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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
15.4M posts
515.2K members
Since 1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!