you like it?
you hate it?
you hate it?
anyone running 165mm cranks on their trail bike?
- Thread starter englertracing
- Start date
I like it mostly since I get less pain in my hips after riding. I might have changed for a smaller chainring...
Yes.
I like them. As everyone says, they felt a ‘wee’ bit different at first, but by the end of the first ride, totally disappeared as something to notice.
I like them. As everyone says, they felt a ‘wee’ bit different at first, but by the end of the first ride, totally disappeared as something to notice.
165mm for me and I won't go back to longer. I do think it's a direct relationship to femur, but even if your legs are long some advantages are still there. most leggy people I know don't like 165mm however. having my feet closer together when standing this isn't apparent until riding something else, my dj has 170mm and without thinking about it I notice the difference and would prefer the shorter but I do get used to it again.
Last edited:
Less hip and knee pain, faster ratcheting, easier to loft front wheel up and generally feeling more in control in the air.
Less pedal strikes, and less hip flexor discomfort are the main benefits I've noticed.
The one downside is that I would need a smaller ring, or bigger cog, as I notice the need for an "easier" gear to get up certain grades. I'm already on a 32 oval ring, and I'm worried what going down to a 30t ring would do to suspension kinematics. Having just replaced my cassette, I'm not quite ready to replace it just yet.
I'm on 160mm and definitely enjoy them for the same reasons mentioned. I've got a 28inch inseam so I could probably go shorter.
Theoretically yes but statistically I am not so sure...
In my case, 100%. (12.6" static BB height , 170/160mm bike)Theoretically yes but statistically I am not so sure...
I've run 165s on all my DH bikes since 2003. And currently have 165s Shimano cranks on both my DH bikes, My 4X hardtail, My short travel FS mtb, my Emtb and my roadbike.
But I actually run 170s on my lowest bike (26" wheels on a 27.5 Capra). But I don't get pedal strikes. The only reason it has 170s is the RaceFace cranks and (regreased) BB that came fitted still haven't died yet (4 years on). I have a spare set of 165 Saints destined for it but the Capra's PF BB shell will need an adapter or non shimano BB to run HTII cranks
My BMX's all have 175s - Because BMX
Roadbike clipped in. MTB/BMX Flats.
I've been riding roadbikes for 40+ years now and every single roadbike I've ever owned had 170mm cranks until a full build Giant TCR roadbike I bought 8 or 9 years ago came with 172.5s and after a few thousand miles my knees started giving me pain I'd never experienced before every ride. It was set up exactly the same as the previous Giant it replaced apart from 2.5mm lower saddle height and I honestly couldn't believe 2.5mm longer cranks could be the cause of my knee pain. to cut a long story short eventually I bought a set of 165mm 105 cranks, fitted them. Raised the saddle and immediately riding was again knee pain free.
165s spin up faster and my avg/max cadence is also faster on them.
I'm 5'11" with 33" inseam BTW.
I run a higher lowest gear than almost all riders do these days on all my bikes.
eg. 34/50 with 11-25 on road and 34 or 36T with 11-36 or 10-42 on my mtbs
I also think oval rings are ridiculous.
But I actually run 170s on my lowest bike (26" wheels on a 27.5 Capra). But I don't get pedal strikes. The only reason it has 170s is the RaceFace cranks and (regreased) BB that came fitted still haven't died yet (4 years on). I have a spare set of 165 Saints destined for it but the Capra's PF BB shell will need an adapter or non shimano BB to run HTII cranks
My BMX's all have 175s - Because BMX
Roadbike clipped in. MTB/BMX Flats.
I've been riding roadbikes for 40+ years now and every single roadbike I've ever owned had 170mm cranks until a full build Giant TCR roadbike I bought 8 or 9 years ago came with 172.5s and after a few thousand miles my knees started giving me pain I'd never experienced before every ride. It was set up exactly the same as the previous Giant it replaced apart from 2.5mm lower saddle height and I honestly couldn't believe 2.5mm longer cranks could be the cause of my knee pain. to cut a long story short eventually I bought a set of 165mm 105 cranks, fitted them. Raised the saddle and immediately riding was again knee pain free.
165s spin up faster and my avg/max cadence is also faster on them.
I'm 5'11" with 33" inseam BTW.
I run a higher lowest gear than almost all riders do these days on all my bikes.
eg. 34/50 with 11-25 on road and 34 or 36T with 11-36 or 10-42 on my mtbs
I also think oval rings are ridiculous.
Oh no, it's quite noticeable (i.e. statistically significant - if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it's about 30% less). The other is pedal strikes, when they do occur, tend to be less violent/forceful.Theoretically yes but statistically I am not so sure...
edited to add: the only reason I run oval rings is for traction. I noticed it first fatbiking. My rear wheel could maintain traction longer on steep slippery climbs. It was definitely noticeable even if conditions are constantly changing when you're dealing with snow. I fitted one to my mountainbike and haven't noticed a huge difference. But I often can make the technically challenging climbs my buddies don't (though that could also be based of tire choice, suspension setup, and natural ability).
Last edited:
the only thing that is 100% about that statement is that it's still 100% the rider who operates pedal position and looking where they're going.
That's pretty a much identical BB height to the 170/165 Capra's BB that I mentioned above having 170s
Last edited:
the only thing that is 100% about that statement is that it's still 100% the rider who operates pedal position and looking where they're going.
That's pretty a much identical BB height to the 170/160 Capra's BB that I mentioned above having 170s
Good for you. I know how to ratchet the pedals quite well - having ridden 29 frames with 27.5 wheels for years, but I hit the sanity limit with this one.the only thing that is 100% about that statement is that it's still 100% the rider who operates pedal position and looking where they're going.
That's pretty a much identical BB height to the 170/160 Capra's BB that I mentioned above having 170s
Fair enough but not clipping a pedal on a low BB bike isn't just about ratchetting. As you'll know well timing pedal strokes is obviously a lot more important than on a high BB and occasionally you'll just have to accept there are places you can't pedal where a higher BB might be able to. Even then when freewheeling you might still have to lean the bike over or adjust crank position to make enough pedal clearance or manual/hop/jump just to get through short trail sections clean. I kinda enjoy the extra technicality required by your feet on low BBs. Low BBs are definitely not faster for general riding though. Well... not around here anyway.
I'm 2 rides in and I'm not so sure...
have you ever looked at the difference in "clearance" between 165 and 170mm cranks? It's the difference between glancing blow and slightly more glancing blow
If you're going to hit something you're going to hit something
Or, “A miss is as good as a mile”
meh
I've ridden everything from 160mm to 180s (which is still less than an inch) and the biggest difference I've ever noticed was a slight difference in stability from dropping your outside crank to lower your center of gravity in a turn
This reminds me of 2005 when all the canadians riding norcos with 15" BB heights were talking about how completely totally absolutely necessary that was because northshoreextreemroxbro......while riding bikes with 70 degree headangles.
3 rides in and the feeling of LEZ TORQZ and HERSPERS persists.
Can confirm. The loss in torque is real. When exchanging frames I did a complete parts swap, 165 cranks included. New frame landed at 3 lbs heavier which lead to noticeable and measureable higher efforts during steep climbs. Putting my 175 cranks on lead to a drop in effort and more comfort on the same climbs. 6% plus or 5.7% drop in leverage is noticeable.
Have people that have noticed a reduction in torque tried shifting gears at all?
I found the only annoyance was that I had to run my seat a bit higher, the change in stance would slightly raise your COM or COG(can't remember what's what).
I found the only annoyance was that I had to run my seat a bit higher, the change in stance would slightly raise your COM or COG(can't remember what's what).
It would seem that much of the fit/suspension discussion seems to drift into really microscopic corners in which the effect of adjustments being discussed is indiscernible.
I never said it eliminated pedal strikes. In fact, I said it only decreased them by 30%. But the strength of the impacts of the strikes are on average lesser.
Still, I agree it does not entirely eliminate pedal strikes. For me the biggest advantage was the reduction in strain on my hip flexors. I definitely noticed that after a ride.
Re the loss of horsepower: I think you'll find the studies show there is no loss in horsepower, its just that you just get that horsepower in a different gear.
30% is a made up number unless you can show us the empirical data it's based on.
cycling power is measured in watts, not HP.
y'all really arguing about 10mm.
Yes but that means MOAR REVZ
It's december and it gets dark at 4pm
EVERYTHING IS DISCERNABLE!
You've hopped on different crank lengths. The feel of the things is a bigger difference to me than clearance.
Last edited:
Look I just 170mm on everything because thats what I have. But yeah I'd say 10mm is a fair bloody bit. That's nearly a whole pedal platform higher at the bottom of the crank revolution (in which case you probably shouldn't be pedalling through rocks hey).
Even at a 4:30 or 7:30 position its a 7mm higher clearance, so unless your pedal strikes normally hit the whole damn face of the pedal then you'd pretty much miss completely.
So yeah I'd say 10mm more clearance is a bloody bit.
Like all of us I get things all kinda fucked up wrong from time to time . However I'm not dumb enough to blame my fuck ups on 5mm less clearance.
Same goes for bar width in tight trees.
Last edited:
Jaysus, what a cantankerous and pedantic lot...!
I'm not blaming 10mm for increased rock strikes, just noting that with 1cm less, I've noticed fewer strikes, less severe strikes, and my hip flexors are happier.
Why the anger about this?
Clipless pedals seem to require a confident, foot-up approach to riding unlike my "spider monkey on a rodeo bull" styleClipless pedals are narrower, just sayin'....
I don't always run clipess, but when I do, I prefer pedals that instantly unclip you when they touch a rock...Clipless pedals are narrower, just sayin'....
