[meltingfeather]

Had to lol at the PinkBike article.

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/why-shorter-cranks-are-better-according-to-science.html

Science now tells us (2001, actually) that shorter crank lengths are better.

Not that this article is conclusive or anything, but does anyone still buy proportional crank length theory?

 

[Impetus]

Shrug. I (5'9") went from 175s to 165s and I'm 100% never going back.

 

[meltingfeather]

Where's your Kirby face Palm when you need it?

 

[2021Mach6]

Had to lol at the PinkBike article.

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/why-shorter-cranks-are-better-according-to-science.html

Science now tells us (2001, actually) that shorter crank lengths are better.

Not that this article is conclusive or anything, but does anyone still buy proportional crank length theory?

I'm 5'6 and went from 170 to 165mm and surprisingly notice a difference. I think it's with bottom bracket heights nowadays, and the "science" makes sense ... BUT these marketers aren't stupid. They can use science to make any argument they want in most cases.

Just like how 29 wheels are the new norm. I can guarantee you every single carbon rim manufacturer that offers a lifetime warranty, in about 3-4 years, they'll start using science again to make a case for different sizes.

Not sure if the shorter arms work better cause I'm short, but my buddy is 6'2 and he's the one who put me onto them, so idk.

 

[Sparticus]

...does anyone still buy proportional crank length theory?

I want to.
You (meltingfeather) may recall that I used to claim that long cranks were superior.
Did so for years.
I ran 200mm+ cranks on my singlespeeds.
For years.
More leverage.

Good to see a thread started by you -- can't recall this happening during the past 5 years or more.
=sParty

 

[looks easy from here]

Had to lol at the PinkBike article.

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/why-shorter-cranks-are-better-according-to-science.html

Science now tells us (2001, actually) that shorter crank lengths are better.

Did you read the same article as me? Because the one I read repeatedly said that science says there's no definitive physiological advantage to different length cranks, but the author opined that shorter cranks are superior because they are more likely to avoid pedal strikes.

 

[J.B. Weld]

Had to lol at the PinkBike article.

I guess I don't get it. The science does seem to suggest that shorter cranks might be better. Do you disagree?

 

[J.B. Weld]

Did you read the same article as me? Because the one I read repeatedly said that science says there's no definitive physiological advantage to different length cranks, but the author opined that shorter cranks are superior because they are more likely to avoid pedal strikes.

There are physiological advantages to shorter cranks if you have hip impingement issues.

 

[Sparticus]

Did you read the same article as me? Because the one I read repeatedly said that science says there's no definitive physiological advantage to different length cranks, but the author opined that shorter cranks are superior because they are more likely to avoid pedal strikes.

My argument BITD was always that pedal strikes aren't (or at least shouldn't be) a function of crank length.
Back up a ways.
Look at the bigger picture.
Crank length should be a function of proper bike fit.
Therefore, assuming we're riding the "correct" length cranks, pedal strikes are a function of frame design.
Why frame design? Well, inasmuch as BB height is a component of frame design and BB height + crank length = the determining factor in pedal strike frequency.
=sParty

 

[stripes]

Did you read the same article as me? Because the one I read repeatedly said that science says there's no definitive physiological advantage to different length cranks, but the author opined that shorter cranks are superior because they are more likely to avoid pedal strikes.

I opine that shorter cranks are better because I hate joint injuries and want to keep riding. Less pedal strikes are just an added benefit.

 

[dysfunction]

Why frame design? Well, inasmuch as BB height is a component of frame design and BB height + crank length = the determining factor in pedal strike frequency.
=sParty

Sure, but.... dropping the BB has advantages that are totally worth having a shorter crank for me. Especially since I really don't notice it all that much anyway.

 

[ivwshane]

Wouldn’t a shorter crank length put your in-saddle-riding height higher and depending on your seat tube put you farther back and further away from the handlebar? Would that make climbing harder or easier?

Also wouldn’t your center of gravity be raised as well? How would that affect riding?

 

[Impetus]

Wouldn’t a shorter crank length put your in-saddle-riding height higher and depending on your seat tube put you farther back and further away from the handlebar? Would that make climbing harder or easier?

Also wouldn’t your center of gravity be raised as well? How would that affect riding?

A little bit yes, but for me, a 10mm rise in seat post height was a non-factor after about 100 yds, and moving the saddle forward about 3-5mm kept my weight forward enough.

I perceive no detrimental change in weight position on even the steepest technical climbs, and even if it did, the decreased pedal strikes, smoother cadence, and (IMO) better balance in standing due to a slightly less staggered stance was absolutely worth a change in seated position.

 

[milehi]

I have a bike with a 13.25 BB, ride in rocky terrain with 175 cranks and the ends don't really have any damage. I went from 180 to 175 on my SS, noticed the negative effect and will be going back. Another bike came with 165s, on a 140mm bike! That one will get 175s. I don't mind short cranks if there's 200mm of travel. I'm just a regular 6' man.

 

[Sparticus]

Sure, but.... dropping the BB has advantages that are totally worth having a shorter crank for me. Especially since I really don't notice it all that much anyway.

Agreed.

Notice I saiid I USED TO proclaim the benefits of long cranks.

I’ve changed my tune. Not because a longer lever is any less valid than it used to be but rather because I’ve changed the way I ride my bikes, and crank length affects more than power.

FWIW I’m currently riding 175mm cranks even though my inseam is the same length it ever was: 36”.

During the 36 years I’ve ridden mountain bikes, I‘ve employed cranks lengths of 170mm, 175, 185, 190, 195, 202.
I would have tried shorter cranks but my legs are loooooong. No reason for me, personally, to go there.

What’s changed is we’ve got dropper posts now and we ride totally differently. Nobody wants to do high performance riding with their feet as far apart as 200mm-ish cranks will place them. Nor spin circles as large as those long arms make when trying to negotiate techy terrain. Nor hit their pedals on the ground a lot, which today’s frames would force a rider to do if their cranks are any longer than 175mm at the most.

But for pure power, give me long cranks. Remember, this comes from someone with legs long enough to operate them.

After all the personal crank length experiments I’ve performed are said & done, I’ve come to this conclusion:
It doesn’t matter. Well, it does matter but it depends on what your priorities are.
I can climb faster with longer levers (aka cranks) and a higher gear.
I can climb the same terrain with shorter cranks and a lower gear, I just go slower.

So yeah, shorter cranks make plenty of sense. You just won’t go as fast up the hills.
And you’ll enjoy the descents more with shorter cranks because your feet will be closer together.

If your BB is low, you’re kind of forced into the second camp in order to avoid pedal strikes.
Which is too bad if you wanted to make that choice on your own but whatever, the bicycle industry hasn’t been big on offering lots of choices lately, from setting up your own gearing to crank length to much of anything else.

But know this: longer cranks have their advantages and so do shorter cranks.
It’s not like one or the other is best. It depends on priorities as well as leg length.
But people won’t buy this. They’ll insist that one other the other must be best.
So the arguments will continue.
=sParty

 

[Suns_PSD]

Had to lol at the PinkBike article.

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/why-shorter-cranks-are-better-according-to-science.html

Science now tells us (2001, actually) that shorter crank lengths are better.

Not that this article is conclusive or anything, but does anyone still buy proportional crank length theory?

That's not what the article, nor any of the studies concluded.

In simple terms, short cranks aren't any worse for power production, that's the conclusion.

Here are my opinions having tried different crank lengths. At 5'10" with long legs, I prefer 170s. 165s were pretty unpleasant for me personally. However people with shorter legs should definitely explore shorter crank options.

GL

 

[Cary]

6’ and always have run 175s except my DH bike which had 165mm. New DH bike has 160s and they work fine. Thinking with the lower bottom bracket on my new trail bike I may take a big risk and go 170mm next time.

 

[meltingfeather]

That's not what the article, nor any of the studies concluded.

In simple terms, short cranks aren't any worse for power production, that's the conclusion.

Here are my opinions having tried different crank lengths. At 5'10" with long legs, I prefer 170s. 165s were pretty unpleasant for me personally. However people with shorter legs should definitely explore shorter crank options.

GL

You misinterpret my post.

 

[meltingfeather]

I want to.
You (meltingfeather) may recall that I used to claim that long cranks were superior.
Did so for years.
I ran 200mm+ cranks on my singlespeeds.
For years.
More leverage.

Good to see a thread started by you -- can't recall this happening during the past 5 years or more.
=sParty

I guess it took an old topic to rekindle my thread-starting mojo.

Does your preference for 200mm cranks mean that there is something magical about femur length vis a vis crank length selection that applies to everyone?
I don’t think so.
I’ve also never been one to tell someone their preference is not a legitimate reason to select equipment.

 

[meltingfeather]

Perhaps I left too much to be imagined…

The fact that the science he cites does not support his conclusion is part of what I lol’ed about.

Remembering PCL also made me chuckle.