Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Shorter MTB Cranks
Quote | Reply
What is out there for shorter MTB cranks? I see some at 165's but would like 155 or 160. Preferably 24mm/Shimano Spindle.
Quote Reply
Re: Shorter MTB Cranks [Jnags7] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
1x? Sram NX has 155mm option.

Edit: https://www.sram.com/...am/models/fc-nx-1-a1
Last edited by: lsousa: May 22, 20 8:47
Quote Reply
Re: Shorter MTB Cranks [Jnags7] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why do you want cranks that short?
Quote Reply
Re: Shorter MTB Cranks [Jnags7] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I would not go that short does not make sense on a MTB.
I’m 5’9” and use 170 on my XC bikes, but on my tri bike I use 155.
Quote Reply
Re: Shorter MTB Cranks [Clutch Cargo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Depending on what type of riding you do on your mountain bike it may make perfect sense - shorter cranks increase ground clearance reducing the likelihood of rock strikes etc. possibly allowing you to more easily pedal through a technical section. This could be more important to you than the reduction in ability to make torque quickly that will come with the shorter cranks. If the majority of your riding is downhill, with shuttles or pedalling back uphill done on a fireroad there would be little downside to shorter cranks. That said, there are other circumstances where cranks that short would be horrible on a mountain bike because it's very hard to spin.
Last edited by: rmt: May 22, 20 16:13
Quote Reply
Re: Shorter MTB Cranks [Clutch Cargo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Clutch Cargo wrote:
I would not go that short does not make sense on a MTB.
I’m 5’9” and use 170 on my XC bikes, but on my tri bike I use 155.

I agree, it doesn't make sense on a mountain bike.
Quote Reply
Re: Shorter MTB Cranks [jaretj] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jaretj wrote:
Clutch Cargo wrote:
I would not go that short does not make sense on a MTB.
I’m 5’9” and use 170 on my XC bikes, but on my tri bike I use 155.


I agree, it doesn't make sense on a mountain bike.

Wide open hip angle and need to apply high torque often suddenly inside a pedal stroke at ofen low RPM suggest to me that long cranks would be the way to go as long as you have good ground clearance. But that's why mountain bikes have less bottom bracket drop in the first place.
Quote Reply
Re: Shorter MTB Cranks [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree that shorter cranks on an mtb make less sense than a tt or even road bike but the OP wants to try and in some circumstances there will be a slight advantage. The point is with experimentation they could find a sweet spot.
I put 155mm profile cranks on my daughters bmx to allow her to pedal better on the bmx track. She might lose a little at the start but at her age (10) the hole shot is less important than getting going when she loses her pump.
Quote Reply
Re: Shorter MTB Cranks [bluntandy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Under what circumstances will there be a slight advantage?

The reason to go with a shorter crank is aero fit. There is no aero fit for a mountain bike, it's all balance and power.

If someone is hitting pedals and needs more ground clearance they either need a different bike or need to ride better.
Quote Reply
Re: Shorter MTB Cranks [jaretj] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jaretj wrote:
If someone is hitting pedals and needs more ground clearance they either need a different bike or need to ride better.


In most cases I would probably agree those are fair statements. However, mountain bikes are getting lower. The lower the bottom bracket, the closer the feet can be to the ground when descending and the better a bike will handle. However, this increases the risk of pedal strike, so shorter cranks are starting to make sense. Without knowing more about the OP’s riding style and destinations I don’t think we can make judgements. And since Canyon are supplying their top of the range Enduro bike with 165mm cranks across all sizes, I think they would tend to disagree with you as well.

https://www.canyon.com/...geometry-section-tab
Last edited by: rmt: May 25, 20 0:57
Quote Reply
Re: Shorter MTB Cranks [rmt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
As bikes are becoming longer, lower and slacker and more people are choosing shorter cranks to prevent pedal strikes.
Quote Reply
Re: Shorter MTB Cranks [rmt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rmt wrote:
jaretj wrote:
If someone is hitting pedals and needs more ground clearance they either need a different bike or need to ride better.


In most cases I would probably agree those are fair statements. However, mountain bikes are getting lower. The lower the bottom bracket, the closer the feet can be to the ground when descending and the better a bike will handle. However, this increases the risk of pedal strike, so shorter cranks are starting to make sense. Without knowing more about the OP’s riding style and destinations I don’t think we can make judgements. And since Canyon are supplying their top of the range Enduro bike with 165mm cranks across all sizes, I think they would tend to disagree with you as well.

https://www.canyon.com/...geometry-section-tab

I respectfully disagree:
Poorly designed Canyon mountain bikes are creating a problem that doesn't need to exist. Lowering the bottom bracket results in hitting chainring(s) on obstacles as well, it's not only a pedal problem.

Pivot mach 4, cannondale scalpel, scott spark, trek top fuel, giant anthem all have the same BB height as 3 years ago when I did my original research when buying a bike. So XC mountain bikes are not getting lower.
Quote Reply
Re: Shorter MTB Cranks [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hip and knee issues from past injuries and looking to see how shorter might help.
Quote Reply
Re: Shorter MTB Cranks [Jnags7] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Shorter MTB Cranks [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Shimano makes a 162.5 that I think is the route I'll go.
Quote Reply