Crank length

[Eldron]

Shorter crank length seems to be a current trend.

 

The main reason I've been seeing is to reduce the hip "clusure" at top dead centre which apparently reduces the corresponding dead spot.

 

I haven't seen any/much science around what the shorter lever effect does for power transfer (I assume it reduces efficiency but have no real fact to back that up).

 

Point to remember - just because you don't feel it doesn't mean it isn't happening :-)

[Andrew Steer]

Thanks for the feedback, between this and reading the other threads and input on it, I think I will pull the trigger on the shorter crank and see how it goes...

The more I think about it, the more I'm surprised it's not more common place in Mtb in particular.

But let's see how reality holds up versus theory

[Jewbacca]

Thanks for the feedback, between this and reading the other threads and input on it, I think I will pull the trigger on the shorter crank and see how it goes...

 

The more I think about it, the more I'm surprised it's not more common place in Mtb in particular.

But let's see how reality holds up versus theory

I ride 170mm cranks across all my MTB's. I honestly don't know why more people don't ride shorter cranks.

 

Do it!

[Jako De Wet]

I am 1.89 and ride 170mm cranks no problem. Definitely feels like I'm getting less pedal strikes than with my previous setup.

[Ascension]

I am 1.73 in length and tried 170mm on my mtb for a few years. It felt like it required a bit more power/torque from my legs than 175mm cranks, I could feel this especially when there is a need to accelerate. In mtb because of the uneven terrain and tight turns there is always a need to put power down to accelerate. I know this is supposed to be cancelled out by being in a lighter gear when using 170mm, but I could still feel the lesser torque of 170mm cranks having a negative impact. I went back to 175mm and it just feels better.