The setup I have was done custom and isn’t something available. It gets by for bike fitting purposes but isn’t robust enough for regular training.

​@@greshfitThanks for the response!

The brand in most familiar with is SMP. You might consider the F30 or the Blaster/Nymber. Good luck !

So I’m clear - what do you mean by wave ?

@@greshfit wavy shape like wave so not flat but having a little U like thing on the sit area

Thank you ! Hope you were able to land on a SMP :)

That is a great question. From my perspective both of those lengths will be just fine. I’d be surprised if you noticed any real difference between the 165 and the 167.5. I tend to vote against 167.5 because it’s an oddball size that could be phased out. To me the 165 is a much safer bet. Best of luck!

Glad it was helpful!

Thank you ! I have all of Bobs stats in the description- check it out 👍

No. The single speed works because of virtual shifting via Zwift play controllers

No - i'd jump right to the 165s

Man, you and I are exactly the same height, inseam and frame size. I went to 165’s and they are fantastic! It was night and day difference. I had a slight nagging knee pain in my left knee and it disappeared as well

Thanks for watching!

Great info ! Thanks for sharing - I forgot about those items… I need to get in the 512. The extender plates I haven’t experimented with yet. Where can I follow your biz ? I may be in Aus around 2026 to train with Hogg

Can you elaborate?

He can do 155 or stay with 172.5. Or any of the lengths he’s tried. Will still ride like a beast. :) Our bodies will adapt and compensate.

I had him with each crank ramp up to the same gear on the bike. So he had to turn over around the same output each time. But if I do this test again I will definitely utilize ERG mode

He’s a great rider and person ! :)

Traditional formula gives 160 mm for his inseam. But at his age incremental changes are probably safer as you say.

Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for watching :)

Interesting take

That’s one of many benefits

Yes. It can take quite some time to fully adapt to a new crank

Thanks Matt! Great take on this - I agree

I like 20% of inseam in mm. It’s easier to measure and calculate and provides a great starting point

Certainly not 5 mm forward for 5 mm upward, that would mean that the crank length is the same as the seat height!

See video description for that info and more

It will certainly help! I hear you - the 160s are more available. I hope 155 comes next from shimano/sram. Good luck with your recovery !

@@greshfit Oh, yeah -- just some info for anyone else who wants to try shorter cranks -- the temporary ones I'm using are Origin8s -- square taper, not real high-end. But only about $75 US, and I think you can get them down to 140 mm, so a pretty good solution to just try out a different length.

I love that idea! Thanks for sharing. Can you link me to those? Only downside to these I think would just be all the folks with the pressfit bottom brackets.

In practice I haven't found it necessary - but i'm not opposed to it.

Yikes

I gotta admit I can NOT tell the difference between 170, 172.5 or 175 mm cranks. It wasn't that long ago that we were told we needed LONGER cranks so I chalk this up to the usual "Whatever you have now is no good. You need to change. Buy my X." which includes bike fitting. Has there EVER been a customer who came in and didn't end up with some sort of change? I'd like to see a "blind" bike-fit test. Customer in disguise comes in, gets all the magic done to him/her, then comes back once the fitter has forgotten who the hell they were (and in a different disguise) to see what they change. I'd wager $$ they'd be changing something...otherwise how do they justify the fees? Why do I write this? From experience - 30 years in the challenging bike tour biz. I've seen it all. Countless times I've noted how awful a client looked on his/her bike. Countless times this person would tell me they'd had a fit-session performed and even worse, had a made-to-measure bike built to work with the new (awful) position. More than a few times I'd dial 'em in a bit on a bike from our rental fleet. They'd say it doesn't feel like my bike at home. I'd suggest they ride it a day or two as-is before we make further adjustments. Too many times they'd say leave it alone. What does that say about the fitting, etc. they paid all that $$ for?

@@larryt.atcycleitalia5786 Sounds like you've had bad experiences with bike fitters who may have been using the dated rules of thumb like KOPS. It's best to veer towards bike fitters using direct observation and money back guarantee when possible.

you offer absolutely no evidence to back up such a ridiculous pseudo-philosophical statement. grow up.

great idea

@ i forgot to mention that the smaller cranks would potentially be beneficial especially in the mountains. I live in Spain and just like we saw Pogacar, his main wins were in the mountains. On the flats, i am not sure you would go much faster but you would feel less pain in certain joints. Overall it is a win and it depends what is your cycling route. In Spain, the short cranks are needed because we usually do an average of 1% on our rides (100km and 1000 meters hills).

beast!

There's been studies done on this, they concluded there wasn't any noticeable difference in power until you go really short (120) / long (200) on bikes that has gearing. The tradeoff overall is you lose a bit of higher gearing when going shorter and your preferred cadence will be higher and maybe a bit of explosiveness on sprinting (5 sec power), but gearing can be solved while higher cadence isn't an issue in performance and with shorter cranks you can hold sprints longer as a tradeoff which evens out the difference. They do make a huge difference in bike fit though, better hip angle with shorter cranks allow you to bend more if flexibility allows as you won't be hitting your chest with your knees, so it's a bit more aero actually.

@@ryoukokonpaku1575 great info, thanks!

Generally speaking - no.

@@ryoukokonpaku1575 I wonder how much our preferred cadence is influence by crank length. In other words, should our crank length be a match to our preferred cadence (slower goes with longer) or is the crank length to some extent dictating our preference (long cranks are harder to pedal fast so we don't pedal fast).

teamwork makes the dream work!

I don’t understand the question. Can you elaborate?

@ I am questioning the assumption that proper saddle height is based on leg extension at bottom of stroke. I know that is the orthodoxy but not sure it’s true. So if proper saddle height based on leg angle at top of pedal stroke or mid-stroke you get a different saddle adjustment for change in crank length.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying. I don’t cover proper saddle height in this video. I am simply noting that saddle gets raised when installing a shorter crank.

@@DouglasAtlas-p5kAngle is not a reliable measure of seat height because of differences in hip mobility and one’s lumbar flexibility in combination with your fore and aft setup. If a person has a comfortable pedal stroke that already accounts for individual ergonomics, then you must absolutely adjust the saddle position when changing crank length.