Results 1 to 25 of 29
-
05-28-2019, 01:18 PM #1
Anyone running 165mm cranks on a 29-er?
I have run 175’s for 30 years or so, but I wanna try something less pedal-strikey on my Yeti. Anyone running 165’s, and if so, have you actually noticed any differences in torque (or otherwise?).
Just curious.Last edited by rideit; 05-28-2019 at 01:48 PM.
Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
05-28-2019, 01:40 PM #2
I have. I don't like them. Too short. The pedal circle feels annoyingly small.
But I have similar annoyances with 175's being too long. 170's are just right (although I do still have 165's on the DH bike).
-
05-28-2019, 01:46 PM #3
I'm running 165's on my Canyon Strive (they were stock). The last two years I've been running 170's, and I can't tell the difference in execution of the pedal movement. There are too many variables involved in the torque equation to compare it to previous bikes, or climbing times, so I can't really say if it's better or worse. For the most part, it's fairly unnoticeable in all aspects.
-
05-28-2019, 07:58 PM #4Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- Location
- Seattle
- Posts
- 414
I’m running 165s on a Sentinel. I’m shorter than Toast, 5’6”, 30” inseam, and they feel fairly right to me.
In my experience, a 5 psi difference in the rear shock makes more difference in pedal strikes than 5 mm of crank length.
Back when I cared enough to measure stuff, my power numbers for efforts up to 5 minutes were better with 165s. For anything longer than 10 minutes, I did better with 170s. It was counterintuitive, but you can’t fight data.U.P.: up
-
05-28-2019, 08:26 PM #5
Anyone running 165mm cranks on a 29-er?
Running 170s for the last three trail bikes. Also had 165s on the DH bike, felt short but fine for that application. I’m an anatomic freak; 5’7”, 33” inseam.
Last edited by beaterdit; 05-28-2019 at 09:54 PM.
There's nothing better than sliding down snow, and flying through the air
-
05-28-2019, 08:57 PM #6
I switched from 175 to 170 for my last bike and although I didn't strike too many rocks, the pedal circle felt a little awkward and cramped (I'm 6'1" with a short-ish torso and long-ish inseam). It all depends on your leg length (I think bike fit experts will tell you that femur length is what determines your crank length). I'm building a new bike right now and will be running 175mm cranks just because they feel more comfortable. I can deal with hitting a few extra rocks. As far as power is concerned, I read somewhere recently that you only gain a 3% mechanical advantage with every 5mm of extra crank length, so I can't imagine you'd be able to feel a difference in power or efficiency when switching to shorter cranks (I certainly didn't).
-
05-28-2019, 10:13 PM #7
Following this. I’m short-ish 5’8/9, but have short legs 28-29 inseam, curious if this would do anything for my life, climbing efficiency or whatever, i run 170 on all three bikes (road, hardtail, sb5.5) don’t have any issues, but if it ain’t broke, I should fix it until it is.
Do I detect a lot of anger flowing around this place? Kind of like a pubescent volatility, some angst, a lot of I'm-sixteen-and-angry-at-my-father syndrome?
fuck that noise.
gmen.
-
05-28-2019, 10:36 PM #8
-
05-29-2019, 06:24 AM #9yelgatgab
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Location
- Shadynasty's Jazz Club
- Posts
- 10,249
Fellow freak here, 5’10” with 34.5” inseam. Preference is 175. dex said it well. I don’t know about efficiency but 170s feel awkward. I get used it when riding 170, but I still notice it. 165 is fine for DH, but I really don’t like it for climbing.
Remind me. We'll send him a red cap and a Speedo.
-
05-29-2019, 08:59 AM #10
Anyone running 165mm cranks on a 29-er?
The correct length is 172.5
Go on nowcrab in my shoe mouth
-
05-29-2019, 02:48 PM #11
-
05-29-2019, 03:18 PM #12
-
05-29-2019, 06:39 PM #13
-
05-29-2019, 06:44 PM #14
I’m running 175mm at 5’7” and a almost 29” inseam... been thinking about actually going down to a 170mm
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forumswww.dpsskis.com
www.point6.com
formerly an ambassador for a few others, but the ski industry is... interesting.
Fukt: a very small amount of snow.
-
05-29-2019, 09:39 PM #15
-
05-29-2019, 10:41 PM #16
-
05-29-2019, 11:07 PM #17
“Pick a crank length and be a dick about it”
Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
05-29-2019, 11:09 PM #18
Alrighty then, I’ll see myself out.
Beatyerdick is a fat fuckcrab in my shoe mouth
-
05-30-2019, 12:04 AM #19
LOL did I offend you buttah? Don't get your panties in a bunch, I'm just fuckin with ya.
Oh, also run 170 on the road bike. With my inseam I'm sure I could be fine with 175 but like buttah, I like consistency.There's nothing better than sliding down snow, and flying through the air
-
05-30-2019, 03:18 AM #20
-
05-30-2019, 10:36 AM #21
I don't think they make 165mm crank arms for 29ers. Need at least 650 B's in the rear.
-
05-30-2019, 11:06 AM #22
-
05-30-2019, 11:13 AM #23
I ran 180mm cranks on my road bike back in the day, knees aren’t what they used to be so I’ve scaled back to 177.5.
If I could find single ring MTB cranks in 177.5 I’d be on it
Sent from my iPhone using TGR ForumsI rip the groomed on tele gear
-
05-30-2019, 11:34 AM #24
Anyone want to buy a pair of 175 XTR 9100 cranks?
Ten rides on em, $300 shipped.
I bought 170’s.Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
05-30-2019, 11:44 AM #25
I ran 180 M950 XTR cranks for years on my SS because that’s what mountain bike action and dirt rag told me to do. I think I sold them to mtnlion.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Bookmarks