where I flew 10,935 km to get a bike fit from James, have a frame made by Rob Quirk, purchase all the Attacus jersey and bib sets and go on a bike ride with Francis Cade.
I rode for a few years with a 170mm drive side and 165mm non drive side stages power meter by mistake and didn't notice it until I did some maintenance one day. Luckily I didn't end up with any problems but I did buy a new 170mm power meter crank arm.
I'm 5'6" now (shrunk an inch at 54!), but with an inside leg of 33"...both road bikes are 170mm cranks, and I like a cadence of 95-100, I've also an E-MTB which I swapped out the 170's for 160 mm cranks and it's brilliant at that length for turbo spinning up technical climbs(reduces pedal striking too with a low slung (effective) BB height.... )I've also got a scrapper of a rigid steel 26" MTB tourer which has 175mm cranks and I get no issues riding it up to 100km a day loaded up.... I guess my leg length could be on someone a lot taller so goes to show that a standard height measurement is no use whatsoever- the torso/leg ratio will be a determining factor
Coming from a sports science perspective, i cant help but look at it from the viewpoint of what works best performance-wise for the individual. For me personally, for example, i would sit outside of your recommendations (which isnt a criticism by the way), in that i am 173cm without shoes and cleats, yet i religiously ride 175mm cranks on my road bike. I have tried 172.5mm cranks on 2 separate bikes (one relatively budget bike, and one high spec aero bike) with approx a 2 year gap between them and on both occasions i have really struggled with the shorter cranks. From almost all angles i find that my numbers are worse on the shorter cranks. To keep the same wattage it obviously means either increasing cadence, or, increasing torque/force output per revolution, with the former raising my heart rate by approx 5bpm at the same wattage (my normal cadence on 175mm is between 82-86 rpm, whereas on 172.5mm cranks my rpm is usually above 90-92rpm which makes sense, but the increase in physical effort is noticeable), or, with the latter causing an even greater increase in HR, an increase in blood lactate accumulation, an increase in energy expenditure and oxygen consumption and an increased percieved exertion. I also find from a pedalling technique perspective (and this is probably more of a criticism on "me" rather than the cranks) that i am far too "snatchy" on the 172.5mm cranks. I dont know if this is just a "creature of habit" type thing in that i have always ridden on 175mm cranks so anything else feels odd maybe. I have not been able to try 170mm or shorter out on the road at least but i have given it a go in a lab and yes, it feels more comfy around the front of the hips, but having said that i dont ever get any hip or knee issues on 175mm cranks. So from my personal perspective, the 175mm cranks provide me with more efficient numbers physiologically even though i am relatively short of that length of crank. Completely personal preference, but it is interesting to compare that to what is considered more "normal". I don't think either view point is right or wrong as long as comfort is not compromised, and performance is maintained/optimised. There is always going to be an odd-ball...just seems that in this case, its me 😂
I have a 92cm inseam and use 175mm cranks on all my bikes (except my fixed gear, which uses 165mm cranks because of ground clearance) so I guess I'm golden
Mine's longer than yours LOL I appreciate all the videos you're not only helping me adjust so to say you're also helping me learn I'm a very fast learner I build my own stuff frame up again thanks so much
There are two parts to the bike industry. There is the part that interacts with individuals and tries to satisfy their needs (James and any other good bike fitter). Then there is the part of the bike industry that focuses on the bottom line. I don’t want to name names, but one large company Specializes in targeting only the big lump in the middle of the bell curve. A few years ago they stopped making women’s shoes and bikes, not because women don’t ride, but because they could hit 80% of the market without women’s specific equipment. Good fitters will always struggle with this issue, big companies will always view the ends of the bell curve as a waste of time.
I'm 5'7" with 29" inseams (qualifies as short in Canada) with that sedentary IT guy lifestyle, both my Gravel Bike and Road Bike came with 172.5's, which I've always found a bit uncomfortable compared to the 170's on my MTB (that knee pain issue comes to mind). My bike shop suggested I try 165's, I broke down and put 170's on my roadie and 165's on the gravel this past April, and I have to say I like the 170's the best. Even just a small change made a difference in comfort and I prefer the additional amount of leverage on the 170's over the 165's, where the 165's I get that spillover feeling mentioned in this video. I'll probably switch those cranks out again before the season's out.
Wow, this is one of the few videos that actually acknowledges that some people might be better off with long cranks. I'm always really annoyed every time someone mentions crank length, it's invariably in the context of "your cranks are probably too long", and if you're one of the few people who is above average, There's an optimum length for everyone, and it flatlines when you're tall enough to ride a large. Short cranks are better, because they'll let you use a faster cadence. Never mind that I already ride with a very fast cadence on my 180mm (peaking around 140 RPM when I sprint). I'm 6'4" with long legs for my height. Spot on, with the falling over the front of the bike, or at least having way too much weight on my hands. I also find that my knees sometimes hurt a bit when I sprint on one of my bikes with 175mm, I think because I end up pushing too far in the stroke and not doing anything but flexing the frame (more force required to do the same work at the same rpm) The 180mm on my other bike are an improvement. Like your example rider, I had to buy a rotor 3d+ crank with my power meter, because it was the only crank they offered in 180mm, and I wanted to try longer cranks. I'm in the process of building a bike with some 190mm cranks from profile racing. Not for the weight weenies, since they're heavy-ass chromoly bmx cranks with a spider to fit a 130BCD chainring, but I'm looking forward to giving it a go. It would be _really_ nice, if I could just go buy a $150 crankset in a size that fits me, or even have a good way to try one for a few good rides to see if it's right before spending big $ on a guess.
Id love an MTB version of this as I feel that MTB companies are trying to convince consumers that are your cranks are too long for our super low BB's so go an buy super short crank!! buy more stuff!!
I'm 5'5 and I'm on 175mm cranks. I sprint but when I'm on an aero position, my knees always hit my stomach and it makes it harder to breathe. I think a 165 would suit me perfectly since the 175 is already too long for me.
everyone told me I wouldn't notice changing from 175mm to 170mm cranks and that I probably needed the biggest size possible because I'm tall. Nothing further from the truth, the 170mm cranks took away the knee pain in long rides
Really enjoy those bike fit videos. One thing i would be interested in, is the comparability of those results to a full squish mtb. I guess it's less of a problem with an xc bike, but e.g. an enduro bike with 160 mm front and rear suspension travel will be probably harder to compare.
I ride a 54cm bike with 160mm shimano 105 cranks. I have no issues and going any shorter is pretty much out of my range as 160-165 is as small as the big guys normally go
Back in the '60s I was told that your crank should be one-half the length of your femur. That made sense so I measured my femur. I came away with the conclusion that measuring the femur without removing it is impossible. I'm six feet and have been riding 175s for ever. I decided to try 177s. It was horrible! One thing I've always wondered is if one leg is shorter should the crank on that side also be shorter. Thanks for the excellent video. You need to save up your egg cartons and glue them to the ceiling to improve the sound.
I'm 6 foot, 93kg and have a high power output and race alot of crits. I've been having pain in my right knee lately due to a dodgy meniscus. I have had a professional bike fit to no avail, still pain after racing(Not so much general rides) Went a 165mm Pair of cranks, down from 175 Spec'd with the bike in my size, and 8 races later, not one single bit of pain (after 1700+W Sprints)
Not mentioned is that raising the saddle height for a shorter crank adversly effects handling , so if your flexible enough to happily cope with a crank slightly long for your height, you should maybe stick with it.
Opposite of what is popular, longer cranks work better for me. 5'7" (171) and 170 or short bothers me. I have less knee pain with 172.5, no discomfort at all with 175. My enduro bike is 175, and it's wonderful. I do have a high level of fitness. I went to a popular bike fitter with a lot of references, and I left worse off than I entered.
Just watched an Interesting video on here re Pogacar's use of 165mm cranks and how they are better for the average rider than longer cranks. I used to use 170mm, cos that's what my Shimano 600 chainset came with, but moved to 172.5mm because perceived wisdom said it gave more power. As someone who can no longer ride at all, I wonder if this predicated my problems.
I would love to hear your thoughts on different crank length for different courses for example on long climbs and mountain races I like 172.5 because I feel as though I can spin a smaller gear easier. For crits and flat races 175 gives you the best explosive strength I also like them for TTs. IMHO
While Sugino had been eclipsed by Shimano in the 90s, Sugino still makes very nice cranksets and have bounced back since then. Not really an off the market brand/company.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
One thing I've learned from these videos/going to a bike fitter: the fastest bike is the one that fits you best. Thanks for breaking down some of these trends.
Great to see how much James cares about this stuff and making cycling inclusive for more people
James does rock and roll every time, his passion and expertise are truly commendable and one of these days I'd like to visit his shop as a paying customer. And James always reminds me of Heath Ledger who, in the movie Lords of Dogtown, did a great job portraying the surf shop owner who created a famous game-changing Southern California skateboard team in the Seventies.
Height doesn't make you inclusive it makes you short or tall
Hi, your comment about functionality of the rider is, of course, spot on. I'm 6'2", 35" inseam. My bikes come with 175s. I started with 170s 9 years ago, 165s 5 years ago. But the first crank I could pedal efficiently (round, steady pedal stroke) was 155, which I put on 3 years ago. My acceleration, speed and endurance improved 50%. I climbed everything 4 gears harder, and doubled my daily mileage over a few months. I've been riding since the 1970s. I have about 1500 hours on 155, 140, 130, 137 and now 145. My useful powerband on 165+ runs from 65rpm to about 90. My useful powerband on 145s runs from 50rpm to 100+. I can pedal as hard as I want without cramping, for hours. I size cranks by powerband, the same way a motocrosser is sized: A 450 is all bottom end, a 125 is all top end. 155s are like a big bore dirt bike, 135s like a 125. And the 155-135 range, for me, are the only ridable sizes. Thanks for all of your work, it's really helpful!
I’m basically the same measurements. 34” inseam though. Dealing with knee pain and hip impingement. Very excited to try 165 mm cranks over my 172.5
Wow! 155 mm for that inseam is very short! I'll have to get a modern bike fit to see what's right for me. I'd assumed I should drop to 165 mm and that's what one web site says. I did love my Specialized Steel Langster which came with shortish cranks but I gave it away in the first lockdown to someone who needed a bike to get to work and I'd had a massive heart attack
I’ve learned so much from these videos. I’m 5”4 with 28 in inseam. I road 165 cranks for many years. Despite three different fittings, I could not get rid of low back pain, knee pain, and some subtle bouncing on the saddle at 90+ RPM’s. I ordered Ultegra 160 crankset. I waited 8 months for the crankset. Once installed, at least 90% of my back pain is gone and no bouncing on the saddle. Knee pain reduced similarly as well. The shortened cranks helped with what I’m pretty certain is a right hip impingement. Short, appropriate cranks have helped with all of this.
keep going! it sounds like you found relief. I had hip surgery supposedly for impingement and it did not go well. Don't take nasty meds or get surgery if you can avoid it!
I may have to try this. I havent had any pain yet. but we are the same size.
@@Fliegercantfly cycling, for us enthusiasts, should be centered around comfort. If not having pain, I’d recommend keeping your current setup. I went this route only out of necessity. Plus it cost me 350$ and long back order wait to get a Shimano 160 crankset with 50/34 compact gearing. While this has helped a ton, I need to do more off-bike, isolateral work to even out asymmetrical muscle groups and compensatory patterns I developed. So, cost is one downside. Sprinting or jumping out of the saddle is another downside, less leverage to apply power via crank arms, higher rpm to get up top end speed. Spinning “out” much more than previously. Better for climbing which is a positive. Just my take tho. Pain free riding is the best. Good for my situation. 👌🏾
Good my brother I’m 5.4 to I’m going to order the shimano 160mm my road bike came with 170mm it’s to long and same here back pain to thank you 🙏 for the tip
Could you share where you bought the 160mm crank? I can’t find any online. Thank you
I’m 178cm and ride 165mm cranks. I’m much happier with this. No knee pain - but was reluctant to change initially. So I think this shows the value of a good fitting. This has overcome major knee issues.
180 all the way for me ......... lots of leverage .............
@@budbud2509 how tall are you though? leverage can also mean added torque on the knee joints
I've been plagued by knee pain (OsteoArthritis). I'm also 178 so I'm gonna investigate this a little bit more, maybe 165s are in my future.
@@budbud2509 lol just ride a bigger gear
Interesting. I'm 175 cm and dropped cranks from 175 mm to 170... No knee issues, but simply felt like I'm tossing my legs forward and back just to make a full circle.
Thank you for commenting on this subject.
Crank length looks simple for many, but I find it to be very complex and relative.
87,5leg inseam, 1,82 height. I’ve been riding 175 and 172,5 when I was 15 years younger, fairly competitive.
Now, with less hip mobility and plenty of hours sitting on a chair, I have been using 165mm indoors for two years, and somehow helped at first instance to open the angle of the knee, but it does not necessarily mean it will allow to handle more torque.
Recently I’m back to ride more and more outdoors and I notice that having short cranks it makes the bike way less stable when standing with harder gears. I can’t pull the pedals back in the same way I used with 175-172,5, and it’s harder to stabilize feet and activate glutes or hamstrings properly. Too short I guess. It is very tricky to switch from 175 to 165mm for example, and what I thought would be an advantage, lately it became handicap. Ideally, in my opinion regarding what I have learn testing different cranks, I would not move anything on the fit at first instance, specially for riders who are very sensitive and have round pedaling form.
Personally , when changing cranks, I would prefer to keep same fit and keep BB within the same pedaling spot, so we are just simply reducing the circular movement, which already is a big change. Then apply tiny adjustments
Personal reference, biggest crank possible according to individual’s measurements, and be able to handle high cadence when needed. A proper fit with 172-175 , to me it should allow a big range of cadence, and allowing to apply big torque at the same time, with higher torque when necessary, which somehow I do not find productive having short cranks.
Yes with 1cm shorter cranks you can raise the saddle by one cm, and you get the same leg extension, and you also feel like wow! “I feel like I was raising the saddle 2cm with my old 175mm cranks”…. “Now I feel more strong sitting in the saddle”… “Now I feel I can give it more torque”… well it probably allows to apply more torque by opening the knee angle at the top of the stroke, but more torque you will need to move the same gears which at the end affects your knee in a different way. Also, switching to 1cm shorter cranks, it changes the setback by 1 cm, but if you move saddle backwards by 1cm to compensate then the leg which is placed backwards when crank is in horizontal position, feels like you have moved the saddle 2cm backwards, so you can’t pull the pedals back the same way you was able to do it before, so with a tiny change on the saddle setback and height, the dynamics of the pedaling stroke might change radically
A tiny less than the biggest crank I can ride comfortably, will be my next choice. Back to 172,5. It is very relative and it depends on each individual .
Wow… what a mess
I'm 2m tall - and have a custom built Zinn cycle that has 210mm cranks. Lennard Zinn designs his bike around proportional crank length and specialises in bikes for tall and short riders. Complete game changer for me. When I got this bike I jumped two groups in the local racing I was doing and that year got the most improved rider award - because I just improved so much - and it was all due to the bike and position. Zinn Cycles has custom-length cranks for sale. My mountain bike has 175mm cranks and I don't have a problem going back and forwards between the two. My TT bike has 172.5 and I think that's too short for me. But I'm experimenting with what I can do there (I only ever ride flat TT's). But my road bike with my 210mm cranks just lets me get over the top of gears that I couldn't before. Means I can hang on on small rises that used to spit me out the back of the group.
Your definitely a tall fellow
I run 180mm cranks at 6'3 with a 36.5 inch inseam. Works great. I checked out Zinns stuff before making the switch.
6 ft tall. Previously rode 177.5 cranks. Traded that bike. Can’t find that size now.
I am 6‘7“ and recently bought a 177,5 9200 dura ace crank. Best decision for a long time, especially climbing out of the saddle feels so much more natural.
Unfortunately not available for lower tier groupsets
I ride 172.5 dura ace on my road bike and 165 on my fixed gear and I would definitely shorten my road cranks if they weren't so damn expensive and I have a power meter in the spider which is another road block. Awesome video!
In the past though, crank length seemed to correspond to the rider's style, their peddling, and where they liked to sit on the bike. I'm 5'7-5'8 and I should be on 160-170mm cranks, but I hate the spinning feeling of a crank shorter than 170. In fact, 170 bothers me somewhat because of the smaller circle I have to pedal, which is usually the selling point. I peddle with a classic heel drop before reaching the top of my stroke, I can't stand the lack of leverage with anything smaller than 172.5. Also I find that a shorter crank makes me feel like I'm on top of the bike, which really changes the handling, I like the feeling of sitting inside the bike's cock-pit, which feels more responsive, which is where slightly longer cranks put you. I find a medium-long crank, 172.5, to be the sweetspot for a heel drop peddling style, which usually corresponds with a slightly lower saddle and more set-back. Also road bikes seem to come with higher bottom brackets than they used to, so a shorter cranks seems to put the rider extremely high up on a medium sized and up bike.
Yup. As someone who is has odd body measurements, I'm 5'7 but have a very short inseam, my 170mm cranks are too long (on a Small sized bike) for me. So after a bike fit (at Bicycle 😉 although not with James, but his equally capable staff of fitters), a 165mm helped a lot with my cadence and power and a lot smoother pedalling motion than before.
Same with me. I luckily fit on the 48cm Cervelo Caledonia standing 5'6" and that bike came with the 165mm. Way better feel. If I went to the 51cm bike, I would have 170mm which based on my last bike fit are too long for me. The bike industry needs to give people options.
@@grantmcalpine6364 yeah, wished manufacturers offered more options. Ribble do allow some changes to the component sizes. I think Obea does as well. But you won't get the full spectrum of sizes of the components. But definitely they should allow Crank lengh and handlebar width changes of the most popular sizes.
good to know, i'm 5ft 7" too!
@@allyp7 that is my overall height, but you might have longer legs, more flexibility, etc. So even though a 165mm works for me, it may be too short for you and a 170mm would be better. I'd recommend you have a bike fit first if you can before buying a new crankset.
@@allyp7 th-cam.com/users/shortsQKxeOe3Tsa8?feature=share 😉
I had a bike fitting with James a few days ago off the back of this channel (cannot recommend going to see him enough by the way). I feel I almost could have inspired todays topic! I'm a 5'7" male new to road riding. I was having a lot of issues based off the fact my right hip was so tight and I was struggling to get my body comfortable. After James worked his magic on 100 other things (which all helped)...we ended up going down to 155mm cranks and that totally sorted any issues with my hip. As the video says it's all about what YOUR body needs not some study on professional athletes. Do yourself a favour and go see him!
Hello, whats is your inseam in cm?. Thanks 👍
@@WECR hi sorry I dont actually know. James took all the mesurements and I just trusted what he said
@AJ XOXO if you didn't read my first comment fully - i went to James and got fit in person - I had zero input in any of the specs as I have no idea what i'm doing. James is a seasoned professional fitter and someone I trust 100%. He is the one who chose 155mm for me. I don't know the technicalities of it - but we tried ALL crank lengths from 180mm down to 155mm and it was only at 155mm that my right hip stopped being painful and I was able to up my max watts and comfort on the bike. If you are wondering about your own setup - I can only suggest going to see someone as knowledgeable as james and finding out for yourself. *the whole point of a fitting with an expert like James is to get away from comments like yours of "you're 5'7" so 165mm will be about right". It clearly wasn't right for me at all. There are no setups that should be of any concern to you - other than the one that works for your own body.
@@tbGTR Thanks Men 👍👍
I tried 165mm and I absolutely did get the feeling of falling off the front. James definitely speaks a lot of sense and I like how he isn't sensational about one particular type of trend i.e short cranks. In the end I had to move back to 175mm cranks. As someone 5'9 with a relatively long inseam even 170mm was too short.
Did you move your saddle up and back to compensate for the shorter cranks?
@@oldanslo yeah I have no clue what James is referring to when he talks about falling off the front. Maybe he positions the saddle strictly relative to the bottom bracket instead of the pedal when it's at the 3 o clock position? But that's an amateur mistake...
Funny l relate falling off the front to not being able to keep up speed. Definitely how l felt with shorter cranks.
Lol I am 6 foot 1 and use 165. Don't manlet cope on cranks get short ones.
This isn’t a Tuesday and you are in the US. So much movie magic.
@@Macuhdohnadadoh o.O it's not Tuesday it's good Ole Monday lol
@@Macuhdohnadadoh it’s not, but it will be tomorrow (depending on when you’re reading this)
@@BobShurunkle it’s still not Tuesday in the US.
Have a size 51 Look 765 , came with 175 Ultegra... I'm only 5'5. Besides me having to sort this out, these brands need to get on the ball
I'm 188 cm (6'2) and on my old XC bike I have 175mm cranks and I always felt like pedaling circle is too large and my comfortable cadence was 70-80 rpm, so on my new road bike I went for 165mm cranks. I feel no difference comfort vise, but now I can go ~90 rpm consistently, higher rpm reduces pressure on my knees and shorter cranks allows more comfortable low aero position.
Same here in terms of cadence and benefits that you describe, except I went from 170 - 165. It also made my pedal stroke smoother - on the longer cranks I was doing too much work on the downstroke and not enough on the up - the thing about opening up the hips has definitely helped for me. It also reduces toe overlap as well. Really happy with the switch.
"Aero" pls noooo😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣😂😂🤣🤣🤣
Same height. Was on 175, but switched to 172.5 when Ingot new Ultegra. As you’d expect, the difference is slight, but it feels better. I’m generally in the 90s for cadence.
Im nearly 5’11”. Always felt something was wrong. I went from 175 to 170. Better. I reinjured my surgically operated knee and decided to try 165-way better still!
As a shorter guy, I replaced my cranks with 165mm what an improvement. I wish I could have found 160. What REALLY ticks me off is that even when factory ordering very high end bikes. It is almost always impossible to choose crank length. I have been looking at several bikes with Ultegra range groupset I can choose stem length, handlebar width.. different seat options, wheel options... But the basic option of choosing the correct crank length doesn't exist...
Search in sugino and appleman
Think TA might do 160
Appleman it's the niche product for custom cranks and Sugino makes shorter cranks only for square bottom brackets
5'7'' (barely), 30" inseam and my 54cm touring bike came with 175mm cranks. My two most recent rides (60mi and 70mi) gave me terrible knee pain and I've been going down this crank length rabbit hole. Pretty much the exact situation you described at 3:20. Ordering a 170mm crankset once they are back in stock (all my other bikes are 170mm, never had knee pain). Thanks guys!
The day I have the disposable income to get a bike fit, I definitely will. It would be an absolute pleasure to meet James, the knowledge plus the personality, brilliant👌🏽
Living in Taiwan, I easily got a Croder(MIT) crankset. Had been using a 140mm one (I do have severe hip impingement (checked)) for a while and felt awesome with it. Average 95 rpm rather than 75 with a 165mm. However, 1. It may be that the two bottom bracket holes have a bad concentricity (giant TCR advanced 2016) that the spindle had significantly different wear 180°-ly. Or 2. the spindle is not made with good enough tolerance or hard enough material (howbeit it says 7075 T6, hence may not be the problem) that the non drive side crank came up with a teeny tiny gap which ended up creeking. I've changed to a 150mm gossamer pro from FSA.
My GF had a BikeFit with James. 5'2'' on a 48cm bike. Now riding 155mm Cranks along with 0mm set back seat post, narrower bars and shorter stem. She's now able to ride with normal saddles and has zero discomfort on the bike.
she does however now spin those pedals like crazy with average cadence being 90+. So had to change her compact chainrings for subcompact (48/32) as she found herself riding cross chained on the flat with only 1 or 2 gears to go before having to drop to the inner chainring.
Why the change to 0mm set back? I ride 50cm and just switched to 160mm cranks. Thinking about tinkering with the setback/offset now?
@@mcat8970puts more over the cranks allowing better power transfer and shorten the reach of bike
Ive been absolutely binge watching all of your stuff and i got a bike a few weeks back and loving it so much thanks for making high quality videos love it
I'm 186cm with 94cm inseam. Moved to 165mm and it's a significant improvement over 170. I don't have much hip mobility so it's good for me.
160mm 105s have worked out for me. Leg length and height aren't the only key variables. To indicate as much is straight up group-think defined.
The ratio of tibia to leg length was, for me, the determining factor.
BTW, TH-camr Peak Torque covered this from a mechanical engineering perspective over a year ago.
He finished with, "It's all about the needs of the individual." To accuse James of group think is hilarious.
@@glycyldi I do not think he was accusing James. He was accusing the bicycle industry.
Overall, a more sensible discussion of crank length than I've seen from many other sources on the internet. Shorter cranks seem to be the fad right now. They may well be an improvement for many people. Especially smaller riders who are constantly given the short end by the bike companies, although, in this case, the long crank.
Personally, I don't want to spin in tight circles. If that works for some folks, good on them. I suspect many riders are more affected by their choice of gear than their crank length. I see comments here about people improving their cadence speed by switching to shorter cranks. How about just shifting down one gear and training to spin at a higher cadence?
The other problem that I see with many cyclists seems to be this ingrained belief that they should always stay seated. Somewhere along the way I suspect that they were told that it was more aerodynamic and more efficient. It is also harder on your knees to have that tightly circumscribed motion without a break. Watch the pros. Even though they have trained to stay low and aero, when given the opportunity, they will take short breaks of standing on the pedals to stretch out the ham strings and glutes.
Best thing I did was moving from 175 to 165 for ultra distance. I am 5ft 11 and 175 was close to manufacturers recommended blah, but 165 was so very much more comfortable….. for me anyway.
Got a mix now of 172.5 and 170 on my road bikes. Had 175 for a while and that length worked nice for out of the saddle climbing. I find I'm liking the 170s more now
What is your inseam?
Another thing to consider is that there are a lot of us missing a leg and ridding with a prosthetic leg limits how far you can bend your knee due to all of the material. I'm 5'11" on a 56 frame and have to ride with 165mm. There are a lot more of us than people think.
1 point that wasn't made, is how to do a first estimate, before a fit, on the "probably" correct crank length for yourself.
All my youth I ran 170mm crank, and I always felt they were too short. I later measured my inseam at 87 cm, and found out that Federico Bahamontès had the same and was running 175mm, so I got 175s for myself, and things were much better from then on. And that's what I've been running ever since. And I have no problem spinning at over 100 RPM, indoors and outdoors and don't feel anything wrong at my hips. I wish I could try 177,5 & 180s without having to buy them, just to see how it feels.
In a old GCN video, Simon Richardson shows 2 methods to calculate the appropriate crank length, and for 87cm legs, they both come 173,75 mm cranks, smack dab in the middle between 172,5 and 175 ! And Neil Stanbury, in the RCA videos, says that if you want to test, test with a big difference, because if you test by changing only 2,5 mm, you might not even notice the difference !
6'1" here. Climbing bike, Pioneer PM DA 177.5. Crit bike, DA 175, Track bike SRM 170. Flat terrain-distance bike SRM DA 177.5. TT Bike, DA 180.
I experimented with everything from 165 up to 175. What I found was that as the cranks got shorter I found myself riding increasingly higher cadence as I was simply changing gear to compensate for a reduction in leverage. At the small end of the spectrum I found that this made it slightly more difficult to change pace quickly, however easier to hold a steady power output for longer. The feeling James mentions of “spilling over the front of the bike” certainly seems spot on. On the longer end of the spectrum it simply became uncomfortable as I started to rock a bit on the saddle as pointed out, but also when trying to get lower on the front of the bike, my knees felt like they were wanting to start hitting my chest. (closed off hip angle)
For reference, I’m 6ft tall, longer torso than legs, but my femurs are relatively long and my tibias relatively short.
The other consideration I’d say is that depending on the bike, I’d be happy with different crank lengths. For a TT bike I’d insist on no longer than a 170 mm crank. If I were buying a bike only to climb with, with a slightly relaxed geometry compared to say an Aero bike, I’d be curious to try 175 again.
I’ve settled on 172.5 now. However no matter how much I think about all of this I wonder if cassette selection plays a part as well.
Interesting, as I’m 183cm tall and have been on 165mm cranks for years on all my bikes and 100% it’s magic on my TT bike and mountain bike but I have noticed I’m a little off the accelerations required for when I’m in a road or crit race so might go up to 170mm for my road bike
While it *might* be useful to change gearing slightly with big crank length changes, that's putting the cart before the horse. First one needs to determine crank length, then adjust gearing if necessary.
FWIW, I'm ~178cm tall, have a saddle height around 745mm, and have tried cranks between 165 and 180mm over the years. I hated the 180s, could tolerate 178 (just) and 175 on MTBs, but find anything with a freewheel works better for me with 172.5. 170 is better on fixed (for descending), and for me 165 felt inefficient, and I'm a spinner. As James said, people vary and need individual evaluation and/or experimentation.
@@stephenpoole6015 It sounds like we’re similar size. Your experience pretty much matches mine. I agree with you on gearing, crank length should be considered before gearing. I suppose it’s just a bit strange as no one mentions the interplay between the two. I understand that’s largely because the two shouldn’t be used as a supplement for one another, but it’s still a part of the equation.
Great video, love the he is not driven to shorter cranks and is all about getting a great fit for the individual.
I moved from 165 Levo to 155. Lovely. Luxurious feeling. My knees and hips are SO HAPPY! 5’10”. Everything better.
I have a fat tyred e bike with 170mm cranks and I feel at 5ft 10 and an inseam of 33-34 they are too long. My knees on the top stroke are way too high and it's uncomfortable on my knees and hips. I want to go down to about a 150mm crank but don't know if that might be too big a leap. I just want to be comfortable riding and at the moment I'm not.
I’m 68 yo, 5’ 9” with an inseam 31”. I’ve been riding for 50 years. I currently ride a 54 cm gravel bike with 172.5 cranks. I’m perfectly comfortable on my bike. No issues! In this case would you take an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it attitude? I’ve ridden everything from a 165 on the track to a 175 on my road bike in my early days because that’s what Greg Lemonde rode. 😂 I like the little extra length on my gravel bike for the leverage on the the steeper hills you find on gravel trails. The only real issue I have on my bike is that I really don’t want to do 100 mile rides anymore. 50 is enough! I really like the bike fit videos. I’ve made adjustments to my position over the years from the content of these videos.
It ain't broke by what you say..
Why meddle ?
I'm 5.9 1/2 (31.6 inseam) 172.5
cranks. No issues.
If your pedal style is fluid stick with what you have.
FYI my avg cadence on most rides is 85rpm which I consider a sweetspot and my pedalling is fluid with a neutral ankle.
It's partially personal preference even at the pro level. Some guys like smaller cranks they spin up and some guys like lots of leverage. I'd say there is a range that works vs a "right size" for everyone.
Well do you guys live in a flat or hilly area
@@damonbonnett6983 I can ride 100k with 50m of climbing. Flat is an understatement.
There is A SUPER EASY WAY to find out which crank lenght is right for you. Get tested. Find a bike shop with a size cycle + power meter. Have them set up the size cycle to match your bike. Then do a series of tests with different cranks. I had this done. I tested 175, 177.5 and 180 cranks. After a 30 minute warm up, I did 5 minute steady power hold for each crank length. I found my heart rate was 10 beats lower on the 180. I.e. for the same effort, my heart rate was 10 beats lower using 180 cranks vs 175 cranks. (Note, I have a 38" inseam). I now have 180 cranks on all my bikes.
I must be sipping a good cup of coffee this morning because I pretty much understood most of what James was saying. And usually, his explanations fly right over my head, lol. But I can always rewind and watch again and so I do. And at six-feet exactly, I mostly ride 170s as the sure and steady same ol' same ol', no worries and no problems, tho' I do have a sweet Campagnolo 175 NOS triple ready for my commuter once I get around to buying a new eight-speed cassette--root root for the old school--and I'm looking forward to giving that a go, if only to see what's what with it. And I went from my childhood Sting-Ray to a new BMX bike in '76--a CYC Stormer with Skyway wheels--and talk about long cranks, that bad boy must've had one-piece 180s, they were enormous compared to Schwinn cranks. But BMX races were drag races to the first turn and jumbo cranks were evidently the thing--and I didn't personally experience that as I had mail-ordered the bike in West Germany and didn't compete in BMX races until '79 just for kicks as a 19/20 year old in California. But I rode my CYC BMX bike all over Frankfurt, always standing on the pedals as it was too small for seated pedaling and I quickly grew to like those long cranks for that and, even now, I enjoy getting out of the saddle on my commuter to lay the power down up a rise or hill and I figure that goes back to always standing on the gas on that BMX bike. And I also had a Rixie ten-speed from the Kaufhof in Frankfurt and it was good for commuting to school through the downtown streets and chasing mopeds en route. 😀
Very good video! I was surprised when people claimed to feel different crank lengths when the differences were so small. Then I experienced it myself. I found 175mm very uncomfortable. I haven't found my lower limit. As an experiment, I built one of my bikes with 155mm cranks, and it is a bit strange but not at all uncomfortable. I'm 5'8" tall. Most of my cranks are 170mm which is fine, but I would not mind them to be shorter.
I’m 6-3 1/2” 35” inseam, rode predominantly 175 my whole biking career. I really think it’s also about the type of bike you ride. Ripmo 175 cranks, Spire 165 cranks, I prefer the 165’s and I would have never thought that to be the case. Less leg soreness etc. after the ride, less pedal strikes during the ride. May have something to do with the 12 speed single ring setups also making 165 more effective and efficient on the climbing.🤷🏼♂️
Weird, we are same exact height and same exact inseam haha all legs baby
Plethora.....I plan to use this word more often and to express it with more vigor. Love it.
My big-brand-name bike came with a 175mm crank, for a size 47 frame (smallest women size)... Nowadays, manufacturers just put on whatever they have laying around, that's it 🤷♂
im 5'5" and suffering knee pain on 175s rn lol
its amazing that a small womens bike with 26" inch wheels comes with such long cranks its horrible
i spent so long messing with my seat height and reducing my gearing but nothing ever stops the knee pain, no bike fit videos i ever looked at even mentioned crank length
i hope shorter cranks does become a trend because theres probably alot of other short riders like my suffering knee pain and not knowing why
Yes the best crank design I ever owned was Look ZED that had a triangle threaded nut that you could remove and rotate 130 degrees to switch between 170/172.5/175 so could change depending on ride discipline like TT vs. climbing
Yes on the 695
I once bought a mis-boxed 175mm left side Stages from Sigma in a sale. Ran it with a 170mm right side crankset for a year until I noticed 🤣
oh man your poor body
Always good to see James rocking the finest Paul smith. the man has taste as well as knowledge. a combo most only dream of
Miguel Indurái (1.86 metres tall ) famously rode 180 cm cranks, as did Marc Madiot (1.79 metres ) and Marco Pantani (1.72 m ) ... They all on a few races so that worked out fine for them, so everyone is different...
No kidding everyone is different, that's the point of this video.
There is a mathematical formula for crank length. It is 20% of inseam length. While not perfect based on where your knee is in that equation, it works very well and is a good starting point. I have a 31" inseam.According to the formula 165mm is a tiny bit long. For me 165mm works perfectly.I do not think I want to go shorter. However I would rather go shorter to the prescribed length than back to 172.5 mm.
Been running 172.5mm cranks since the 80s, but aging and selection makes me consider 170s, especially for my 73mm bottom bracket bike.
shorten the cranks , saddle needs to be raised and moved back slightly , shorter stem required. The answer is a shallower seat tube angle , therefore manufacturers need to change frames depending on frame size , more than they currently do
Very nice and timely. I've been haunted ever since I heard from some guys I might need shorter cranks. There's also how longer cranks than is your more optimal range nets you lower cadence. Maybe I'm not a masher at all and I just need shorter cranks on my bike.
110% agree. i've tried various crank arms over the years and to cut to the chase. i think what you said is spot on. only thing to add is on MTB, depending on what you ride, i have found slightly shorter is good. my road size is 172.5 but i prefer 170 on MTB over the common 175. less binding, you run a lower saddle height than road even at extension. less rock strikes
I'm an odd build. 191cm with a 32.5" inseam. Massive torso. I always ran 175mm crank arms for years. Shifted down to 160mm recently and already notice less knee and hip pain as well as less bounce in the saddle. It became the most noticeable on the dually where i'm in a 46-51t low gear.
I'm 6'4' and borrowed a friend's bike with 165m crank, cycled 80k and had 2 sore patellar tendons!
Great video a well explained on the nuances of these things.
Lots of great information but a little tuff to figure out what I should really be using. Thanks for the video. I can tell you really care about the riders
I’m 5’3” inseam of 28”. Coming from triathlon background. 150mm cranks is what I found that works best for me.
Great video., thanks so much!
Biggest problem are imo kids'/youths' bikes, so many come with standard 170-175mm cranks because a) cheap mass components and b) just because 28" wheels fit, it seems - in marketeers' eyes - to need medium length cranks.
I found it quite tough to get reasonably priced low q-factor cranks at max. 155mm. (FSA Gossamer Pro in 46/30 are a positive example.)
TOP video advice from James in Richmond / Thanks FC for the posting from, New York USA ! 😉
These videos, and my own experience, remind me how the bike industry has over-sized everything. I am 6ft 2 (1.92) and I used to ride a 56 with 170 cranks, changed to a 60 with 175 cranks as it was supposed to fit me and it has been terrible for my power output.
What do you mean?
60 cm is too big for you imo. I'm the same height and ride 58 cm and 172.5mm cranks
I'm 6.2 and ride 56 frames aswell. I find anything bigger the reach is too much for me
@@abedfo88 56 is definitely too small for you. you can change to a shorter stem, move saddle forward a bit, or ride a bike with a slacker headtube
@J W why though? I'm perfectly comfortable on my bike.
So glad crank length was addressed.
Legend has it that Pogi changed his crank length after watching this ;p
I am 5 foot 9 / 175cm tall and for me, I found 160mm (105 R7000 Cranks) my favourite and I never had the feeling of 'falling over the bike'. I increased my setback by about 3mm, and increased the saddle height by 1cm. It felt really good and never once looked back to my trying old 170mm cranks. Weight distribution felt the same to me and pedalling felt way much smoother on the 160s.
Ding, Ding, Ding! We have a winner!. If you shorten the cranks then move the saddle up and back to compensate so that the powerstroke is in the same place and then shorten and raise the stem as well so that the torso and arms are at the same angles. Simple geometry.
@@oldanslo opposite for me, I went lower and slammed my stem. 😂 With the 160s I felt like I can roll my hips alot further down much easier than with the 170s. I also swapped to a SMP Composit saddle. Feels really good!
As a (still growing) 6’+ kid, I preferred/was steered toward 165mm. In my 30s, I switched to 170mm simply because it became almost impossible to find 165mm at that time. At 6’ 4”, I still think about how much better it might feel to go back to 165mm. Besides, the longer the crank, the lower I am on the bike, and I do not like that
I'm 1640mm height with 782mm inseam. I started with 165mm Shimano and when 105 R7000 came in 160mm, I took to it. It is was better but I was looking to spin with close ration cassettes better (14-28). Then came 155mm which I find the most comfortable. I find the pedal technique of pushing forward, down, scrapping mud was easier on the 155mm. High cadence, results in consistent changing of gears. My bikes are usually XS or S depending on the make and model..
Where are you from? I wanna know because I've never seen anyone state their height in millimeters.
@@Anteksanteri Engineering. Try to keep everything in the same measurement so that you don't convert units if you do calculations.
lol, you made all of us convert your height to cm@@lordalfa600
I’ve a M/L Merida and I’m 178cm. I went from 172.5 to 177.5 and it’s the best switch I’ve made. I’ve no more knee pain and my average speed is up too. Much more comfortable for me.
For me on a TT switching from 172.5 to 165 was an amazing update. It's SO much better. I am trying it now on my road bike, however out of the saddle it feels a bit weird. Not 100% sure if that will become familiar at any point. I am 176cm, rather flexible and ride very aggressive positions, also for ultra distance races. On the TT bike it really changed a lot for me and if there's problems with hip angle i can only reccomend trying it.
From my experience going from 175 to 172.5 means I can comfortable pedal at a higher cadence, without feeling like I'm bouncing around. Esp my right hip starts to cramp up a bit as well then. This also seems to correlate quite closely with me needing to take a bit of a wider stance to squat low, or my right hip has a habit of cramping up. That's on an L frame (but I could also fit on a large ML with a longer stem).
I'm 192cm. After many years of riding 175mm I have been riding 170mm for about 3 years and can't say a bad word about 170mm. Less stress on my knees and slightly higher cadence. Now got a a bike factory fitted with 175mm crank. Once it wears, I'mgonna get a shorter crank
Crank length formula
Inseam inches to crank length in mm
Inseam x 5.48= crank length in millimeters
Example 30x5.48=164.4mm
There are other, dissimilar variants of such formulas online. The ones I used came to a shorter result. To each his own.
I'm no expert but as a 5'2 Asian guy I could have told the bike industry cranks were too long about 40 yrs ago.. lol
I rode a bmx since around age 7 and then when i got tall enough (broke 5 feet) my dad got me a huffy 10sp in 1982 when I turned 12ry old. Even though it was the smallest size it was still kind of big for me but with the seat and stem slammed I could manage it. However, due to the long stock crank I was having trouble with the pedal stroke, so my dad, the Korean Mcgyuver that he is, had the brilliant idea to take cranks off an old kid's bmx and swap it onto the huffy 10sp. Not sure the length, maybe 150-155, but man, after that I was flying , beating every kid in the neighborhood and then some. Overnight I became the Asian sensation with my 10sp and short cranks.
After that even into adulthood, I've always got cranks off kids bmx and put them on my mtb since you literally couldn't find short cranks before online shopping. Fortunately the industry finally realized there are plenty of us short guys who bike (just think Asians.. lol) and have started offering aftermarket cranks. But what gets me is why the major brands still don't offer shorter stock cranks on 'S' sized bikes. My most recent purchase was a Cannondale Trail 4 size 'S' in 2020 and only comes in a 170. They're so fixated on progressive geometry, stack height, reach, this n that angles, but they seemed to have forgotten one very crucial factor.
My 54 sized superbike (wilier zero slr) came with 175mm cranks. I have a long torso and short legs (81cm inseam) i went down to 165mm and it is day and night for me. More power, better position, better cadence, better everything. I will never buy anything longer.
Ps: i ride 5000km a year painfree.
81mm is a very short inseam!! ;)
@@joeturner6409 true ahahhaha
Dura ace-Shimano use to make a crank set where they made a drop peddle with a larger peddle hole in the crank, where the ball of your foot was in the centre of the axel point. this came about 5 years before the mechanical LOOK lock peddles, when we use to use toe clips and toe straps. sadly with the complex cleat peddles and mechanism, we lost this short period of technology where we gain a drop of 5mm on the pedals. the peddle was rather thin as a solid aerodynamic triangle. thus your getting the 5mm on even on a slightly shorter crank, and less likely for the peddle to bottom out on a a corner or rock. but there also might have been a smoother peddling motion, that might have been also good for the knees.
I have used 170-175. I love both. I can't decide which I will tay with. I prefer the 175 out of the saddle.
Hope you have a great birthday Francis and are enjoying NYC. Cheers Birthday twin!
I have a recurring dream where I flew 10,935 km to get a bike fit from James, have a frame made by Rob Quirk, purchase all the Attacus jersey and bib sets and go on a bike ride with Francis Cade.
Make it happen ✌️
@@Cade_Media Someday!
I rode for a few years with a 170mm drive side and 165mm non drive side stages power meter by mistake and didn't notice it until I did some maintenance one day. Luckily I didn't end up with any problems but I did buy a new 170mm power meter crank arm.
After watching your bike fit videos I feel very good about fit of my bike, which is good because it wasn't cheap 😂
Well you have 333 comments and I am about to tip it off but...I am so so happy with this video and cannot agree with you more!!!👍
I'm 5'6" now (shrunk an inch at 54!), but with an inside leg of 33"...both road bikes are 170mm cranks, and I like a cadence of 95-100, I've also an E-MTB which I swapped out the 170's for 160 mm cranks and it's brilliant at that length for turbo spinning up technical climbs(reduces pedal striking too with a low slung (effective) BB height.... )I've also got a scrapper of a rigid steel 26" MTB tourer which has 175mm cranks and I get no issues riding it up to 100km a day loaded up.... I guess my leg length could be on someone a lot taller so goes to show that a standard height measurement is no use whatsoever- the torso/leg ratio will be a determining factor
Coming from a sports science perspective, i cant help but look at it from the viewpoint of what works best performance-wise for the individual.
For me personally, for example, i would sit outside of your recommendations (which isnt a criticism by the way), in that i am 173cm without shoes and cleats, yet i religiously ride 175mm cranks on my road bike. I have tried 172.5mm cranks on 2 separate bikes (one relatively budget bike, and one high spec aero bike) with approx a 2 year gap between them and on both occasions i have really struggled with the shorter cranks. From almost all angles i find that my numbers are worse on the shorter cranks. To keep the same wattage it obviously means either increasing cadence, or, increasing torque/force output per revolution, with the former raising my heart rate by approx 5bpm at the same wattage (my normal cadence on 175mm is between 82-86 rpm, whereas on 172.5mm cranks my rpm is usually above 90-92rpm which makes sense, but the increase in physical effort is noticeable), or, with the latter causing an even greater increase in HR, an increase in blood lactate accumulation, an increase in energy expenditure and oxygen consumption and an increased percieved exertion.
I also find from a pedalling technique perspective (and this is probably more of a criticism on "me" rather than the cranks) that i am far too "snatchy" on the 172.5mm cranks.
I dont know if this is just a "creature of habit" type thing in that i have always ridden on 175mm cranks so anything else feels odd maybe. I have not been able to try 170mm or shorter out on the road at least but i have given it a go in a lab and yes, it feels more comfy around the front of the hips, but having said that i dont ever get any hip or knee issues on 175mm cranks. So from my personal perspective, the 175mm cranks provide me with more efficient numbers physiologically even though i am relatively short of that length of crank.
Completely personal preference, but it is interesting to compare that to what is considered more "normal". I don't think either view point is right or wrong as long as comfort is not compromised, and performance is maintained/optimised. There is always going to be an odd-ball...just seems that in this case, its me 😂
I have a 92cm inseam and use 175mm cranks on all my bikes (except my fixed gear, which uses 165mm cranks because of ground clearance) so I guess I'm golden
Wish James would take his bike fitting show on the road.... all the way across the pond to the States.
Mine's longer than yours LOL I appreciate all the videos you're not only helping me adjust so to say you're also helping me learn I'm a very fast learner I build my own stuff frame up again thanks so much
There are two parts to the bike industry. There is the part that interacts with individuals and tries to satisfy their needs (James and any other good bike fitter). Then there is the part of the bike industry that focuses on the bottom line. I don’t want to name names, but one large company Specializes in targeting only the big lump in the middle of the bell curve. A few years ago they stopped making women’s shoes and bikes, not because women don’t ride, but because they could hit 80% of the market without women’s specific equipment.
Good fitters will always struggle with this issue, big companies will always view the ends of the bell curve as a waste of time.
I'm 5'7" with 29" inseams (qualifies as short in Canada) with that sedentary IT guy lifestyle, both my Gravel Bike and Road Bike came with 172.5's, which I've always found a bit uncomfortable compared to the 170's on my MTB (that knee pain issue comes to mind). My bike shop suggested I try 165's, I broke down and put 170's on my roadie and 165's on the gravel this past April, and I have to say I like the 170's the best. Even just a small change made a difference in comfort and I prefer the additional amount of leverage on the 170's over the 165's, where the 165's I get that spillover feeling mentioned in this video. I'll probably switch those cranks out again before the season's out.
Wow, this is one of the few videos that actually acknowledges that some people might be better off with long cranks. I'm always really annoyed every time someone mentions crank length, it's invariably in the context of "your cranks are probably too long", and if you're one of the few people who is above average, There's an optimum length for everyone, and it flatlines when you're tall enough to ride a large. Short cranks are better, because they'll let you use a faster cadence. Never mind that I already ride with a very fast cadence on my 180mm (peaking around 140 RPM when I sprint).
I'm 6'4" with long legs for my height.
Spot on, with the falling over the front of the bike, or at least having way too much weight on my hands. I also find that my knees sometimes hurt a bit when I sprint on one of my bikes with 175mm, I think because I end up pushing too far in the stroke and not doing anything but flexing the frame (more force required to do the same work at the same rpm) The 180mm on my other bike are an improvement. Like your example rider, I had to buy a rotor 3d+ crank with my power meter, because it was the only crank they offered in 180mm, and I wanted to try longer cranks.
I'm in the process of building a bike with some 190mm cranks from profile racing. Not for the weight weenies, since they're heavy-ass chromoly bmx cranks with a spider to fit a 130BCD chainring, but I'm looking forward to giving it a go.
It would be _really_ nice, if I could just go buy a $150 crankset in a size that fits me, or even have a good way to try one for a few good rides to see if it's right before spending big $ on a guess.
Id love an MTB version of this as I feel that MTB companies are trying to convince consumers that are your cranks are too long for our super low BB's so go an buy super short crank!! buy more stuff!!
I'm 5'5 and I'm on 175mm cranks. I sprint but when I'm on an aero position, my knees always hit my stomach and it makes it harder to breathe. I think a 165 would suit me perfectly since the 175 is already too long for me.
Too long homie, max 170
Too long homie, max 170
For what it's worth, White Industries makes a 180mm arm in their R30 crankset. I have a set in black 😎
everyone told me I wouldn't notice changing from 175mm to 170mm cranks and that I probably needed the biggest size possible because I'm tall. Nothing further from the truth, the 170mm cranks took away the knee pain in long rides
Really enjoy those bike fit videos. One thing i would be interested in, is the comparability of those results to a full squish mtb. I guess it's less of a problem with an xc bike, but e.g. an enduro bike with 160 mm front and rear suspension travel will be probably harder to compare.
I'm 191 cms tall (6'3) and I ride a folding bike with a 170cm crank from LitePro.
This was very enlightening and a great explanation!
I ride a 54cm bike with 160mm shimano 105 cranks. I have no issues and going any shorter is pretty much out of my range as 160-165 is as small as the big guys normally go
Back in the '60s I was told that your crank should be one-half the length of your femur. That made sense so I measured my femur. I came away with the conclusion that measuring the femur without removing it is impossible. I'm six feet and have been riding 175s for ever. I decided to try 177s. It was horrible! One thing I've always wondered is if one leg is shorter should the crank on that side also be shorter. Thanks for the excellent video. You need to save up your egg cartons and glue them to the ceiling to improve the sound.
I'm 6 foot, 93kg and have a high power output and race alot of crits. I've been having pain in my right knee lately due to a dodgy meniscus. I have had a professional bike fit to no avail, still pain after racing(Not so much general rides) Went a 165mm Pair of cranks, down from 175 Spec'd with the bike in my size, and 8 races later, not one single bit of pain (after 1700+W Sprints)
Not mentioned is that raising the saddle height for a shorter crank adversly effects handling , so if your flexible enough to happily cope with a crank slightly long for your height, you should maybe stick with it.
Opposite of what is popular, longer cranks work better for me. 5'7" (171) and 170 or short bothers me. I have less knee pain with 172.5, no discomfort at all with 175. My enduro bike is 175, and it's wonderful.
I do have a high level of fitness.
I went to a popular bike fitter with a lot of references, and I left worse off than I entered.
Just watched an Interesting video on here re Pogacar's use of 165mm cranks and how they are better for the average rider than longer cranks. I used to use 170mm, cos that's what my Shimano 600 chainset came with, but moved to 172.5mm because perceived wisdom said it gave more power. As someone who can no longer ride at all, I wonder if this predicated my problems.
I would love to hear your thoughts on different crank length for different courses for example on long climbs and mountain races I like 172.5 because I feel as though I can spin a smaller gear easier. For crits and flat races 175 gives you the best explosive strength I also like them for TTs. IMHO
As a taller guy (185cm) who gets all his pants shortened crank length, like everything else, is always going to vary.
Bike Fit Tuesday 🔥 as usual 👌👌👌
While Sugino had been eclipsed by Shimano in the 90s, Sugino still makes very nice cranksets and have bounced back since then. Not really an off the market brand/company.