This isn't a new discussion here, but it's kind of scattered about, so I wanted to open up the topic of crank length. We recently posted this article with staff and contribs trying out short cranks and giving their feedback. I've personally ridden 150mm Canfield cranks on my dual 27.5 bike for a good year or more now and generally like them having figured out the gearing tweaks that go along with them. I have SHORT legs and they're body-geometry match, though I'd like to try 155 or 160 thinking that'd be a sweet-spot for me on a bike without a motor. The stubs on the downhills are great, but sometimes a little more leverage on the ups would be nice. 150s on an e-bike sound like a treat for me.
Race Face just announced 160mm cranks and I've heard of some other stubby specs coming to market sooner than later.
It's always been interesting to me thinking about a rider like @TEAMROBOT and how long his legs are compared to mine. Our inseams are prob half a foot different but our crank length choices are within a few mm. On 175s, does he feel like I do on a kid's 16" bike?
I'm adding a poll so we can try to tally up some numbers. It's not perfect b/c it's only asking for crank length (not inseam length or riding type etc), but am curious to hear feedback over time with this one.
I am currently on some 165mm EEwings. Next bike will for sure go down to 160mm. Ridden quite a few lengths while I was at Canfield, and 160mm just felt like the best balance for me. 5'8" 30" inseam.
Tried a set off Canfield 155s as the new bike was lower than the old and I kept bashing toes and pedals as a result (stock were 170). Combined with an oval ring I couldn't be happier with the set up. Ended up going to the same on the other 2 MTBs in the stable and went shorter on the road bike as well. My cadence increased and evened out which makes short tech climbs easier, but most noticeable was how it felt it hitting jumps. I feel more centered and controlled going into a face by not having to use as much body English to set up for it. I haven't noticed any difference in effort when winching up anything that grabbing a lower gear doesn't mitigate, but sustained climbs are less bobby and that feels ace. Only downside is the required raising of the seatpost, meaning I can prob go to a 210ish drop but I'll wait til the posts die or the newbikepartitis gets too severe before ponying up. I had already been running 50mm & 60mm rise bars so didn't feel the need to raise the front, but that's something some folx would do well to keep in mind if going short. I'm 5'10", 32" inseam so pretty average build-wise.
I don't wanna brag, but I've got a set of cranks that are a whopping 175mm in length, fully equipped with power meter and four-bolt chainring.
I tried miranda 150mm e-mtb ones and you could pedal whilst bombing a dh track, it was surreal
it also felt like I was riding my 3 year old daughters bike, too small. They also bent like a banana pretty quickly.
I like 165, when I get back on 175's on the hardtail it feels so long.
So I'd say 165, but I think I could ride 160's comfortably.
170mm on my enduro bike and don't want to go shorter. My current ebike has 165mm cranks, and the last one had 155s which I hated. 5'8", 30" inseam, don't ride trails where I need to pedal going downhill.
170 on my more XC bike, 165 on my endurobro bike with 155 on order. I'm too lazy to buy new cranks for my XC bike, but they would be 165 if I could.
Excited to give 155 a try, I did stick some 155mm cranks on the wife's enduro bike and she loves them. Granted she's 8 inches shorter than me.
I recently change from 170 to 165 on my Revel Rail. After a saddle height adjustment, I don't notice any difference other than less pedal strikes. Similarly I went from 175 to 170 on my Transition Spur with the same results. I'm 5'11" with 34" inseam. Just for kicks, I'd like to try 160. I might get a set for my wife and try them on my bike first.
Thanks for the shout out, Spomer. Like he said, I’m pretty tall and I have very long legs for my height, so I’m one of those weird ones who loves 175mm cranks on my mountain bike. I find anything shorter feels like circus cranks a little bit, and I lose the ability to modulate small but forceful movements when I’m climbing technical sections. I also like the ability to go from 0-60 HARD when I’m cranking for a jump, catching up to someone faster than me, or racing. I’ve tried 170’s and 165’s and keep coming back to 175’s. I even find the bigger, wider foot stance of longer cranks feels more stable when I’m descending, which is basically the opposite of what many people have shared on this thread and elsewhere. Lastly, I already have a sky-high seat, so having my seat 5-10mm higher when I’m doing technical climbing is not a good feeling, especially when it’s paired with a spinning higher-RPM cadence. It feels like I’m completely disconnected from my feet, and just spinning like a madman and getting bounced all over the place in the seat without any fine motor control. Worth mentioning I'm a low RPM guy all the time, typically 45-65 rpm. I am not Chris Froome. I think higher RPM people probably would like shorter cranks.
Interestingly, I love shorter cranks on my road/gravel bike. I have terrible flexibility (in my back, hip flexors, and hamstrings, and everywhere else, too), so I really benefit from the lower hip angle required with a smaller spinning circle. It allows me to maintain a lower riding position with my upper body without feeling like my top leg is getting pinched in my hip. I tried 165’s on my road bike and those were a little too short, but I love my 170’s. It’s funny, because a lot of people my height are on 175’s and even 180’s.
There's not going to be an answer as to why lever-length changes work when applied to crank arms on a bicycle. It'd need to come down to a rider having found use of a certain heartrate threshold or a range of repeatable power-output and then what can be sustained given cranklengths. Some riders have no concept of physical conditioning outside of bike riding, which is also fine because then it's only a priority on engagement while riding.
A Mountain Bike is the last place to try and bring a rational discussion of cranklegth adaptations. Bring in physiology and limits on body proportions and it can and does revert back to just being engaged on the bike.
FWIW - Aero Road - 175mm Sprint Road - 175mm Hillclimb Road - 172.5mm Gravel - 172.5mm Commuter 175mm Trail/Enduro - 170mm
Could go shorter on the mountainbike but it would lose punch out of corners.
Post a reply to: The Mountain Bike Crank Length Discussion