Abouttagand the publication "165 mm cranks: between comfort, performance and evolution of cycling practices"
In cycling, the quest for performance often involves equipment adjustments that, while subtle, can have significant consequences. Among these adjustments, Crank length is now a hot topic of discussion, both in the professional peloton and among informed amateurs.. While 165mm cranks are increasingly appealing to riders like Tadej Pogačar and Remco Evenepoel, recent cycling history shows that other approaches, such as Chris Froome's Osymetric chainrings, have also made an impact. So what are the reasons behind this trend? What are the impacts in terms of biomechanics, aerodynamics and personal adaptation? And above all, what should we remember before taking the plunge? We have testand for you.
By David Polveroni – Photos: depositphotos.com / DR
Professionals' choices: a constant search for optimization
Three-time Tour de France winner Tadej Pogačar and 2022 world champion Remco Evenepoel have both adopted 165mm cranks. Their decision reflects an evolution in the way riders approach cadence and comfort. Shorter cranks allow for higher pedaling cadence and reduce biomechanical constraints, particularly in knee and hip flexion angles. These choices are particularly suited to riders like Pogačar and Evenepoel, who excel in their fluidity and ability to maintain high intensities for long periods, whether in time trials or on climbs. By increasing the frequency of pedal strokes, they optimize their muscular economy, while adopting a more aerodynamic position, essential in increasingly demanding modern cycling.
At the height of his career, Chris Froome has made his mark not only with his exploits in the worldtagand in time trials, but also by its technical choices. Froome used 175mm cranks, a length considered “reasonable” for his height (1,86m), but not excessively long either. This choice reflected a desire to maximize leverage and benefit from optimal power on the climbs where he excelled. However, One of the most striking elements of his equipment was his Osymetric chainrings, which were oval in shape., which promote smoother power transmission while facilitating a higher cadence. The oval chainrings, combined with longer cranks, represented for Froome a compromise between brute force and pedaling fluidity. This configuration underlines that, even in the professional peloton, there is no universal solution. : material choices must adapt to the characteristics and style of each runner.
Why are short cranks becoming more and more popular?
- Biomechanical benefits
One of the main advantages of short cranks is the reduced stress on joints, especially the knees and hips.. By reducing the length of the cranks, the flexion angles are reduced, which can be beneficial for cyclists with joint pain or limited mobility. It also allows for smoother power transmission, especially during prolonged efforts, threshold and VO2max or in demanding positions, such as in time trials.
To feel a tangible effect, a reduction of at least 5 mm is often necessary.. For example, going from 172,5mm to 170mm is still noticeable, but it's when you move to shorter lengths (like 165mm) that the benefits become truly noticeable. That said, every rider reacts differently, and the level of sensitivity to changes varies between individuals.
- Cadence and muscular economy
Short cranks promote a faster cadence, which helps distribute the muscular load over a higher frequencyThis high cadence, particularly sought after today (although we are coming back to it in long-distance efforts, ultra, etc.), delays muscular fatigue and improves energy efficiency, particularly during long climbs or sustained efforts.
- Aerodynamics and position
By reducing the length of the cranks, the knees rise less high at the top of the pedal stroke, which facilitates a more compact aerodynamic position.. This feature is particularly interesting for time trials or solo efforts. This explains why short cranks are so attractive to climbers and modern rouleurs.
Practical and economic implications: a change to consider with a biomechanist
Switching to short cranks should not be a decision taken lightly.. It is strongly recommended to consult a biomechanic before making this change. The latter will be able to analyze the cyclist's morphology, pedaling style and objectives to assess whether this change is relevant. Once the change has been made, it is important to tester this configuration over several months. The body needs time to adapt, and the initial sensations are not always representative of the long-term benefits.
Necessary adjustments
Adopting shorter cranks involves reviewing several aspects of your equipment:
– Saddle height : the saddle will need to be raised slightly to compensate for the reduced length of the cranks.
– Gears and developments : With shorter cranks, a higher cadence is often required. This may involve rethinking the gear ratios used to maintain an efficient drivetrain. In the past, cassette and group limitations often dictated longer cranks to take advantage of restrictive gearing. Today, with modern cassettes offering a wider range, these constraints are largely alleviated.
– Cost for multiple bikes : Cyclists with multiple bikes will need to equip each one with new cranks, which can be a significant investment.
Feedback: my move to 165 mm
In 2017, an accident left me with asymmetrical legs in terms of length and muscle strength. This situation has long influenced my way of pedaling, making prolonged efforts at high intensity uncomfortable, even painful. For years I have been using 170mm cranks, and have been for over 25 years…
A gain in comfort, but not a revolution
Switching to 165mm cranks didn't transform my riding, but the increased comfort was immediately noticeable., precisely on high intensities where I found more ease, a bit like ovoid chainrings can provide. The reduction in flexion angles brought a welcome fluidity, especially during sustained efforts at the anaerobic threshold or on prolonged climbs. This comfort allowed me to maintain a more stable position, which translated into better efficiency on long outings.
Rethinking gears and cadence
The switch to short cranks forced me to review my gear ratios. With a rather low natural cadence, I had to get used to pedaling faster, an adjustment made easier by modern cassettes offering adapted development ranges. This remains a point above all that requires work at home, old habits returning quite quickly…
Conclusion: comfort, performance, and individuality
The adoption of 165mm cranks is an interesting development, but not a universal solution.. If they offer advantagestagIn terms of comfort, reduction of biomechanical constraints and aerodynamics, their relevance depends above all on the specific needs of each cyclist. The contrasting examples of Pogačar, Evenepoel and Froome illustrate well that this choice must be adapted to the morphology, the pedaling style and the objectives of each person.
Finally, as is often the case in cycling, the golden rule that I like to apply (with a certain balance) remains the same: “comfort is performance”. In cyclosportive or amateur practice, being comfortable on your bike is essential to give the best of yourself. So, Before taking the plunge, take the time to tester, adjust and, above all, discuss it with a biomechanist. It is this thoughtful approach that will allow you to get the most out of this subtle, but potentially advantageous, change.tagthem.
Abouttagand the publication "165 mm cranks: between comfort, performance and evolution of cycling practices"
Interesting article, which shows that you have to be open-minded, despite some comments.
Just because we were wrong (we swore for a long time that the earth was flat) doesn't mean we should continue in this area. I use 172,5 mm standards but I will certainly try the 170 mm this winter.
But the Earth is flat. And man has never been to the moon. That is my opinion and I forbid you to forbid me from expressing it.
Is this also a fad? It has long been said that strength is everything, and now we have to grind.
For a long time we said that we needed light bikes and now we only talk about aero.
The same applies to the width of the rims or tires.
When is the next fashion coming?
@Thierry
You're right. Personally, I'm coming back from high rims. I don't feel like I'm riding faster on the flat, and on bumps I feel more "restricted" when dancing. In the wind, I won't tell you about it: impossible to let go of the handlebars! My next pair of wheels will be in 35 max.
For big tires, it's getting crazy with now 30 section. I find that 25 works very well on all asphalt surfaces.
Same for the cranks, I don't see myself changing my 175 cranks, even though I've been used to them for 20 years.
But maybe I'm just an old cn!
I also started with 165s, before moving on to 170s. That was 40 years ago, and I kept them for 2 years. It was my trainer at the time who wanted that, so that I could turn my legs and because I wasn't very tall. At first, that was all I knew. But now, I would have a hard time going back.
When you look at Pogacar, you get the impression that he doesn't straighten his legs. In the dancer position, he has trouble staying there for a long time. In any case, it's a totally different pedaling style from Virenque at the time, who stayed in the dancer position for a long time in mytagnot, by swinging his bike from left to right, with certainly less velocity, but also efficiency, and much more restrictive gears than now '39-23 as smaller)
In short, times are changing. On the other hand, for the chrono, I am more doubtful. Didn't they say at the time that large cranks allowed to carry more gear against the clock? It seems to me that Anquetil lengthened his cranks for the chronos...
I don't know if it's still the case, but about thirty years ago it was common to start young people with 165 cranks, to train them for velocity.
But that was at the time of limited gears (46×16 in juniors and 50×16 in cadets).
Even today kids drive with very high gears.