# Short cranks = the real deal!



## mahgnillig (Mar 12, 2004)

I finally managed to locate a set of 165mm GX Eagle cranks to replace my 175mm that came stock on my HD3. I also swapped out the 32t chainring for a 28t oval to make up for the crank length change and also to give me a bit lower granny gear for the punishing mountain climbs we have around here. 

I did a pretty tough sustained climb today... at a guess it was probably 1200ft of climbing in under 3 miles, with most of the elevation gain being in the first 2 miles. The oval chainring felt weird at first but didn't take long to adjust to the 'surging' motion. I actually felt like it was much easier to keep the front wheel on the deck because I no longer had to apply so much power to the pedal stroke to keep moving (previously these power strokes resulted in me unwittingly popping the front wheel up just from the effort of pedaling - probably my poor technique). I noticed a massive reduction in the number of pedal strikes I got today, but that's just the bonus. Normally my left knee would be a little bit unhappy with me by the end of the day, but it feels fine. Additionally I was able to ride up pretty much the entire trail without having to get off and push... the limiting factor is no longer how much oomph I have in my legs, but traction (some of the very steep parts were also sandy so I just ran out of traction sometimes). The only downside is that I was moving pretty slowly, like 2mph slowly. Not an issue for me as I'm not racing anyone, but I did get passed on the trail by a hiker who was jamming uphill faster than I was! 

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

Awesome! Btw, it'll take you time, but once you get your rhythm, you'll be faster on them. I'm finding on 165mm that I can close some gaps on the flat sections with others. My climbing sucks, so that isn't included in this comment 

I'd be curious to see how 160mm feels, but I could experiment with my bike all day long..

Yeah, I'm noticing that other companies are starting to GET IT.

Canfield is the BOMB. 155mm, 160mm and 165mm cranks for DH and Trail! You go dudes!

AM / DH CRANKS | Canfield Brothers Bikes | Cranks for Downhill


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

I'm also thinking about trying shorter cranks but have fairly long legs (34.5" inseam @ 5' 11" height

Unfortunately your experience report is pretty much worthless without you giving away any hard numbers (body height / inseam) to help putting things into perspective, it should be obvious that shorter riders do benefit more from shorter cranks


----------



## mahgnillig (Mar 12, 2004)

Steel Calf said:


> I'm also thinking about trying shorter cranks but have fairly long legs (34.5" inseam @ 5' 11" height
> 
> Unfortunately your experience report is pretty much worthless without you giving away any hard numbers (body height / inseam) to help putting things into perspective, it should be obvious that shorter riders do benefit more from shorter cranks


Wow, sorry for providing worthless, obvious information. You might want to ask nicely next time... a little courtesy goes a long way.

5'2.5", 30.5" inseam. Yes, that is my cycling inseam, not my trouser length.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

Steel Calf said:


> I'm also thinking about trying shorter cranks but have fairly long legs (34.5" inseam @ 5' 11" height
> 
> Unfortunately your experience report is pretty much worthless without you giving away any hard numbers (body height / inseam) to help putting things into perspective, it should be obvious that shorter riders do benefit more from shorter cranks


Any reason you're here other than to **** on the OP?

She had very valuable info. It doesn't have to be qualitative data for it to matter.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Steel Calf said:


> I'm also thinking about trying shorter cranks but have fairly long legs (34.5" inseam @ 5' 11" height
> 
> Unfortunately your experience report is pretty much worthless without you giving away any hard numbers (body height / inseam) to help putting things into perspective, it should be obvious that shorter riders do benefit more from shorter cranks


This is why guys aren't supposed to be posting in here. A little tact goes a long way there, Ferrous Cow.

Great posts Mahgnillig and Stripes.

I'm picturing you cranking along Mahgnillig, and the hiker 'walking ' away up the climb, and its giving me a chuckle! Awesome post.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Sorry, we try to keep Steel contained, doesnt always work. Agitates a lot of users. Not to mention why in the heck did he ask about weight???

Im a guy and visit here on occasion, stopped here cause the crank length discussions are interesting. Didnt realize steel went an made a mess already.

BTW OP, dont worry about it, getting a mountain bike up a climb take way more effort than walking. You stuck it out. At that point I would have been walking with the hiker.

Been reading up a lot on oval rings (thinking about grabbing one) and they take some getting used to, as does a crank length change. As bad as it is with set crank sizes, its really stupid honestly. Should be available like frame sizes. Ive seen cannondale cranks with about every size you can think of but omg the price tag. Set of arms cost damn near what a CF crankset from some brands does.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

RAKC Ind said:


> Not to mention why in the heck did he ask about weight???


I wonder myself, maybe it's a matter of reading comprehension? (weight vs. height)


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

RAKC Ind said:


> Sorry, we try to keep Steel contained, doesnt always work. Agitates a lot of users. Not to mention why in the heck did he ask about weight???
> 
> Im a guy and visit here on occasion, stopped here cause the crank length discussions are interesting. Didnt realize steel went an made a mess already.
> 
> ...


Weight is irrelevant. It's about bike inseam measurement, height, and even femur length.

It's crazy. You might be able to get 170mm cranks on a small frame, but not 165mm. If you look at people proportionally and crank length measurement, that doesn't make sense. My husband is 5'10", who rides usually a large frame (sometimes a medium on the really long frames), and he uses 170mm cranks.

I currently use 165mm cranks, but Canfields shorter crank offerings really appeal to me since 160mm could make riding a lot more interesting as my legs would be even closer together and make my control on the bike better.

My hip pain is gone going to 165mm. But my ideal crank length according to measurements is 163mm, so I'm wondering is 160mm is the sweet spot.

I got on a friend's bike with 155mm cranks. Pedaling felt odd, but man, the body felt much better.

Now, don't get me started on the ridiculously narrow Q factor most bikes have too.


----------



## mahgnillig (Mar 12, 2004)

jochribs said:


> I'm picturing you cranking along Mahgnillig, and the hiker 'walking ' away up the climb, and its giving me a chuckle! Awesome post.


I was definitely working way harder than he was, lol!

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

That's a scene for a comedy sketch...rider grinding away, then pan out to hiker just walking a long! Good stuff Mahgnillig.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Here's some 165mm cranks originally put up by BXCc. They are for BSA bottom brackets. The BCD is 104mm.

Truvativ Descendant https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JXKD7FS/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

Pretty killer deal for some 165mm cranks.

Doh...sale over. They were 30 bucks.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

mahgnillig said:


> Wow, sorry for providing worthless, obvious information. You might want to ask nicely next time... a little courtesy goes a long way.
> 
> 5'2.5", 30.5" inseam. Yes, that is my cycling inseam, not my trouser length.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


I'm a guy, sorry if I should not post. But Im 5'6" with a 30" inseam. I'm using 165mm with a 30t oval for the past 2 years. It works great and less stress on the joint for short limbed people. You'll notice that you can now drop your outside foot for a turn much faster, so it can help with handing as well.


----------



## River19 (Jul 3, 2007)

Interesting discussion;

I wanted to add a note about the ovals.....my wife and I both ride ovals on 1x11 and I will never go back. The whole "pulsing" thing lasted about 1/4 mile for me.....then it just felt natural. Knee pain over the season used to be an issue for me no matter what I did on seat height etc. no more.

I still have several bikes with traditional chain rings and I do feel the difference and find myself less willing to really lay the power down on those slow techy climbs etc with round rings. The oval does in fact help me in keeping traction on sketchy climbs.

My wife loves hers as well.

For anyone thinking about trying one.....I can't think of a better $70 risk than an oval. 

P.S. We both went from 30T round to 30T oval.


----------



## mahgnillig (Mar 12, 2004)

I have really noticed the difference in traction when climbing too. With the round chainring my tyre would lose traction on the power part of the stroke and then it was game over, time to get off and walk. With the oval I can make it up some pretty steep hills, even if they have loose rocks or dirt on them. 

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

mahgnillig said:


> I have really noticed the difference in traction when climbing too. With the round chainring my tyre would lose traction on the power part of the stroke and then it was game over, time to get off and walk. With the oval I can make it up some pretty steep hills, even if they have loose rocks or dirt on them.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


Glad to hear that. I have a 30T oval on order (instead of replacing cranks) and see if that makes a difference on my bike that I actually pedal


----------



## River19 (Jul 3, 2007)

stripes said:


> Glad to hear that. I have a 30T oval on order (instead of replacing cranks) and see if that makes a difference on my bike that I actually pedal


You will notice it on the climbs, maybe not right away but shortly after you get used to it.

I also find it much easier to come out of a "forced track stand" when I stall on a techy crap garden....the ease of getting the pedal "over the top" with the oval accounts for many more successful encounters than with the round.

It isn't a miracle worker, but it allows me to use what skills I have to my best ability more often.

And again....for like $70.....WTF, give it a shot.....


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

stripes said:


> Glad to hear that. I have a 30T oval on order (instead of replacing cranks) and see if that makes a difference on my bike that I actually pedal


Are you folks using the Absolute Black Ovals?


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

There is a few brands out there now that have them.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## mahgnillig (Mar 12, 2004)

MSU Alum said:


> Are you folks using the Absolute Black Ovals?


Yep, it seems to be very well machined. Some of the other brands don't go as low as 28t, which is what I wanted. Bonus: it's green!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## River19 (Jul 3, 2007)

MSU Alum said:


> Are you folks using the Absolute Black Ovals?


Yes, my wife and I both have ABs.....mine red hers black....not that color is a deciding factor....both 30T....with 11-42 rears....


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

River19 said:


> Yes, my wife and I both have ABs.....mine red hers black....not that color is
> deciding factor....both 30T....with 11-42 rears....


Not to hijack this, but are you all running them in the "neutral" position and have you tried them one or more notches counter clockwise? I think I'm going to get one for my wife with maybe one for me later.

Of course color is a factor!


----------



## mahgnillig (Mar 12, 2004)

MSU Alum said:


> Not to hijack this, but are you all running them in the "neutral" position and have you tried them one or more notches counter clockwise? I think I'm going to get one for my wife with maybe one for me later.
> 
> Of course color is a factor!


Mine only went on one way (SRAM direct mount). My hubby has the Cinch mount version which you can rotate, but he left his in the stock position.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

mahgnillig said:


> Mine only went on one way (SRAM direct mount). My hubby has the Cinch mount version which you can rotate, but he left his in the stock position.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


Thanks.


----------



## River19 (Jul 3, 2007)

MSU Alum said:


> Not to hijack this, but are you all running them in the "neutral" position and have you tried them one or more notches counter clockwise? I think I'm going to get one for my wife with maybe one for me later.
> 
> Of course color is a factor!


Stock position on both, Cinch system in neutral, never tried the other positions......was very happy as is.

To bring it back to cranks......175s on both


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

Thanks (Mahgnillig, River19) for the info. My wife went out yesterday on her first ride with the AB 26 tooth oval chainring and cleaned 2 sections she had not done before!


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Just to give a little math

165/175 = 95% of original of torque

oval chain ring say 34 x 30 compared to a 32 round...

34/32= 106% of torque

oval chain ring say 28 x 26 compared to a 27 round

28/27=104% of torque...

So shorter crank with a oval chain ring makes some sense...

BUT overwhelming that is fitting

So say you are 72 inch (6ft) and like 175 cm cranks

So somebody 66 inches 5ft 6in would like

66/72 times 175= 160 cm cranks

Basically I have always wondered why more people with shorter legs don't go for shorter cranks...

Just makes basic sense.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

jeffscott said:


> Just to give a little math
> 
> 165/175 = 95% of original of torque
> 
> ...


The problem with this formula is it doesn't include leg length (bike inseam). I have a 29.5" bike inseam and I'm 5'4". A friend of mine is my height but has really stumpy legs (25" bike inseam). How does this formula work for her vs me?


----------



## mahgnillig (Mar 12, 2004)

The inseam length is definitely important... I'm 5'2.5", but my cycling inseam is 30.5", so definitely a short torso and long legs for my height. (In contrast, my husband is 6ft even, with an inseam only an inch longer than mine.)

To be honest I'm not all that concerned about the torque, power output etc. What concerns me is the angle of my knee at the top of the stroke. Shorter cranks make that angle less acute, which means less knee pain for me. I find it disappointing that bike manufacturers consistently spec cranks that are way too long on XS and S bikes. Even accounting for differences in leg length, you'd have to have some pretty weird proportions in order for 175mm to be appropriate if you're 5ft tall. 

- Jen.


----------



## River19 (Jul 3, 2007)

MSU Alum said:


> Thanks (Mahgnillig, River19) for the info. My wife went out yesterday on her first ride with the AB 26 tooth oval chainring and cleaned 2 sections she had not done before!


Fantastic to hear. While it isn't a cure all, for $70 or so it is so worth trying before you go dropping $200+ on a new crankset.

My wife is 5'5" with shorter legs with tons of thigh power as she is a competitive equestrian rider and rides 175mm cranks with the 30T oval on a medium Pivot........fits her great.

Ride on !!!!!


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

Thanks to this thread, I decided to go from a 28t round to a 30t oval. Couldn't get absolute so i opted for wolftooth. 

I did some test riding with it today, and it feels like I have 5 extra gears. I also don't feel like I'm killing my legs on steep climbs. I'll get more testing on it in the next few weeks. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## River19 (Jul 3, 2007)

stripes said:


> Thanks to this thread, I decided to go from a 28t round to a 30t oval. Couldn't get absolute so i opted for wolftooth.
> 
> I did some test riding with it today, and it feels like I have 5 extra gears. I also don't feel like I'm killing my legs on steep climbs. I'll get more testing on it in the next few weeks.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Stripes, also fantastic to hear.

It really does make a difference on these 1x drivetrains.....I won't go back.

When I ride my 2x10 fat bike in the winter I feel the difference going back to round. Might have to swap to a GX or NX 1x11 just to get to the oval.....but in winter that granny really comes in handy, but the smooth power of the oval will be great on traction.

While the oval won't solve a fit issue, it certainly is easier on the knees and can help in some techy areas getting that leg "up over the top" for that one extra crank that matters.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

stripes said:


> The problem with this formula is it doesn't include leg length (bike inseam). I have a 29.5" bike inseam and I'm 5'4". A friend of mine is my height but has really stumpy legs (25" bike inseam). How does this formula work for her vs me?


You seem to have it

Let see

I went from 170 cm to 175....felt like I could finally take a full step...

If we go bike inseam I have a 32.5 inch in seam

I would say 29/32.5*175 = 156 cm so 160ish should be good.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

River19 said:


> Stripes, also fantastic to hear.
> 
> It really does make a difference on these 1x drivetrains.....I won't go back.
> 
> ...


So yeah.. the oval chainring came off after a few rides.

I can't get the torque on it like I need for the short punchy things, or for wheelies. It feels like if it's a steady climb, it's awesome. Anything else? Not so much.


----------



## mahgnillig (Mar 12, 2004)

stripes said:


> So yeah.. the oval chainring came off after a few rides.
> 
> I can't get the torque on it like I need for the short punchy things, or for wheelies. It feels like if it's a steady climb, it's awesome. Anything else? Not so much.


That's why I like it... most of my rides involve steady climbs over several miles with a few thousand feet of climbing. It's entirely possible that it's contributing to my utter inability to wheelie though 

- Jen


----------



## cecald (Feb 17, 2010)

Just as an FYI - Sram NX makes a 155mm crankset as well. Wife is 5'2" (not sure about inseam, sorry) and loves that length on her Warden and Tallboy.


----------



## R_Pierce (May 31, 2017)

delete, posted in the wrong forum sorry!


----------



## River19 (Jul 3, 2007)

stripes said:


> So yeah.. the oval chainring came off after a few rides.
> 
> I can't get the torque on it like I need for the short punchy things, or for wheelies. It feels like if it's a steady climb, it's awesome. Anything else? Not so much.


Interesting. Everyone has different bike handling techniques.....No problem flipping over backwards with one crank with the oval. On trail I get plenty of torque to get up and over stuff......everyone's style is different.

Agree on long climbs etc. it is really noticeable.


----------



## iRider (Nov 15, 2005)

stripes said:


> Yeah, I'm noticing that other companies are starting to GET IT.
> 
> Canfield is the BOMB. 155mm, 160mm and 165mm cranks for DH and Trail! You go dudes!
> 
> AM / DH CRANKS | Canfield Brothers Bikes | Cranks for Downhill


If you are looking for a weight weenie option, Federleicht is making super short cranks for kids' bikes:

Kurbeln

They are spendy and limited to 50 kg /110 # rider weight but go down to 120 mm.


----------



## petey15 (Sep 1, 2006)

So, based on Stripes suggestion, I had 165mm cranks put on my new bike. My (biking) inseam is 29.5" and I'm 5'4". I've only previously ridden 175mm cranks, although I do have 170mm cranks on my small Salsa Mukluk. I've always ridden small or extra small bikes, and yet they've always been spec'd with 175mm cranks. 

One of the reasons I decided to go with the 165mm cranks was because I was going to have a 1x11 drivetrain (first time I've gone with a 1x, except on my singlespeed) and I have a lot of shorter, steeper, technical climbs on our trails in the NE. I have a 28T chainring and 9-46 cassette. I was hoping that the shorter cranks would make it easier to tackle those climbs.

What a huge improvement! I was very pleasantly surprised climbing felt so much easier. Moreover, I haven't had any hip pain since I got my new bike. NADA. I've taken it on long (3-hour) rides with out-of-saddle climbs and maneuvers. Never has anything felt "spinny" and I couldn't be happier. I'll admit, while hopeful I'd notice a difference, you never really know until you try, right? I can't imagine going back to 175mm cranks.


----------

