Video: Joe Barnes Rides Hope's New 155mm Crank Arms

Oct 25, 2022 at 5:14
by Joe Barnes  


bigquotesI had planned to take up yoga this winter to loosen my tight hips but it turns out with shorter crank arms you gain a load of movement and flexibility on the bike. More riding, less yoga. Joe Barnes

Photo - Tim Green

Photo - Tim Green

Photo - Tim Green

Photos - Tim Green


146 Comments

  • 197 0
 After this article I went mullet cranks (155/175) to get ahead of the trend.
  • 9 0
 Could be the answer for those of us with different length legs or fcked knees!
  • 4 0
 I believe Fabien Barel ran different sizes after a bad leg break caused slight difference in leg length
  • 11 0
 Note how he is pushing uphill. These 155's are just for show.
  • 2 0
 Of course I'm assuming pedals were flat one side, clipped on the other?You are way behind the trend otherwise
  • 3 0
 @headshot: maybe he pushes up with longer cranks as well????

My experience with my son, having to reduce crank length on kids bikes all the time, was that you need to change your gearing a bit to compensate.
  • 52 6
 These things always drive me crazy. Canfield has been making short cranks for (decades?) longer than Hope has even considered the idea. Likewise they were using idlers for high (virtual) pivots what, like 15 years ago?

But Commencal makes a high pivot bike that a winning team happens to ride and Hope sells you a trillion dollar shorty crank and suddenly it's the new hotness and everyone is losing their mind.
  • 29 1
 CANFIELD FOREVER
  • 5 0
 @SixxerBikes: remember the Hubs with the special mounting for smaler cogs. Also a big Innovation which was picked up later by the big Brands
  • 4 0
 didn't know that...and just another notch in the belt for Canfield race innovations that were truly wayy ahead of their time.
  • 11 2
 Dide Canfield ever sponsor Joe Barnes tho?
  • 4 1
 "Balance" is also very similar to the raved about "DW" link
  • 11 0
 @optimumnotmaximum: Canfield did multi-link suspension way before DW patented it.
Not only did Canfield set the trend for 155 cranks, multi-link suspension and idler pulleys, but they also invented the narrow-wide chainring.
  • 2 0
 @sriracha: Doesn't Canfield hold the patent (CBF) for their linkage that a lot of other use? Also I wont ever go short cranks, but where Canfield are located is ChonkyFlow I understand why people would got that route.
  • 1 0
 That's how this industry works - marketing will always push the hardest on the features and standards that could only be obtained by buying a new bike or frame: Wheel sizes, geometry, trunnion shocks, idler pullies, axle standards etc.
  • 3 1
 @draggingbrake:

Has anyone actually read the CBF patent? Its like the suspension equivalent of Knolly patenting a strait seattube that goes all the way to the downtube. Basically if your center of curvature stays within roughly a mile of the the top of the chainring, on anything other than a single pivot, you're infringing. It's bullshit.
  • 1 0
 Think I've had canfield 155mm cranks as 6 years on the DH bike lol
  • 2 0
 @ripcraft: no its not, with cbf the center of curvature stays close to the chainline which (except dw) no other shortlink does. It also results in a different antisquat behavior than basically all other systems -look it up on linkage. (no defending fanboy here I dont own one and never did)
  • 1 0
 @inside-plus: No, but Orange did.
  • 3 0
 @ripcraft: Lance Canfield explained it directly to me - while having a wee chat about bikes and stuff. It's the sweet spot on a bunch of curves. Explained as simple as, if you wobble a pencil, the middle doesn't move...that's where their pivot/patent is base, the neutral point. Cheers
  • 1 0
 @optimumnotmaximum:
Go back and read the patent man. CBF is not specific to short link designs, nor is it specific to anything to do with antisquat. The problem with it is that its very vague. And almost every modern design places the center of curvature approximately inline with the chain.
  • 4 0
 @ripcraft: Patents should be as vague as possible, but specific enough to be granted. If you get too specific it becomes very easy to navigate around it, rendering the patent useless.
  • 1 0
 @draggingbrake: Problem is, It patents the center of curvature ANYWHERE within 4cm of the top of the chainring. At the extremes of this area, it wouldn't accomplish what you are describing at all. Its so vague, it describes possible implementations that wouldn't actually work according to its own goals.
  • 3 0
 @ripcraft: sounds like a really good parent to me. Covers all applications leaving no room for "slightly different".
  • 1 0
 @draggingbrake: From the inventers perspective, sure. From the rest of the industry's perspective, it's overly restrictive of suspension design. But i'm a little bitter because i just finished building a horst link bike that looks nothing like a CBF bike, only to find out afterwards that where i put the center of curvature infringes on CBF. Also, i've looked around and found at least one design that CBF describes, which existed prior to the cbf patent, so i really don't think CBF would hold up in court.
  • 2 0
 @ripcraft: The fact that you can't achieve the same design goal without being within that 4cm is kind of the point of the patent, no? Let's say the patent said "no less than 1 cm." If you could move the CoC to 1.3 cm and get almost identical performance to CBF then what was the point of the patent? They specifically *don't want you to be able to get identical performance by just mildly altering the key feature of the design*.
  • 1 0
 Don't go trying to tell anyone the Foes Mixer invented the modern 27/29 mullet trail bike in 2014 either, we need to stick to our inventor narratives and obey Stigler's law.
  • 2 0
 @WaterBear: I don't disagree with the point of patents in general. What i don't like is that you can be infringing on this specific patent while designing a suspension that is so wildly different that it's a bit insulting to think that some other dude thinks he can take credit for it. I realize that's me taking things a bit personally. Check out my bike in my profile. I'm super proud of it. It's not a Canfield. And again, I'm aware of prior art, that i think (I'm no patent attorney) would render CBF worthless in court.
  • 2 0
 go ride you a Canfield, dude
  • 37 4
 I like the idea of short cranks - while not a direct comparison, moto's have 0mm cranks and turn like the dickens. A huge benefit with short cranks for me is being able to pedal through sections and not pedal strike which has landed me on my head more then once, some of my worst crashes were full power pedal stroke to rock to AOTK
  • 116 0
 Is the dickens good or bad?
  • 6 2
 I had a fantastic OTB on an easy cruise on my fat bike a few years ago. Wanted to ride but was tired, so I figured I'd just putter around the trails on the bike I usually use for snow and chasing my kids around the neighborhood. The super wide Q factor of the fatty puts the pedals out farther, so as you lean they're getting closer to the ground... Tried to sneak a quick crank in on an off camber section of mellow trail and ate shit mightily.
  • 16 0
 @nataspihsrow: It depends how you use it! I use it 3 different ways. What’s your fax number? I’ll fax you all 5 definitions from my dictionary.
  • 88 1
 Dickens Cider is my wife’s favorite. Nothing she craves more after a long day than a nice warm dickens cider.
  • 5 0
 @nateb: hahah im dead!
  • 10 2
 @nateb: Make sure she tries the Dickens Cider long neck bottles...way better mouthfeel.

But the best way to enjoy it is Monster energy drink + Dickens. I’ve only had it at Whistler, but I think they called it a Monster Dickens Cider.
  • 4 0
 @nataspihsrow: I think they meant to type chickens. With parallel feet they turn like moto's.
  • 23 5
 Unlike the unlimited reach and wheel size debates, at least this latest trend theoretically ends at 0mm cranks (exceptional clearance, but slightly harder to pedal)... but then an industry expert will announce they've developed cranks that are -175mm, and away we go again!
  • 15 0
 I’m on 160s for the last year now. Only downside I’ve seen is the front to back stability is a bit harder. Like if you go into a rock garden and a rock suddenly slows you down, I’ve had a harder time absorbing that with my legs than I did with the 170s I came from.

Also your gear ratio is effectively slightly harder… but like, who cares. That’s why we have gears to begin with. It doesn’t affect the size of the window, just where it is. Most people will be able to make an adjustment and have no issue.
  • 2 14
flag scott-townes (Oct 26, 2022 at 6:00) (Below Threshold)
 You should be absorbing that with your upper body anyways...
  • 10 0
 I rode nothing but 175 since I was 14. Then I tried 170 to get some extra clearance with a low bb and was surprised when I actually liked the way they pedaled better. “Hmm, maybe I’ll like 165 even more”, I thought. Nope. I tried for a solid year of riding but ended up going back to 170. I liked the way the 165 platform felt descending, and the way they felt cranking a high gear on the road. I just didn’t like the way they felt standing and mashing up tech. I can’t really explain why, but it wasn’t a leverage thing. I think I like taking bigger “steps” climbing up rocks?
  • 2 0
 I went through the same thing. I didn’t notice any difference in the feel going from 175 to 170, and enjoy the extra clearance. I tried 165, but it affected my cadence enough that I just didn’t prefer them. Maybe it was because I had gotten really used to 170, but I think there is something with the diameter of the circle created by your cranks, and not just the difference in leverage, just like you mentioned. For every 5mm change in crank, you are spinning a 10mm smaller circle.
  • 2 1
 @lj17: how tall are you, boi ..?
  • 6 0
 @lj17: for every 5mm change in crank you are spinning a 31.4mm smaller circle
  • 5 2
 Shorter cranks potentially suit higher cadence and seated climbing but it’s pretty conclusive from the studies I’ve read that fatigue is reduced with shorter cranks. I’ve had my best XC/M race results with 165’s. Also, the further apart you position your feet, (longer cranks) the more weight is placed on the rearward leg when descending. The longer the crank the closer to a single leg squat, plus more spine rotation muscle imbalances. Have a look in the mirror, if you’ve been riding a good number of years, I bet your navel is not laterally centred.
  • 2 3
 For every 5mm reduction in crank length you are spinning roughly a 5000mm^2 smaller circle.
  • 3 0
 Had the same thing going from 175 to 170. Just didn't feel comfy. Me and my dad are the same height (6.5) and we both tried 170s for like, half a year, and never felt very comfortable. Went back to 175 now.

It's all subjective.
  • 3 0
 Keep in mind that if you've gone down 10mm total in crank length you should have dropped at least 1 chainring size otherwise your lowest gear when you're cadence limited is harder.

On the cadence issue I'd agree with @lj17 that the diameter of the circle is the relevant measurement to think about. Your quads don't know or care that your feet are going round the circumference of the circle, all they're doing is pushing your knee up and down. A shorter crank at a higher cadence gives the same rate of contraction of the quads.
  • 1 0
 @andrewbmxmtb: this makes no sense...

^2 refers to area ie. Area = Pi x radius(squared)

Can't see where you got 5000mm^2 from in any case

What might be relevant would be circumference of circle described by pedals ie. Pi x 2(radius) but even this doesn't mean anything.

What the rider will experience with difference length cranks is horizontal foot position and relative displacement through rotation.
  • 1 0
 @SixxerBikes: 6’ (183 cm)
  • 3 0
 @jclnv: I had that. That's why it's really important to acostume the body to run inverse pedal position too. No mention enough... Specialy for kids should learn/ride both positions equally
  • 2 0
 @PauRexs: Agreed.
  • 2 0
 I went from 175 for decades to 170. I always liked it, but I’ve really loved it since switching to a 28t oval. I had a 30t round to make up for the change in gear ratios, but the oval has just smoothed me out at higher cadences, especially with flat pedals.
  • 1 0
 @lj17: 170...165...152mm here. My impression is the smaller circle lessens the dead spots at stroke top/bottom, even with a round chainring, and that torque is increased in these positions and overall more even, contrary to popular belief. After a few rides on 152s I mostly notice the 4mm lower Q-factor than the XT 165s they neatly replaced, requiring no changes to 24mm bottom bracket. Cleaned a power move that wouldn't go with 165s.

Would have used Canfield, but dislike GXP. Trailcraft have a 24mm aluminum axle and are plenty stout on a 5010.4 modded to 150mm rear travel
  • 11 2
 Options are always good, but I think all of these comments are void without knowing how tall/ what inseame people have. Kinda like a 6'5" person commenting on how bad their 10 year old size small bike handles at speed vs a 5'2" rider complaining about how hard it is to get there xxl geoetron around a corner. Shorter cranks also raise your center of gravity, not alway a good thing… if you are always hitting your cranks on a climb it may not be the cranks fault, dynamic ride height/ suspension setup, how slack your "theoretical" seat tube angle is, how short are your chain stays? it could even be your riding, or cadence. Spinning a higher cadence 70rpms vs 90rpms means you have 40 more chances to hit your pedals every minute… also a wider Q factor and wider pedals play a part in that as well.

Try new things, enjoy the woods, but don't always believe the hype.

I tall and have long legs so Im bias towards longer cranks (6'2" 36" inseam), that's just me… I also pedal around a 39lb180 travel dual crown bike with a 61.5 head tube angle and a 1340 wheelbase and will gladly ride all day long.
  • 3 1
 CoG isn’t higher if 165/160 becomes the norm and manufactures increase BB drop by similar amounts...
  • 4 0
 I’m 5-11 with longish legs (33 1/2” inseam). I switched to 160 cranks about a year ago and notice no loss in power or ability to get up techy, ledgy trails. Only difference I notice is a lot less pedal strikes.
  • 7 0
 Barely 5' 8" here with a touch shorter than normal inseam - ran stock OEM whatever 170s thay came with bikes for 5 years. Always felt like pedaling with knees in my chest. Hips and hammies always trashed. 165s felt better but I wanted more. Put 155s on my new Patrol and it feels like the first time I have ever been on the right size cranks. Completely engages the larger muscles of quad different, my legs don't feel so far splayed out and hips bound up when descending...and pedal strikes pretty much went to Zero. Will never go back.
  • 2 4
 160's slap even harder for someone your size, kiiid
  • 2 0
 @SixxerBikes: that's the opposite of what you should have taken away from message.
  • 1 1
 allow your mind to be blown yet again..balance
  • 7 0
 Canfield in early 2000’s
- short cranks
- below 11t rear sprocket
- high pivot
- slim flats
- ks suspension

Industry in 2020’s
Lets reinvent the wheel

I’m surprised people not riding short cranks
  • 7 4
 I honestly don't know how much of a difference it makes for cornering, because I haven't tried them, but I feel like shorter cranks isn't a substitute for good technique. If you suck at corners, the answer probably isn't to shave off 5mm of crank length.
  • 14 1
 No probably not, but if it corners better it corners better. You could say that a bike that jumps well won’t make you magically better at jumping, which is true. But then why do people who love hitting jumps ride bikes that jump well?
  • 2 1
 i would think the opposite? the lower the crank, the closer to the ground, lower cog on the outside foot (top) foot?
  • 2 1
 @taskmgr: you don’t want to drop your foot to the bottom of the pedal stroke even in flat corners. As you lean the bike, you drop your outside foot so your pedals are actually level and evenly weighted. You might have to rotate the cranks slightly more with shorter cranks but in theory your outside foot wouldn’t actually be lower with longer cranks. What short cranks do to help, however, is open up your hips so that rotating them in corners is easier, which will have a large effect on your cornering. But like Daniel said if you suck at cornering it’s not going to magically make you good.
  • 2 1
 @olafthemoose: you've never heard of foot movement through corners to lower your cog and give better grip? try it sometime. if you havent, look it up, there are loads of examples of dropping the outside foot for more grip, control and speed.
  • 1 2
 @taskmgr: In my somewhat-less-than-humble opinion, dropping the outside foot all the way in corners is not generally a good practice at all. It should only be done for two reasons: 1. Roots or rough trail may cause an inside pedal strike so you need to drop the outside foot to raise the inside pedal for more clearance. 2. Loose corners (usually not off-camber though) where you take your inside foot off completely so you can motoslide. Yes I've tried dropping the outside foot all the way and it sucks, a lot!

I've looked at loads of videos on cornering over the past ~15 years, and there is loads of garbage advice out there, and dropping the outside foot fully down is a prime example. Pedals basically level is ideal with considering a couple other points I'll make lower down. With pedals level, both legs can carry weight, brace against corning loads, and act as suspension. Try riding a pump-track with one foot down and effectively no weight on the top foot. You're doing squats with one leg. See how that feels. See how many pros riding pump track drop their out side foot. That one leg is working really hard to act as suspension. Stabilizng the bike for-and-aft is going to be very poor doing that too.

Keeping the pedals level and ideally with lead foot in the direction of the corner is ideal on a trail bike. Even with a long dropper, doing this gives you natural clearance to lean the bike, where the seat doesn't crash into your inside leg. This enables much more pronounced bike lean and thus better traction, stability. It took me years to shift from left foot forward only to switching to lead foot into the corners but it was a good investment for me.

As you consider not just flat cornering but going down steeper grades, you typically want to adjust the pedal position a bit so that pedals aren't exactly level, but modified by "ratcheting back" a bit so that you can still comfortably keep both legs bracing against gravity and braking forces. This works nicely when your lead foot is facing into the corner as it creates more clearance as you lean the bike. Then you can use both legs well for bracing against gravity and braking get more clearance on the inside pedal when leaning, and giving you more clearance between your seat and top-tube for more exaggerated bike lean.

Lots may disagree but cornering has been a passion (okay, okay, unhealthy obsession) of mine for about 15 years and all of this advice comes from a lot of research, practice and has helped my cornering improve a lot.
  • 1 2
 @kpickrell: not reading all that. You do you.
  • 6 0
 they shoulda been making 155 and 160mm this entire time
  • 2 0
 There is a ton of evidence from road cycling suggesting a shorter crank reduces knee pain. If you try a 10mm shorter crank, you're actually giving yourself 20mm less knee flexion at the top of the pedel stroke because your bottom footing being 10mm higher means you can run your seat 10mm higher. Thats not just 20mm at the foot and knee its also less movement at the hips. Most bike brands aren't making cranks short enough, Im on 165 and thats too long for me, technically I should be on 155s. Im 5'7 and there are a heck of a lot of riders shorter than me who are probably running 165+ cranks.

Joe's vids never disapoint.
  • 1 0
 Ya I’m 6’4 and on 165s. They’re great. I ran 160s on my previous bike, also felt great but I prefer 165
  • 2 0
 I put 165mm cranks on every bike or ebike since 2014. 160mm is shortest I have on anything and see no downsides just feels great. Would love to try 155mm or 150mm. Speed and Power.
  • 3 0
 Canfield makes cranks down to 145mm.
  • 2 0
 Miranda do dirt cheap cranks in shorter lengths. I put some 155s on my ebike for 40ish euros, never going back, the clearance is amazing especially on tech climbs.
  • 1 0
 @sanchofula: had their 155 cranks on my Jedi. Honestly didn't notice a difference.
  • 1 0
 @wburnes: Those things look so sketchy! I kinda want to try it.
  • 4 0
 Whenever I catch a pedal, it's usually because my flat pedals are too wide, not because my cranks are too long.
  • 1 0
 but imagine...imagine you shortened the distance those same pedals stuck out by going 5mm less on crank length
  • 2 1
 Not really, crank length doesn't matter when you're cranks are horizontal, which is usually the case in rock gardens and tricky sections. Uphill tech is an obvious exception, but we don't have much of that in the Bay Area.
  • 1 0
 @fentoncrackshell: facts, you're right
  • 1 0
 Pretty long legs here and I’ve got 165mm cranks on both MTBs, one of which is a singlespeed. Shorter might be even better, I don’t know - but I’m pretty sure a large swathe of the population with shorter legs than would definitely appreciate shorter than 165mm cranks.

The key point is that you need to adjust gearing otherwise shorter cranks feel less powerful.
  • 1 0
 I went 165 in 2017, and then 155 in 2018. Haven't looked back. I put my 5'8 dad on 150mm cranks and he likes them a lot. The only time I run slightly longer cranks (170s) is on my SS so that I don't have to run absurd gear ratios to get the correct total gearing. It improves handling and has greatly helped my knee pain. I would love to try something like 135mm on a dirt jumper and/or park bike
  • 1 0
 Been riding 160mm cranks on both my 27.5 and 29er hard tail. Will never go back. Don't need the leverage of 170 or 175, I need the crank clearance and acceleration it gives. I'm already a good climber but the short cranks have helped even more. I clear all the climbs easier than before.
  • 1 0
 I'm 5'-6" with a 30.5" inseam and bounce back and forth between 170mm and 175mm on the mountain bike. I've tried anything from 165mm through 172.5mm on the road bike and settled on 170mm. On the BMX race bikes, I've gone from 180mm, 170mm, and now again to 175mm. On the track bike, I've had 160mm, 165mm, and 170mm.

I can tell you that with riding/racing a variety of bikes over 28 years, I personally believe that there is a crank length that is *too long* for a given application--for the bikes where I can change gears, the maximum length I have tested until efficiency is lost is 170mm on the road and 175mm on the mtb.

I certainly will not discount going by feel, but 155mm cranks seem comically short for any type of sustained pedaling--they are the same size that come on my son's "Expert" size BMX race bike. Yes, you can fix the leverage ratio with gearing, but people are not machines, and by doing so, you are asking for a higher cadence for any given power output--let's not forget that we have a narrow range there as well.
  • 3 0
 I have 155mm Canfield cranks on my DH and trail bikes. I'll never go longer. I think they make to 145 or 150.
  • 2 0
 Tried short cranks, didn’t love it. If anyone is looking for a practically brand new set of 152.5mm Trailcraft cranks with bb and 30 tooth, hit me up…..
  • 1 0
 I'm interested
  • 4 4
 Cool think about riding short cranks is you can't pedal uphill so it pushes you to buy an ebike for 10k vs riding your acoustic bike that was 5k. It's a win win for everyone. You buy short cranks, you dump you bike for cheap. and finance an ebike at 26% for 3 years.
  • 3 1
 no more South African logic
  • 1 0
 More like stool sampler
  • 1 0
 Why are Hope pumping out the message that 155 cranks are something new? I've had SRAM NX 155 cranks since 2019, helped a friend get a set of the same a year before that even. Let alone Canfield, Middleburn....
  • 2 0
 I would love to try a pair. The problem is that its an expensive test to buy them and hope you like them. I wonder if they do a try before you buy option
  • 3 0
 cranks/schmanks, I want that paint job
  • 1 0
 I always wanted shorter crank arms, shorter than 165mm, I thought 150mm would be the sweet spot, however 140-45 would be ideal for some really sick DH only trails.
  • 1 0
 Love my 165mm cranks....very few pedal strikes...can't tell any difference on the climbs. I'm short though at 5'7" so don't know what it would be like for a taller rider.
  • 2 1
 you would benefit even better from 160mm's
  • 2 1
 Tall-ish rider here. I’m 6’1” (186cm) of mostly legs, currently riding 170 mm cranks. There’s no way I could raise my saddle 10-15mm from where it is now to compensate for a shorter crank. The saddle to handlebar drop would be enormous, not to mention my slack seat tube.
  • 1 0
 @peterman1234: But imagine if your BB was lower to reduce that stack height...
  • 1 0
 @jclnv: but it’s not
  • 2 0
 Shock news, sponsored ride love his sponsors new product. Who would have thought
  • 3 0
 That last photo is superb Smile
  • 1 1
 always use 175s.. never even considered changing it, mostly because I don't know anything about crank length.. will just stick to it, as all my bikes use them, and don't have left over cash to farm out for that....
  • 1 0
 Canfield 155mm cranks on dh bike and 155 to 160mm will be going on enduro freeride setup. Much easier on hips and knees as well as centered for jumping and handling.
  • 1 0
 Another great video from JB. Middleburn RS7s were and still are 155 or 160mm cranks. They never took off for a reason... But hope are doing something new here of course.
  • 1 0
 Wow someone sponsored by a manufacturer features in a 'news' article on pinkbike. Shouldn't this be titled an infomercial/advertorial content to comply woth advertising laws?
  • 2 0
 Short cranks FTW! I moved to 165 and won't look back.
  • 2 0
 I moved to 165mm cranks so long ago that I don't recall what longer cranks were like. I do think I liked the move back then. I would like to try shorter but I'd also rather wait for Shimano to make some decent and affordable ones. Currently riding Shimano Zee, which work great.
  • 1 0
 155 on my Canfield Lithium, 160 on my Nicolai Argon, 160 on my NS Evo. Good on Joe to take a ride on the short side!
  • 2 1
 "More riding, less yoga"? I wonder what his sister Hannah has to say about that!
  • 3 1
 Apparently these were made for #Ebikes but who am i to say...
  • 1 1
 I swapped out the 170mm Hope cranks on my Nomad for 155mm two weeks ago. Absolutely love them - the 170mm went straight on eBay after the first ride
  • 1 0
 So, a Hope sponsored rider is sold on a new Hope product? Wow.

In Dutch, there is a saying: "Wij van WC-eend..."
  • 1 0
 What if Hope release a 155mm crank arm with a modified crank version of the canyon self centring device?
  • 1 0
 If you read that headline and you don’t flinch, you might be a bike nerd. And by “might” I mean definitely.
  • 1 0
 Canfield 155mm on dh race bike and either 155 or 160 going on emduro freeride bike as soon as they are in stock
  • 1 0
 I want to try 180s maybe even 185s. Need to get ahead of the next trend. With 32inch wheels maybe we can even go to 190s
  • 1 0
 This debate is fully inseam-dependent. But anyone with an inseam under 80cm should very likely ride cranks less than 170mm.
  • 2 0
 Holy cornering
  • 2 1
 Went down to 170 and noticed a difference. Way less pedal strikes
  • 2 0
 Waiting for 130..
  • 1 0
 Unicycle cranks can be that short (or shorter). They often have this ISIS interface which has fallen out of favour in mountainbiking, but I suppose they might fit some e-bikes nowadays. So yeah, stop waiting.
  • 1 1
 That frame looks so f*cking perfect! Was just about to send my deposit for one when I realised it lacks ISCG05 tabs Frown
  • 1 0
 Would potentially be interested if I could find anywhere with stock...
  • 1 0
 You can literally see the Impact the shorter cranks have on his riding!
  • 1 0
 I've been on 170 for years but am keen to go shorter, maybe 160.
  • 1 0
 I feel obliged to give it a go
  • 2 1
 Why is it called crank arms, when you‘re pedalling with your legs …
  • 1 0
 Holding out for the 150's
  • 2 0
 175mm for the win
  • 3 4
 Ah nothing like making kid sized cranks and calling them revolutionary lmao!!
  • 6 1
 The insecurity is strong with this one lmao
  • 3 3
 Us ebikers have been using these for years. Once again ahead of the curve.
  • 2 1
 Yup! Currently running 152mm on my eFull susser. Been trying 165, 155 and now 152mm. Great clearance and they force you to spin a bit faster because of the lowered torque. eBike mortors works best with a cadence above slow, so they make a ton of sense on those bikes. If you're comfortable with incrasing your cadense a tad the same goes for musle bikes. Try it. Mabe you like it, maybe not.
  • 5 2
 Of course, motorbikes use 0mm cranks.
  • 2 0
 @sverreandre: I tried 155 on my E-Bike and they seem to effect the motor assist, but it was just all in my mind!
  • 1 1
 no word about having to put the seat 10mm upwards
  • 2 0
 Joe mentioned it in the vid.
  • 1 0
 @watchtower: you're right, my bad
Below threshold threads are hidden





You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2023. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.039513
Mobile Version of Website