165mm cranks findings

zefs

So, about a year ago I fell down with around 10-15km/h and since then I was experiencing a bit of pain/soreness on the leg I fell down with. Basically where the femur connects to the pelvis area, and since then it never healed completely.

After a climb I usually felt a bit of discomfort on that area so I though of giving 165mm cranks a try. I was using 175mm before and I was able to tell the difference immediately after the switch (although I wouldn't have noticed it otherwise). Thing is that since I switched, the discomfort has improved a lot, making it a worthy purchase.

I've done around 500km with the new cranks so I would definitely recommend others to try them out if they experience pain in that area or in the knees, since the leg travels less in the upward motion due to the sorter cranks.

I have long legs compared to torso and 82cm inseam so I thought that switching over would make things worse but I was wrong. Hope this helps someone!

Grill

There is no evidence that shorter cranks alleviate pain to the hip or knee. If anything it's your fit that changed and the shorter cranks were a compensation that could have been achieved by other means.

165s are for the track.

zefs

I don't think so, the fit didn't change. In fact I was having trouble raising the saddle higher because of that injury.
I even raised the saddle based on this calculator: http://www.competitivecyclist.com/Store ... p#measures and had no issues after the switch.
I was using 73,5cm saddle to BB which was a bit low but raising the saddle would make the pain worse when I had to pull hard on the pedals. Now I am using 75cm which is a significant difference and the overall fit is better. The suggested saddle height from that site is 74.8 to 76.8 for me on the competitive fit.

Wily-Quixote

Double post

StillGoing

Shorter cranks are better for achieving a high cadence and can assist fit in giving additional clearance coming over the top in the pedal stroke. A longer crank reduces that clearance.

Although I disagree with Grill that 165mm are only for the track, I agree with him that the 165mm cranks haven't cured your problem. In your case, if your hip is hurting during/after climbing, I'd go see the Doctor or a physio first. It could be something as simple as a rotated pelvis or weak abductor muscles etc.

Wily-Quixote

There is evidence that 165mm cranks improve hip and knee pain and the biomechanical principles as to why is simple.

I don't think that there is clinical evidence in the health literature for it but bike fitters and physiotherapists that specialise in fitting recommend this.

I was talking to my physio this morning as I just changed from 175-165 mm for anterior hip pain from a labral tear, She asserted that it was likely to prove effective as trunk/femoral angle is less acute on full flexion at 12 o'clock and my biomechanical issue is one where flexion exacerbates the problem.

There are plenty of studies have shown that there is no (or negligable) difference to power output going to smaller cranks (see Barratt et al: Effect of Crank Length on Joint-Specific Power during Maximal Cycling and Farrar: Acute effects of small changes in crank length on gross efficiency and pedalling technique during submaximal cycling), but there may be going to longer cranks, dependent upon the individuals leg length and flexibility. Many cyclists might benefit from shorter cranks, especially short riders with the standard 175mm cranks

So there is no reason not to use 165mm cranks and many reasons why they might be beneficial.

Asserting that they are purely the province of track riders has no basis in fact.

Grill

The NCC specifies 165 cranks, therfore that's what is used (unless the event is run under a different organising body). Assertion correct. Would never use them elsewhere unless I was way shorter.

175 are in no way the standard crank length and I have yet to see a small bike outfit them (most vary crank length based on size). Considering most fitters work to a predefined and arbitrary set of metrics, I wouldn't use them as a basis for anything worth doing. Shorter cranks are like anything in cycling, preference. Certainly not in the top 10 of things to try for said pain unless you have odd morphology.

kayakerchris

I would agree with wily that shorter cranks may well be beneficial for hip and knee pain. moving through a shorter arc of movement may well keep the joint in a preferred groove in the cartilage or avoid some impingement with longer cranks. In addition for people who externally rotate as the flex (automatically and difficult to untrain) then shorter cranks may be very beneficial.

Track riders use 165mm so that the can ride round the banking. any longer and they would hit the banking on the uphill side.

imposter2.0

kayakerchris wrote:

Track riders use 165mm so that the can ride round the banking. any longer and they would hit the banking on the uphill side.

Not strictly true, as many use 170 or 175 indoor and some track cranks are available in longer lengths than that.

Grill

Imposter wrote:

kayakerchris wrote:

Track riders use 165mm so that the can ride round the banking. any longer and they would hit the banking on the uphill side.

Not strictly true, as many use 170 or 175 indoor and some track cranks are available in longer lengths than that.

It's dependant on the velodrome as some are steeper than others. As mentioned the NCC specifies 165mm cranks due to the steepness. If UCI or Masters events are held their, then the crank length limit isn't enforced (although longer than 170 is generally only used for Pursuit and TP so it's not really an issue).

kayakerchris

I have only cycled Derby and Aigle and both are 165.