BACK to crank length ... 155 HOPES

[2manyoranges]

Well....more on the earlier debate.

This is just an 'I rode them and they were good' video - but from someone who really knows what they doing. The guidance indeed is to put your saddle up, which he does intuitively - which is consistent with the background tech discussion in other places. Yes, Hope aim to sell more kit, but they are renowned for 'we built it for us and if it works them other people can have it too...'. Which is nice.

 

[greencat]

I have 155s on my little electric folding bike. They are kind of cute - especially if you have a big feet.

I definitely noticed an improvement in climbing going from 170 to 175 on my main mountain bike though (although not so great for pedal strikes).

Would I like to try 165s or 155s on my mountain bike. Of course, I would - but don't have that kind of cash to try something on a whim.

 

[2manyoranges]

I’m 5-7 size 42 ( 8 ) feet - and went from 170 to 165 on my Ragley. Big difference in feel - which I no longer feel. Even when switching to other bikes which are all 170. It’s weird - you just adapt to the change in leverage…up the cadence, down the gear. Raise the saddle. Off You go. I think I might have a go….

 

[greencat]

Yes, I'm a smidge off 6 foot and with size 10 feet. 165 for you might feel the same as 175 for me perhaps?

 

[2manyoranges]

Yes, I'm a smidge off 6 foot and with size 10 feet. 165 for you might feel the same as 175 for me perhaps?

interestingly, I read a while ago (Sheldon brown?) that it is tall people who most benefit from shorter cranks since they have a lot more rotating mass in their legs...so the shorter the rotations the less mass they have to move, and thus can up the cadence more easily by proportion.

 

[Imlach]

To revive this

I've got bikes that run 175, 165, 160 and 170. I like all of them and honestly can't tell much of a difference. I'm 5'10. I like the look of shorter cranks though.

Interesting about shorter cranks for taller people.

I often hear people say that they feel like they can put more torque in going up uphill when using longer crank arms, which kind of makes sense, ala putting a pipe on a wrench, but I doubt it is an exact science.

I think you can probably adapt to any length and perform fairly well with either. For a long time I ran 175 on all my retro frames, because that seemed to be what others did(and I guess the industry standards ruled supreme), but I think my undersized retro frames actually benefit from shorter cranks.

160 and below seems to be the golden standard to end pedal strikes, though. I'd quite like to try some 155, 152mm

 

[hamster]

I often hear people say that they feel like they can put more torque in going up uphill when using longer crank arms, which kind of makes sense, ala putting a pipe on a wrench, but I doubt it is an exact science.

Of course you get more leverage, it's the same as changing gear! The torque that matters is at the rear wheel. Everything else is gearing. You can up the leverage by changing the chainring size, and what matters is the ratio between chainring and crank length for that.

Crank length has to be matched to leg length and proportions. We've all seen cheap kids bikes with adult cranks where they have to over-articulate knees or the knee rises inefficiently above the hip.