Negative effects of shorter cranks

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

User avatar
pdlpsher1
Posts: 4165
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

A forward seat position opens up the hip angles which allowed him to use long cranks. A better way is a forward seat position and short cranks, which is the current trend.

alexanderp1991
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun May 28, 2023 8:34 pm

by alexanderp1991

PeanutButterCups wrote:
Tue May 14, 2024 7:24 am
So Adam Hansen was an early adopter of the forward seat postion and narrow handlebars but from memory he 'was' using 180mm crankarms. I'm not sure what he is using length wise now but would be interested as it was the one area going against the trendy short cranks?
They still look massive on his current bike. Can't work out what he is doing on the TT/Tri bike though.
He does have very low stack height shoes (handmade ones) so his 180 mm cranks are probaly more like 175 or 177.5 mm to those of us in normal shoes.
He is very into bike fit so I am sure he has measured and performanced checked his cranks. His approach to fit is very interesting.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



TheBelgian
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:09 am

by TheBelgian

Low stack height doesn't really compensate crank length, as even with the lowest stack possible, your foot is still more forward in the 3 o clock position with a longer crank.

User avatar
pdlpsher1
Posts: 4165
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

He also has somewhat of a mid-foot cleat position, which reduces the amount of leverage he has. Mid-foot also requires a higher saddle with everything else being equal. Perhaps he wanted longer cranks to negate the need to have to raise his saddle.

Image

bmrk
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2023 4:03 pm

by bmrk

pdlpsher1 wrote:He also has somewhat of a mid-foot cleat position, which reduces the amount of leverage he has. Mid-foot also requires a higher saddle with everything else being equal. Perhaps he wanted longer cranks to negate the need to have to raise his saddle.

Image
Mid-foot requires a lower saddle with everything else being equal as it effectively reduces the leg reach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

alexanderp1991
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun May 28, 2023 8:34 pm

by alexanderp1991

TheBelgian wrote:
Tue May 14, 2024 4:51 pm
Low stack height doesn't really compensate crank length, as even with the lowest stack possible, your foot is still more forward in the 3 o clock position with a longer crank.
I was just thinking of the 12 o clock position (the worst thing about long cranks for me is getting over TDC, but lower stack height helps here a little and he's probaly going from 8 mm in a normal shoe to 3 mm in his custom shoes). His midfoot cleats will be dominating his 3 o clock position rather than the 5 mm of extra crank length.
Adam has posted about his crank length before on this forum
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=144251&p=1299969#p1299969

I wouldn't want 180 mm cranks in a crit though, pedalling through corners looks like a great advantage.

TheBelgian
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:09 am

by TheBelgian

pdlpsher1 wrote:
Tue May 14, 2024 10:19 pm
He also has somewhat of a mid-foot cleat position, which reduces the amount of leverage he has. Mid-foot also requires a higher saddle with everything else being equal. Perhaps he wanted longer cranks to negate the need to have to raise his saddle.

Image

Holy ....
They call those things shoes? :shock: :lol:

jih
Posts: 606
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:54 pm

by jih

TheBelgian wrote:
Wed May 15, 2024 3:19 pm
pdlpsher1 wrote:
Tue May 14, 2024 10:19 pm
He also has somewhat of a mid-foot cleat position, which reduces the amount of leverage he has. Mid-foot also requires a higher saddle with everything else being equal. Perhaps he wanted longer cranks to negate the need to have to raise his saddle.

Image

Holy ....
They call those things shoes? :shock: :lol:
Don't know who "they" are but Adam Hansen calls them Hanseeno. They're his home made cycle shoes. Given that he has ridden just about every grand tour there is, they can't be bad shoes.

weakestLegs
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:43 pm

by weakestLegs

warthog101 wrote:
Thu May 09, 2024 10:48 am
Lina wrote:
Thu May 09, 2024 10:40 am


Froome literally won his first one over a decade ago and it's now a decade from Nibali's win. The examples you used for longer cranks on TTs are as old or the most dominant TT performance we have ever seen in cycling. Remco is 171 cm but a decade ago he would've been at least on 170s. Pantani raced on 170s (180s on mountains) and he's Remco's height, see a trend towards shorter here? Yes climbing is very selective but at the speeds the pros are climbing aero matters some even while climbing. Based on all the data we have there is no difference with shorter cranks on climbs outside of very few outliers as long as you're not going to extremes with the crank length.
You don't see the inconsistency there? Pantani raced on 170s (180 on mountains)...

Based on all the data we have there is no difference with shorter cranks on climbs outside of very few outliers as long as you're not going to extremes with the crank length.


You show me the TDF winners on shorter cranks then. Google to your heart's content. It is evident that climbing is generally very selective. You should be able to cite all the short crank riding GT winners given "there is no difference with shorter cranks on climbs".

Pantani wasn't exactly tall either at 1.72 m yet climbed on 180s. Why was that I wonder when short cranks climb so well.
This logic is so dumb. Shorter cranks didn't even exist mainstream up until what, 4 years ago, maybe? This is an entirely new phenomenon for the road cycling world and people are just now starting to adapt, it is argumentatively inept to say that because pros 10 years ago raced on really long cranks because really long cranks were literally the only thing people could use or buy, that means they are better. No. That is stupid logic.

Cranks were designed for taller cyclists many years ago and those shorter had to just deal with it because those were the only options available. For someone like me at 170cm tall, 165mm cranks are literally the longest I could go but still are too long for me, 150-155mm (I use 150) is perfect and I am literally able to push power throughout the entire pedalstroke, from 12 o'clock to 12 o'clock. With 165mm cranks, I can only push from around 3 o'clock to maybe 9 o'clock and the rest I have an unstable pelvis and unable to push.

If you are a sprinter where your sole job is to literally stomp as hard as you can on the pedals in the final 500 meters of the race, longer mechanically is better because sustained power does not matter, peak power is what matters. If you are climbing a mountain where the sustained gradient is extremely high for a long long time, longer would be better if you are trying to climb out of the saddle only. Literally any other situation, it is worse aerodynamically and biomechanically on your hips and on your knees.

This is a semantic discussion here. Someone who is 6'1" tall would look at 165mm cranks and think they are for kids while someone who is 5"4" would look at 165mm cranks and it would be very long. For those whom are taller, you all never had a crank issue in the first place, its those whom are not tall or have some form of impingement where it is a problem and very unadvantagous and it is only recently where people started questioning the stupid crank length options for all of cycling time up until now.

EtoDemerzel
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2023 4:13 pm

by EtoDemerzel

Wiggins is 190cm
Pogacar is 176cm
both use(d) 165s

Ganna 193cm
uses 170s

Brunel University study showed no power generation differences in crank lengths
longer cranks generate power through the gluetes, but then loose out on the quads. Shorter cranks recruit the quads more effectively.
You don't get more power w/ longer cranks.

The advantage shorter cranks have is fit, aero and injury prevention. Crank length as a part of bike fit is really a more recent thing.

We all know the gains in understanding and complexities of bike fit. I agree to compare to old pros riding even 10 yrs ago is...not really intelligent....

To maximize aero, pedal efficiency and performance - it's simply been found that shorter cranks can benefit that. The fact is the entire road industry has been trending to shorter cranks. That's a real value to shorter riders where 150s can be a gamechanger and simply allows more options even for taller riders to reach optimal fit and performance.

People that don't focus on those aspects may not care or notice.

User avatar
pdlpsher1
Posts: 4165
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

bmrk wrote:
Wed May 15, 2024 7:48 am
Mid-foot requires a lower saddle with everything else being equal as it effectively reduces the leg reach.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yup. My bad. Thanks for the correction.

The new Sram Red is now offering 160mm cranks, matching Shimano's shortest offering. But 160mm is still too long for me. Manufacturers should dump the 2.5mm increments and instead go 5mm but offer a wider range of lengths. Maybe they should do something like this- 145-155-160-165-170-175.

User avatar
cyclespeed
Posts: 1176
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:45 am

by cyclespeed

The last 3 posts here are all spot on.

15 days in now and loving the feel of my new 167.5mm cranks. Kind of amazed that I feel just a 2.5mm difference, but I think this is probably because I have been riding 170's for at least 12 years now, so my body is very used to them, and sensitive to any change.

Which is why I just went down by one notch. But now considering going to 165mm.

I am 174cm tall with 75cm inseam.

Spinning just feels easier now and I have reduced my time out of the saddle on climbs by about 20% or so. (I was / am very 'danseuse' y, like up to 40% of climb out of saddle.

I was also getting a touch of left knee pain on big climb days, but greatly reduced now.

User avatar
pdlpsher1
Posts: 4165
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

If you are gonna get another new crank, just go way shorter, like 155. You'll be pleasantly surprised. I went from 170 to 155 in one shot and knew I loved it after the first few pedal strokes. FWIW my inseam is 80cm.

lighht
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2024 5:01 am

by lighht

Would shorter cranks (below 170mm) ever make sense for someone with a long inseam like mine (93cm)? I've been dealing with consistent knee pain but I'm concerned that shorter cranks might not be suitable for my height and will instead cause other fit problems. Currently I'm just considering switching from 172.5 to 170.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 13006
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

lighht wrote:
Fri May 17, 2024 4:20 am
Would shorter cranks (below 170mm) ever make sense for someone with a long inseam like mine (93cm)? I've been dealing with consistent knee pain but I'm concerned that shorter cranks might not be suitable for my height and will instead cause other fit problems. Currently I'm just considering switching from 172.5 to 170.

I've tested down to 140mm, no fit issues presented themselves. The only biomechanical issues I encountered is that 140s required so much more cadence in standing sprints, it felt less controlled.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply