Forum menu
Single or double etc in 175.
Could I use a 10spd chainset with 9 spd gears? It will be 1x9 setup.
Ps. I'd fit my 9spd ring.
1) Don't know.
2) Yes. 9 and 10 speed chains have the same inner measurement.
EDIT - just re-read. 2) Don't know. Are the BCD's different? Might have to be careful whether you buy a triple of a double, etc.
Picked up a pair of XT cranks on eBay for 60 quid the other week....
€158 from bikediscount.de
c. £125?
weird two models of cranks to narrow your choice between, no?
and Why 175mm?
I just bought some in 175. Because that's what I've always had, and I've never thought I needed anything different. What should I have got? I'm 5'11'
shorter
how much, and why?
depends how long your legs are and whether extra pedal clearance on your bike would be of benefit to you.. wouldn't worry about it now.. but maybe take it into account the next time you buy cranks.
Well, my legs are about as long as a normal 5'11" person's.
I did take it into account, I've always 175s before and didn't see a reason to change. More pedal clearance I guess is a good thing, but going to a 28-40 chainset is losing me a smidge of bottom gear, so I didn't want to lose the leverage to gain in an area I don't see a special need to gain in.
Should I still have gone shorter?
You didn't take it into account, you simply went with what's spec'd on 99% of adult mtbs (as most do)..
more than likely, yes
Blimey. Do you bother reading anyone's posts? Or do you just assume that other people are wrong, and reading their posts is just going to delay your saying so?
GW why are you such a [img] http://forums.weebls-stuff.com/picture.php?albumid=205&pictureid=1703 [/img]
No. I read all your replies ned.
this part...
seems to be saying you simply went with what you're used to instead of actually trying something new.I've always 175s before and didn't see a reason to change
May I remind you, YOU asked me the question. sorry if you can't cope with my answer.
Got some Saint M800 cranks in the shed that I don't need....
Quite capable, thanks.
But your answer was "shorter" depending on "how long your legs are and whether extra pedal clearance on your bike would be of benefit to you.."
So: 5'11", and "hardly at all".
You seem to be saying I didn't consider length because I didn't change something for the sake of it to solve a problem I don't have?
There's a difference between taking something into account - asking the question: "is there an advantage to changing?" and taking a punt on a piece of expensive kit that I'm hoping to last 10 years.
But I am still interested, which is why I asked the question. You haven't told me anything I didn't know already, and you've told me I'm wrong without offering anything of use.
If you do have something I could actually learn from, please tell. Ground clearance aside, what are the advangtages of shorter cranks on a mountain bike?
Mad Pierre - Member
Got some Saint M800 cranks in the shed that I don't need....
YGM
Mad Pierre - Member
Got some Saint M800 cranks in the shed that I don't need....
YGM
It's fairly obvious the optimum crank length for riders of differing heights (leg lengths) will not be the same (even just from the comfort aspect) so if you really did take this into consideration when "choosing" your 175mm cranks surely you'd have at least searched online and read about the subject yourself?
If not, there's loads of information online on the subject to keep you busy until you need a new set.
Yes it is, and yes I did. With an 85cm inseam, everything I read suggested 175 or longer. I didn't want to get into issues I don't already have (clearance, knee pain) by going longer, and nothing I read suggested I'd gain anything by going shorter. On top of that, there's Sheldon saying there's no point obsessing over crank length if what you have works. What I have works, I found a good deal, bought them. You told me I was wrong.
I hoped you might have something useful to add, but as per usual, you've gone down the "if other people knew as much as me, they'd know how wrong they are" approach.
Thanks for your by-now customary, high-handed, ill-informed, non-enlightening "contribution".
Having done some reading up on this a while ago as I wanted to know the reasoning behind different crank lengths and what was optimum for me, it seems that for "general riding" that the general consensus is 21% of your inseam is supposedly ideal. Now of course this doesn't allow for all sorts of other variables, and personal preference etc, but based on that fact with an 85cm inseam then that would suggest you run 178mm long cranks.
I've got an 84cm inseam, I should run 176mm long cranks.
If you've got an 80cm inseam, you should run 168mm long cranks.
Clearly this isn't totally practical, hence you have fixed lengths at 165/170/175 etc. (and sometimes every 2.5mm with XTR etc.). But it does highlight 2 issues. For a company building mountain bikes, it's much easier to just buy a load of 175mm cranks and fit them to everything, which until recently, was pretty much what happened all the time. So you could have a 70cm inseam at 1m60 tall (perfectly normal proportions for a shorter man or woman) where a 147mm crank length would be ideal, but the bike you buy comes with 175mm cranks fitted, which is ridiculous!
Now the "ideal" crank length isn't that big an issue to be honest, as long as it's somewhere in the ballpark and not ridiculously too long or too short, you will at least be able to ride the bike. It's mainly down to other factors...
-Knee Pain (shorter cranks help here)
-Spinning (again, shorter cranks help here)
-Ground Clearance (shorter cranks again help)
-Personal preference
For most scenarios, shorter cranks are a better idea than longer ones. I used to suffer with knee pains, had trouble spinning, and had a bike with a low BB. Swapping from 175 to 170 cranks helped out a bit with all 3 issues I had.
The only time longer cranks are preferable is when leverage is preferential to cadence. So Singlespeeders (who don't like their knees anyway) often fit long cranks with their 32:16 gear, whereas if they fitted shorter cranks and an 18T cog at the same time they'd be as fast and it would be easier to pedal. Track bikes run short cranks as a total opposite, as they need to maintain a very high cadence, and leverage is much less of an issue.
Personally, with an 84cm inseam even though technically 175's are the right length for me, I prefer to run 170's. I've tried 165's but they felt too odd. So there you go...
Oh, and for hora
Odd choice indeed. XT are a whole lot lighter than Saints! Why between those 2?
But yes, 9/10spd chainrings and chainsets are inter compatible.
hi could someone poss.give me information,or link for correct crank lenght to hav a read plz
Mboy my 1st gen Saints proved vfm/7 yrs careless service.
I cant afford better than XTs this time round!
Mboy my 1st gen Saints proved vfm/7 yrs careless service.I cant afford better than XTs this time round!
Saints are indestructible, fair enough, but they are heavy
If you want something strong, yet not too heavy, to last a few years, then buy some SLX. But specifically buy the dual with bash SLX setup, they've got the same reinforced pedal threads that the Saints have.
No point in spending any more IMO unless for vanity reasons.
Have some 175 xt cranks if you're interested. No Rings or BB. 16 month old. Usual heel rub but fine apart from that (manchester)
marqin walker how old are they, how much u looking for,4 them
Interesting I've found I'm more comfortable on 170mm cranks I use 165s on my DH bike.
wierdly enough applying that 21% rule above I actually should be using ~170.5mm cranks. these things are never right... but in this case I think it is (for me at least)...