Praxis' New Carbon Cranks and Tiny Chain Guide - Taipei Show 2016

Mar 2, 2016
by Mike Levy  
Taipei Cycle Show header



Praxis Lyft Carbon Crank

When someone mentions Praxis, I think of clever bottom bracket solutions, their ten-speed cassette, and smartly priced aluminum cranksets... and now lightweight carbon fiber cranks. The Lyft crankset is Praxis' first foray into carbon fiber, and as you'd expect, they're both lighter and pricier than the company's aluminum offerings. How light? They didn't have an exact figure, but Praxis' Adam Haverstock said that they'll rival Race Face's Next SL crankset (425g w/ 34t direct mount ring), making them among the lightest on the market. No official word on cost, either, but expect them to be priced accordingly when they're released in both 170mm and 175mm lengths this coming summer.

There are also plans for an "HD" version that will feature a slightly different carbon layup and a spindle with thicker walls, with Haverstock saying that these burlier Lyft cranks will be suited to downhill bikes or heavier and aggressive riders.


Praxis
  Praxis' new Lyft carbon crankset will be among the lightest on the market when they're released this summer.


The use of carbon isn't the only big news when it comes to the Lyft cranks, as Praxis has also stepped away from their self-preloading bottom bracket and crank system and used a threaded, adjustable preload ring that allows riders to dial in the ideal amount of bearing tension. The ring is aluminum rather than plastic like found on some other cranks on the market, and they will fit BSA, PF30, BB30, and BB90/92 bottom bracket shells.

The Lyfy crankset, along with the revised Girder arms and new Cadet crankset, is also made to work with direct-mount chain rings, with Praxis offering standard and Boost-compatible narrow/wide rings in 26 to 36 tooth sizes.

Praxis
Praxis is going with direct-mount chain rings for their latest cranks.
Praxis
The Lyft cranks feature a new (for Praxis) adjustable bearing tension bottom bracket design.




Praxis
  Praxis' new chain guide is a low-cost way to keep your chain on.


Praxis Chain Guide

In need of some extra retention in addition to what a narrow/wide chain ring offers? Praxis' new bolt-on chain guide will retail at between $25 and $30 USD, and it's simple two-bolt mounting means that it can be fitted to the bike without having to remove your drive-side crank arm. The prototype guide pictured here uses a 3D printed slider - production ones will be molded - and a clever adjustment system that allows both height and lateral tweaks to be done at the same time by loosening a single 4mm bolt.

While the first version of the guide is designed to bolt to ISCG 05 chain guide tabs, there's a pretty good chance that we'll see a direct-mount model in the future as well.
Praxis



Visit the feature gallery for high resolution and additional images


Posted In:
Reviews and Tech Cranks Chainguides Praxis


Author Info:
mikelevy avatar

Member since Oct 18, 2005
2,032 articles
Report
Must Read This Week
Pole Bicycles Has Filed for Bankruptcy
63261 views
Kona Bicycles' Parent Company Appoints New CFO, Intends to Sell Brand
63134 views
Randoms Round 3: Dario's Treasures
42709 views
Downhill Bikes of Sea Otter - Part 1
41441 views
Brian's Randoms from Sea Otter 2024
39330 views
Pinkbike's DH Fantasy League: Get Your Team On The Line - Fort William is in TWO WEEKS!
37769 views
[UPDATED] Final Elite XC Results & Overall Standings from the Araxá XC World Cup 2024
37309 views
Randoms Round 1 - Sea Otter 2024
37220 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup

106 Comments
  • 31 4
 The short crank myth needs to go away. It's one of the most detrimental in the industry, and prevents an overwhelming percentage of people from getting a good bike fit. Easily over half the people that I've done fittings for would benefit from shorter cranks.
  • 6 2
 Hey what do you mean by that? I've never heard about it?
  • 5 1
 Crank arm length and leg length determines max seat height and that seat height may or may not match the frame geometry.
  • 38 1
 Crank arm length determines a lot of things people don't think about right away, such as: Seat height for proper leg extension, Seat fore/aft for proper position over pedal axle, as well as getting a proper minimum hip angle (femur to torso) in order to efficiently transition into the power stage of your pedal stroke.

The common misconception is that longer crank arm gives you more torque, which equals more power. The truth is, power is a combination of torque and speed. If you gain a bit of cadence while shortening your crank your power output will be the same, but you can gain advantages of proper fit, smoother pedal stroke (More traction among other benefits) and the faster cadence itself is actually a more efficient riding style.

I admit, it might take some time to get used to, and probably requires some retraining of old habits, but if you have access to a cheap crankset that takes you down a size or two, beg, borrow or steal one for a month or two in the off season and give it a proper try. Riding for an hour or two on your friends bike isn't enough.
  • 3 0
 @bzmarcin please continue, I'm interested especially if you've done multiple fittings.
For example, is it that people under 170cm benefit from sub 175mm cranks, or people with short inseam, and are all those measurements equally important in road vs mountain biking?
  • 9 0
 Agreed. Both me and my girlfriend had bike fits done professionally about a month ago on our road bikes. Both of us should be on cranks 2.5mm shorter than we are to achieve proper angles (Both femur to fib/tib and femur to torso). It is also worth noting that both of us had slightly longer than usual leg lengths.

They need to at least release a 165mm version for shorter riders.
  • 4 0
 And low BBs would also benefits from shorter cranks.
(I heard NX will be as short as 155.)
  • 2 0
 170mm on my stump and 165 on the dh and wish i could get a light 160 set
  • 7 0
 @bzmarcin thanks for sharing your experience.

To confirm the definition of torque is length X magnitude, so increasing the crank arm length will increase torque.

Rpm comes into the power equation which is torque X rpm / 5252 which you could then make the statement that a shorter arm could increase rpm and in turn increase power.
  • 4 1
 I'm 6 foot tall and a fan of 170mm cranks. Exactly to the point of the original poster. A single speed is the one exception, since leverage comes into play much more than peak rpm. Cleaning up ground strikes and offering more opportunity to pedal through turns is another advantage. It takes some thinking to associate how a 5mm shorter crank arm brings my knee less close to my chest, but crank length, when fit precisely, is able to be as critical as frame size.
  • 5 2
 I can't remember where I read it, but there was a test where they let dozens of cyclists ride cranks sizes between +-130mm and +-230mm, and the result was that between +- 150mm and 185mm all the riders had the same power output, no matter what crank length they ran. The shorter cranks can get your cadense up in the exact same ammount you lose leverage, so you won't win or lose on power output.

The main reason they said shorter cranks were faster was that the angle between your torso and upper leg (when the pedal is at 12 o'clock) is bigger, meaning you can drop your handlebars further on your road bike for more aerodynamics.

Also shorter cranks have more ground clearance, more traction, slightly less weight and slightly stiffer and stronger.

Based on all these facts, shorter is indeed the way to go. 175mm is outdated in my opinion.
  • 2 0
 @Mattin As soon as I read this, I was thinking the same damn thing! and all I could remember was some fact about 155mm-185mm.. Glad someone put it into better words

A few years ago I attended a 3 day bike fit course run by Trek (The Cyclefit guys in London?) anyway, Learnt a lot from that and got really into fitting for customers.

The oddest thing was that there were 3 of us who had attended the course at different times, and one boss was TOTALLY convinced by it and it almost became a religion for her, but her Husband (The other fitter) Was totally the other way, as she attempted to fit him according to the 'rules of thumb' set out by the Ideology and it just did not work for him (IE, hes nort that flexible, she suggested dropping his seat height by 2cm, and basically didn't work at all)

So I see it from the point of view, YES its good to have a b etter understanding of the anatomy and what limitations people can have (Injuries ETC) but also you have to WORK with the customer to find some middle ground where they are most comfortable to give their best performance.

Is Cycle Fitting overblown BS? Who knows.. I know some peoples bikes are set up MAD AF, and those people can benefit.. but I can also see the view where some people can just ride a bike well, no matter what shape you put them in.
  • 6 0
 I tried to drink the kool-aid, been running 170's for six months, absolutely hate it (34" PBH). It's fine if you're not pedaling hard. But if you tend toward lower cadences, are taller, or ride athletically, no thanks.
  • 5 1
 You don't magically get a faster cadence with shorter cranks, that's just in comparison to longer cranks at the same gearing. You could also just like drop down a gear on the longer cranks to get the correct cadence. It's not an equipment issue, its a rider issue. Also, trying to maintain a constant cadence on mtb trails is, unless you're on an IMBA special, rather difficult.

So for road bikes, I'll agree, people should be on shorter cranks, but mtb? No, torque trumps cadence for mtb.
  • 3 2
 @b26-4-life: the ideal cadense is between 80 and 100 RPM. Lower cadense will ruin your knees on long term and higher cadense loses effectivity. Usually the closer to 90 RPM, the better. Most people tend to ride in too heavy gears, as 90RPM is much faster than your body is used to and designed to (even when running you don't hit foot movements that fast because you mainly do bigger steps / jumps when running faster). It's something that takes time getting used to and actually learn to.

I really recommend buying a cadense meter so you cab focus on your cadense instead of your speed. Since my country is totally flat I spend a fairly big percentage of my cycling time on my track bike (on the roads). After I bought my cadense meter I found that I had to go 2t lighter in the rear to get into my ideal gear (was riding 52-16 and went to 52-1Cool . The first month spinning that fast felt terrible and I was about 2km/h averagely slower as before on Strava segments. But after roughly 6 weeks I was back at my old speed and a couple of weeks later I noticed I was doing better times on my lighter (good) gear than I was on my heavier (bad) gear.

What feels unnatural at first moment doesnt mean it is necessarily wrong. Mainly with cadense speed you need to specifically train to get into the ideal RPM zone and ride effectively in it.
  • 3 1
 Wouldn't a shorter crank arm decrease how far you could lower your center of mass, thus giving you less traction, specifically in corners where you put your outside foot down?
  • 3 0
 @Jmcdermo1 I think the difference is so very negligible, it wouldn't be noticed? Theoretically, Yes I'm sure it does.. but there are too many other factors for a few mm to make a difference? Idk.
  • 6 0
 I don't know why people think there is some myth or hysteria about crank length. People are different heights, bikes are different sizes and people will benefit from different crank lengths. The big hang up really is varying crank length availability and that a particular S through XL bike model will have the same bottom bracket height. The size small rider could maybe get away with a lower BB and 160 crank. The XL rider might benefit from a 180 crank, but is already smashing his/her pedals into things with 175 cranks. Anyways, if you buy a stock bike it's going to come with 175mm cranks (maybe 170). This isn't because there is some myth or conspiracy to push long cranks. It's just the length that manufactures have found that satisfy the most people. Either swap them out or don't buy a complete bike. Google Lenard Zinn for more info on crank arm length.
  • 4 0
 Canfield Bros sell 155 cranks
  • 5 0
 I admit it, I gotta a short crank :-0
  • 1 0
 Companies sell their completes with 175mm because it has become the standard crank length during past decades. If people don't feel like it's holding then back, people are not willing to switch. They are afraid they won't like shorter cranks. Since no one complains about crank lengths, it is a big risk to switch to shorter cranks on stock bikes if you know less people want to have it.
  • 1 0
 @t-sheep: yes, you can reach a higher cadense on shorter cranks than on longer cranks. Not weird if you have to do a smaller movement.
  • 1 0
 Mattin, okay, higher max cadence, I'll buy that. But other than sprinting out of a starting gate, are you ever going for that 160+ RPM cadence? Spinning at 100 RPM on a 165 vs 100 RPM on a 175 in a lower gear- what's the difference? Both are at the optimal cadence, and depending on your body size one may fit better than the other. You get lower clearance on the 175, but with the benefit of greater torque if you're ratcheting up a hill. Again, I get the shorter crank thing for road biking where your spinning at constant cadence in the same position for long periods, but for mtb, as long as it's not causing knee/fit issues I think a longer crank is more useful in more situations. Combined with an oval chainring it's a killer combo.
  • 2 0
 www.active.com/cycling/articles/crank-length-does-size-matter
  • 1 0
 @dhridernz If a bike ftter has told you that you 'should' be on cranks 2.5mm shorter he's sold you a load of voodoo to try and get you to buy a set of cranks from him. 2.5mm is so small you would never notice the difference. Personally I don't think 172.5 should even exist anymore, it's pointless - bike manufacturers would benefit so many more riders if they started at 160 or 165 and went up in 5mm increments through their size range.

Also for MTB hip angle doesn't even factor - you're always going to be open enough on any crank length. Pedal strikes matter though, and I really don't understand why 175s are still so prevalent.
  • 1 0
 So that's looking mostly at road riding, which is a different beast, but it's finding there's no real difference in power, which isn't surprising. But like the difference between F1 and WRC cars, offroad I'm much less concerned about power than I am about torque. Longer cranks have more leverage and hence more torque. Torque is useful for low-RPM situations like extremely steep climbs, popping wheelies, keeping the front end up going over roots, etc.

Also, nor really related but I have to laugh at the line 'Alternately, mountain bikers and cyclocross riders might not need to aim for longer cranks as a default, but may experiment with shorter cranks for greater cornering or log clearance." I'll be sure to keep that in mind for all the pedal-thru corners take and pedal-over logs I hop... Which would be very few.
  • 4 0
 Having more instant torque is beneficial for some situations, but also detrimental in others. Riding an MTB in a very low gear, with a long crank arm produces a very spiky torque curve, think WWWWW instead of a smooth transitioning sine wave. Spiky torque means your tires are more likely to break free and slide out on steep climbs.

It's very rare (if ever) that you'd want max instant torque applied at the wheel. If you recall riding on 3x9 systems, it was usually far more productive to climb up a steep slippery hill in the middle chainring and 34t in the rear, than it was to granny in the 22t and 34t rear, a lot of that has to do with the uneven application of power in a really low gear. A shorter crank helps with this.

Is going shorter ideal for everyone? Absolutely not, but from what I've seen in fittings, and from where MTB geometry is going, I think riders would benefit from at least trying shorter cranks for a decent length of time, and seeing how the benefits (and drawbacks) apply to their riding style and terrain. I've seen many riders (granted mostly roadies at this point) who come in, buy an expensive bike, and insist on a wrong size crank arm length, even though swapping to a proper length is free for them. Largely because of the false argument that longer arm means more torque means I can go faster.

From all the fits I've done, there have been far more people who'd benefit from going shorter than there are people who'd be better off going longer. I agree with one of the previous comments, 172.5 should die off, and sizing should be 5mm increments. 165 170 175, though I'd like to see more readily available 160mm as well.
  • 3 1
 @tsheep: I believe you ride at a certain percentage of what you can do, so if the max ammount of RPMs you can do is higher, you will also do a higher RPM at that certain percentage.

In the end I believe crankarm length doesn't affect power output, but I do think shorter cranks have some minor advantages (especially on road bikes due to the hip angle)
  • 3 1
 ugh, it seems crank length is becoming the new wheel size debate. How's that saying go, pick a....
  • 1 3
 You are all writing a lot of words. Thats all!
  • 7 1
 @westeast: Pick a dick length and be cranky about it?
  • 2 1
 My gf says 172.5mm is good but 170 wasn't enough, so I'd say the difference matters
  • 1 0
 I was thinking of the wheel size saying that's so popular here.
  • 4 2
 I do lots of standing pedalling, is there a bike fit for me? Crank length and rear tyre grip on climbs? Crank length and muscle structure? Crank length and ground clearance/ pedal timing? Is pedal timing important on your trail? Stem length for torso/leg angles vs handling properties? Saddle height for fireroad vs saddle height for single track? Dropper post? Saddle height for riding clipped in vs on flats? Pedal thickness?

There is one kind of bike where most of those variables are relatively fixed: ROAD BIKE. Try different things for prolongued period of time and get an informed, experience driven opinion

#bikefitformtbscepticsunite
  • 2 0
 I'm going to test the new sram nx in 155mm. I want to know how it is effecting my driving experience in uphill and downhill, and i hope them to reduce my kneepain. Simply trying Smile
  • 2 0
 I like my longer crank arms because it keeps the rpm lower so on tech climbs I am less likely to strike. As long as i time my pedal strokes the long crank arms can be a benefit when it comes to striking.
  • 5 1
 Choosing crank arm length based on torque is just dumb. If you need more torque, use a smaller chainring or a bigger cog. Choose your crank to fit your body. Adjust torque with gearing. That's what gearing is for.
  • 3 2
 Blinkpike, going down the crank length makes you increase cadence and that will now have to match your leg length and neuro muscular system. "Just increase RPM" is like saying to a sprinter to become a marathon runner for his own good. I ride 175 cranks, being 180cm tall. I've spent half of a year trying to get used to 170 cranks, doing lots of road riding where I could focus more on pedalling - no results. Despite best intentions my body refused. Also contrary to what comment thread starter suggests, the prevailing concept in cycling is the one stating that we should all spin 90 RPM, so I think it is the 60-70RPM 175-180 crank lovers who are in minority when it comes to "ideologies".
  • 1 1
 @wingguy

I would agree with you if he had actually tried to sell me anything new. He said that it was such a small difference that it was not worth spending the money to change but if I was to ever upgrade that I should consider going from 172.5mm to 170mm cranks. (and it was my roadie)
And yes hip to torso angle wouldn't be an issue on a mtb but upper to lower leg angle still is. Basically the angle of your knee at both the top and bottom of the stroke is defined by the crank length (and obviously your body shape). Changing the seat height can open or close that angle but can't fix issue where you might be too compressed at the top for correct leg extension at the bottom of the stroke.
  • 2 2
 dhridernz - great point about the angle but there are still kinds of riding and terrains where standing pedaling comes into play very often and so is the power modulation of crank rotation per covered distance = grip. For instance rock strikes are not only about crank length, they are mainly a function of ability to time your pedaling which comes from cadence, thus ability to generate power per angle of crank rotation. In this way we are entering the compromise of seated pedaling efficiency vs other aspects of riding a bicycle in the terrain. If you do looots of seated pedaling on long rides then yes, it is perfectly reasonable to have cranks optimized for this purpose.
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns

I agree completely. Hence I have paid for a fitting for my road bike (unfortunately thats what I have to spend most of my time riding) and not for my mtb. I have never had any issues with my reign mostly I think due to how dynamic mtb riding is versus the relatively static position of road riding.
  • 2 0
 @dhridernz That's always been my philosophy! If I had someone for a fit, Id always say we will do the road bike, but wit the MTB, just copy over the saddle height and saddle setback as close as possible so at least the legs are sorted to alleviate backpain, etc.
  • 3 4
 Saddle height in MTB is a whole a lotta big can of worms unless you run a dropper with infinite height adjustment. There is always an optimal point of departure off course but when you ride relatively bumpy trail, dropping the seat an inch (or even two) can be more efficient since your bum will be lesslikely preventing the bike from rolling over obstacle and will also contribute to better handling. y
You will get this bit bigger range of motion to activate your hips to negotiate terrain features.

Back pain is a touchy topic since it depends greatly on whether the human sample exercises and has any idea about power generation. Same goes to knee pain. Ultimately human being is biomechanically adaptable creature, but not that much that within a milisecond of evolution get used to riding a bicycle, therefore generally riding a bike is not healthy at all and one must take his time with strength training to minimize the negative effect of cycling on his bones and muscles. Just because it's fun, rewarding, inspring and what not for your life experience, and then beneficial for cardiovascular and respiratory system, doesn't mean that it is good for the rest of your body - hence overuse injuries. Bike fit won't fix that.

As much as I understand the business opportunity angle on the case of bike fit for MTB, such thing actually doesn't exist.
  • 1 0
 @steviestokes Yea that was more or less my thoughts
  • 2 1
 Here's a few articles about crank length for those interested:
bikedynamics.co.uk/FitGuidecranks.htm
www.myra-simon.com/bike/cranks.html
www.powercranks.com/cld.html
www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/bikefit/2011/06/crank-length-which-one
  • 2 1
 Have said so myself many times (short crank myth). That was my first thought when I saw only 170 & 175mm options, 2nd thought is no good for me. Running the RF SIXC crank now with 73mm axle just to have a light 165mm crank option.

C'mon Praxis, just do it ...
  • 1 1
 Waki, I can't tell why you addressed that post to me.
  • 1 0
 Personally i ride my saddle 5 to 10mm lower on my mtb then on my road bike (when no dropper post, hardtail). I feel like I need that bit of extra play to absorb the bumps better, else my lower back will absorb all the bumps, which my lower back does not like.
  • 2 1
 @khaki Interesting that the first article you posted was from bike dynamics. He is who I went to see for my bike fittings. Knee pain is now gone!

@Mattin That is likely what I would do on a hardtail mtb (5mm lower) on my reign with a ropper I find it is best to set my seat height the same as my road bike at the very top of it stroke so that I have a good position for smooth fireroad type climbing and can lower it from there.
  • 2 2
 THis is what's great about droppers with infinte adjustment, you can set it for optimal long range, seated pedaling and then just go down from there wherever you want. But @dhridernz - isn't GIant Regin bike fit more similar to TT bike than to classic roadie, due to the steeper seat angle?
  • 2 1
 @WAKIdesigns Both the reign and my roadie have a 73 degree seat tube angle so I don't believe so. Don't ask me how that works with suspension movement and sag though I haven't gone that far yet...
  • 3 3
 You ain't have the modern 75 seat angle? You are so missing out bro.
  • 3 2
 @dhridernz: Glad to hear that - ironically, I too should be using shorter cranks than I use myself, but this is one of those things the industry still needs to catch up to.
And yes, because, as the article explains, long cranks means you apply force at more stressful, flexed joint angles, the alternative being to use less crank travel (which would then nullify any potential extra leverage).
This is logical, but many fail to see it as they fail to realize the cranks just are part of the whole mechanism which includes the leg itself and thus should be considered as a whole and proportionally sized.
  • 4 4
 Does it need to catch up khaki? Catch up to what? Your preference? Then why is my 165cm tall pro roadie brother in law from Bora Argon 18 using 172,5 and his 180cm team mate going for 175? I gues there is a dude in their team around 185 who cranks 170mm. You know people who are paid almost double for cranking 25h a week, compared to what I get as an architect in Sweden.
  • 2 1
 drop dead, already.
  • 2 2
 The only ignorant person in the world is the one who is unfamiliar with what you just learned. Yes, one vision for all! If they don't get it, we'll make them, for their own good
  • 2 0
 Waki vs. Khaki
  • 3 2
 Make no mistake, I am no stupid tolerance pussy. I just have a problem with people going out with opinions about ideas that should apply to everyone, not understanding the complexity of a human being, both in mental and physiological terms. Check out a branch of science called "ergonomics". For instance as an architect I can tell you this: Go measure average stair step. Or forget it I will tell you this: the most commonly used height of a stair step in buildings ALL OVER THE WORLD is 175-ish with 180mm being max, aaaaand 150mm used in hospitals. Building dimensions are based around the idea of Le Corbusier's "modulus": a man 180mm tall with 60mm in shoulder width. That is one of possible examples, not the core of my argument. Dive into PERSPECTIVE, zoom the fk out, or get the fk out because the only place you can practice your own ideas and meticulously selected science facts fitting them is a confinement of solitude. Read stuff, learn from what others devoted time to, and try sht for a prolongued period of time. Commit to Richard Feynmans principle: disrespect the authority, be curious.
  • 1 0
 I agree with you in principle, but huh-huh, settle down Beavis ....
  • 2 2
 What.A.f*cking.c*nt.

So simply because "someone" just *dared* to challenge precious little miss prissy's opinion by bringing up that industry should catch up on crank sizes, she feels "upset" in her little internet safe-space and cries. Boo hoo... News flash, dipshit: who f*cking cares.

No, seriously - how preposterous could that be? First cranks then what, multiple frame sizes? handlebars? helmets? shoes...? No way...

"Hey, but my brother in law blah blah..."

...mentions "le Corbusier"'s "modulus"... (=insta-supra-authoritah) - wait, no Vitruvian Man reference hammered in? I'm disappointed...

"Dive into perspective, maan..." (- 100% non-hippie statement)

"disrespect the authority, be curious" (- no shit, Sherlock)

And just for those who didn't caught that: waki, the self-anointed ergonomics "genius", just equated crank arm size (for *individual* use) with (arbitrarily chosen, btw) stair step "size" (for *collective* use) and decreed if one is equal for everyone, so should the other. Bam! Socialist "ergonomics" for you...

What a pompous prick! f*ck off, failtard! For good!

Blocked.
  • 5 0
 full retard, it was inevitable ...
  • 1 0
 I want to see pictures of that man that is 180mm tall and has 60cm wide shoulders, that Waki is talking about Big Grin
  • 3 0
 @khaki haha that was fun. I'd like to answer your question "who f*cking cares" : well, apparently you do since you bothered to write a whole analysis of Waki's comment ... for what?
  • 2 1
 @WAKIdesigns imagine going upstairs when riding. You told us that the common stairs step hight is 175mm. But when you are riding a 175 mm crankarm length and your left foot is on the upper deadspot and your right food on the lower deadspot, the distance between your feet is 350mm. So thats not your "natural" stair step hight.
  • 2 0
 @kamelfront you picked an example which may or may not be relevant (pedalling is quite different from going upstairs). Let's assume it is a relevant comparison, then everything matches perfectly : I use 175mm cranks, and I always use stair steps two by two, so that's the same 350mm height in both cases.
But not everyone wishes for 350mm steps, so again, everyone's different.
Wait for the telescopic crank arms to match every situation haha
  • 1 0
 So next to a dropper seat post and a dropper stem, we can soon effect dropper crank arms where you can adjust the length during the ride? Big Grin
  • 1 0
 Today I'll be dead-liftin' 120kgs 3x6 reps. I will be so careful to have my arse that 1cm higher to keep the leg angle optimal.
  • 8 0
 I'm happy to see that affordable chain guide. I wonder how it plays with oval rings? I'm thinking of trying an Absolute Black oval ring this season. OneUp claims theirs works with oval.
  • 4 0
 I was thinking the same thing. I really need a chainguide with all the mud we deal with every summer in Utah.
  • 3 0
 Yeah me too @hamncheez
  • 2 1
 The change in space to chainguide for an oval ring is pretty negligible, I don't see any problems with oval rings and guides, unless you run your guide like .2mm away from the ring!
  • 4 0
 @colemanb quit stalking me
  • 4 0
 I run a OneUp guide with a 32T oval Wolftooth. They play well together, though the overlap between the guide and chainring is very minimal when the crank is in the "30T" position. No dropped chains since I installed it though, even when pedaling chunky sections in the lowest gear.
  • 2 0
 I have a OneUp 32t oval with the OneUp guide and they work seamless together. No dropped chains and no rubbing when the chain changes height. They have a nifty spacing set-up included too. Although, I didn't use it.
  • 2 0
 i have this oval chainring and its great. feels more naturally while pedaling and my knees hurt less Smile
  • 11 2
 Oneup components chainguide rip off?
  • 9 4
 originally made by 77 designs...
  • 7 0
 praxis copied RaceFace, plain and simple
  • 6 0
 I literally only came here to ask if I was the only one that thought those looked exactly like Next cranks.
  • 2 1
 Maybe new logo but made by RF? Sure looks to be the same...
  • 2 0
 25$ for a chainguide is bargain for sure! Kudos too for not bringing a propietary mount for the chainrings. The lyft might be my next purchase. Bsa for good boytom brackets and direct mount for quick chainring change!
  • 3 0
 As a short person with a bike that has a low BB. I'd like to see more 165mm options. Yes I am currently running the new XT cranks in 165mm.
  • 1 0
 Since putting a coil on my Enduro (which has given me more travel) I get pedal strikes constantly. That would be the sole reason for getting shorter cranks. I'm less concerned with torque, I'd just like to squeeze a few more pedal strokes in.
  • 2 1
 Bearing tension adjustment? Shouldn't that read compression, or at least pre-load? It is pretty difficult to apply tension across/through an assembly that isn't bonded together.
  • 2 0
 Oh wow. I commented somewhere that I might be able to afford this. I hadn't actually read the article first!..It seems it is indeed a good price.
  • 4 2
 I like the chain guide, and the price of it in particular.
  • 4 2
 165mm people. Not that I'll be buying them...carry on.
  • 16 0
 I also want a 20mm axle, straight tube, 26 inch specific fork that I won't buy.
  • 5 1
 I went to 165s (Atlas Cinch) on my Smuggler and haven't looked back. It was a decision based on some knee issues combined with the low BB. Haven't looked back since I made the switch. Surprising more cranks don't come in 165 considering modern geos.

I have a lifetime of reading considering all of the scientific (and otherwise) evidence from all the experts on MTBR of why short cranks don't work...
  • 5 0
 Crank length is extremely personal, just like knee injuries. Why would you like bike makers doing tens of thousands of bikes for all sorts of people world wide to cater to people with particular injuries, general physiology or cadence preferences? I have no probs with DH bike with 165 but I can't have them on my AM bike, where I require 175. I tried 165 and 170. Not for me, nor my back.
  • 6 1
 I agree that crank length is a personal preference. I've seen arguments over rotor bolts so I guess it's all personal preference - and everyone is an expert on their preferences... I wasn't suggesting special catering to my needs. What I was suggesting is it would be nice if more cranks came in 165 or even 160. I get it that they don't work for some riders bit looking around on the trails and keeping an eye on forums, seems like more riders are open to short cranks these days. And I was poking fun at those that like to include links to Phd. studies whereby a MTB will not operate with short cranks... Along with those that state there are no scientific benefits to oval rings. Cool. I ride and prefer both.
  • 11 0
 I only use hemp based rotor bolts. Anything else is for beginners.
  • 3 0
 I've seen a lot of cranks that I'd like to try only to find there's no 165mm option which for me is a no go. I ride 170s on my bmx and DJ bike but it has to be 165 for anything I actually pedal for a prolonged period. I always end up going back to shimano anyway but it does strike me as odd there aren't more cranks with the shorter option. I guess it's not what most people are after, fair enough.
  • 5 3
 It was quite light-hearted from my side TheFunkyMonkey, sorry if it sounded like a PhD prick having a go Wink But while we are at it, links to actual FINISHED studies (already peer reviewed) are more than welcome. Most of them are unfortunately stupid attempts at being a moses bringing stone plates from the mountain, while being nothing more but quoting articles written by PhD students aaaand PhDs are not necessarily a pinnacle of science... Nutrition and fitness media would not exist if they were to quote valuable and reviewed studies. Hence they go to university and talk to some depressed 30 year old fkr and come up with articleslike, ground breaking discovery: intervals under 80% of your max BPM are beneficial for people under 35 years of age, or "almonds may increase the risk of spontaneous anal leakage by 25%". A journo writes an article and 1 year later the method the PhD student used is proven to be wrong by the panel at the university, but no one writes about that. Meanwhile Jenny Fartyson forbids her kids eating almonds.

I also had a go once at a dude talking on Q-factor and knee injury, well it is n issue but how much was hip stability training was the guy doing? NONE. But Industry with it's wide Q-factor hype is fkng terrible turning us into cripples mneh fkng mneh
  • 6 6
 Please shimano: make a direct mount crank for people that need to run front chainrings smaller than 30. So we dont have to see this stuff anymore.
  • 4 1
 Yes. This. That's the only reason I ever look at other brands cranks. I dont run small chain rings but direct mount just seems like a better solution. And lighter too I think?
  • 3 0
 I got an Enduro bike with XT crackset and 11-42 cassete. With the 32 chairing I can not go up its really hard to ride my steep hills and trails with that 32 chairing. I am trying to buy a 30 tooth chairing but is hard to find. Would love to use a 28 or 26 chairing but its impossible. In the last November in Finale Ligure most of the Enduro riders was using 28 chairing or smaller...
  • 3 2
 Try putting on a small inner chainring and a front derailleur. Then you can ride up steep hills and go fast. Its amazing.
  • 2 0
 When I bought this Reign I was thinking about puting 2 chairings and front delaurier but look whats hapens. Been reading that 2x11 need to use the 11-40 cassete and can not be used with 11-42 that came with my bike. Than I have to buy 2 new chairings, front delaurier and left double speed shifter. But if I will keep this bike I will do it because I am old 46 and my trails are steep and here in Brazil there are no Shuttle. I like lower gearing
  • 2 0
 @mudmandhbrazil wait until this summer, shimano is coming out with a 46 cassette
  • 2 0
 So much stuff to read for a wednesday morning! Killing it Pinkbike.
  • 2 0
 Most educational comments in PB history! Thanks guys.
  • 1 0
 @mikelevy or @pinkbike Do you know if they're going to integrate Power Meter into this?
  • 1 0
 No option to add to favourites?..
  • 1 0
 When will praxis make a gxp 92 bb ? So I can give them my money.







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.051877
Mobile Version of Website