Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    24,973

    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.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    8,498
    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).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Three-O-Three
    Posts
    13,913
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    293
    Iím running 165s on a Sentinel. Iím shorter than Toast, 5í6Ē, 30Ē 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 canít fight data.
    U.P.: up

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Land of Brine Shrimp and Magic Underwear
    Posts
    5,908

    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. Iím an anatomic freak; 5í7Ē, 33Ē inseam.
    Last edited by beaterdit; 05-28-2019 at 09:54 PM.
    There's nothing better than sliding down snow... flying through the air.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bend, OR
    Posts
    250
    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).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,755
    Following this. Iím short-ish 5í8/9, 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) donít have any issues, but if it ainít 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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    24,973
    Quote Originally Posted by beaterdit View Post
    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.
    I’m pretty damn close to that.
    I joke that (when it comes to reach measurements) I am shaped like a T-Rex.
    Just got a 175mm dropper post, and still could use a 200.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Shadynasty's Jazz Club
    Posts
    8,247
    Fellow freak here, 5í10Ē with 34.5Ē inseam. Preference is 175. dex said it well. I donít 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 donít like it for climbing.
    Remind me. We'll send him a red cap and a Speedo.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Walpole NH
    Posts
    7,821

    Anyone running 165mm cranks on a 29-er?

    The correct length is 172.5
    Go on now
    crab in my shoe mouth

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Land of Brine Shrimp and Magic Underwear
    Posts
    5,908
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    I’m pretty damn close to that.
    I joke that (when it comes to reach measurements) I am shaped like a T-Rex.
    Just got a 175mm dropper post, and still could use a 200.
    Been liking the 170mm OneUP. Plenty of drop for me. Limited knee flexion here so it's enough that it's at my limit when slammed.

    Quote Originally Posted by buttahflake View Post
    The correct length is 172.5
    Go on now
    Hahaha.
    There's nothing better than sliding down snow... flying through the air.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Walpole NH
    Posts
    7,821

    Anyone running 165mm cranks on a 29-er?

    Quote Originally Posted by beaterdit View Post
    Been liking the 170mm OneUP. Plenty of drop for me. Limited knee flexion here so it's enough that it's at my limit when slammed.



    Hahaha.
    Whatís funny?
    Iíve been running this length forever.
    All three bikes, road, MTB and gravel

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_3434.JPG 
Views:	56 
Size:	370.5 KB 
ID:	284128
    crab in my shoe mouth

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    19,940
    I can't quantify it, but 165 cranks on a 29er sounds like a terrible idea.
    Are you like a 28" inseam?

    Just hit the rocks, it's ok.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Carbondale
    Posts
    10,377
    Iím running 175mm at 5í7Ē and a almost 29Ē inseam... been thinking about actually going down to a 170mm


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    24,973
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Are you like a 28" inseam?

    .
    Pay attention, JONG
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Land of Brine Shrimp and Magic Underwear
    Posts
    5,908
    Quote Originally Posted by buttahflake View Post
    What’s funny?
    I’ve been running this length forever.
    All three bikes, road, MTB and gravel
    You are. You are funny. LOL

    Always felt the 2.5mm increments were silly but if that's what works for ya, you rock it.
    There's nothing better than sliding down snow... flying through the air.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    24,973
    “Pick a crank length and be a dick about it”
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Walpole NH
    Posts
    7,821
    Alrighty then, Iíll see myself out.
    Beatyerdick is a fat fuck
    crab in my shoe mouth

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Land of Brine Shrimp and Magic Underwear
    Posts
    5,908
    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... flying through the air.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    19,940
    180mm cranks, 1,000mm bars, 203mm dropper post.
    On a Penny Farthing.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Da Siskiyous
    Posts
    1,335
    I don't think they make 165mm crank arms for 29ers. Need at least 650 B's in the rear.
    Collectively enlightened since 2008.
    Eddie would go.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    8,498
    Quote Originally Posted by NlytendOne View Post
    I don't think they make 165mm crank arms for 29ers. Need at least 650 B's in the rear.
    That's actually the reason for the mullet bike fad. Everyone wants shorter cranks.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    2,980
    I ran 180mm cranks on my road bike back in the day, knees arenít what they used to be so Iíve scaled back to 177.5.

    If I could find single ring MTB cranks in 177.5 Iíd be on it


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I rip the groomed on tele gear

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    24,973
    Anyone want to buy a pair of 175 XTR 9100 cranks?
    Ten rides on em, $300 shipped.
    I bought 170’s.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Under the bridge, down by the river
    Posts
    4,614
    I ran 180 M950 XTR cranks for years on my SS because thatís 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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •