Shorter VS Longer CRANKS : Which One is Better For SPRINTING!?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ค. 2024
- LIKE THIS VIDEO to help out with the algorithm! Oh and subscribe? 🤗
Check out the Stages SB20 Smart Bike! Review coming soon!
Use this link: bit.ly/3nZ2DnE 👈👈👈👈
5% DISCOUNT on SB20 with code: CHARLES-SB20
20% DISCOUNT on Power/Dash Accessories with code: OUIMET20
☝️ US ONLY
Road Cycling Academy video about cranks : • Crank Length (A Four S...
Let's Connect + Be Friends 🥳
► My Cycling Instagram ► / charlesouimet
► My Photography Instagram ► / refinedmoment
► My Strava ► / strava
Crank length resources :
www.trainerroad.com/blog/cran...
www.bikeradar.com/advice/sizi...
0:00 Intro
0:40 Road Cycling Academy crank segment I disagree with
1:35 Why I'm testing his crank length theory
2:59 SPRINTING TIME! 8x
4:23 Let's analyze the data!
8:29 Final results
8:57 Another HUGE advantage of shorter cranks
9:44 Do your own research!
⚠️PROMO & DISCOUNTS⚠️
► Winspace Bikes (code ''charlesouimet10'') bit.ly/36Kx7jF
► Lun Wheels (code ''charlesouimet10'') bit.ly/36Kx7jF
► A.I Bike Fit MyVeloFit (code ''charlesouimet10'') bit.ly/33xlS01
► XACT Nutrition (code ''charlesouimet10'') bit.ly/2UBpMgH
► Stages SB20 Indoor Trainer (code ''CHARLES-SB20'') bit.ly/3nZ2DnE
► Airofit Breathing Training (discount link) bit.ly/3b59pFj
► Bont Shoes (discount link) bit.ly/3PPAkD5
► Nova OSPW (code ''charlesouimet10'') bit.ly/2WbrFSd
► Siroko Cycling Kits (discount link) srko.co/charlesouimet10
General & Business Inquiries: charles@refinedmoment.com 📧 - กีฬา
![รวมเพลงลูกทุ่ง 6 หนุ่มไทบ้าน ฮิตติดกระแส ชุดที่ 1 l มนต์แคน ไมค์ ไผ่ เสถียร ไหมไทย พี [Longplay]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GD2v1OjMw5I/mqdefault.jpg)
![เปิดบ้านสุดหรู "เเจ็ค the ghost" ลั่นถ้าป๋องกพลลำบากผมเลี้ยงเอง!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1xbW4vULqGc/mqdefault.jpg)
Also, from my research shorter cranks allow for a more aggressive (aero) position on the bike. On the top of the pedal stroke (with shorter cranks) the rider's knee is lower, so the rider's torso (on shorter cranks) can be lower to achieve the same hip angle (of longer cranks). Also, research shows that a shorter crank gives taller (faster) gearing (so for example a 165mm crank with a 50x11 might be the same gearing as a 172.5mm crank with a 52x11 kind of thing, I didn't plug this into the calculator, but you get the idea). shorter cranks allow your bike fit to be lower and longer, allow more pedaling in the turns and from this video possibly more sprint power. I'm building up a crit 1x bike and have been training all winter on the trainer with my 165mm cranks.
Agreed!!! Thanks a lot for sharing Travis, very good knowledge here
A shorter crank would require greater torque, so I'd expect the reverse, like a 160 on a 52/11 being the same as a 170 on a 50/11. (As a rough example).
A shorter crank because it would take less time to rotate (hence higher torque) would allow potentially higher cadence given less total movement of the legs.
@@John-dh1gh I recently moved to 160 cranks (from 170) and I can say that when I am grinding away in my TrainerRoad threshold workouts my cadence is markedly higher (about 5 or 6 rpm higher... instead of being at like 82 rpm near the end of the work out I'm up at like 88; and instead of being at like 88 in the first few minutes of those long 15-20 minute efforts, I'm up at like 95-93). this was also after a 2 month block of only base 2 training so maybe that helped too, but I think the candence difference was probably because of the shorter cranks. these cadence differences was comparing like 6 hard sweetspot/threshold workouts with 160 cranks where I was knocking out like 9+ level of sweet spot and 7+ level of threshold, compared to years of previous 170mm crank workouts. I'm not saying shorter cranks will let you do markedly harder sweepspot or theshold workouts (might help some because you will be able to keep a higher cadence) my improvement there was because TR reduced my FTP due to the 2 months of easy zone 2 I had been doing & that easy zone 2 work helped build my diesel engine to crush those threshold/sweetspot workouts.
@@travispyle2905 Yes, once I get back into it I'll have a look at marginally shorter and see if there's any improvement. My mention of 'higher torque' on a shorter crank doesn't mean higher torque at the bike, more the absolute torque exertion required by the downward motion of the leg (less leverage so more newton meter effort).
The real consideration I have is I'm using fixed gear on a track environment. So I don't really want even more effort required at the start to start forward momentum.
Anyway, we'll see.
Currently deciding whether to buy a turbo trainer or a smart bike.... decisions decisions...
You saddle height should increase with shorter cranks
I'm thinking you missed what Cam and Neil were saying - he doesn't say longer cranks will necessarily give higher watts, just that it will be a more immediate response, i.e. a quicker jump which your graph might show the power line is marginally steeper. its not much but enough to give you a gap which can make a different in a crit if you time it right.
He was also super clear to say “if your a big and strong rider”. Charles is a pretty small guy, so I doubt what he was saying was even meant to apply.
''If you're a crit racer with a big powerfull sprint, going shorter...'' Well that applies to me with a 18-19w/KG sprint :) I just wanted to test his theory!
If I'm not mistaken this is explainable through the formula for torque (M=h×F M= torque in Nm, h=length of crankarm in this case, F-force). -> increasing h results in higher tourque at same power
@@CharlesOuimet yes it was definitely a good thing to test and knowledge as a racer. Personally I think the shorter cranks are the best too as what you might give up in the initial kick you can regain in the next 50-100m. Of course it just depends on what type of sprinter you are, e.g. huge short burst so leave your kick until the very end or if you can sustain it for longer go earlier (which means shorter cranks are best).
Thanks for this! I started on shorter cranks when I got a fixed gear because I was afraid of striking the pedals on the ground. It just felt more comfortable, and I have switched to shorter cranks on all of my bikes. More comfort = more power.
agreed!!!
Goodness! I’ve been looking to find a video that supports this idea for a while. I too came from riding fixed and that bike was super dialed in and was just so comfortable for long rides, climbing and sprints. I constantly feel like the 175mm on my road bike are a key flaw in position and power on it. Could be just from riding fixed for so many years and not having power in the extended range of motion 175 demands but this definitely makes me want to source a set of cranks for this summer in 165. Nice work! Thanks!
Probably the toughest thing is finding 165 mm cranks
That is indeed a problem!!! they are very hard to find
@@CharlesOuimet Back in the day, anything between 165 and 180 was pretty easy to find. Of course, back then, you could also easily find stems in 1/2 cm lengths. 115, 125, 135)
Shimano zee crankset has a 165 I'm running it on one of my bikes they also come in 170 and 175 if I'm correct
Amazing video! Thanks a lot. Will try shorter cranks!
Thanks Jason! Worth giving it a try
Great job on this mate! Have the same bike and running 165mm
Nice dude!!
I am 188cm also with long legs. I use 172.5 I downsized all my bikes from 175. It just feels better, and the lower knees are important. I think bigger cranks might have a use when rpm gets extremely low, e.g. when get a bike over a log or something; not at all sure. Fascinating video. Very useful to see this rarely presented (if at all) information. Thanks.
Thanks James!
very interesting video. great info as Ive just gone from 170 to 165mm on my new bike
Thanks!! Glad you enjoy
1 got 160, 170, and 175mm. I agree with you, for indoor use shorter crank give more power output because contant body position but when use outdoor the result will not always be same like indoor. I would say different people do different training with different period, so which equipment are the best will be the equipment that they use everyday for minima 3 month training. Its likely mean the break in period. I think 165 and 175mm crank use different small muscle, which one are the best depends on their training. I m not a pros but have been riding since 2011 and do many race and experiment. Just my 2 cents. Maybe i m wrong i dont know.
I was actually going to link to 1 of Neils videos over on RCA/Cam Nichols after your reply to my comment about position on the last video. He does some amazing analysis. Cam found that changing to shorter cranks allowed him to change his position to a more aero position. If the position costs you a few watts in maximum power but reduces your drag by 10's of watts at 50-60kmh then the aero position is well worth it. Probably worth fiddling crank lengths and playing with your bike fit to see if you can get lower comfortably. Getting fitted by Neil is probably a bit hard to organise unless you're heading down under.
Thanks Alan! Agreed with you here
make sure you changed the stages app crank length as crank length could affect the power reading it gives if you don't have it changed.
Great video Charles! What about your knee and hip angles? Would be cool to see how much your leg and ankle angles change with different crank lengths but keeping seat height constant. I hear track riders want their leg alot more straight at 6 o'clock because of the way they use power. Just thought of it because I've been keeping an eye on some of my numbers when I make any bike changes. Great video as always!✌️🤘
Thanks Jason! YEAH that can be a nice idea to do a huge slowmotion on the pedal stroke and see the difference, will keep in mind for future video :)
Great video. I switched to 165 cranks when I had to take them off my wife's bike in am emergency. They felt so good and natural I ended up switching all my bikes to shorter cranks.
nice!! agreed they are much better
Excellent video. Totally agree with you. When i first saw the claim by the Australian bike fit guy, I was really shocked. I am happy that you confirm better outcomes for shorter cranks. Data speaks for itself.
Thank you!!
Wel done always suspected this now you proved it well done thank you
thanks!!
Hey, just wondering if you changed the crank length in the stages app when you moved your pedals? If you didn't this likely contributed to the error as the power meter would no longer be calibrated properly.
Hey Matt, I've used the powermeter in my assioma pedals, and didn't change their settings each time, stayed at 170mm calibrated. But here is a very nice comment from a viewer which no matter the margin of errors from the crank lenght settings, there is enough data difference to support the claims!
Nice work putting this together and good method. The retired mfg. engineer enjoys data review and thank you for the summary at the end of the test. Measurement error and calibration error aside the worst possible outcome assuming mechanical procedures were same setup to setup, etc. is +1% for 15sec and +6% for PEAK power increase with advantage to 165mm. The average differences are +11% for 15sec. and +16% for max power with advantage to 165mm (without introducing measurement error stack up and proper calibration to crank length). If you can elaborate as to whether you did a crank length calibration or not that would be helpful to add or subtract measurement differences. If crank length is setup/calibrated the error potential is simply +/-2% comparing cranks however if say crank was defaulted to 170mm the measurement error range would be 1% - 5% or 3% +/- 2% for each crank length or a total of 2% 10% or 6% +/ 4%. Hard to explain without a graphic. Doesn't matter though because your study survives worst cast scenario to support your claim that 165mm cranks worked for you in your test.
I was wondering why I ride so much faster on my bike fitted with 165mm cranks. The difference is tiny but even compared to the 170mm cranks on all my other bikes, you can feel the difference, like you showed higher cadence is achieved with more ease.
Exactly!!
Hey Charles, on the Velodrome in the UK we are restricted to max 165mm cranks, for general track use anyway, what about your side of the pond?
Good to know about that restriction! Make sense to me
What are the results of a shorter crank like 165 combined with an oval chainring?
Thanks Charles, I'm considering try another crank length to match my riding style but trial and error would be very costly.
If this can help! my pleasure
Just go invest on a bike fit where they put you in a jig. It takes out the guess work and saves you money unless you want to burn money. Its easy for someone to do trial and error if they have bike that has adjustable cranks. For most people the best investment is to get a professional bike fit.
You have to change the crank length setting in the pedal settings and calibrate between every sprint. If its set to 165mm and you sprint on 175mm cranks it reads low.
Less that 1% reading difference
@@CharlesOuimetwell did you input changed crank arm length into the system between each run? Otherwise the computed power outputs is based on 170mm (your normal crank length) when in fact it is actually either 165 or 175mm long crank arms. It would explain the entire difference shown in the video…
@@CharlesOuimetI saw that you already answered this question in other threads 👍🏻
Just caught up on this and going to try with 165 with my SB20 tomorrow. Just curious, since I skimmed through, you changed the crank length in the app for this test, right?
yes!
I switched from 175mm cranks to 170 mm cranks and not only did I NOT need to change my gearing because of the reduced leverage, my knee pain disappeared AND my top speed INCREASED! If I could find 165mm 110 -74 mm BCD triple cranks I would buy them to try them out. I use a 24-36-52T sprocket set in front and a a custom 13-28T 8-speed sprocket set in the rear. FYI, I'm 5' 11" with size 14 feet which requires me to set my saddle height higher than most people.
nice man! Thanks for sharing
Excellent video Charles, your results confirmed what I was already thinking. I’m your height but a little heavier (10lbs), I was thinking that perhaps if you were a fatta@@ say 30~40lbs heavier you would have more mass to keep the momentum going to get a harder burst and sustain it long with the extra mass… not that want to carry that up hills 😂 I’m using the 170 like you but as soon as I see a deal on some 165s I’m gonna jump on it! I think they will also help here in the mountains. Keep up the great work bud! Ride On!
Thanks Paul! Glad I could help you figure this out :)
Give it a try
Tu as le th sporadique. Love the content Charlot!
Un grand merci !
I think that is speed what helps you win races. and I noticed that the longer cranks gave you more speed (40's for 65mm and high 50's for 75mm) can you please compare the same data to the speeds you got on a video?
Thanks! Great work!
Higher RPM also gives more speed. To be tested!!
Same for me, I started on 172.5’s but moved to 165’s, no loss of power but higher cadence. I’m 177cm in height
nice!!
We might recall always our body's physiology and adaptive capability. Which crank length we ride most of the time, affects the result, because it will lean towards our adaptation, the length of the person deters so choose your equipment based on your length.
GCN had a similar test years ago and results came back in opposite, though the guy was 185 cm tall and I am assuming your height is about 175 to 180cm. When I look at the sprinters in the Tour, none of them has anything shorter than 170mm, this got me to stick around with 170mm. With your results, I am keen to get myself a 165mm to see if it works for me.. Great stuff!!
My guy, this is just what I was looking for. I’m considering going from 170mm to 165mm but I was worried about sprinting power loss. Now, the only possible downside to shorter cranks might be lower leverage when climbing, but other than that everything else is a win.
-Higher natural cadence allows you to save your leg muscles and rely more on your cardiovascular system
-earlier pedaling through corners as you mentioned
-reduced leg movement upward and downward movement
-open up your hip angle
-allows you to raise the saddle so you can get more aero
Dude, these are all exactly the takeaways! try it out and see if you like it :)
Technically if you are raising the saddle you're not getting more aero... also cadence will always be the same. Only difference is that at 70rpm the foot speed is going to be different. Hence the difference in torque needed.
@@mathiasguillemette1244 Like he said at the beginning do whatever that works best for you. I changed from 170 to 175 and saw instant positive changes.
@@_trust9994 change to 175mm, is it faster or more power output?
@@_trust9994 what was the instant positive change??
165 FTW! TRACK LIFE! I was on 170mm and went to 165mm and never looked back.
Agreed ahah!!
Hi Charles! A 10 mm difference in crank length is pretty substantial. Did you do the test in the same gear for both crank lenths. Running 175 mm cranks is like shifting down to a lower gear. Notice how your max RPM is higher for the 175 mm cranks. That's just what you would expect from being in a "lower" gear. If you did run the tests in the same gear, I would love to see you try moving to a "harder" gear when using the 175 mm cranks and repeat the experiment. I think this would be a more Apples to Apples comparison and you might see the power output for the 175 mm cranks go up.
Hey Luigi! Instead of using gears, I've used the stages SB20 brake levers to gradually increase resistance to the desired/best feeling ''virtual gear''. I think it make it very fair!
@@CharlesOuimet Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! You are a very smart, and very POWERFUL man! Bravo, mon ami! 👏👏👏
do you have to adjust the seatpost height if you change from 175 to 165?
usually yes you have to! but here for the sprints it was not needed
If your strong enough in the legs & lower back go long. Leverage & power will crush spinning anytime. But as theres so many variables in cycling, this is something that needs careful consideration. Ie, different races / events will need different lengths of cranks.
1st you're and 2nd it's not about being "strong enough" but about mobility, flexibility and physiology. Pogacar went to 165 this year. Did he get weaker??? Shorter cranks are better for shorter people and people with mobility and flexibility discrepancies. It has absolutely nothing to do with power.
With small cranks you can sustain high rpm more efficiently as you displace less mass. High rpm are good for sprinting.
100% agreed!! a famous coach in quebec always said : ''Speed watts are faster than brute force watts'' Let that sink in!
I used to always use long cranks as I could pedal faster than most anybody else. Even with long crank.
Short crank is good if you have hydraulic cylinders for legs and you use lots of coke.
have you try when climb on gradient 15-20% with shorter crank ?
haven't!
I would be interesting to see the same test with 165-167.5-170-172.5 🤯 . Because of the stage bike it will be possible to test it out !
Ahahah that would take a loooong time to test hehe
Unfortunately, I had to switch for more of a medical reason. Hip impingement and osteoarthritis sucks, but shorter cranks keep me riding. Here's my video on it: th-cam.com/video/CQvLIyOiYGs/w-d-xo.html
thanks for sharing!
Great video! I was wondering, what gearing have you chosen to go for on your SB20? Thanks.
Thanks Martin! I don't recall the gear, but I used the brake levers to increase resistance instead of shifting up
@@CharlesOuimet I was meaning 53/39 52/36 and so on :) Thanks!
@@mmannerstrale 1x 13 gear! I find going 2x is a bit useless :)
@@CharlesOuimet interesting! What do you find as pros/cons? Thanks!
@@mmannerstrale full review of my SB20 coming soon :) but I feel I never need that big gear change riding on zwift.
Perfect thank you 🙏🏾👌🏾✊🏾
My pleasure!
Having ridden 172.5, 170, and 165 mm cranks extensively, my findings are exactly the same. I'm also surprised that he said larger cranks are better for getting up to speed faster. I find the opposite to be the case. Smaller cranks spin easier / faster because the motion of spin is much smaller. One thing to consider when going 165mm though is that same exact gearing, let's say 34 front 30 back, would feel much harder on the same gradient on 165mm cranks than the 170mm cranks. Because you have less leverage on the pedal due to shorter crank : more force needed to turn it. When I was a beginner, going from 172.5 to 165 was a big shock because of this. 10%+ gradients all of a sudden became so much harder. Once you're stronger though, this isn't much of a problem.
Thanks for sharing dude! Glad you find what works for you
Short crank should be compensated with gearing, but you should have RPM advantage. In the past, gearing was limitation for use of shorter cranks.
@@peterch4978 without the RPM advantage you would just get slower if you compensate with an easier gear.
Your moms like my 8” crank shaft!
Bro do you have old bike that I can use to go to work or to be deliver man. Just to help my mother
Sorry, check out your local marketplace
Curious what your leg proportions are. Not so much leg length, but femur length as a proportion of your leg length. Neal (sp?) occasionally alludes to it as one of the many variables that makes bike fit not straight-forward. So I wonder if people like me with a longer femur length would benefit more one way or the other. Intuitively, a longer femur = longer crank...but we all know that's not a certainty.
a bike fitter would have the answer!
Thank you. Well done. Track sprinters ride shorter cranks for a good reason. I'm so sick and tired of seeing road and especially mountain bikers think that their intuition about longer cranks enabling more power is somehow more meaningful than generations of experience from competitive sprinters.
Agree. Whats interesting is that most ppl are concerned about losing sprint power - yet the prototypical sprinters (track sprinters) don’t seem to complain about 165mm cranks.
Fascinating video. As a semi decent sprinter I have been trying for the last couple of years to try and replicate my IRL sprint numbers on the trainer and am getting closer but still 100w shy of my PB 1400. A couple of questions that came to my mind watching your video are: 1) How does the 1300w effort compare to your indoor PB which I assume would be on 170m cranks? 2) Is it easier to generate higher peak power on the Stages bike compared to using a Wahoo Kickr or Tax Neo? 3) In my experience, power generation on a trainer is very different to riding IRL so what would the results of this experiment be like IRL?
What’s your weight if I may ask?
Hey Ian, great questions!
1) The 1300w in this video was very close to my 170.. PB in the indoor trainer at 1350-1400w
2) Yes easier on the Stages than direct drive trainer. Being so heavy, all the power goes into turning the smooth belt drive system. On direct drive trainer, even tho I add 40 pounds of free weights on the legs of the trainer, I ended up moving it A LOT. which is waisted power in moving the object rather than turning the flywheel. Also the Stages I don't know if you can tell in this video, but rather than shifting UP when launching my sprint, I am actually pressing down the brakes levers, which adds resistance much faster and smooter than a regular shift. It's awesome! Also it allows to quickly get back to high-RPM after the sprint when releasing the brakes levers.
3) some people can loose up to 200-300w of peak power on the trainer VS outside. Personally this doesn't affect me that much as outside I can do about the same power output
@@CharlesOuimet Thanks for the feedback. That was a great tip about using brakes to add resistance. I had actually wanted to ask how you achieved such smooth shifting. I am still using mechanical shifting on my indoor bike and have a big ugly V in my power graph when I shift and still finish up at around 110RPM. Now I just need to convince my wife that I need a Stages bike :)
@@ianglover2852 ahah nice!! I have an unboxing video about the stages on my channel (full review coming soon) and à discount code for ya 😀
when I saw the clip of Neil saying shorter cranks don’t work for MTBing (in my case gravel and CX) because they don’t spin up as quickly, I thought it was BS because I went to shorter cranks on my gravel bike and noticed it was better for quick bursts, higher power output to get over things and get around corners. I have since gone shorter on my road bikes and TT
Thanks for sharing dude! I knew I was not the only one with skepticism
(Good video) Here is a suggestion: Try the test again without using a virtual cycling program (current cycling video games are not adequate dynamometer testing platforms. 1) Select and set the brake force of your unit to a level you can rotate (if this is not possible then the unit is not suitable for testing power and torque output only playing cycling video games). 2) Select one gear combination and then per crank length selection, gradually increase your pedaling speed till you max out. The graph recorded should show at what RPM the most power and torque are produced.
I run 210mm cranks. Depending on bottom bracket height, cranks longer than 175 at not a problem when cornering. I raced 180mm for +20yrs at National level under one of the best cycling coaches on the pro circuit.
Thanks for sharing man! I'll keep in mind for future videos
I wonder if it has more to do with height/inseam?
Maybe a bit too
27 years ago, I tried 2 different length cranks on a single speed city bike. I thought that by installing long cranks(I think they were 175, maybe), I can use smaller rear cog and ride faster and still get up from same hills, because having more leverage. Wrong, I was not only unable to get up from steep hill. I was also much slower on downhill and on flat too. Even with same rear cog I was slower. After installing biggest cog that I found, that fit for single speed coaster hub and with original (shorter) cranks, I was faster and also could get up from steep hill.
My current bike has 165mm cranks and no one can convince me that they would not be best cranks for anybody, for cruising leisurely around and maybe sprinting sometime and riding fast. Tall guys don't need long cranks, they use them only because they show off their ability of riding with longer cranks than anybody else.
Hmm i should try this, currently on 172.5...i should experiment with 165 or lower...i have a Kom to beat this summer lol
Definitely something to try!
Thank you for the video Charles. Very good tests. Please tell me I might have missed it: did you also decreased the saddle height by 1cm when going from the 165 to 175? Also vise versa. The reason I'm asking is that saddle height is one of the major indicators of the ability to generate power on the saddle. If you didn't change saddle height with the crank length change, can you redo the test in a future video? It's really interesting and a hot topic these days. Also, if you can get your hands on two cranks 175 and 165 can you also try that outside? Im just throwing ideas for future videos here.
Write wrong. Just realized from your footage that you did all your sprints 100% standing. You can try seated tests too. Don't forget to decrease saddle height by 1cm when going from 165 to 175
pretty sure power meters... when first set up, require you to set crank length(both my wahoo computer and my wahoo kickr required this)... so u unless adjusted those settings (ignore this if u did) every time you switched cranks lengths .... this would prob explain why the data looked like it did despite fatigue
* both the power meter and computer need to match
I’m curious too. My guess is that the bike doesn’t measure watts on the crank so there’s no need update in the software.
Good point, settings stayed at 170mm crank setting. Not sure that it would change the data that much. Less tan the 200w different. Maybe a few watts? I'm no scientific ahah. But I'll keep in mind for future testing
excellent test.
Thanks Ed!
very interesting - may i ask how tall are you? wondering if leg length is a factor too. am 185cm.
I am 170cm
@@CharlesOuimet Thanks - at 185cm, with slightly longer than ave legs, I'm using 170, 172.5 and 175 on road, TT and track bikes - seems like that is good. Great video and just subscribed - going through your back catalogue for turbo viewing! :-)
I like my 8” crank shaft!
Wouldn't you have to recalibrate after each crank length change?
Calibrate before the first one, but not between each change. I dont think it's needed
I used to race BMX in the 80's and used 190mm cranks. I am 6'2" with 35" inseam, and 19" tibia length.
Was one of the fastest because I used to train spinning with the 190's.
Now on MTB's I've been running 175's for the last 4 years and although I have become used to them, still dislike them because they feel short. When jumping or relocating my feet on the pedals I still look for them wider apart.
Have tried 170's and they feel comically small, and I can't really put the power down. Remember, I have no restrictions on spinning fast even with a wider circle.
Conclusion: short cranks are not for me. And I will commission now some 185's for my new HCHT build 😎
Would seat height or anything else change if one were to go to a shorter crank length?
Hey! Yes you usually need to increase saddle height by the crank lenght reduction. So 5mm shorter crank would be in theory 5mm saddle height increase! But that is a rule of thumb
@@CharlesOuimet thank you!!
Idk, 10mm of difference seems like a pretty significant change to test out if you haven't ridden it consistently. As in your not as in sync with the bike as you would be riding 165.
As a shorter person it looks like trying out 170/165 might help with comfort in the drops.
Great video.
yes!! Thanks
fucking brutal sprint numbers mate !!! but could ya do it on a cold rainy night in stoke
Thanks dude!! AHAH I can ALWAYS pull out these numbers, no matter the weather :p
longer cranks make sense for super steep climbs on a mtb. i gives you an extra gear when you run out. thats why marco pantani ran 180s on mountain stages in the tour. but i think shorter cranks are better for all around riding, not sure tho.
Agreed!!
although not 100% reliable this was a very good video. kudos
thanks!
what's your height/inseam my guy ? these are interesting power numbers at 165
I'm 5'6/170cm
Here is one perspective: You weigh 90kg. You are the best sprinter and climber in your local club for climbs under 10 minutes. You have the biggest legs on any ride. It happens all the time when raw power outperforms the weight advantage realized at higher levels of the sport. A super power to weight ratio (watts/kg) is great when everything else is equal. At the club level, this is rarely true. For raw, wheel-bending, chain-snapping power, where torque is the primary advantage, consider 175mm cranks.
Thanks for sharing!! 💯
So, what size are YOU riding? 165,170,172.5,175? By default or by choice?
175 cause I bought a bike from a Pro and I sort of got used to it 😅
I went to 172.5 on latest road build from 175, with certainly no ill effects. I just wanted to experiment after thinking 175 was not necessary after some research. I kind of wish now I was brave enough "$$$" to try 170. I still have 175 on my gravel bike and do notice a slight bit more torque but think this is unnecessary on the road. Thinking its more about smooth cadence for me. I'm not a sprinter. I am unable to measure like you did and would have to rely on subjective feel. Thanks for taking a look at this intriguing subject. Wish there were a cost-effective way to try out the different lengths. Sadly, too many things in cycling are spend spend spend until you get it right. Thanks again.
@@larrymcgoldrick3471 You could spend only big once. By consulting with a professional bike fitter with a fully adjustable bike fitting bike. So you could test out different crank lengths to find which one is optimal for you. The bike fitter (which you must trust to begin with) will advise which crank length is the best for you. Based on his professional opinion.
155 on all my bikes except on the TT at 152. It was a gradual decrease in length for comfort and spin. From 165 to 160 to 155. Max cadence for 155 w/o bouncing is 130 rpm. 155 is not as punchy as 160. I need to shift to 3 harder cogs on the 155 to achieve the feel off the 160 for a sprint. You need to maintain very good and accurate shift mechanics using shorter cranks to get he the correct gearing. For a crit race I feel that I can use 11-23 cassette more effectively using 155 crank length.
As a comparison using car engines, shorter = Honda VTEC S2000. Longer = Chevrolet Camaro.
167.5
I've had the stages bike for eighteen months and have experimented with crank lengths. 165 seems better across the board, even when grinding a big gear uphill, which seems to defy logic. I'm 174cm tall.
nice! Thanks for sharing
I’ve found similar. My theory is that the shorter cranks allow better glute and hamstring activation and better control of the entire stroke. Muscle recruitment is an often overlooked “side effect” of shorter cranks.
Where was the power being measured - in the crank arms ? Did you have to change the gearing/resistance at all going to shorter cranks for the simulation ? ( surely you would have to on a real bike as less leverage - I found it is about 1 rear cog bigger, when dropping to shorter cranks). I am looking closely at the simulator's projected speed achieved (freeze frame at 5:02) - sprint 3 shows more power needed to achieve LESS speed - and the speed output across 7 sprints is not conclusive; sprints 4 and 5 same speed achieved with less power input on the longer crank (longer cranks - is this because more leverage?). At 3:10 1015 watt, speed of 50kph on 175 cranks but at 3:37 1165W needed for 45kph on 165 crank?
Would have been interesting to 8 sprints on one crank then repeat a day or 2 later on longer crank to see if any difference in fatigue/stamina.
What’s you hight and weight Charlie? Thank you buddy
Hey! I'm 170cm and 150lbs
But what happens if you have short legs?
i have 89-90cm legs i ride 175 and happy with it. tried 170 - it's terrible for me. torque is lower + i don't like to spin so much (170 requires more spin in comparison with 175)
Absolutely! At least you tested it out
Interesting video. Can you give your height and inseam for reference?
I'm 5'6 /170cm
@@CharlesOuimet Thanks! I often wonder if I should try shorter cranks but I am 6ft ans 90cm inseam.
@@chrisridesbicycles I think even tall rider benifit from shorter cranks. Bradley Wiggins did the hour record on 170mm instead of 175! That speaks a lot
@@CharlesOuimet I have to try at some point. Not sure what the benefit will be. I am already riding on 95 RPM most of the time.
Are 167.5 available, use to be weren’t they??
not really!
Interested to see the difference between 170&165
That would be a tough one!
Personally 165mm Crank doesn't suite me in the climb. It's feel harder to pedal by one tooth of the cassette. Tried it for 8 month and went back to 170mm.
Tht Brinjal caught my attention
ahahah xD
How about endurance riding?
to be tested...!
Where is the power recorded in you're stage bike? that could change the results. If it's measured at the crank level, the power could be the same but the longer crank would make you faster because of the better leverage. If it's measured at the flywheel, for the same power output, the speed should be the same for the two. So even if you did more power on shorter cranks with the power reading on the cranks, the speed could tell something else. Keep the great content :)
Good point Marius, I forgot to mention that the power has been recorder at my PEDALS. I use the Favero assioma. Thanks for watching!!
@@CharlesOuimet did you change the crank length on the head unit everytime you switches?
@@CharlesOuimet well that’s an issue, because the faveros require you to input your crank length for power calculation.
My guess would be you left the value at your standard 170mm so the power reading @165mm would be 3% too high (and a further 3% too low for 175mm).
This would add up to a 6% error between the two runs so 60w @1000w sprint power.
Anyway still a great video, I would really be interested in the change in feel between the crank lengths.
i like longer for sprinting but shorter for tt or endurance
It's all personnal preference! At least you know :)
It's torque vs hip mobility
yeah! Hip mobility is way better for me :)
There’s a lot of sensible stuff about shorter cranks, but I’m a better climber with longer cranks. However, shorter cranks are better for sprinting - for me, particularly in terms of longevity.
is it 165mm better for you?
yes!
It's not possible to dance with a Stages or kickr bike, so I'd use a shorter crank there if your knee hurts. If your knees are ok, use the longest crank that works for you. Of course based on your size, muscles and weight. Not a good idea to ride a 175 mm crank when you are a small person and your knee overbends each rotation when the pedal is at the highest position.
More important that the crank length: Pedal at a high cadence.
Agreed!! Thanks for sharing
I think he said if you were a big guy riding crits [edit: he did not and only said big sprint]. How tall are you? Great point about the corners. But great video!
''If you're a crit racer with a big powerfull sprint, going shorter...'' Well that applies to me with a 18-19w/KG sprint :)
@@CharlesOuimet You are right! I misinterpreted what he said, but I think he meant big and a crit racer. Anecdotally, I am 6' and I have 175s on a 1990s mtb I commute on and I don't like them. Not a performance situation. My road bike and gravel bike are 172.5 and I wish I could try them on 170 or 165.
@@CharlesOuimet What is the racing schedule in Canada like this year? Do you ride the US races? Has racing in Canada been more resilient than in the US?
I'm always going to say that crank arm length should match the riders over all height/leg length. Taller riders should opt for longer cranks and shorter riders shorter length crank arms
That's a good rule!
Now I know
- in engine, longer stroke = less RPM, shorter stroke = higher possible RPM before engine damage
- shorter cranks should give higher RPM due to less G - force on legs, less extreme positions = better for joints and muscles, smoother stroke
- long crank seems to have whip effect on legs = more G-forces
1% shorter crank = 1% less torque, but could allow for 3% higher RPM, and thus 2% higher power
Shorter cranks give you less hip roll. Over longer rides can make a big difference fatigued pain even injury which in turn can keep you off the bike!! And have an impact on fitness.
agreed!!!
How tall are you? I believe height will play a big part in this.
This is interesting 🧐🤔
Thanks!!
Crank length is something averaged sized people argue about. Apparently a few mm is crucial. However if you're short or tall it doesn't matter, just use 165 for short and 175 for tall. They must be dysmorphic. A few mm is only crucial if you're average.
well said!
I went to 165’s on all my mountain bikes. Only been positives for me.
nice!
I went from 175 to 165 to 160 and soon will go to 145s!
Nice dude!! I have a 155mm coming for my TT bike, can't wait to test it out :)
@@CharlesOuimet I ride bmx... I find the smaller cranks make a full circle much faster than longer cranks and torque isn't really an issue - I run 28t by 10t.
How tall are you btw? I think height impacts the optimal length of the cranks
I'm a shorter rider, 170cm. Surely impacts my performance since my legs are short, my fast twitch muscle benefit for the higher cadence at same power output
@@CharlesOuimet I feel ya! I am 177cm, settled on 172 cranks. 175 on my MTB as I found a sweet deal on the Cannondale Si SL2 hollowgram/PM crankset.
Definitely feel more comfortable with the short crankset. Havent tried anything below 172 though, just went with it because it fit the profile according to those charts you can find on the internet.
What is mostly impressing with your sprint is that 11-1300w is not just your peak number but you are able to sustain it. Really really awesome!! I am somewhere north of the 800 mark and able to sustain it hahahaha you are crushing it out there :D
@@sebbelito2975 thanks dude!! 15-30 sec sprint is definitely my top strenght :)
Math and Thermodynamics aren't cancelled by inaccurate testing. Look up the formula for horsepower and you'll find Torque and RPM are both primary factors. Longer crank length results in higher torque, which results in higher HP (given same RPM, which your tests verified can be expected). Shorter cranks were good for a lower aero position, but isn't that out of style/obsolete now? I've had hill climbing and sprint success running 175mm cranks as well as a forward cleat position for 20+ years and am so glad about my choice.
Math and thermodynamics equations about crank torque and horsepower don't take in consideration your femur and tibia lenghts and how your power load is distributed between pulling and pushing
The ability to spool up cadence with shorter cranks leads to greater power output faster.
Agreed!
Je pense que la longueur des manivelles peut dépendre des fibres musculaires que tu as???
Aussi oui! J'ai des fast twitch muscle, alors le plus petit crank me permet daugmenter le RPM
If you could do this test again, I think it's not about power. Length of cranks is about for how long you can hold power (actually speed as power isn't winning you a race).
I believe that longer cranks would give higher output for 5sec sprints, but lower for 30sec as, as a human you have to spend more energy. Shorter cranks - the other way around. 5sec will be lower and 30-45sec sprints higher output
Im glad someone is using their critical thinking skills and logic. Most of these weekend warrior worry about 5 sec pissing contest but not able to sustain it for 30secs. Its energy efficiency.
I agreed a 30-45 sec test would be awesome!! Maybe next on my list 😉
Hey Charles, I believe there is a flaw in your test. If you watch Neil’s video he also states that you have to adjust your seat height if you change your crank length, this is to maximize the change in crank length. This will/maybe change your results somewhat? Love the videos, keep them coming 🇨🇦🙏
In a sprint test, that makes no difference because he is doing all his efforts while standing out of the saddle.
Hey Trent, I did not bother with seat height as sprint is standing up and didn't matter here. But YES, if you go shorter crank, you should raise the saddle for regular riding. A rule of thumb is if you go from 170mm to 165mm, you raise the saddle by 5mm
How tall are You Charles ?
168cm !
@@CharlesOuimet I'm 183cm on 175mm, I think I shoulkd at least try some 170mm, but it means buying another power meter ffs lol
fine video tho
I ride 172.5
Nice dude! Finding what works for you