Short Crank Curious…
- Thread starter rideit
- Start date
28.99mm BBs are even moar expensive than 30mm. I'd go with First branded ones, simply because they use easily replaceable bearings. The DUB, BB30 and HT2 ones are also modular and finding replacement bearings is pretty simple even in thirworldland.
my thread together pf30 dub ninja token was 62 (i even paid retail, like a common sucker 
)
)
How about this: All my bikes have had 30mm or DUB cranks since like 2014 and I've never replaced a BB or bearing, just popped the seals out and regreased them. Some of these are BSA or PF30, but most are BB92 with the tiny bearings. This includes a 2014 Nomad that's still in my fleet.
Unless that bike has spent 6 years on a trainer.
That's a bingo. I don't surf in cold water or ride in the rain.You must be a fair weather rider.
Here you go rideit:
www.commencal.com
AEROZINE Crankset 130/135mm 32T - Non-Boost Kids Crankset in Black
Discover the AEROZINE Crankset 130/135mm 32T, designed for kids' bikes. This non-Boost crankset features a single 32-teeth chainring and comes with a pedal insert for 130mm or 135mm crank lengths. Perfect for enhancing your child's cycling experience, this black crankset is durable and easy to...
www.commencal.com
OMG, SO CUTE!
Just adorbs!
Just adorbs!
I'm gonna disagree and say "adorbs" is the official best description for cranks under 155mm. Their users should be treated like children.
None of these are perfect for my needs, but there are some great, inexpensive options here.
thebikedads.com
Kids Cranks - The Bike Dads
Kids Cranks are often overlooked by bike product managers when it come to kids mountain bikes. These are the cranks to fix that.
thebikedads.com
Gotta pick something, so 1cm shorter than the shortest I've used since childhood. I could imagine going down to 155 for pure DH that's not racing or for high power e-biking. Shorter than that seems it would feel like spinning absurdly small circles and no torque. This is based on my pedaling around kids' bikes at the shop or friends' houses, without actually checking what the crank lengths are.*that's* the threshold?
I'm curious what lengths you Monkeys have tried that feel reasonable vs "might as well be on pegs". I guess we should keep in mind that femur length figures into this feeling and my femurs are longer than ~98% of the USA population.
Iv've
I'm not sure if I would go below 165 mm, the lowered torque and therefore needed smaller chainring size has its limits. Also one would lose the long legs torque advantages with cranks too short.
I've got an inseam of 89 cm / 35" and have forever been on 175 mm cranks on all but the dh bike. When pedal strikes on my 2016 Reign on 26" wheels got a bit too frequent for my liking I tried a 165 mm crank and since then never looked back. I just finished building a new roadbike and choose 170 mm cranks coz there is no option below that.
I'm not sure if I would go below 165 mm, the lowered torque and therefore needed smaller chainring size has its limits. Also one would lose the long legs torque advantages with cranks too short.
They're harder to find but I've been on 165mm shimano cranks on my roadbikes for well over a decade. 105 and above are all produced in 165mm
i feel no difference pedaling up with 155 and a motor to 165 no motor
I run 162.75mm cranks on 2 of my 8 drop-bar bikes, I’d probably run more of them if I still had a drawer full of them.
I also have road bikes with 170, 172.5 and 175mm cranks. Literally, different strokes for different uses- my bikes with the most saddle to bar drop and longest stems(track bike and road fixed) get the shortest cranks for chest clearance. My singlespeed CX bike with the slackest seat angle has 175’s, cuz low torque singlespeed racing.
170 is my crank of choice for go-fast bikes with lots of drop that also have to climb(aka a bike i would enter a race on in 2024) My gravel bike and most of my vintage bikes are on 172.5, because they never get raced and my bar position is a little more “classic”.
My XC race bikes are both on 175- but they both have road bike seat angles and fixed seatposts, and one is occasionally a single speed that climbs big hills.
On any full suspension bike with a casette cog larger than 38 and a seat tube angle steeper than a road bike I have a HARD preference for 165 cranks- your feet being closer together makes for so much better handling, and i spend hundreds of hours a year on a fixed gear, so I have no qualms about spinning fast, even on flat pedals.
I ran 155mm Profiles on my hyper drilled, ultra low and slack Ironhorse SGS, and loved them- especially since the 100mm wide BB already gave you lots of corner-drive. I swapped to 165 Saints when I started racing a 73mm shell bike again, because i suck at setting up Profiles and I could get saints cheaper than a Ti profile spindle at that point. But i certainly missed all the advantages of 155mm cranks
Gearing on modern trail bikes is so damn low, it’s hard to imagine running long cranks- they certainly put lots of stress on your back climbing compared to shorter cranks, and they reduce your range of motion for weight shifts- not ideal with the longest and slackest bikes of all time!
I also have road bikes with 170, 172.5 and 175mm cranks. Literally, different strokes for different uses- my bikes with the most saddle to bar drop and longest stems(track bike and road fixed) get the shortest cranks for chest clearance. My singlespeed CX bike with the slackest seat angle has 175’s, cuz low torque singlespeed racing.
170 is my crank of choice for go-fast bikes with lots of drop that also have to climb(aka a bike i would enter a race on in 2024) My gravel bike and most of my vintage bikes are on 172.5, because they never get raced and my bar position is a little more “classic”.
My XC race bikes are both on 175- but they both have road bike seat angles and fixed seatposts, and one is occasionally a single speed that climbs big hills.
On any full suspension bike with a casette cog larger than 38 and a seat tube angle steeper than a road bike I have a HARD preference for 165 cranks- your feet being closer together makes for so much better handling, and i spend hundreds of hours a year on a fixed gear, so I have no qualms about spinning fast, even on flat pedals.
I ran 155mm Profiles on my hyper drilled, ultra low and slack Ironhorse SGS, and loved them- especially since the 100mm wide BB already gave you lots of corner-drive. I swapped to 165 Saints when I started racing a 73mm shell bike again, because i suck at setting up Profiles and I could get saints cheaper than a Ti profile spindle at that point. But i certainly missed all the advantages of 155mm cranks
Gearing on modern trail bikes is so damn low, it’s hard to imagine running long cranks- they certainly put lots of stress on your back climbing compared to shorter cranks, and they reduce your range of motion for weight shifts- not ideal with the longest and slackest bikes of all time!
165 Shimano here. I would run shorter if offered
now that Pogacar has won the Tour on 165mm cranks, the pseudo-science people are coming out of the woodwork...
I put 165's on the road and cross bikes last year, it has been good.
More comfortable in the drops and spins up the hills better.
Mtb bikes have all been 165mm for at least 5 years now. Works great for me, I'm 5"7".
More comfortable in the drops and spins up the hills better.
Mtb bikes have all been 165mm for at least 5 years now. Works great for me, I'm 5"7".
I'm building my new enduro bike to be closer to a DH bike than any I've owned before, so decided to go 165 cranks. I can definitely feel the reduced leverage when I pedal on my DH bike's 165s. This will also be the heaviest trail bike I've owned so to help with that it will be my only one with 12 speed (52 vs 42 low gear).
Google says he's 176cm or 5'9 something. Not a midget height. Maybe ridiculously corgi proportioned limbs or something
the insert came unbonded in my 165mm SixC cranks last week. Was hoping to order 160mm Atlas', but they don't make them. When I called my shop they told me they're coming next year. Oh well, 165s it is then. And if I have money to burn next year (or I really don't like the orange cranks with blue ring colour combo) I'll get 160s next year.
5'9" is short for an adult male. Ie. Below average height.
170mm being pretty much average crank length. 165s aren't exactly a surprising choice for a below average height rider.
Hardly earth shattering news that the wee guy likes them
lolwut
Uhhh…
Average height for US males is 5’9
Average height for US Caucasian males is 5’10
Average Slovenian male is 5’11
Average human height by country - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
The guy is an absolute exemplary athlete and the idea that his edge over the rest of the peloton is 10mm of crank length is laughable, regardless of his height
Well f*ck. I've fixed the creak on my XC bike, it was the BB shell. I tried everything else first, including changing the cranks by fashioning up my one still-good Next SL crankarm to a spindle and putting a spare XX1 on the other side. When I pulled the BB off, I first pulled the bearings. They were silky smooth still. Don't remember which, but they are either NSK or SKF. So the only thing I can figure is repeated crank/pedal impacts have screwed the BB shell/race and there have definitely been many of these, mostly during races and the all-out efforts.
It looks like there's just no way I can run 175s on this, which I am not happy about. Not as big of a deal on the enduro bike, but I definitely do not like the 165s as much as 175 for any kind of pedaling and was hoping to avoid having to do that on the XC race bike....but looks like I have no choice. I'm considering ewings for the 30mm BB and standard-sized bearings, but open to other non-5Dev options in the same size and LIGHT.
It looks like there's just no way I can run 175s on this, which I am not happy about. Not as big of a deal on the enduro bike, but I definitely do not like the 165s as much as 175 for any kind of pedaling and was hoping to avoid having to do that on the XC race bike....but looks like I have no choice. I'm considering ewings for the 30mm BB and standard-sized bearings, but open to other non-5Dev options in the same size and LIGHT.
Last edited:
he‘s right, the younger the population the bigger they are now
5'10 in UKAverage height for US males is 5’9
Average height for US Caucasian males is 5’10
Average Slovenian male is 5’11
Average human height by country - Wikipedia
5'10.5 in Australia
IME most adult males who say they are 5'9" are lying. and have rounded up. Sometimes by almost a couple of inches. A phenomenon more prevalent in older guys.
Last edited:
