unfortunately (1) this is a very expensive change to make, (2) short cranks are out of stock everywhere

Very cool Dylan thanks. If only I could get a 165m crankset somewhere..

Bro lmao I thought this was a mtb video, if the fkn roadies are doing 165 it we need 150 mm cranks :D

One more point, I’ve seen somewhere a comparison of drop bars down position and on the hoods but tucked and it was 2W difference in favour of tucked. Which you can achieve on flat bar.

Purists and traditionalists are slowing down the progress. We should be using whatever works. Gravel courses are becoming more and more gnarly, so naturally we switch to more beefy setup. 10yo 38mm was a gravel tyre, now it’s more in 50mm realm. What is now all round road bike was gravel 10 yo. Same with XC bikes that are more going towards trail/down country geometry. There’s also economical aspect, gravel hype elevates prices of bikes. So if you can get same spec hardtail frame for cheaper that works, why not.

good video! great info

Maybe for pros & A grade club riders but not for recreational riders. The impact on cardio system when climbing with shorter cranks is quite substantial & not in a positive way.

My Dad figured this out 30 years ago and everyone said he was crazy. It's hilarious it took this long for this to be considered. Almost everything on a bike is customizable depending on peoples dimensions so why wouldn't crank size be?

Brian Holm said that cycling is a simple sport: the person who goes to bed the hungriest and spends the most hours on his bike is the one who will cross the finish line first. If you don't know who Brian Holm is, look him up.

listen to your body and obey it!! for short term and long term! goals

what about creatine?

Chainwheel size should also be taken in consideration. There's also oval chainwheels which can be used to shorten or lengthen the lever. A shorter crank on a regular chainwheel will change the proportion of downstroke force to the rest of the pedal stroke. I think there's a lot to try, especially with the oval chainwheels.😅

I hope the price of shorter cranks comes down as more people use them. At the moment, shorter cranks are a very expensive experiment for most as there aren't many available on the used market and they never seem to be on sale in the new market.

Does this apply at all to mountain biking?

I can really use this tbh, because I'm fat and short.

Great video, anyway back to the cat videos.

dna from nephilim giants

I rode on clipless pedals in the past, but now only use flats. Clipless are more efficient on climbs and sprints in my experience, but not that much more efficient, and flats are just more comfortable and convenient in any situation in which I currently ride (recreational road, urban commuting, gravel, and touring). If you're racing, clipless pedals are pretty much mandatory; if you're not, flats are worth considering and shouldn't be dismissed.

The bikes would be a lot better if they dropped the bottom bracket to go along side with shorter cranks. Much more stable. Bike companies just don’t care how your bike fits. They know it sucks. Which is why you upgrade every few years. They want your bike to be to big so you buy a new one. Which also won’t fit and the cycle continues.

Can cheaper is you are able appropriate taps, I’m 69 and went to 150mm and only back to cycling this year ❤

Why haven’t UCI banned shorter cranks ❤

what makes any bike feel good is always the engine,You!! unless the bike is a lame duck, it is your mental state and??

a narrow front bar , flat or drop is more aero!!

Off to compare weight difference of 165 vs 175. That might be all that’s needed to convince the weight weenies here. 😹

7:09 🤣🤣🤣

Iam gonna screw the pedals into the BB and see how that goes

Re. the power study at different cranks lengths isn’t a 30sec. effort too short? The shorter cranks need higher cadence to generate higher torque / power which is easy enough in short bursts but much harder to sustain over long intervals

Zero length of pedal wont turn the bike to run so short pedal will not make the bike to run faster

Improved snap with more torque on longer cranks - for sprinters performance

I'm a mountain biker. I'm switching to 165mm cranks mainly to avoid some pedal strikes.

torque equals force x distance. The distance number is crank length. The longer the crank, the more power you are generating. Period.

I have dropped to a 165mm cranks. This was for comfort. It opens up the movement in the legs, and as an older rider - it just makes sense. As for “speed performance” I am still slow! I am just more comfortable.

Don’t forget mountain bikes would have an larger area to gain because of ground clearance.

Surely it make climbing more difficult as you dont have as much torque with shorter cranks?

I have the worse knee to chest compression and can't even get it close and it's been like that for 20 years. Gaining weight I also notice I can't breath deep into my stomach and then I'm sort of not breathing on the bike correctly. I feel like 165 is easily solve some of these issues (apart from losing Achilles weight lol) and give me some leeway. Especially triathlons in my 20's the worse part i felt my foot pushing back on the upstroke but when out of the saddle I had tremendous power. If this makes sense to others, please let me know and lets go 165!

7:10 - 7:15 the best part of the video 😊

Is this related to the length of foot?

Haha, these comments being like “I need to noodle!” and “fresh air is good for you”, absolutely right. But also the whole point of this channel is give you the knowledge to increase your performance on the bike. He’s a coach and pro athlete, there are other channels that address the pure joy aspect of bikes

Wiggins, did 165 and won a gold... He's like 6ft 3 inches or something like that.

I'm 6'4" tall with a 35" inseam..... I switched to 170 and will never go back to a 175......body much happier

Great video. I've been on 175 cranks for years, had several bike fits over that time and never has the fitter told me to size down. For reference I have a 33 inch inseam. One thing I have done is gone to zero offset seat post which effectively steepens the seat tube. This allows the rider to get lower without decreasing the angle at the hips. It has worked for me. That said I have experimented with shorter cranks. I loved what it did for my cadence. But I hated what it did to my center of mass. When I went shorter I raised the saddle to maintain the knee angle at the bottom of the stroke. I did not like the feeling of sitting higher, especially off-road. I consider myself lucky in that I can ride with the cranks spec'd by bike companies. But I agree that shorter is likely the better call for most riders.

Pff, if I scale Pogačar's 165 mm cranks by the the difference in our height, I should be riding 178 mm cranks. So I guess 175 mm are short enough for me.

Oh yeah, you're a shorter crank.

Great stuff! If I shorter the crankset from 170mm to 165mm, how much I need to adapt the saddle hight? Thanks!

I am 1m95; inseam 95cm, so my crank should be 190mm....doesn't make sense!!

How about shorter cranks for XC racing. Would the shorter length impact the riders efforts while climbing technical trails ? -- roots , rocks , ect....

Did changing your crank length go with a saddle height adjustment, or did that remain as it was?

Has anyone evaluated leg length vs crank length? At 6’4” I find it suspect with my really long legs that decreasing my crank length 10 mm is gonna make much difference.

Great video. As a pro bike fitter that does 75% tri fits, we have been onto this for some time now for the exact reasons you mention: hip angle tends to be the limiter in the TT/tri position, and you can only get so far forward (steep seat angle) before the weight distribution becomes silly. So shorter cranks, which reduce the knee height at top of crank cycle are the answer. Average size folks do indeed tend to gravitate to 160 or 165mm for tri (so the 18-20% crank length/inseam holds). We can switch crank lengths on our Vertex Fit Cycle while the rider is still on board and instantly adjust saddle height while keeping all other parameters constant, so it is easy to observe the rider's reaction to different crank lengths. Frequently 1-2 sizes shorter than they are accustomed to results in a very positive perception as far as power and efficiency. I hear "did you drop the power - this is easy now" all the time. (I don't drop it). At some point tho the rider dislikes the change - they become too short. Now this is likely affected somewhat by anchoring to their traditional crank length. But that said, after 10 mins on the new shorter cranks, I switch them back to their traditional length and they hate them. They may have been riding 172.5 for decades, and after 10 mins on 165 they hate the 172.5. I have never seen anyone (thousands of fits) go longer again. Road is less cut and dry than tri/tt, it's far easier to get away with long cranks for road as many riders aren't hip-angle limited on a road bike (shorter riders tho typically are). But for sure the knee flexion thing can be significant. I had a very tall guy who had struggled with knee pain his entire life - but he loved cycling and so rode thru the pain for decades. "Laughably short" 155mm cranks (~37" inseam so 16% crank length/inseam) cured him instantly. One easy test for the reasonableness of traditional 165-175 crank lengths: that's a 6% variance in lengths. Saddle heights commonly vary more than 40%.

I take it this was before you figured out that 2.2 in mountain bike tires were faster because they’re lighter and rolled faster.