MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
My new HT has a pretty low BB, 296mm to be exact, well it's low compared to the old bike. Currently got 175mm XT and I get a few pedal strikes per ride, I've never got them before. I could be probably modify my riding but I like railing long fast xc downhill and pedalling fast. I've got a new set of 165mm XT cranks that aren't cheap sat in the hallway. 32" inside leg. Anyone about my height using 165s? Will I find them too short. Thanks in advance..
I doubt you'll notice any difference in feel. You might notice the 6% reduction in leverage (I.e. make your gear ratios harder).
I've never heard anyone talk about it in terms of height (for MTB, at least), but I suppose taller riders might want longer cranks for optimum ergonomics. But taller riders don't usually get more BB clearance on XL frames so it's kind of irrelevant.
TLDR: Go for it, stick the new cranks on.
Yes. I’m half an inch shorter but my legs are at least an inch longer. I like 170mm cranks the most but I prefer 165 to 175 from a pedalling perspective. And with a low BB I prefer 165 to 175 by miles.
Expect to have to raise your saddle but not by as much as you’d think!
I'm 182cm.
Tried 170mm cranks, found them a bit more spinny and better for pedal strikes. Liked them better than 175mm.
By extension, 165mm must be better?
I tried them - even better for pedal strikes and found them slightly more spinny again. Despite only feeling slightly more spinny than 170s, I found it stole enough of my torque that I immediately started messing up some slow speed manoeuvres, and screwing up being in the right gear at any given time. Really disliked it and went back to 170s and was immediately happy on them.
YMMV.
Thanks, very useful. I'm hardly a gnarly rider these days but a pedal strike whilst spinning out a 32/10 is not funny...
Did this one a few months back. Consensus was that 165 would be fine, so I did, and they are. So go for it.
It is ****in stupid that they fit 175s on bikes with stupidly low BBs. Shows a total lack of thought.
Here you go...
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/tell-me-about-165mm-cranks-and-ultra-thin-pedals/
@scienceofficer I'm on XT 12spd so 51t? I think out back, pretty sure I can manage on that for long and tired climbs when I'm reduced to jelly babies and winching..
175mm is just an industry standard that hasn't changed in a very long time, new ebikes are coming in with 155/160/165 as standard now, a lot of enduro are 165, it's just an ever so slight decrease in the pedal stroke circumference, shouldn't really be anything to cause any issues, even leverage wise, you're not losing anything, you are just having to use slight tweaks in the gear ratio at times.
Reality is you'll still suffer pedal strikes, we all do, but that 10mm does seem to reduce it by a good percentage, a lot of ground clearance is those roots and rocks that just seem to slightly catch, but of course the big stuff will still smash the pedals just as bad!
I went to 165 on an old dh bike because it was a bit short and I couldn't pedal it uphill without kneeing the crowns. Ah the good old days of "flickable". Anyway, I've gone from 175 on all my bikes to 170 and didn't really feel any negatives but 165 did feel a bit weird to me. Not from leverage, or anything, but when flat footed my stance definitely felt a little short. Even though it's only 10mm that seemed to be enough to shift from "feels right" to "feels weird".
It never stopped me having fun on the bike or anything but I'm definitely happiest at 170mm. Maybe if I'd started out on 165, 170 and 175 would feel odd.
I have 165s on my FS and I'm 6'1" - fine by me
Mind I've also used 180s on a road bike and that seemed OK too, so might not be the best reviewer
165mm are spot on for me, similar inside leg, I run 34t chainring with that cassette, never suffered with torque issues, 165mm reduce knee and hip problems, if anything will help you ride longer, they're great for acceleration off the line and sprints and obviously reduce pedal strikes.
5'10" and 34" inseam here... Much prefer 165mm cranks. There are no downsides to going shorter other than slightly increased saddle height.
I doubt you’ll notice any difference in feel. You might notice the 6% reduction in leverage (I.e. make your gear ratios harder).
Agreed. In my experience (6ft tall and going straight to 155mm* cranks from 175s) you only notice the leverage change when out of the saddle. When seated, your legs bend less through the pedal stroke, which makes up for any theoretical reduction in leverage of the crank - I found myself pushing a higher gear on known inclines, not a lower one. My (arthritic) knees also thanked me!
*I've actually settled on 160mm as an ideal compromise between pedalling efficiency of short cranks and the 'feel' of longer cranks when honking, and in practice 165mm are much easier to get so that's what's on at least some bikes. The 155s have been installed on the recumbent.
I recently switched from 175mm to 165mm cranks on my Enduro. Can't say I've noticed any difference in how they feel to pedal, even when switching back and forth from riding my Hardtail fitted with 175's.
No reason why not. I'm a bit over 6' with 34.5" IL and prefer 170s generally, road or MTB. Would be happy on 165s on any FS MTB and only use 175s on my SS MTB as it's what it's had for 10 yrs or more.
MTBs tend to be low geared enough that 165-170mm should be the default imo, shorter if available. It wasn't that long ago Pinnacle had an 29er in the range that went out with 170s on all but the XL and a mag criticized* it for 'a lack of power' etc due to the short cranks. The bike had a fairly low BB for a HT.
*No, I'm not over it yet : )