Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just pulled the trigger on a medium Canfield Balance 2016 frame. Going to be running it with 26" wheels and a 160 mm fork, which means the bottom bracket will be about 0.5 inches lower. Also, I'm 5'7" so maybe I should be considering short crank arms anyway.

Currently have some X9 cranks that are 175 mm, but should I buy some 165s or 170s instead? I'm coming off a Mojo SL so I'll still be doing some big rides with lots of climbing.

Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
Just pulled the trigger on a medium Canfield Balance 2016 frame. Going to be running it with 26" wheels and a 160 mm fork, which means the bottom bracket will be about 0.5 inches lower. Also, I'm 5'7" so maybe I should be considering short crank arms anyway.

Currently have some X9 cranks that are 175 mm, but should I buy some 165s or 170s instead? I'm coming off a Mojo SL so I'll still be doing some big rides with lots of climbing.

Thanks!
The canfield bros make some nice short cranks....I run 155mm cranks.

5'10" is my height, and no, I don't spinot like a hamster.
 

·
Let the good times roll.
Joined
·
1,182 Posts
For reference, I'm 5' 10" with 31" inseam. I always used 175 mm cranks on previous bikes. The low BB on my 2015 Balance convinced me to consider shorter cranks to reduce pedal strikes. I ended up going to 165 mm cranks after a phone call to Canfield to ask their advice. I've been pleased with the shorter length - zero regrets. Besides fewer pedal strikes, I feel more stable in attack position with my feet closer together, and my hips get less tired from pedaling in smaller circles. I think I'm a bit quicker overall on the shorter cranks.

I don't plan to get 175 mm cranks on any bike in the future regardless of BB height. At least 165, maybe even try 160 out of curiosity.
 

·
Canfield Bikes
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
Great choice, I run 165 on all my trail bikes and 155 on my DH. Feels so much more stable and centered. And the spin is great, small steps wear me out less. Besides that, I just feel more confident that I won't pedal strike so I throw pedal strokes in places others can't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
Ok, I'm convinced, especially since I found a pretty good deal on a pair of used 165 carbon cranks just now.

Not sure whether to go with a 30 tooth chain ring (pair with 11-36 cassette) so I can get better anti-squat since I do a lot of climbing, or if I'm better off with the higher top-end of the 32. This is way more bike than I'm used to so I'm pretty sure I won't get a benefit from increased "chainlessness" of 32.

Edit: Is it worth going with an absolute black oval ring? If it actually reduces risk of join injury, I think it would be worthwhile since I have had mild knee discomfort before. Also, is 30 teeth on that one ideal since they say that is equivalent to a 28 to 32 tooth range? How does the cycling of the AS above and below 100% impact the efficiency/bob (even if it is minute)? It seems like a 32 oval might be better in the long term to maintain a good range if I go up to 11-40/42 on my cassette, but I'd be concerned that this would reduce anti-squat more than I want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
Running 165mm Canfield cranks with a 32/11-42 gear combo on my large 2016 Balance... love the way it pedals. Inseam 31".... running 155 on Jedi, 165 on Balance and Riot and 170mm on Nimble9 and Yelli ....

You will enjoy the 165 on the Balance... congrats on the build
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
I am running 175's on my Balance. Lately, I have been riding a lot of technical trails, lots of roots, logs, etc.. Getting a lot of pedal strikes. I am thinking of going to either 165 or 160.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
629 Posts
I'm 6ft, 32" inseam on 165s with a Riot. I can feel the difference if I go back to back with more other bikes with 175s, if I think about it.

On the trail, I feel like I can spin through more rough stuff, and sneak an extra stroke or two before hitting the next obstacle.

I'd try 155s on my next build, honestly...that's sounds short, but screw it, I'm really happy with much shorter than I had ever tried before. I'm a grown up BMX kid, I liked 180s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
686 Posts
For every 10mm you drop crank length, you loose about 6% leverage. Which is like adding 2 teeth to your front chain ring (32 to a 34).

Bike MFG need to stop making BB so low, its getting ridiculous. A good standard height would be in the low 14".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
784 Posts
Edit: Is it worth going with an absolute black oval ring? If it actually reduces risk of join injury, I think it would be worthwhile since I have had mild knee discomfort before.
Sorry for being a little late to this party.

I personally highly recommend the oval rings, especially if knee pain is involved. A while back I had a bit of a knee injury from a crash (minor PCL tear, major MCL sprain, lots of bone bruising). During that recovery, I had the chance to switch back and forth between round rings and AB ovals, and the round rings hurt and the ovals didn't. That settled it for me. Even today that knee gets sore more easily on round rings.

For reference, I'm running a large Balance, 175mm cranks with 11-45T in the rear. I'll run a 32T oval in the early season, move to a 34T in the summer/fall when I'm a stronger climber or when I want the top-end at the bike park, and 30T if I'm weak, doing big-mountain days, or at high altitude.

I wouldn't be concerned much with the change in AS numbers. The CBF tolerates the oval very well. The 34T feels very slightly more "chainless" descending, but blindfolded I couldn't tell you the difference between climbing with a 30/32/34T chainring, given an equal overall gearing. I'd say, figure out what gearing range you want for your terrain, pick a cassette that gets what you need, and then pick the chainring size last, ideally being 32T +/- 2T.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
I ended up going with 165mm cranks after running with 175mm for a while. The 165's greatly reduced pedal strikes for me! I didn't notice any reduction in power or leverage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
I really like my 165 cranks on my Balance. I'm 5'10". Don't think I'll go back to 175 on any bike. Also like my oval chainring. Smooths things out. Other than that, it's not noticeable. Please don't raise the bottom brkt. It's exactly where it should be. Higher would loose some of the great handling, lower, more pedal strikes. I love my Balance. Thanks bros.
 

·
SamIAm
Joined
·
2,038 Posts
glad i used the search function for once

Sorry for being a little late to this party.

I personally highly recommend the oval rings, especially if knee pain is involved. A while back I had a bit of a knee injury from a crash (minor PCL tear, major MCL sprain, lots of bone bruising). During that recovery, I had the chance to switch back and forth between round rings and AB ovals, and the round rings hurt and the ovals didn't. That settled it for me. Even today that knee gets sore more easily on round rings.

For reference, I'm running a large Balance, 175mm cranks with 11-45T in the rear. I'll run a 32T oval in the early season, move to a 34T in the summer/fall when I'm a stronger climber or when I want the top-end at the bike park, and 30T if I'm weak, doing big-mountain days, or at high altitude.

I wouldn't be concerned much with the change in AS numbers. The CBF tolerates the oval very well. The 34T feels very slightly more "chainless" descending, but blindfolded I couldn't tell you the difference between climbing with a 30/32/34T chainring, given an equal overall gearing. I'd say, figure out what gearing range you want for your terrain, pick a cassette that gets what you need, and then pick the chainring size last, ideally being 32T +/- 2T.
i was looking into getting a 32 oval and this is good to hear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
976 Posts
I'm curious about using a shorter crank length and considering getting the CB cranks.

Seems to me that most of the posts on this thread fall to 165 length.

For a 5'8" guy with 31" inseam, is there anything i need to consider why i shouldn't get the 155 for a YS and get the 165 instead?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,785 Posts
I'm curious about using a shorter crank length and considering getting the CB cranks.

Seems to me that most of the posts on this thread fall to 165 length.

For a 5'8" guy with 31" inseam, is there anything i need to consider why i shouldn't get the 155 for a YS and get the 165 instead?
With The YS the seat tube is slack, so when climbing your going to have your seat higher fora as much shorter as you go. So if on 170mm cracks you'll have to raise the seat 15mm higher. I has a bike with 72° STA and with 165mm, I felt like it wold loop out on climbs a lot.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top