Well I’m sold, I’m running stock 170mm cranks on a polygon d5 with 27.5 wheels and have pedal strikes on every ride. I’m a newer rider so I think that could come down to skill, but when climbing something very technical I’ve noticed that I lose power right before the crank reached top dead center and I have to step off the bike. I was thinking with a shorter crank I’d be able to get the foot around sooner to hit the power band and you’ve confirmed it for me. Great video, thank you!
Glad you enjoyed! You should check out Oval Chainrings based on what you said about hitting the power band. Obviously there's some skill aspect to it but the oval Chainring will help
Oh ya! I'm 5'7-5'8 (787mm inseam) and moved down to 155mm cranks. I'll never go back! Easier on the knees & hips on the climbs, more comfortable stance on the downs, and noticeably less pedal strikes. I think the formula of inseam (with shoes on) in mm x 0.195 to 0.20 is a good starting point.
Awesome! How do the feel while cornering? I notice a difference between 175 mm and 165 mm in pedaling, but it's winter here in Colorado so I haven't got out on the trail yet.
I went from 175s to 165s for pedal strike reason. I'd really like to go to 155s, but as you mentioned, at least for SRAM DUB, I can't find any that length. And swapping out the BB and cranks just gets quite costly. Manufacturers really need to get on this.
I’m 100% sold on shorter cranks. I just wish there were high quality reasonable priced options from the major manufacturers. I have three bikes that all need to have cranks swapped: MTB, gravel, and fat bike. What’s stopping me are the dollars to upgrade the fleet.
Honestly think 175s regardless of MTB or road are designed for people with 34 inseam or 6ft+. I’m 5’7 31 inseam. Been riding 165 on all my bikes & absolutely loving it. No power loss at all when climbing & easier on my knees. I’d go shorter if I could find my favorite cranks but Sram doesn’t make XX1 in 160 or 155
Nice! Let me know how it goes if you make the swap. 155s on a 29 inch inseam is on track with the recommended crank length of 20% for max power output. I'd be interested to hear how it feels on the downhills.
I ride a Specialized Stumpjumper and i hit rocks and roots constantly on the climbs and even on fast flat sections. To adress this problem i will install shorter cranks and also reduce my sag in the rear by 10 percent. I guess the ride will become a lot firmer this way but also safer, a trade well worth it imho.
Nice! That sounds like a good way to reduce pedal strikes. I would also add that you may want to reduce your front sag by the same ratio you are reducing your rear sag by so your bike feels balanced. You may get some fork dive if you keep the front as-is unless you feel your front is stiff already and does not need to be adjusted. 10% sag is also quite a lot of sag, so you might need to play with it to find the right mark. Are you bottoming out your suspension on rock/root gardens right now?
I’m running 165mm on my Santa Cruz 5010. just sold a stumpjumper to my friend that I put 155mm and was absolutely great but I think sweet spot is probably 160mm that being said I have 155mm on my trek rail ebike and love them almost no pedal strikes. Also just got into road biking and bike came with 172.5 and I switched to 165 and big difference.
@@CarlHarwatt only company that makes reasonable priced ones is Canfield cranks. Also Hope makes short cranks but are a little pricy. If your just looking for 165 then Sram.
Running 150mm Miranda on my Husqvarna mc2 down from 165mm(it’s mullet from the factory). My stumpy carbon is likely gonna get the mullet treatment so I gotta go from these 170mm to at least 160mm
Hi. I like this video because it open my mind and let me thinking about the cranks lenght that I saw in a trail bike that I wan´t to buy. I have only a XC Hardtail bike size M/L from Trek, with 175mm cranks (my insteam size is 86 cm long), and they work great in non technical XC terrain. Now I´m looking for a Trail bike for other terrains in M size and the one I like coms with 170mm cranks. When I saw that specs I think that I will need to change them but now I not so sure and I will let them a try. Thanks for this very interesting information. Regards !
Awesome! Thank you for watching and commenting :) I agree - you do not need to swap out the cranks on the trail bike you are looking at. 170mm is a great crank length for your size. Based on the length of your inseam, 172mm would be the perfect crank size for optimal power output (860 mm * 0.2). However, the power difference is minimal so I would lean towards shorter cranks, especially for technical terrain. 170mm is great!
Great video-thanks for taking a more analytical and balanced approach. If the research on power output is not statistically significant-then that is the same as concluding that there is no evidence from cited studies that shorter cranks make a difference on power outage-or, shorter cranks make no difference. I get the impression that shorter cranks are driven by DH, E-Bike crowd where pedaling while seated is not the focus. Maybe somewhat by Enduro racing, too. It’s mainly to minimize pedal strikes. If a rider does a lot of seated pedaling and likes full leg extension, then they are going to have to raise their saddle if they go with shorter cranks. If it needs to be raised a lot then this may require significant movements forward, or adjustments to stem height, bar sweep, and grip rotation. It’s a risky move if you like your current fit and leg extension and do a lot of seated pedaling. But i can totally see why this is attractive to DH and E-Bike riders. their pedaling is going to come while either standing or with battery assistance, so leg extension less of an issue. If a new frame were designed for a 165mm crank length, may not change the overall feel of the fit. But if designed for 145mm crank? If I want full leg extension I am going to feel like I am way up on top of the bike.
Thanks for watching and giving your thoughts! It’s been a while since I made this video so I forget the details, but I do remember some studies being statistically significant and some studies not being significant. There were NO studies that I reviewed showing that shorter cranks lost power (until they became ridiculously short). There may be some out there though. My takeaway is that if you don’t lose power by going shorter, then why not go shorter? I can see lots of counter arguments, though. Especially for road cyclists.
@@GnarlyBearMTB Thank for the reply, and thanks again for the thoughtful video. I have not looked at the studies and I wonder how they treat leg extension? Or if they ignore leg extension by focusing on a very short time interval for power output? if they ignore it, or do the very short time interval then those are highly questionable approaches. if they just assume leg extension doesn’t change, then there is no way around raising the saddle and dealing with all of the other fit variables. if they are doing all this on computer simulation then they should be able to explain all of their modelling details and assumptions. thanks agin-great topic!
@@CJinsoo these were real studies with real people. Every study is different in how they handle variables. You’ll have to read them if you want the answers :). I would have known right after I made this video but I’ve forgotten now. A computer simulation would be interesting! Great topic for a college research project.
Crank height effects optimal seat height so it makes a little sense to run longer cranks and a lower seat before dropper posts came around. The dropper completely changed mtb frame geo, why not cranks too?
Interesting! I've been spoiled in recent years with droppers. I haven't really thought of how the crank length would affect what you can set your seat post at.
One thing i have not heard mention of in any of these articles is pedaling from a standing position like i do a lot on climbs. It seems that the formula for optimum crank length would change under these circumstances. The biggest advantage i can see for shorter cranks is ground clearance and pedaling while seated. Maybe balance might improve some while standing while going downhill. Not sure about that one. It was always my thought that a wider stance improved balance. Mind blown. 😂
Good thought! I can see standing while pedaling as an advantage for longer cranks because standing is partly just putting your body weight over the pedal. More length = more power. No science on this yet though so who knows. And yeah balance is largely personal. I think with pedals even larger cranks feel better but when I drop a pedal the longer cranks feel less balanced.
@@GnarlyBearMTB I may try some 165's at some point. A lot of my pedal strikes occur because I am always trying to pedal thru anything. So maybe if I'm more patient then most of them won't happen. I'm going riding tomorrow. Think I'll put this new theory to the test. 👍
Never gave it a second thought. I have a couple of bikes now one with 165mm and one with 175mm cranks, the rest of the geometry is almost the same. Always preferred the bike with 165mm cranks as it seemed more balanced, which is just an opinion. I do get more pedal strikes with the 175s which I have noticed. I've never notices big climbs were easier with the 175s so I'm off to the shop to get some 160mm cranks and see if that effects my opinion on balance, in any case I'll get less strikes which I hate. Thanks for video.
During the studies did they keep the chain ring, rear cassette gear and tire size all the same. Was the only change the crank length or did they use a different gear on the cassette?
It depends on the study. They're almost always using a Stationary Bike with a mechanically-braked wheel rather than a bike with an actual chainring, though. In "The effect of bicycle crank length variation upon power performance," they adjusted the resistance of the Stationary Bike according to rider weight. Adjusting the resistance is similar to adjusting chainring size. Hope that helped :)
Ive got a medium niner jet 9 rdo with 175 cranks. I have an inseam of 27". I used to get pedal strikes all the time. I found that my suspension was too soft so i just stiffened it up some. Now i dont get but 1 or two per ride. I used to get so many that i just kinda got used to them and factored them in as a cost of doing business. 😂
The crank length depends on your skeletal measurement. Just because you think 165mm is ideal for you doesn’t mean that’s gonna be good for me. I have no idea how short you are and possibly i need longer ones to get more torque down. Not more more rpm. Gearing is important too. That can change how you shift. I do use all the gears on my bike to i might even consider removing a lot of gears just because I don’t use them.
There's some equations in the video that relate crank length to inseam. Ultimately, researchers found that crank length doesn't massively affect your power output on a Stationary Bike though. If you like longer cranks for tech climbs, that's fair. I personally wouldn't want to go too long though because of pedal clearance. If you wanna go fast downhill, choose the crank that feels best since your power won't be significantly affected :). Thanks for engaging amd giving your two cents!
I'm 5-5 pretty short legs . I have an Ibis ripmo my crank length is 160 and I really do not like it . It made me have to move my seat up higher for my legs to extend and in turn makes me feel all wobbly And if I ever stop with the seat up it makes it even harder to reach the ground
I feel that. Shorter cranks will definitely put you a bit further from the ground. My best advice is to work on your balance and track stands so you don't have to go to the ground as much. If you do have to touch the ground with your feet, make it intentional or work on your bails if/when it's unintentional. BBs have gotten a lot lower in recent years, which only helps you be closer to the ground.
5:28 Wouldn't the shorter cranks effectively raise your center of gravity from a 170/5mm crank length? I get that you gain clearance for pedal strikes, but if you don't also articulate your body to make up for the more(5/10mm) elevated position, the center of gravity is moot. Not being argumentative, just trying to understand.
Hey Bryan, Thanks for commenting! You're totally right in that the longer cranks lower your center of gravity AND generate more leverage on the bike. In theory, this should allow you to corner faster and I think its why bmx racers use longer cranks on their smooth courses. I think those pros are outweighed by the pros of shorter cranks; easier to balance and less pedal strikes. I dont think mtb racers could safely utilize extra crank length for the sole purpose of leverage. Consistency is more important than posting the absolute fastest time you can.
The study I mentioned suggested that sprinting performance was better on shorter cranks. I'd be interested to see more studies as well as long-term race performance of shorter cranks though. You obviously don't sprint for the whole race.
20% of leg length. That's from ONE study at 03:11 in the video. I'd recommend you watch the whole video though because the TLDR of it is that crank length doesn't significantly affect your power and you should use what feels best downhill (if you race enduro, DH, or value the DH more like many recreational riders I know)
I currently have 170 mm cranks on my MTB and l would not want them any longer . The bicycle manufacturers need to stop specifying 175 mm cranks with large and above frames and make 170 mm cranks standard for all sizes. I remember when road bikes had 165 mm cranks standard . I am sure most people would like to run 170mm on road and MTB .
Thanks for watching! I agree, I think cranks need to be shorter across sizes. Personally, I think you could even stock 165s on mediums and 160s on smalls by default, but I also understand that manufacturers don't do this, oftentimes to cut costs that come with needing more unique parts and a larger supply chain.
Ive got a knee problem and the orthopedic surgeon said biking was the best way to strengthen it. My issue is that my knee wont bend far enough to use the cranks that are on the bike I got. Whats the shortest crank arm you can get?
Ouch - So do you want smaller cranks because your feet can't reach the pedals? You'd need a smaller frame in that case, not smaller cranks. I believe canfield and 5dev make the smallest cranks on the market that I'm aware of. I'm not a doctor nor do i know your specific medical issue, but I also feel like there's probably physical therapy you should be doing in combination with cycling to improve the health of your knees. For example, there's off-bike exercises I do to help manage my own runners knee (IT band syndrome). Good luck on your cycling journey!
Bike industries should make shorter cranks in Sram GX cranks they only go down at 165mm and thats it. But all in all 165mm cranks do feel good over the 170mm i was on and surprisingly no power has been lost for climbing just better control and handling on the bike!
Hi dude, interesting video. Peaked my curiousity in trying out 165mm as my other bikes come with 175mm cranks. Im 185cm, unsure of my inseam as Ive no current way to measure. If i do make the change, do I have to get a longer dropper post as well or can i just use the current one?
Thanks for watching! It’s very likely you can use your current dropper. You’d just drop it by 10mm or so. Whatever feels right! Your frame technically has a “maximum seatpost insertion depth” and you’d want to make sure you’re not over that number. There’s a 95% chance you’re good.
hang on. those tests were done with a cycling inseam. not your jeans. if you wear a 32x30 there's a pretty reasonable chance your actual cycling inseam is 33-34" there are good tutorials on how to measure a cycling inseam. i think what you hit on is pretty close though. for the average 5'10 guy with a 33-34" cycling inseam a 165mm crank on a newer frame is fast and you don't have the rock strikes like you do on 175. a general purpose trail bike where you do pedal uphill a lot and also do some enduro. i personally favor 170 being 5.10 with a 34" cycling inseam
I definitely ride uphill! Enduro is a racing discipline where the downhills are timed and the uphills are not. You race over a few downhill "stages" and your total time is added up. This video is geared generally towards people who ride enduro, but the studies I cited also discuss the impact of crank length on pedalling performance, which would affect climbing.
With a 5mm shorter crank, you might need to sit up to 5mm further back or you might hurt your knees. My knees does not like a steep STA I think longer cranks would of put some of it.
That's interesting. I didn't consider how shorter cranks affect the angle of your knees forwards and backwards in the saddle as well as up and down. I suppose you might need to scoot your seat back a little bit to keep your knee flexion comfortable at maximum extension. I'm no expert in the recommended flexion angle because I go by the feel of my own knees and hips, but a study I found shows a recommended angle around 35 degrees. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32022807/ If people experience knee pain when switching to shorter cranks, they could consider adjusting their saddle backwards on the rails as well. Thanks for commenting this!
For those 5mm, you move seatpost height by marginal fistance which can be easilly compensated by moving seat itself horizontally by few mm. Anyway seat post angle on modern enduro bike is a compromise made, driven by other bike measurements (77°). Most riders are not so sensitive to bikefit, not on trail, enduro or DH bikes.
You talking about my bike? It's not optimal for racing for sure. 27.5, shorter chainstays, less travel. I just like riding it. It's a bit more playful than a race bike and I can jump on it more easily
I have ridden 175 for decades off road, but I trained and raced road when young, so I have a very good spin and in fact where true sustainable power comes from. Difficult to spin that 120 man, 100 is ok, I have a used 170 I'm going to switch and try, I want my top end back..🦖
@@GnarlyBearMTB 5' 10" , 30.5 inseam, I definitely would. I just accepted longer was better mostly. But I sprint and spin hard still and it makes perfect sense the flywheel in legs and cranks should be as balanced as possible🤔thanx
@@mountaintruth1deeds533 if I remember right, these studies don’t account for standing power. I think slightly longer cranks would be better for raw standing power. I have no evidence to back that up though
I just switched from 175 to 155. I'm 188cm tall. What a difference. Power feels the same, I can climb easier . Knees don't ache. Where did 175 ever come from???
I know right? 175mm is a standard to save money for manufacturers by providing a consistent length. It's time for that standard to die! It's okay to have standard lengths because they make our bikes cheaper, but the lengths need to be rethought.
Not sure I 100% agree with saddle height being dictated by cranks at BDC. I think maybe there is some influence on saddle height but shouldn’t be 1:1 on crank arm length.
I think you're right that it's not 1:1. To take it to an extreme, you wouldn't want 'full' extension on a 50mm crank. You'd adjust the saddle height a bit less so that you can still generate power with your quads.
@@alexsinbb Yeah exactly! 1:1 is a good enough approximation if you go from a 175 to a 160 for example. Maybe go 13 mm instead of 15 mm if you want fo be exact.
They ride downhill. For the rest of us XC, Trail riders leave the cranks longer for leverage to push uphill with ease and lock in for those nice rock rolls and double tops. Key skill - learn to ratchet and avoid pedal strikes.
Thanks for watching! I agree that ratcheting is a key skill to avoid pedal strikes and should be learned by all :). It's extremely important in mountain biking. I do have to respectfully disagree with your statement on longer cranks being desirable because they provide better leverage, though. I think that gearing is a better way to gain leverage without affecting other mechanics of your bike.. Wouldn't you want to reduce pedal strikes AND gain more power by switching to smaller cranks? (if you're a short guy on a size medium like me)
The leverage comment in regards to “locking in” is off base. Ultimately, a trail rider wants their weight centered over the bottom bracket and the longer the crank the further away you are from your center of gravity. Think motorcycles for a moment, two fixed pegs…shorter cranks move your weight closer to COG and will be the most beneficial to “locking in”. Body position and body mechanics will absolutely suffer the further you go from COG. Pedaling, power output, HOW the power is laced to the ground, how your body feels post ride all matter in respect to crank length and I think a lot of people are gassed up with this industry “standard” of 175mm cranks. The same people who change reach/stack/rise of stems and bars and will tell you all the reasons why it should be changed…why not cranks?
@@jeremyprovonsil7886 Thanks for commenting! I think the crossover between motocross, motorcycles, and MTB is interesting. Let me explain what I mean by longer cranks giving more leverage when cornering: When you corner, you want to stand vertically over the bottom bracket while your bike leans. The longer your cranks are, the more torque/moment you have relative to your bottom bracket. This torque could allow you to lean the bike more while staying upright over the bike. I'm not saying this leverage outweighs the benefits of shorter cranks. Just that it's physics and something to be aware of. In practice, the lean angle you'd need to be at to see this benefit would be impractical or impossible. You are limited by your legs hitting the frame and the physical length of your arms. The stability/clearance benefits of the shorter cranks would far outweigh any theoretical benefits of more torque. I've seen/heard people talk about the "torque benefits", and I wanted to address it in the video while also stating that it's not a good reason to have long cranks. Like you said, you are more "locked in" when closer to the bottom bracket. IMHO, there is a "too short" when it comes to cranks for DH though. Some asymmetry in stance is good. I have no research whatsoever to back this up though so it's just a matter of theory :)
For what it’s worth, I understood your point initially, and thanks for clarifying for me and others. I think it goes a long way to counter other arguments which have somehow survived as folklore for too long. Are you familiar with Remy Morton? He rides DH and big mountain chainless, and with, as he labels it “kid cranks”, something ridiculously short. The ultimate in balance is two pegs welded to the BB and case closed. There’s just too many other variables and factors to consider once gravity and momentum come to a rest for that to even be practical. Bit as you said, there’s a point practically speaking where it’s too short or too long and most of that lies in the riders’ preferences and personal geometry in relation to the bike. Last year after much research and nerding about I made the switch from 175mm to 165mm and am blown away after close to a year of trial and error with setup. FWIW, 5’9”+, 175lbs, 32” inseam, size L SC 5010 with 27.5 wheels, now 165mm cheap-o Eagle GX cranks on all my bikes. Maybe I’ll post more separately from this branch post.
Ahaha yeah they're quite expensive. Most major manufacturers were sold out on the 165s and I got a deal through my LBS, so I went 5DEV. Enjoy your descendants! Those are sick cranks
@@GnarlyBearMTB damn you!!!!! after watching this vid and a couple reviews, i ordered a set of 155's. im also 30 inseam, so hoping these will be a nice addition to my new Tyee. now i am running gx carbon 170's so those will be up for sale ;)
@@mikestivers8302 LOL - Congrats on the purchase and let me know how they feel. I'm really interested in how the shorter cranks behave on the DH. I'm sure major manufacturers (SRAM, Shimano, etc) have tested them, but I haven't heard any riders talk about it.
@@GnarlyBearMTB i've heard about the benefits of shorter cranks to match the rider for over a year now. finally going for it. it seems the industry is FINALLY getting on board with putting relatively correct-sized bars on the bikes.. remember when ALL bikes had 800mm bars? and most dont understand they can be cut... i'd like to see 175's or 180's on XL, 165 on M, and 155 on Small bikes. they'll come around. for now, building bikes is a great way to hand-pick boutique components. the Tyee is my 4th bike i have built from the frame up. including rear shock. so out with the GX's and in with the NOW
@@mikestivers8302 agreed on the bar width thing! A rider should consider their shoulder span and how the added “leverage” (putting buzzwords in quotes) is affected. It’s insane to see 13 year olds on 29” trail bikes, 175mm cranks, 800+mm bars looking like they’re paddling a kayak instead of holding onto MTB controls! A hard thing for most to get over is trying something different and feeling like they need to justify it to a bunch of couch racers. Another thing is how pretty the bike looks for those hard parked Instagram boudoir bike check photo shoots. Adjusting all of this stuff is literally critical to riding MTB!!
I WANT THEM!!! SHORTER IS BETTER! The last comferatable bike I had was probebly a kids size 😅It got stole and since I've been stuk with 170mm. Where the comfertable ones were probebly 140mm. I will admit, they were in some cases a bit short. But something like 150mm would probebly be very lovely and not tire out my legs as much, or hurt my knees.
You'll need to go with a smaller manufacturer like 5DEV or Canfield for 150s for now. I love my 5DEVs, but theyre pricy. Let's hope the industry catches up and starts making 150s standard though!
@@GnarlyBearMTB I have been contacting just about any bicycle shop in my area and 165mm seems to be the smallest the can find (Netherlands) 😭😭 If I can't find any better options, I'll probebly ask them for one where at least the cranks are a separate part. Hoping it will make it easier when shorter ones become more available.
Does 5mm make a noticable difference? Im looking to go from 170 sram nx cranks that came on my SJ EVO with Sram gx 165 cranks. But is it money wasted or is there value there? Approx 32 inseem... thanks
That's interesting... The results of a study I talked about suggested that the shorter cranks were better for sprinting. The sample size was small and bike was a lot different than a BMX bike, though.
Don't drink the "Short Crank" Koolaid. Short cranks = less torque. Don't care what anybody says, THAT is math. And longer cranks = wider stance = more stability. They are simply trying to get you to buy something new and utterly unnecessary. Yes, a couple of DH RACERS (ask yourself if you are at their level) use them and if you too are a superior DH racer, maybe give them a try. Regular folks need the pedal power and stability. Don't drink the Koolaid.
Also if you watched the video you would see that shorter cranks than 170mm are better for power generation in the average sized human. You can read the studies cited in the video if you would like to. The graphs shown in this video are specifically helpful.
@@GnarlyBearMTBits about feel dude. Watch Hardtail Party Channel. For climbs he preferred the 170. Overall though he preferred the shorter cranks. 165-170 feel the best for me personally. I get the science but it’s more nuanced than that. I’m 5’11” with a 32 inseam and no way I would go lower than 165-160. Just because you want shorter cranks to be better doesn’t mean they are. At least not for the average MTB Rider
😬Ouch this hurt to watch. Its like microsoft sam reading a text book...crank length is whatever feels most comfortable. Same as bars grips saddles and pedals.
@@GnarlyBearMTB you seem like a decent guy pls dont become the next Evan mtb saga. Bit music a joke or two less scripted awkward edits. And some practical images with the explanations. An just a nod. Real riders dont give a shite about crank length. Be it moto, mtb, jetski or horse. Real riders just rip bro 🙏
What do you think about crank length in mountain biking? Let me know in the comments!
Well I’m sold, I’m running stock 170mm cranks on a polygon d5 with 27.5 wheels and have pedal strikes on every ride. I’m a newer rider so I think that could come down to skill, but when climbing something very technical I’ve noticed that I lose power right before the crank reached top dead center and I have to step off the bike. I was thinking with a shorter crank I’d be able to get the foot around sooner to hit the power band and you’ve confirmed it for me. Great video, thank you!
Glad you enjoyed! You should check out Oval Chainrings based on what you said about hitting the power band. Obviously there's some skill aspect to it but the oval Chainring will help
Oh ya! I'm 5'7-5'8 (787mm inseam) and moved down to 155mm cranks. I'll never go back! Easier on the knees & hips on the climbs, more comfortable stance on the downs, and noticeably less pedal strikes. I think the formula of inseam (with shoes on) in mm x 0.195 to 0.20 is a good starting point.
Awesome! How do the feel while cornering? I notice a difference between 175 mm and 165 mm in pedaling, but it's winter here in Colorado so I haven't got out on the trail yet.
@@GnarlyBearMTB Better on the corners and the descents in general.
I've been riding 165mm Cranks for 3 years now. Love them!
I went from 175s to 165s for pedal strike reason. I'd really like to go to 155s, but as you mentioned, at least for SRAM DUB, I can't find any that length. And swapping out the BB and cranks just gets quite costly. Manufacturers really need to get on this.
I’m 100% sold on shorter cranks. I just wish there were high quality reasonable priced options from the major manufacturers.
I have three bikes that all need to have cranks swapped: MTB, gravel, and fat bike. What’s stopping me are the dollars to upgrade the fleet.
Trailcraft out of Fort Collins, CO. They got what you need.
Honestly think 175s regardless of MTB or road are designed for people with 34 inseam or 6ft+. I’m 5’7 31 inseam. Been riding 165 on all my bikes & absolutely loving it. No power loss at all when climbing & easier on my knees. I’d go shorter if I could find my favorite cranks but Sram doesn’t make XX1 in 160 or 155
Good job on making a video that's taking off on the views. Good video too! Keep at it.
Thank you!
I just put a 155mm on my Status and will probably try 155’s on my Hightower that currently run 165mm. I have a 29”ish inseam.
Nice! Let me know how it goes if you make the swap. 155s on a 29 inch inseam is on track with the recommended crank length of 20% for max power output. I'd be interested to hear how it feels on the downhills.
Heey, just bought 155mm 5Dev for my Ebike Heckler! Will let you know how it goes. Currently running same 5Dev’s in 165.
@@torreyhiker9137 Sick! Congrats on the purchase.
Nice topic I have been running 165 cranks for about 20years now and when I raced Down Hill I would run 160 Profile cranks totally Bomb Proof!!
I ride a Specialized Stumpjumper and i hit rocks and roots constantly on the climbs and even on fast flat sections.
To adress this problem i will install shorter cranks and also reduce my sag in the rear by 10 percent.
I guess the ride will become a lot firmer this way but also safer, a trade well worth it imho.
Nice! That sounds like a good way to reduce pedal strikes.
I would also add that you may want to reduce your front sag by the same ratio you are reducing your rear sag by so your bike feels balanced. You may get some fork dive if you keep the front as-is unless you feel your front is stiff already and does not need to be adjusted.
10% sag is also quite a lot of sag, so you might need to play with it to find the right mark. Are you bottoming out your suspension on rock/root gardens right now?
Don’t forget there are warehouses full of 175mm cranks that need to burned through first so don’t expect a short crank revolution just yet!
Bahaha - All the big boys will be able to get their 175 mm cranks and XL bikes at a discount!
Eff the warehouse support small makers and get the crank, color, length of your dreams.
I’m running 165mm on my Santa Cruz 5010. just sold a stumpjumper to my friend that I put 155mm and was absolutely great but I think sweet spot is probably 160mm that being said I have 155mm on my trek rail ebike and love them almost no pedal strikes. Also just got into road biking and bike came with 172.5 and I switched to 165 and big difference.
Where can I buy these short cranks from?
@@CarlHarwatt only company that makes reasonable priced ones is Canfield cranks. Also Hope makes short cranks but are a little pricy. If your just looking for 165 then Sram.
I run 160 on my enduro and 165 on trail bike
Running 150mm Miranda on my Husqvarna mc2 down from 165mm(it’s mullet from the factory). My stumpy carbon is likely gonna get the mullet treatment so I gotta go from these 170mm to at least 160mm
Hi. I like this video because it open my mind and let me thinking about the cranks lenght that I saw in a trail bike that I wan´t to buy.
I have only a XC Hardtail bike size M/L from Trek, with 175mm cranks (my insteam size is 86 cm long), and they work great in non technical XC terrain.
Now I´m looking for a Trail bike for other terrains in M size and the one I like coms with 170mm cranks. When I saw that specs I think that I will need to change them but now I not so sure and I will let them a try.
Thanks for this very interesting information. Regards !
Awesome! Thank you for watching and commenting :)
I agree - you do not need to swap out the cranks on the trail bike you are looking at. 170mm is a great crank length for your size. Based on the length of your inseam, 172mm would be the perfect crank size for optimal power output (860 mm * 0.2). However, the power difference is minimal so I would lean towards shorter cranks, especially for technical terrain. 170mm is great!
@@GnarlyBearMTB Thanks fo your answer. I let you know about my experience with the new bike when I get it !
Regards from Argentina !
Currently running 0mm cranks. Best upgrade ever
Hahaha - A new, revolutionary, moto-inspired crank!
Great video-thanks for taking a more analytical and balanced approach.
If the research on power output is not statistically significant-then that is the same as concluding that there is no evidence from cited studies that shorter cranks make a difference on power outage-or, shorter cranks make no difference.
I get the impression that shorter cranks are driven by DH, E-Bike crowd where pedaling while seated is not the focus. Maybe somewhat by Enduro racing, too. It’s mainly to minimize pedal strikes.
If a rider does a lot of seated pedaling and likes full leg extension, then they are going to have to raise their saddle if they go with shorter cranks. If it needs to be raised a lot then this may require significant movements forward, or adjustments to stem height, bar sweep, and grip rotation. It’s a risky move if you like your current fit and leg extension and do a lot of seated pedaling.
But i can totally see why this is attractive to DH and E-Bike riders. their pedaling is going to come while either standing or with battery assistance, so leg extension less of an issue.
If a new frame were designed for a 165mm crank length, may not change the overall feel of the fit. But if designed for 145mm crank? If I want full leg extension I am going to feel like I am way up on top of the bike.
Thanks for watching and giving your thoughts! It’s been a while since I made this video so I forget the details, but I do remember some studies being statistically significant and some studies not being significant. There were NO studies that I reviewed showing that shorter cranks lost power (until they became ridiculously short). There may be some out there though. My takeaway is that if you don’t lose power by going shorter, then why not go shorter? I can see lots of counter arguments, though. Especially for road cyclists.
@@GnarlyBearMTB Thank for the reply, and thanks again for the thoughtful video. I have not looked at the studies and I wonder how they treat leg extension? Or if they ignore leg extension by focusing on a very short time interval for power output? if they ignore it, or do the very short time interval then those are highly questionable approaches. if they just assume leg extension doesn’t change, then there is no way around raising the saddle and dealing with all of the other fit variables. if they are doing all this on computer simulation then they should be able to explain all of their modelling details and assumptions. thanks agin-great topic!
@@CJinsoo these were real studies with real people. Every study is different in how they handle variables. You’ll have to read them if you want the answers :). I would have known right after I made this video but I’ve forgotten now.
A computer simulation would be interesting! Great topic for a college research project.
@@GnarlyBearMTB Thanks. I’ll look into the studies.
Kitty!! I use 165's on my enduro size S4. And use 170's on my stumpjumper size S4 for xc
Crank height effects optimal seat height so it makes a little sense to run longer cranks and a lower seat before dropper posts came around. The dropper completely changed mtb frame geo, why not cranks too?
Interesting! I've been spoiled in recent years with droppers. I haven't really thought of how the crank length would affect what you can set your seat post at.
One thing i have not heard mention of in any of these articles is pedaling from a standing position like i do a lot on climbs. It seems that the formula for optimum crank length would change under these circumstances. The biggest advantage i can see for shorter cranks is ground clearance and pedaling while seated. Maybe balance might improve some while standing while going downhill. Not sure about that one. It was always my thought that a wider stance improved balance. Mind blown. 😂
Good thought! I can see standing while pedaling as an advantage for longer cranks because standing is partly just putting your body weight over the pedal. More length = more power. No science on this yet though so who knows.
And yeah balance is largely personal. I think with pedals even larger cranks feel better but when I drop a pedal the longer cranks feel less balanced.
@@GnarlyBearMTB I may try some 165's at some point. A lot of my pedal strikes occur because I am always trying to pedal thru anything. So maybe if I'm more patient then most of them won't happen. I'm going riding tomorrow. Think I'll put this new theory to the test. 👍
Never gave it a second thought. I have a couple of bikes now one with 165mm and one with 175mm cranks, the rest of the geometry is almost the same. Always preferred the bike with 165mm cranks as it seemed more balanced, which is just an opinion. I do get more pedal strikes with the 175s which I have noticed. I've never notices big climbs were easier with the 175s so I'm off to the shop to get some 160mm cranks and see if that effects my opinion on balance, in any case I'll get less strikes which I hate. Thanks for video.
Started riding short crank arms 10yrs ago....135mm on three bikes and 125mm on the road bike....also Canfield makes 150mm and 5 Dev make 135mm....
Early adopter status!
During the studies did they keep the chain ring, rear cassette gear and tire size all the same. Was the only change the crank length or did they use a different gear on the cassette?
It depends on the study. They're almost always using a Stationary Bike with a mechanically-braked wheel rather than a bike with an actual chainring, though.
In "The effect of bicycle crank length variation upon power performance," they adjusted the resistance of the Stationary Bike according to rider weight. Adjusting the resistance is similar to adjusting chainring size.
Hope that helped :)
Ive got a medium niner jet 9 rdo with 175 cranks. I have an inseam of 27". I used to get pedal strikes all the time. I found that my suspension was too soft so i just stiffened it up some. Now i dont get but 1 or two per ride. I used to get so many that i just kinda got used to them and factored them in as a cost of doing business. 😂
The crank length depends on your skeletal measurement. Just because you think 165mm is ideal for you doesn’t mean that’s gonna be good for me. I have no idea how short you are and possibly i need longer ones to get more torque down. Not more more rpm. Gearing is important too. That can change how you shift. I do use all the gears on my bike to i might even consider removing a lot of gears just because I don’t use them.
There's some equations in the video that relate crank length to inseam. Ultimately, researchers found that crank length doesn't massively affect your power output on a Stationary Bike though.
If you like longer cranks for tech climbs, that's fair. I personally wouldn't want to go too long though because of pedal clearance.
If you wanna go fast downhill, choose the crank that feels best since your power won't be significantly affected :).
Thanks for engaging amd giving your two cents!
I'm 5-5 pretty short legs .
I have an Ibis ripmo my crank length is 160 and I really do not like it .
It made me have to move my seat up higher for my legs to extend and in turn makes me feel all wobbly
And if I ever stop with the seat up it makes it even harder to reach the ground
I feel that. Shorter cranks will definitely put you a bit further from the ground. My best advice is to work on your balance and track stands so you don't have to go to the ground as much. If you do have to touch the ground with your feet, make it intentional or work on your bails if/when it's unintentional.
BBs have gotten a lot lower in recent years, which only helps you be closer to the ground.
You gotta stop being 5’5 it will fix that
Good day brother amazing video I'm running 152mm cranks and I'll never go back 💲🤘🤟🤙
Awesome! What cranks are you running?
Yo cranks 😍🤙🤘💲 what brand and size are you referring
5:28 Wouldn't the shorter cranks effectively raise your center of gravity from a 170/5mm crank length?
I get that you gain clearance for pedal strikes, but if you don't also articulate your body to make up for the more(5/10mm) elevated position, the center of gravity is moot.
Not being argumentative, just trying to understand.
Hey Bryan, Thanks for commenting! You're totally right in that the longer cranks lower your center of gravity AND generate more leverage on the bike. In theory, this should allow you to corner faster and I think its why bmx racers use longer cranks on their smooth courses.
I think those pros are outweighed by the pros of shorter cranks; easier to balance and less pedal strikes. I dont think mtb racers could safely utilize extra crank length for the sole purpose of leverage. Consistency is more important than posting the absolute fastest time you can.
its good for dh but not for xc and climbing uphill
The study I mentioned suggested that sprinting performance was better on shorter cranks. I'd be interested to see more studies as well as long-term race performance of shorter cranks though. You obviously don't sprint for the whole race.
Whats the equation for inseam to crank length?
20% of leg length. That's from ONE study at 03:11 in the video. I'd recommend you watch the whole video though because the TLDR of it is that crank length doesn't significantly affect your power and you should use what feels best downhill (if you race enduro, DH, or value the DH more like many recreational riders I know)
I currently have 170 mm cranks on my MTB and l would not want them any longer .
The bicycle manufacturers need to stop specifying 175 mm cranks with large and above frames and make 170 mm cranks standard for all sizes.
I remember when road bikes had 165 mm cranks standard .
I am sure most people would like to run 170mm on road and MTB .
Thanks for watching! I agree, I think cranks need to be shorter across sizes. Personally, I think you could even stock 165s on mediums and 160s on smalls by default, but I also understand that manufacturers don't do this, oftentimes to cut costs that come with needing more unique parts and a larger supply chain.
Ive got a knee problem and the orthopedic surgeon said biking was the best way to strengthen it. My issue is that my knee wont bend far enough to use the cranks that are on the bike I got. Whats the shortest crank arm you can get?
Ouch - So do you want smaller cranks because your feet can't reach the pedals? You'd need a smaller frame in that case, not smaller cranks.
I believe canfield and 5dev make the smallest cranks on the market that I'm aware of.
I'm not a doctor nor do i know your specific medical issue, but I also feel like there's probably physical therapy you should be doing in combination with cycling to improve the health of your knees. For example, there's off-bike exercises I do to help manage my own runners knee (IT band syndrome).
Good luck on your cycling journey!
Another very importand and neglected thing is long term knee/joints comfort.
Bike industries should make shorter cranks in Sram GX cranks they only go down at 165mm and thats it. But all in all 165mm cranks do feel good over the 170mm i was on and surprisingly no power has been lost for climbing just better control and handling on the bike!
Wow so interesting really! 😯 that video gives me so much ideas for that.
Awesome, glad you liked it!
Hi dude, interesting video. Peaked my curiousity in trying out 165mm as my other bikes come with 175mm cranks. Im 185cm, unsure of my inseam as Ive no current way to measure. If i do make the change, do I have to get a longer dropper post as well or can i just use the current one?
Thanks for watching! It’s very likely you can use your current dropper. You’d just drop it by 10mm or so. Whatever feels right! Your frame technically has a “maximum seatpost insertion depth” and you’d want to make sure you’re not over that number. There’s a 95% chance you’re good.
Thanks a lot for your advice dude!! Really helpful. Will do so when I get my bike. Stay safe!!
hang on. those tests were done with a cycling inseam. not your jeans. if you wear a 32x30 there's a pretty reasonable chance your actual cycling inseam is 33-34" there are good tutorials on how to measure a cycling inseam. i think what you hit on is pretty close though. for the average 5'10 guy with a 33-34" cycling inseam a 165mm crank on a newer frame is fast and you don't have the rock strikes like you do on 175. a general purpose trail bike where you do pedal uphill a lot and also do some enduro. i personally favor 170 being 5.10 with a 34" cycling inseam
Have 165 5DEVS on my AM bike. Want to try 145 on my DH bike
Nice! Did you get the black/silver, or go with the colored cranks?
I'd be curious to hear opinions on the 145s. Let me know if you try them.
@@GnarlyBearMTB got black
Why not try uphill occasionally downhill fun reward for the hard yards up
I definitely ride uphill! Enduro is a racing discipline where the downhills are timed and the uphills are not. You race over a few downhill "stages" and your total time is added up.
This video is geared generally towards people who ride enduro, but the studies I cited also discuss the impact of crank length on pedalling performance, which would affect climbing.
@@GnarlyBearMTB cheers from australia. Giant trance. 650b.
@@Eric-kn4yn Cheers! I'm on 650b's myself :)
hmmm, 150mm or 155mm for my 29.5" (maybe a bit less) inseam! Trail riding.
With a 5mm shorter crank, you might need to sit up to 5mm further back or you might hurt your knees. My knees does not like a steep STA I think longer cranks would of put some of it.
That's interesting. I didn't consider how shorter cranks affect the angle of your knees forwards and backwards in the saddle as well as up and down. I suppose you might need to scoot your seat back a little bit to keep your knee flexion comfortable at maximum extension. I'm no expert in the recommended flexion angle because I go by the feel of my own knees and hips, but a study I found shows a recommended angle around 35 degrees. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32022807/
If people experience knee pain when switching to shorter cranks, they could consider adjusting their saddle backwards on the rails as well. Thanks for commenting this!
For those 5mm, you move seatpost height by marginal fistance which can be easilly compensated by moving seat itself horizontally by few mm.
Anyway seat post angle on modern enduro bike is a compromise made, driven by other bike measurements (77°).
Most riders are not so sensitive to bikefit, not on trail, enduro or DH bikes.
why would you buy a bike with 150 travel in the rear and short wb and chainstays for enduro downhill?
You talking about my bike? It's not optimal for racing for sure. 27.5, shorter chainstays, less travel. I just like riding it. It's a bit more playful than a race bike and I can jump on it more easily
@@GnarlyBearMTB ohhh cool gotchya
I have ridden 175 for decades off road, but I trained and raced road when young, so I have a very good spin and in fact where true sustainable power comes from. Difficult to spin that 120 man, 100 is ok, I have a used 170 I'm going to switch and try, I want my top end back..🦖
What’s your height? I think you’d be interested in the optimal power for height graphs in this video
@@GnarlyBearMTB 5' 10" , 30.5 inseam, I definitely would. I just accepted longer was better mostly. But I sprint and spin hard still and it makes perfect sense the flywheel in legs and cranks should be as balanced as possible🤔thanx
@@mountaintruth1deeds533 if I remember right, these studies don’t account for standing power. I think slightly longer cranks would be better for raw standing power. I have no evidence to back that up though
I just switched from 175 to 155. I'm 188cm tall. What a difference. Power feels the same, I can climb easier . Knees don't ache. Where did 175 ever come from???
I know right? 175mm is a standard to save money for manufacturers by providing a consistent length. It's time for that standard to die! It's okay to have standard lengths because they make our bikes cheaper, but the lengths need to be rethought.
Road. Where most bicycle "standards" came from.
Curious, did you also change your saddle height and maybe got a 200mm dropper seat?
Not sure I 100% agree with saddle height being dictated by cranks at BDC. I think maybe there is some influence on saddle height but shouldn’t be 1:1 on crank arm length.
I think you're right that it's not 1:1. To take it to an extreme, you wouldn't want 'full' extension on a 50mm crank. You'd adjust the saddle height a bit less so that you can still generate power with your quads.
@@GnarlyBearMTB but at reasonable arm lengths you’re probably close to 1:1
@@alexsinbb Yeah exactly! 1:1 is a good enough approximation if you go from a 175 to a 160 for example. Maybe go 13 mm instead of 15 mm if you want fo be exact.
They ride downhill. For the rest of us XC, Trail riders leave the cranks longer for leverage to push uphill with ease and lock in for those nice rock rolls and double tops. Key skill - learn to ratchet and avoid pedal strikes.
Thanks for watching! I agree that ratcheting is a key skill to avoid pedal strikes and should be learned by all :). It's extremely important in mountain biking. I do have to respectfully disagree with your statement on longer cranks being desirable because they provide better leverage, though. I think that gearing is a better way to gain leverage without affecting other mechanics of your bike.. Wouldn't you want to reduce pedal strikes AND gain more power by switching to smaller cranks? (if you're a short guy on a size medium like me)
The leverage comment in regards to “locking in” is off base. Ultimately, a trail rider wants their weight centered over the bottom bracket and the longer the crank the further away you are from your center of gravity. Think motorcycles for a moment, two fixed pegs…shorter cranks move your weight closer to COG and will be the most beneficial to “locking in”. Body position and body mechanics will absolutely suffer the further you go from COG.
Pedaling, power output, HOW the power is laced to the ground, how your body feels post ride all matter in respect to crank length and I think a lot of people are gassed up with this industry “standard” of 175mm cranks. The same people who change reach/stack/rise of stems and bars and will tell you all the reasons why it should be changed…why not cranks?
@@jeremyprovonsil7886 Thanks for commenting! I think the crossover between motocross, motorcycles, and MTB is interesting.
Let me explain what I mean by longer cranks giving more leverage when cornering: When you corner, you want to stand vertically over the bottom bracket while your bike leans. The longer your cranks are, the more torque/moment you have relative to your bottom bracket. This torque could allow you to lean the bike more while staying upright over the bike. I'm not saying this leverage outweighs the benefits of shorter cranks. Just that it's physics and something to be aware of. In practice, the lean angle you'd need to be at to see this benefit would be impractical or impossible. You are limited by your legs hitting the frame and the physical length of your arms. The stability/clearance benefits of the shorter cranks would far outweigh any theoretical benefits of more torque.
I've seen/heard people talk about the "torque benefits", and I wanted to address it in the video while also stating that it's not a good reason to have long cranks. Like you said, you are more "locked in" when closer to the bottom bracket. IMHO, there is a "too short" when it comes to cranks for DH though. Some asymmetry in stance is good. I have no research whatsoever to back this up though so it's just a matter of theory :)
For what it’s worth, I understood your point initially, and thanks for clarifying for me and others. I think it goes a long way to counter other arguments which have somehow survived as folklore for too long.
Are you familiar with Remy Morton? He rides DH and big mountain chainless, and with, as he labels it “kid cranks”, something ridiculously short. The ultimate in balance is two pegs welded to the BB and case closed. There’s just too many other variables and factors to consider once gravity and momentum come to a rest for that to even be practical. Bit as you said, there’s a point practically speaking where it’s too short or too long and most of that lies in the riders’ preferences and personal geometry in relation to the bike.
Last year after much research and nerding about I made the switch from 175mm to 165mm and am blown away after close to a year of trial and error with setup. FWIW, 5’9”+, 175lbs, 32” inseam, size L SC 5010 with 27.5 wheels, now 165mm cheap-o Eagle GX cranks on all my bikes. Maybe I’ll post more separately from this branch post.
th-cam.com/video/iGoHXIQHe6g/w-d-xo.html
i just got some descendant carbons @ 165mm
w/ a 30" inseam, i'd rather have 160's but cant bring myself to 5dev... gotta win the lottery?
Ahaha yeah they're quite expensive. Most major manufacturers were sold out on the 165s and I got a deal through my LBS, so I went 5DEV. Enjoy your descendants! Those are sick cranks
@@GnarlyBearMTB damn you!!!!! after watching this vid and a couple reviews, i ordered a set of 155's. im also 30 inseam, so hoping these will be a nice addition to my new Tyee. now i am running gx carbon 170's so those will be up for sale ;)
@@mikestivers8302 LOL - Congrats on the purchase and let me know how they feel.
I'm really interested in how the shorter cranks behave on the DH. I'm sure major manufacturers (SRAM, Shimano, etc) have tested them, but I haven't heard any riders talk about it.
@@GnarlyBearMTB i've heard about the benefits of shorter cranks to match the rider for over a year now. finally going for it. it seems the industry is FINALLY getting on board with putting relatively correct-sized bars on the bikes.. remember when ALL bikes had 800mm bars? and most dont understand they can be cut... i'd like to see 175's or 180's on XL, 165 on M, and 155 on Small bikes. they'll come around. for now, building bikes is a great way to hand-pick boutique components. the Tyee is my 4th bike i have built from the frame up. including rear shock. so out with the GX's and in with the NOW
@@mikestivers8302 agreed on the bar width thing! A rider should consider their shoulder span and how the added “leverage” (putting buzzwords in quotes) is affected. It’s insane to see 13 year olds on 29” trail bikes, 175mm cranks, 800+mm bars looking like they’re paddling a kayak instead of holding onto MTB controls! A hard thing for most to get over is trying something different and feeling like they need to justify it to a bunch of couch racers. Another thing is how pretty the bike looks for those hard parked Instagram boudoir bike check photo shoots.
Adjusting all of this stuff is literally critical to riding MTB!!
Research says no lower than 140
150-155 seems ideal
I WANT THEM!!! SHORTER IS BETTER!
The last comferatable bike I had was probebly a kids size 😅It got stole and since I've been stuk with 170mm. Where the comfertable ones were probebly 140mm. I will admit, they were in some cases a bit short. But something like 150mm would probebly be very lovely and not tire out my legs as much, or hurt my knees.
You'll need to go with a smaller manufacturer like 5DEV or Canfield for 150s for now. I love my 5DEVs, but theyre pricy. Let's hope the industry catches up and starts making 150s standard though!
@@GnarlyBearMTB I have been contacting just about any bicycle shop in my area and 165mm seems to be the smallest the can find (Netherlands) 😭😭 If I can't find any better options, I'll probebly ask them for one where at least the cranks are a separate part. Hoping it will make it easier when shorter ones become more available.
175mm cranks suck. Should only be on xl and xxl bikes! Not medium or large
Amen to that!
I’m I’ve only ride 165 for the past 20 years
Nice! Keep doing you 👍
Does 5mm make a noticable difference? Im looking to go from 170 sram nx cranks that came on my SJ EVO with Sram gx 165 cranks. But is it money wasted or is there value there? Approx 32 inseem... thanks
I'd personally save that money or get a
lesson instead! Your current cranks work fine. 5mm is a noticeable, but small difference.
They are gravity riders, fool! I run 170mm on my gravity bike but I'm much taller than them, so it's the same as their 165mm.
th-cam.com/video/i2V1eBbNHnI/w-d-xo.html
You know what happens when pro BMX racers go below 180mm?
They lose!
That's interesting... The results of a study I talked about suggested that the shorter cranks were better for sprinting. The sample size was small and bike was a lot different than a BMX bike, though.
Don't drink the "Short Crank" Koolaid. Short cranks = less torque. Don't care what anybody says, THAT is math. And longer cranks = wider stance = more stability. They are simply trying to get you to buy something new and utterly unnecessary. Yes, a couple of DH RACERS (ask yourself if you are at their level) use them and if you too are a superior DH racer, maybe give them a try. Regular folks need the pedal power and stability. Don't drink the Koolaid.
There is more than one component that affects torque…
Also if you watched the video you would see that shorter cranks than 170mm are better for power generation in the average sized human. You can read the studies cited in the video if you would like to. The graphs shown in this video are specifically helpful.
@@GnarlyBearMTBits about feel dude. Watch Hardtail Party Channel. For climbs he preferred the 170. Overall though he preferred the shorter cranks. 165-170 feel the best for me personally. I get the science but it’s more nuanced than that. I’m 5’11” with a 32 inseam and no way I would go lower than 165-160. Just because you want shorter cranks to be better doesn’t mean they are. At least not for the average MTB Rider
Also I’m 6’5”
😬Ouch this hurt to watch. Its like microsoft sam reading a text book...crank length is whatever feels most comfortable. Same as bars grips saddles and pedals.
Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@GnarlyBearMTB you seem like a decent guy pls dont become the next Evan mtb saga. Bit music a joke or two less scripted awkward edits. And some practical images with the explanations. An just a nod. Real riders dont give a shite about crank length. Be it moto, mtb, jetski or horse. Real riders just rip bro 🙏
Let's be honest we are only talking 10mm not much at all
10mm is a lot depending on the context. Considering that 10mm is usually the crank size difference between an XS and an XL, I’d say it matters