Crank lengths
- Thread starter unclebuck
- Start date
Not sure I'm going to be much help but I usually run the standard 175mm cranks but have a set of 170mm xt cranks on my Saracen and can't say I've noticed much difference. I can kind of feel something is not as normal, but it has never been a problem though I've done limited miles on the bike so perhaps on longer runs it may become clear as to whether the 5mm difference is good or bad.
BITD most of my MTB cranks were 170mm tbh. Bought an XT737 crankset when I rebuilt the Zaskar and that's 175mm. In theory longer gives you more leverage but haven't noticed much difference tbh. My knee is buggered now... but that may be more to do with riding in general. 
I've got an old "mtb" stronglight crankset on a road bike that's 170 that I was thinking of swapping across to see effect, while all the discussions on web re leg length seem to make sense, the bit re knees seems to be bit that's really relevant. Don't forget the impact is doubled the difference in crank length, as if 5mm longer crank, then will need to drop saddle 5mm to be in same position at bottom of pedal stroke and then at top the distance will be reduced by 10mm as pedal 5mm higher while saddle still lower.
If you decide to offload the 170mm cranks, I may be in the market.............................
If you decide to offload the 170mm cranks, I may be in the market.............................
Chopper the ex Copper
Alpinestars Fan
More power with a longer crank, smoother/faster cadence with a shorter one. I fancy myself as a knowledgeable, high mileage rider and I can't tell the difference when in motion between 175 and 170, and even tried riding with one of each but couldn't detect it.
Power is about muscle output, not crank length. However, the wrong length gives sub-optimal power output as the muscle effort is not used to best advantage.
All this leverage argument is fine, but it ignores that there is already a leverage system: gears.
Match the crank length to your leg length and then pick gear ratios to suit.
Years ago I switched from 170 to 175 for a tour. I had horrible knee pain and was clearly over-extending it.
Have a look here if you want to dig into it...
http://bikedynamics.co.uk/FitGuidecranks.htm
All this leverage argument is fine, but it ignores that there is already a leverage system: gears.
Match the crank length to your leg length and then pick gear ratios to suit.
Years ago I switched from 170 to 175 for a tour. I had horrible knee pain and was clearly over-extending it.
Have a look here if you want to dig into it...
http://bikedynamics.co.uk/FitGuidecranks.htm
Iwasgoodonce
Old School Grand Master
I much prefer the 170 length. This preference started on the road and migrated to the whole fleet apart from one bike. This still has 175 and I'm sure I can feel it.
The recent Scrap Heap Challenge saw me with 165 cranks salvaged from a discarded BSO and again I could feel the difference.
If you are tall and have long legs 175 would be better. Like the others say though, most MTBers wouldn't feel the difference due to the dynamic nature of the ride.
The recent Scrap Heap Challenge saw me with 165 cranks salvaged from a discarded BSO and again I could feel the difference.
If you are tall and have long legs 175 would be better. Like the others say though, most MTBers wouldn't feel the difference due to the dynamic nature of the ride.
