Here's why my new crank IS NOT 165mm (and I'm a short rider)

Рет қаралды 11,189

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 121

@janeblogs324 Ай бұрын

The definition of power is work over elapsed time. Shorter cranks rotate your pedals in a smaller circumference therefore each revolution of the cranks is less time elapsed (cadence). So if you don't increase your cadence you will lose power. What this video is describing is in a hardest cogs 11/13t he is losing muscle efficiency and not able to increase cadence (just imagine trying a stopped start in the hardest gear, you can't just spin the cranks faster as you are at the limit of your slow twitch muscle strength and cardio is not the limiting factor) Longer cranks DO offer more torque/leverage but in most scenarios we can just choose an easier gear to offset the torque loss. The main issue is in the sweet spot of crank rotation you now have less time to put in the work. It's a trade off, short cranks might put less stress on ligaments at high joint angles which would also reduce lactic acid build up, but if your cardio/cadence can't increase due to your personal slow/fast twitch muscles then you might actually lose speed but you could increase endurance.

@CharlesOuimet Ай бұрын

great explanation!

@XCRiders Ай бұрын

Tried short cranks just couldn’t hammer the same so, back to 175mm ❤

@sirdmayo Ай бұрын

What's your height?

@ccamire Күн бұрын

The major is how much hill climbing do you do. The difference is if you are solo and on hills, shorter cranks is where you win

@romeroc5 Ай бұрын

I’m 5’10” and able to handle a pretty aggressive position. Didn’t really have an issue with 172.5 cranks but wanted to have the benefits that everyone was talking about moving to 165’s. At first I did once I adjust both seat height and moved the saddle slightly back/aft to account for shorter crank length at the 3 o’clock position. At first it was amazing. About 6 months in I feel like I am loading the front end of the bike more/spilling over, insane tightness in my left IT band and medial glute, numbness downstairs likely from my pelvis rotating even more with shorter cranks. I’ve played with height/fore-aft/saddle tilt. Next move going back to 172.5’s

@carljamesbaring9498 Ай бұрын

I was in a similar situation as you. I'm 5'9 with a 32.25in inseam. Also tried it for 6months, after a few months honeymoon mostly in Zone 2. When I started climb training, I observed that slopes greater than 6%, earlier fatigue onset. Tried it again 3x on familiar hills with same adverse results. Now back to 170mm.

@alanperrego4720 11 күн бұрын

I'm 6'1" and have always run 175mm cranks on my mtbs. With all the hype around short cranks, I finally tried shorter ones (165mm) and rode them for about 6 months. I saw advantages on flat riding, but the majority of my trails are big climbs with big descents. On the really steep climbs, I could never seem to keep my cadence fast enough to muscle my way up. After watching this video, I decided to put my 175s back on and compare once again. What a difference. So much easier to just power up the climbs. I probably went too extreme with 165s, but for me, I think 170s would be too short as well. Lesson learned: go with your gut and not with what is trending at the time.

@ChrisHaasMD757 Ай бұрын

Amen brother. Thank you for making the decision for me. I've always ridden and raced 172.5 cranks with a 54 chainring. Two months ago I got a new bike and decided to get a professional fitting for the first time in my life. Well, wouldn't you know, he thinks I should try a shorter crank. Effe that. I am built more like a bodybuilder than a cyclist, and I love it. I also love how I can pass any of my buddies with just three revolutions of my cranks. I've always been more impressed by wattage and speed than FTP. Tadej Pogacar is not a crit racer and crit racing is by far the most exciting form of bike racing, in my opinion.

@roadbikerider7 Ай бұрын

This is exactly what I found . I’m 168cm, I’ve been on 165mm for 4 years. So my most recent build I opted for 160mm , Immediately it felt so natural , I wasn’t working to get the pedal over at any point. I could spin up so much easier and I found for short explosive efforts up to 2mins or so my power was higher and more constant . With the high cadence it was easier to create that initial inertia . However on longer efforts I found myself really struggling to hold my usual numbers . On a 20 min effort I was 10-15 watts less . I scratched my head for a while , blamed the PM at times but wasn’t till I jumped on my other bike with 165mm I discovered I could achieve my previous power zones . Simply & You are correct , it’s basic physics, shorter cranks ultimately have less leverage . So I have returned to my 165mm and all is good .

@bobfoster687 Ай бұрын

Rode 175 cranks in the 80s & 90s. When I started riding again in 2014, no one seemed to offer them. 172.5 came with the new bike. I miss the longer cranks!

@JeanFrancoisDesrosiers Ай бұрын

Very well explained Charles. Shorter is indeed not an advantage for explosive efforts. Especially when considering the crank is part of the power transmission and a direct extension of your foot. In my case, I needed shorter cranks bc at 45 y.o. I already have stiff hips and I mostly do endurance rides.

@valmorell Ай бұрын

I'm 75 and the reduced stress on my hips from 165s has been a game changer. No difference in my times so.....

@tube8723 Ай бұрын

An interesting perspective that makes sense. Body types affect how we perform in all sports.

@JanGoh-jb5ge Ай бұрын

The science doesn't so much say you MUST use 165mm cranks, merely that there is no PHYSICAL advantage to longer cranks. Even in studies where the difference is measurable, it's small. But you're not actually generating meaningfully more power just because you're riding 175mm cranks (like me) which have a longer lever than 165mm cranks. So you don't have to ride long cranks, but the myth that you generate more power simply by virtue of them being long is false. And BECAUSE that's false, it means you can use whatever cranks provide the best comfort without compromising power output, cadence, etc. So in fact, the science says you SHOULD switch to 170mm cranks because you feel they fit better--you're not at a disadvantage by doing so. I've thought about switching to 165mm cranks, but my main bike is a cyclocross bike, so the big disadvantage is I'd have to raise the seat, which would make remounts much more difficult. So I'm not going to.

@MsTatakai Ай бұрын

i don't understand, why making a smaller crank you have to raise the sadlle?

@colormythingy Ай бұрын

@@MsTatakaithe 6oclock position of the pedal will be higher when you have shorter cranks, hence you have to raise your seat. Otherwise you will have bent legs on the bottom part of the stroke

@MsTatakai Ай бұрын

@@colormythingy hmm ... i see

@janeblogs324 Ай бұрын

You don't understand the definition of power, it's work over elapsed time. Shorter cranks rotate your pedals in a smaller circumference therefore each revolution of the cranks is less time elapsed (cadence). So if you don't increase your cadence you will lose power. What this video is describing is in a hardest cogs 11/13t he is losing muscle efficiency and not able to increase cadence (just imagine trying a stopped start in the hardest gear, you can't just spin the cranks faster as you are at the limit of your slow twitch muscle strength and cardio is not the limiting factor) Longer cranks DO offer more torque/leverage but in most scenarios we can just choose an easier gear to offset the torque loss. The main issue is in the sweet spot of crank rotation you now have less time to put in the work. It's a trade off, short cranks might put less stress on ligaments at high joint angles which would also reduce lactic acid build up, but if your cardio/cadence can't increase due to your personal slow/fast twitch muscles then you might actually lose speed but you could increase endurance.

@JanGoh-jb5ge Ай бұрын

@@janeblogs324 Yes, I understand that all very well. But what the research shows is that most people will compensate for the change in crank length with a corresponding change in cadence that they feel is comfortable, and the net result is that there is effectively no change in power under most circumstances for a well-trained cyclist. It is remarkably consistent across experiments that there is very little meaningful difference in the amount of power that you end up generating, regardless of crank length (until you get to *extremely* short or long cranks). So all that to say, if you do not find you have a sufficient compensatory mechanism for the change in length of the cranks, you should change to a crank length that suits you better. It isn't the length itself that matters, it's how you interact with it. Again, I run 175mm cranks and that's fine, and I won't be switching because long cranks confer a specific advantage for dismounting and remounting my bike because I can keep the seat slightly lower. If you're a cyclist that has trouble getting a good fit, it may be the case that shorter cranks will solve that problem, and based on the number of cycling going to 160mm and 165mm cranks, I think there are a lot of fit/flexibility problems in the ranks of cyclists that weren't easily solved before.

@canadiandeplorable4512 Ай бұрын

On the west coast of Canada, so first Hi fellow Canadian. I was racing many years with 175mm cranks. I have it on record have spun them up to 180 rpm. That said, this is said to not be something done easily, but with training, Just saying. Last year I switched my fleet of bikes to 165mm cranks. I have never had a 11x53 roll out, in fact I had a 54 matched with a 12 rear cog which is a smaller gearing overall than a 53x11. I now with 165mm cranks roll a 11 over with a 56, and will soon be on a 58 when available. My speed is up, my recovery is incredible off and on the bike, my climbing is better, which was a surprise , and I didn't realize I had hip issues till I switched. My average speed with minimal training compared to when race fit a decade ago is the same. Almost 60 years old next year Im going back to 1s and 2s which race together here. I think that a couple things need to be taken into consideration with crank length, the shorter the crank the further back you will need your foot to cleat to get the same leverage. Also important is even with less leverage your legs are engaged in the power stroke sooner and arguably longer. Even if you feel you are not generating as much power, you are producing it longer within the cycle .

@czeckson74 Ай бұрын

I´m sticking to 170mm, too

@garyschaeper2324 Ай бұрын

At 72 years of age, every human is different; Raced with 175mm in the 1970s with a nominal cadence of 95 You have to look at the totality package, smaller steel frame, less weight, higher torque at the onset of a sprint and if one can no gear change during the sprint For marketing purposes they want to put everything into boxes

@bebopman5 Ай бұрын

I came to a similar conclusion on figuring out whether or not to stay with 175mm cranks. I like to mash, so the extra leverage is needed. The only bikes I put 170s on were vintage bikes that have really low bottom brackets, and for those, I use smaller chainrings (I use 1x on everything) and bigger tires.

@CharlesOuimet Ай бұрын

oh nice! Definitely great idea going shorter on low bottom brackets. A pedal strike can happen so quickly ahah

@jonathanwoo6597 Ай бұрын

The loss of leverage is a misconception. When your range of motion is reduced your legs could produce more force on the pedals, negating any loss of the mechanical leverage from the shorter crankarms.

@tombeck129 Ай бұрын

Wrong! Reduced range of motion helps with less movement, but absolutely does not negate the loss of mechanical leverage.

@BruceChastain Ай бұрын

as I'm a very average cyclists I can't even tell a difference between 165 and 170. Sometimes I thought I could, but also I've sometimes thought I was on 165s, but when I checked they were actually 170s. I'm 171cm in height for reference.

@crack0n Ай бұрын

i can tell right away if its 165,170 and even 172,5 when iit gets wierd for me. everyone is different

@valuableblu Ай бұрын

I figured this out about myself also. My body does not enjoy spinning either. Like you I'm a more muscular rider also at 176cm. Good video

@crack0n Ай бұрын

@@valuableblu I ride with 110rpm at my casual z2 rides 😅. I'd like a 160mm crank too I think

@CharlesOuimet Ай бұрын

Thanks!!

@Mapdec Ай бұрын

Good vid. 165 might offer no disadvantage for additional comfort for some people, but it is not always optimal in terms of preferred cadence. I have a lot of bikes with cranks ranging from 155 to 175. I ride them all with equal comfort. However I would probably choose 170 as my optimal. As it’s where my cadence feels most natural. I prefer to consider crank length in relation to a riders range of movement, but this can change day to day by more than the 2.5mm increment change in cranks. Optimal is different day to day, or even hour to hour. What I HATE is bike fitters that scam a rider into buying 167.5mm cranks under the premise it will solve all all their problems.

@CharlesOuimet Ай бұрын

Well said!!!!! Thanks for sharing. Definitely an easy upsell for any fitter to get someone on a different crank lenght🤣

@ChlorophyllCrusher Ай бұрын

I went through the same sort of experience as Charles, and I live not far away, similar rolling terrain. I felt a bit off all year I was on 170s (I’m 185cm and a relatively low cadence, high torque guy) and just couldn’t convince myself 170s we’re working better for me than 172.5s and that’s only 2.5mm difference. I was on a rental with 175 recently, and they felt so stupid. Some riders will notice 2.5mm, others 5mm, others neither. Clearly there’s no rule of thumb that applies equally to all of us. We have to give options a fair shake to really determine what we want/prefer.

@kimwarner6050 Ай бұрын

I like short cranks. I'm currently on 155mm, but I just got some 135's. All my cranksets are carbon and I'm 4'11

@DDai-qd8uk Ай бұрын

Is the air quality poorer when you're so close to farts?

@kolokowalsky772 Ай бұрын

The best are 0 mm cranks...

@radiocontrolled9181 Ай бұрын

@@DDai-qd8ukWhy do you fart from your mouth?

@Southerncyclist Ай бұрын

135 mm cranks definitely makes sence for you. My kids are about your hight there XS MTBs have 165 mm cranks. But doing the math they need 135s.

@aktux Ай бұрын

Choice of crank length is a question of optimizing fit. Depends on the individual. Crank length should be matched to the chainrings as well. Shorter cranks generally require relatively smaller chainrings to match. Reduce 1t for every 5mm reduction of the crank length.

@thepatternforms859 11 күн бұрын

Annnnnnd this is why short cranks suck at climbing

@decoherence926 Ай бұрын

Good video. I'm also your height and noticed that for me, power intervals seated or climbing felt like I had more leverage with 170 than 165. But that's because I don't usually spin a high cadence, but like a lower cadence for muscular endurance. It's how I prefer to ride.

@frantzs1077 Ай бұрын

My bike fitter advised me against shorter cranks, but I tried it anyway and it resulted in more discomfort. I'm beginner rider and looks like full range of motion is beneficial for me. Maybe in few years when I get my position locked in I try again. I do prefer spinning over grinding.

@samuel8590 Ай бұрын

Funny. I felt the same thing. I tired 160 from 170. Groups rides/hard efforts, no bueno. I felt a dead spot/lack of torque. Went back to the 170's and that seems to be right on point. 5'8" inseam is about 30" and foot size is a Bont 46. Not sure if any of these measurements mean anything. Also, all around rider. Not a spinner. Always have been a power rider over a spinner.

@ronb9901 Ай бұрын

165’s probably would of felt better than 160’s. I’m 5’7” and always rode172.5 back in the day and went to 170 for the past 20 years now I’ve gone to 165 and doubt I’ll ever go back.

@benoitarteau2078 Ай бұрын

This apply for you. The thing is you should get 20% of your iner leg. I'am 5f6 with a 52 size frame and my iner leg is 78cm so my crank is at 160mm and i can Believe how good is that for me. before i had a 170mm for 20 years.

@Adam_Antium Ай бұрын

I have watched some of the videos you mentioned and most of them are pretty one-sided. Thanks for mentioning cadance an HR! I'd like to add something else into the mix. (Sorry if you mentioned and I overheard it.) Moving the legs, hips and especially the lower back less, can result in a stiff back due to constantly tense muscles which in itself can cause a domino effect of issues throughout the body. Especially when you predisposed in these areas or just getting older. Full range of motion is always desirable. Ask your physio. ;-)

@LaurentiusTriarius Ай бұрын

I'm running 165/170 on my MTBs and 170 on my gravel and roadbike to be perfectly honest I don't feel a difference between the two sizes, 175 on a MTB is more noticeable since pedal strikes are a thing but even then your memory recalculate these things pretty swiftly...

@mstrasser Ай бұрын

I'm 6-feet (183cm) and switched form 172.5 to 165 and love them. Can easily feel the difference with higher cadence and bike position. It's definitely whatever you feel (and how you ride, I've always spun more than grind) and this immensely helped with that. It also let me go to a 54-40T (11-30 casette) and ride very comfortably in Toronto.

@CharlesOuimet Ай бұрын

Very cool!! Glad you figured it out. I cannot wait to ride my new 54t!

@mstrasser Ай бұрын

@@CharlesOuimet Yeah it's fun - nothing like putting in next to no effort on a slight downhill and just zooming past 😆

@christerlundgren3805 Ай бұрын

Was on 177.5 but age came and cadence dropped, been on 170 for a year, and shazam it increased! Not racing anymore so watts isnt my priority 😊. But no rider has the same proportion as another. With shorter cranks my hips aint bothering me so its a win for me.

@thisandthatandotherthings Ай бұрын

It would have been useful in referencing Dylan's video to have given your 20 percent of in seam measurement. It is possible that indicates you should use 167.5 cranks and 167.5 might actually be your optimal crank length but you have never tried them? And yes experimenting with crank length is a point in favour of using pedal power meters.

@impaledface7694 Ай бұрын

Like everything in cycling people need to try it out themselves.

@erlendsteren9466 Ай бұрын

The way I understand this the speedgain possibly obtainable with shorter crank is all about being able to tug down to more aero position. But if the gain is enough I dont have a clue about. Maybe it will be different from rider to rider. I will never go to short crank because I am not competing.

@swites Ай бұрын

But Tadej is like 5ft9. I'm 5ft11 with an inseam of 89cm(very long legs and arms for height-6ft3 wingspan) so of course I'm not going to copy him because my legs are much longer. If I put my leg length into crank length calculators they all come out well over 175mm cranks. Which I run atm. However I'm older and have bad flexibility and struggle getting power out in a more aero position so am going to get 170mm cranks(but keeping my 175's) to see if it helps. But physiologically I'm more a climber so can't sprint etc so maybe shorter cranks will work well as higher cadence no issue for me.

@CyclespeedTours Ай бұрын

You are forgetting that your crank is part of a system comprising crank length, front chainring, cassette and wheels. All 4 of these have a torque component. A reduction in torque from a shorter crank can be compensated for by a smaller gear (front or rear) or smaller wheels. All are interlinked like a 4 pulley gear system. If pushing a 160 crank feels hard, change to 1 easier gear. Hey presto, you just increased your torque.No torque lost. But then, is it easier to push down hard on a long crank or a short one? Imagine I gave you a spade and asked you to dig into hard ground with your foot. Where would you place the spade? Close to your body or far away? Close right? Because it's easier to apply your body weight and force when it's close. Same for short cranks. And then add in that short cranks are easier to spin, better aero, less joint stress, less ground strike, lighter, and it's hard to make a case for long cranks, other than habit.

@Southerncyclist Ай бұрын

My bike shop owner trided 160mm cranks. Just doesn't work. Can't pull the hills same way. He Went back to 172.5

@NewPolishScientist Ай бұрын

I tried shoter crank on mtb and didnt like it. I use 175mm on mtb and it gives me more torque on harder terrain.

@CharlesOuimet Ай бұрын

that's great!

@ccamire Күн бұрын

Lets put everything in context. I live in Spain. First your rides are mostly on less hilly terrain compared to Spain which are closer to 1% compared to yours at 0.2%. While you have done some big rides with hills, smaller cranks would have been usefull. Second. True that flat rides would be better with longer cranks, maybe that is whyt you like. Third, i do mostly solo rides which are longer and hillier, short cranks generate the most difference in those rides, i dont have to go to 45km on the flat. My goal is to maintain or always surpass my base goal of maintaining 30km average on a 100km ride solo + 1000 meters climbing. Doing a ride in a group is much easier. If i spend lots of time on hills, shorter cranks are the best by at least 10% more watts. Remember gained its win in the hills but not on the flat. If you are solo and lots of climbs, the science and my reality support shorter cranks. Thanks

@Ropetable Ай бұрын

i dont care about length 150-175 but i get knee pain with longer ones

@rp6760 Ай бұрын

1.9m tall and from 175 down to 170. Love it🤷‍♂️

@rg807 Ай бұрын

Question- I'm thinking of going to 165s. I have a similar build, I'm 173cm (5'8"), wide shoulders, rump-bump. I'm 61 yo and can still do 1300 watts on a good day. I'm not a great climber, but I can also pound out a decent high tempo pace. However, my average cadance is 86, and I'd actually like to spin even a little higher, which is hard to do riding 170s. What is your average cadence? Did it increase with 165s?

@jestag2 Ай бұрын

Hope you can try 167.5 and share your assessment.

@domestique3954 Ай бұрын

After decades of bike racing I discovered that my left leg 🦵 is shorter,so I put a longer crank on-that was a game changer! All of a sudden I had that “round” feeling at high cadence,no more saddle problems,no more pain in the shoulders after 2 hours of riding -an overall improvement. As almost all people have different lengths in their legs it’s worth looking at that 🤙

@johndef5075 Ай бұрын

Use 175 on mtb and 172.5 on road. Tried 170s. Ok on road but didnt like them on mtb. Wouldnt want to go shorter though. 6'1" tall.

@Analysethat. Ай бұрын

Just noticed this myself... Went from 172.5 to 165... Because of all the recent shit onlie.. Basically a sprinter like yourself,1500w max... Been on the turbo trainer for a couple of weeks, and immediately noticed that the lowest 3 gears felt much harder to to pedal, couldn't figure out what was going on.. But you've just explained it.. Hopefully can try improve my leg speed, as definitely feel more comfortable on the bike and don't want to have to buy another set cranks! 😆

@aktux Ай бұрын

If you reduce the crank length you need to reduce the chainring as well. Approx 1 tooth for every 5mm reduction of crank length. So if chainring was 53T on 170mm then it's equivalent to 52T on 165mm.

@bengt_axle Ай бұрын

You will have to reposition your saddle! 5mm is a huge change.

@dickieblench5001 Ай бұрын

My inseam is 97cm if that's any help 😢

@parkinkevin 13 күн бұрын

Watching your previous video, It seemed your BPM was much higher on 165???

@Cycle.every.day. Ай бұрын

I had hip pain going shorter (yes i adjusted saddle height to suit) hip pain gone when i went back to longer.

@CharlesOuimet Ай бұрын

Most likely due to less torque! Glad you figured it out

@pierre-yvesjeanrenaud2481 Ай бұрын

I had a very similar experience!

@MrYAMAHA32177 Ай бұрын

I'm a mechanic by trade and longer Ratchets or Breaker bars give me more leverage when loosening stubbornly tight fasteners. That's why I ride 175mm cranks/53 tooth chain rings, it's all about leverage.

@yourdeadjack Ай бұрын

You don’t loosen fasteners 90 times a minute.

@paulmead6910 Ай бұрын

@@yourdeadjack Your breaker bars also do not have a chainring or cassette that provides a geared mechanical advantage.

@igorchalov Ай бұрын

Асtually, chainring diameter works against your effective leverage - not opposite)

@andreytsoy44 Ай бұрын

Shorter crank= less torque, but better high cadence, chose your cranks if youre a spinner or a grinder

@CharlesOuimet Ай бұрын

yeah!

@Major_Woody Ай бұрын

Never jumped on the fad, still running 170mm. I'm 5'8".

@ignaciosevil1944 Ай бұрын

why would you pick a company that went out of bussines for your Powe meter? was it the cheapest option or really you were lookingh forward to get that?

@CharlesOuimet Ай бұрын

In early 2023, Stages was doing great. They've been a great partner of my YT channel since 2021 with the incredible SB20 indoor bike) It all went downhill in late 2023

@universe-juice Ай бұрын

Looks like an FR maybe?

@nateconwi Ай бұрын

170 is the sweetspot for 95% of cyclist

@lovenottheworld5723 Ай бұрын

You may have Dalmatian hip so you can handle length.

@fredcouture1158 Ай бұрын

Pogi roule pas sur le tapis de billard de la Rive Sud ! Et ne doit pas aller faire Sommet Trinité 50 fois pour faire un peu de dénivellé comme nous

@musclelessfitness2045 Ай бұрын

I think I know why you're forcing more with the 165s. If you only lift your saddle, your butt will be slightly further back, so it's harder to push. You need to move your saddle forward and maybe higher. Try it and see if it makes a difference. I'm a little bit smaller than you and larger, but I love the 160s. Every time I move back to my 170s on my old bike, it's harder to put power down.

@carlosgaspar8447 Ай бұрын

how about moving your cleats back 5mm.

@abhimawa1 Ай бұрын

This is going to be an unpopular but it is a very good video, nevertheless. Trend chasers & herd mentality adopters will be against it. Narrow bars, shorter crank arms, aero magic, those are like ultra high / low string tension, lead tapes around hoops on the ennis world. The thing is to listen to one’s body. All mods were made to justify cyclists’ mechanics, physique, cycling style, etc. Good one, Charles

@Chris-derf5 Ай бұрын

cmon crank length isnt a factor of height. can we stop propagating this myth

@CharlesOuimet Ай бұрын

agreed ahah!

@ronb9901 Ай бұрын

More so of leg length, that being said 170 to 165 isn’t a big enough difference to even matter much with regards to power output. But if you feel it does stay with what you like.

@Chris-derf5 Ай бұрын

@ronb9901 femur length. not leg

@ronb9901 Ай бұрын

@ see even you knew what I meant.

@Chris-derf5 Ай бұрын

@@ronb9901 its also a hip flexibility issue amongst other factors

@sueplummer-x4k Ай бұрын

I like 175 but I have a bike as 170 I have very long legs 6 ft 2 inch most of it is my legs I have a cheap bike for leaving in the city it’s 165 I don’t like it