# 165 mm cranks



## Tim F. (May 22, 2006)

Anyone running 165 mm cranks arms? other than more clearance, and faster spin any other advantages or disadvantages?


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

less leverage when cranking on the harder gears...


----------



## mtnryder56 (Sep 13, 2008)

Damn, I didn't think anyone would go less than 170... I guess with the lower bottom bracket's it makes a little sense. But I just feel like, unless you are riding lift only access, you shouldn't go below 170. The loss of leverage is going to be big.

175, and learn to manage your pedal placement...


----------



## Tim F. (May 22, 2006)

Yes you lose leverage, but you can start cranking sooner out of corners, and pedal over more gnar without smacking your pedals on rocks. 
But you loose some stability, being you shorten your stance. Just wondering if 5 mm is noticeable.


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

Tim F. said:


> Yes you lose leverage, but you can start cranking sooner out of corners, and pedal over more gnar without smacking your pedals on rocks.
> But you loose some stability, being you shorten your stance. Just wondering if 5 mm is noticeable.


but you don't peddle fast enough for any of that to matter...stick with more leverage


----------



## his dudeness (May 9, 2007)

I'd say stick with 170mm. 165 is for really tiny people who ride xs sized bikes. You're a man, not a 10 year old.


----------



## Pau11y (Oct 15, 2004)

My Jedi sits so low to the ground, even at 165, I smack the crap out of my pedals all the time.


----------



## drastic. (Nov 22, 2010)

my bike came stock w/ 165mm. i actually thought that was the norm for dh bikes. guess not.

i'm not an overly aggressive rider that plows into rocks, as i like to pick and choose my lines down a rocky section instead of going straight as an arrow, but i do have rock strike marks on the bottom of my crank arms.

is 5mm increase really that noticeable in terms of pedaling leverage, and increased rock strikes?



and someone correct me if i'm wrong...
but arent the crank arm lengths between 165, 170, and 175mm all the same. they all came out as the same length blanks, and the company just offsets the pedal inserts depending on length.


----------



## siyross (May 19, 2009)

Greg Minnaar runs a 165 crank quite a lot. It feels totally different. You do spin at a higher rate due to the shorter reach of the cranks, but in my opinion it is nicer to give a few short cranks then to do bigger circles (As with longer cranks)
shorter cranks are generally easier for short bursts.


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

I'm really surprised by the answers here. I can lay down the power much better on 165s than anything longer and I feel more balanced and jump better with the smaller stance. 165s are the standard in DH for a reason.


----------



## mtnryder56 (Sep 13, 2008)

I am far from a physicist, or physiologist, whichever is needed to answer this question. But aren't the people that are talking about faster pedal strokes...couldn't that be solved by just being in a different gear?

Lelandjt - your last comment makes a little bit of sense. With the smaller stance creating a more balanced setup as far as jumping goes, like with a dirtbike peg set up. But still, this is mountain biking and our speed comes from pedaling.

Interesting question and I would like the guy who did the youtube vid on wide bars to do another on crank arm length.

there's an official request for you, if anyone knows that guy. thanks


----------



## siyross (May 19, 2009)

I had a set of 165's on my stock trials bike. It felt great. I am looking at changing to 165's on my mountain bike.


----------



## vikingboy (Nov 5, 2008)

mtnryder56 said:


> But still, this is mountain biking and our speed comes from pedaling.


Plus gravity and pumping terrain.

Im 6'2 and went from 175 to 170 due to pedal strikes on a low bb bike and preferred the ability to pedal over chop or out of corners. Just recently tried a 165 and initial thoughts are its better still. This is AM riding with more down than horizontal or up riding.

Thes been some good studies discussed recently that reported power vs arm length, worth searching for.


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

mtnryder56 said:


> I am far from a physicist, or physiologist, whichever is needed to answer this question. But aren't the people that are talking about faster pedal strokes...couldn't that be solved by just being in a different gear?


Yes, but then your pedals would strike the ground even more.
In endurance type events, people run crank arms based on the length of their legs for maximum efficiency. There is a graph somewhere that shows most successful road bikers are running something like 20% of their inseam length, i.e 87cm inseam, 175mm cranks.

In downhill biking, you gain a lot by being able to pedal sooner / more out of corners and over obstacles. That's what short cranks are for. You lose leverage, yes, but you can compensate by choosing a lighter gear. In any case, it's better than not pedalling at all.
The little bit of efficiency your legs lose due to shorter cranks is not a big deal.


----------



## kubo (Sep 20, 2009)

I went from 170 to 165mm and I don't feel much of a difference when pedaling... then again I am not running a small DH cassette either. 
I like the closer stance and clearance, I'm glad I made the switch.


----------



## Tim F. (May 22, 2006)

drastic. said:


> my bike came stock w/ 165mm. i actually thought that was the norm for dh bikes. guess not.
> 
> and someone correct me if i'm wrong...
> but arent the crank arm lengths between 165, 170, and 175mm all the same. they all came out as the same length blanks, and the company just offsets the pedal inserts depending on length.


Alot of the factory and custume (shop packages) are specing 165mm as the norm. I've been thinking about running 165 mm especially since I've been running my BB at the lowest setting.


----------



## Tim F. (May 22, 2006)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> but you don't peddle fast enough for any of that to matter...stick with more leverage


What do I need leaverage for? Climbing? You know that aint gonna happen!


----------



## gollub01 (Mar 24, 2008)

Remember shaun palmers bike in 1999.....160mm cranks. I rocking some super shorties on my Jedi next season !


----------



## azdog (Nov 16, 2004)

In the rocks of AZ 165 cranks are solid.


----------



## SoCalNomadRider (Jan 15, 2011)

I am looking for a set of 165's for my THE ONE because of the low b.b. and am currently running a set of 175mm stylo's because i had them from transferring most of the parts from my Nomad and surprisingly i think they are ok and have only hit a couple times and if they were 170's i would probably keep them (plus i have the crampons which help ).

I actually have a older set of 165mm fsa i was going to use but as you can tell from the picture my 165mm arms are slightly longer than the 175's the holes are just off set more. I don't think this is the case with most but thought it was kind of strange.


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

SoCalNomadRider said:


> I am looking for a set of 165's for my THE ONE because of the low b.b. and am currently running a set of 175mm stylo's because i had them from transferring most of the parts from my Nomad and surprisingly i think they are ok and have only hit a couple times and if they were 170's i would probably keep them (plus i have the crampons which help ).
> 
> I actually have a older set of 165mm fsa i was going to use but as you can tell from the picture my 165mm arms are slightly longer than the 175's the holes are just off set more. I don't think this is the case with most but thought it was kind of strange.


wow...I would use the 175's


----------



## his dudeness (May 9, 2007)

Tim F. said:


> Alot of the factory and custume (shop packages) are specing 165mm as the norm. I've been thinking about running 165 mm especially since I've been running my BB at the lowest setting.


The biggest asset of a 165mm crank would be for really rocky terrain where your 170mm cranks hit. With that said, a 5mm of difference really isn't that big, you'll still get pedal strikes. Keep in mind of where you're riding and realize that the bulk of the terrain in the bay area isn't really all that rocky. If you lived in SLO, Socal, or make weekly trips to tahoe I'd say go for it. But if the bulk of your riding is in the bay area you'll be spending money on something that gives you a relatively minimal benefit. If you want a better ability to pedal out of corners you need to practice riding corners more and teach yourself pedal placement in those corners and how to maximize output as you exit.

I could just as easily tell you that instead of 165mm cranks to go up 50 lbs in your spring rate. The bike will ride a bit higher in the travel, use it more effectively, and keep your bb height at an optimum.


----------



## Tim F. (May 22, 2006)

his dudeness;8783961 You're a man said:


> You sound like my Ex-GF!:skep:


----------



## Tim F. (May 22, 2006)

his dudeness said:


> The biggest asset of a 165mm crank would be for really rocky terrain where your 170mm cranks hit. With that said, a 5mm of difference really isn't that big, you'll still get pedal strikes. Keep in mind of where you're riding and realize that the bulk of the terrain in the bay area isn't really all that rocky. If you lived in SLO, Socal, or make weekly trips to tahoe I'd say go for it. But if the bulk of your riding is in the bay area you'll be spending money on something that gives you a relatively minimal benefit. If you want a better ability to pedal out of corners you need to practice riding corners more and teach yourself pedal placement in those corners and how to maximize output as you exit.
> 
> I could just as easily tell you that instead of 165mm cranks to go up 50 lbs in your spring rate. The bike will ride a bit higher in the travel, use it more effectively, and keep your bb height at an optimum.


True, I'll probually get a cheap set of 165mm just for N* , and other rocky areas.:thumbsup:


----------



## scottvt (Jul 19, 2009)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> wow...I would use the 175's


Just because the crank arm is shorter does not mean it will decrease pedal strikes. Only having a shorter crank spindle to pedal axle center to center will do that. Which his FSA crank, although having a longer arm, has a 10mm shorter center to center than the shorter armed Stylo's.


----------



## crossup (May 13, 2009)

what SCOTTVT says.... how bout this idea: 170mm cranks with 5mm lower pedals(Canfield Crampons)
that gives you the ground clearance of a 165mm crank, the pedal clearance of the 165 and the leverage of a 175mm crank(all compared to 'normal' pedals of course) 
I do the same with 175's so its more like riding 170's clearance wise but no loss of pedaling torque(actually an increase even compared to a standard 175). Havent had a pedal strike yet with my ONE v2


----------



## danglingmanhood (Sep 16, 2005)

165 on my Intense SS (low bb 13.5 in) and 175 on my Remedy which is at least .5in higher at the bb.Don't really notice when I'm riding the bikes, probably because they are different tools for different jobs.


----------



## DeanH (Jan 9, 2008)

i dont know many who dont run 165mm cranks for DH.

i tried 170/175s and 165 just feels lots better for me.

the guys i ride with, same thing they all try the diff stuff and end up with 165s for DH.

Im not saying one or the other is better, thats really up to personal style and where you ride etc.

the places i ride when its lift assist, is usually rut/rocky stuff and lots and lots of roots, both things i tend to like.. after its over, and i prioritise clearance over how hard i can pedal.


----------



## Dougie (Aug 29, 2004)

Lelandjt said:


> I'm really surprised by the answers here.


You shouldn't be, it's the internet. Everyone is an expert 

I run 165's on all of my bikes, but I'm 5'5" with a 30-inch inseam. I rode 175's on my short-travel bike for a few seasons and when I switched to a properly-fitting crank the difference was significant. The tiny loss of leverage was more than made up for by the instant power and comfortable spin.


----------



## KillingtonVT (Apr 1, 2004)

gollub01 said:


> Remember shaun palmers bike in 1999.....160mm cranks. I rocking some super shorties on my Jedi next season !


There with you Sean.. bring on the 155's!!!


----------



## fuenstock (May 14, 2006)

Dougie said:


> You shouldn't be, it's the internet. Everyone is an expert
> 
> I run 165's on all of my bikes, but I'm 5'5" with a 30-inch inseam. I rode 175's on my short-travel bike for a few seasons and when I switched to a properly-fitting crank the difference was significant. The tiny loss of leverage was more than made up for by the instant power and comfortable spin.


Same situation for me. I'm 5'5" and have tried 175, 170, and 165. I settled on 165 for my driver 8 and 170 on every thing else. I prefer the faster spinning shorter cranks over the extra leverage of the 175's. My nomad which I ride all mountain had 175 and I went to 170. My slow speed tech climbing has improved, especially where you need instant power transfer to get up and over larger objects. The diffrence is small, but noticable.


----------



## gollub01 (Mar 24, 2008)

Hell yea Vin......bring on the 155's. I feel like I'm riding a road cycle with anything longer than 165mm. Joe Schmo can now buy a DH bike with full factory geo.....Shorter cranks will be the next thing.....


----------



## bg. (Jan 28, 2004)

165 is what I've used since forever....at least since 2003.

For sure there's a trade off in terms of leverage, but I can't imagine running anything else on a modern DH bike


----------

