 |
| I put short-ish cranks on last year. |
Dangerous activity, I know, but here are a few things I've been thinking about recently which I may or may not delve into further in 2026.
No particular order here, just a few things I thought I'd share.
Shorter Cranks: I've been intrigued by this idea over the past year or so. I put on a set of 170mm cranks on my Raleigh Tamland Two last year to try something out which I had not done before. 170mm may not seem "short", I understand, but this is where I was willing to start. If it was somewhat worse than 172.5mm, (my preferred gravel length up until this point), then it couldn't be that much worse. However, say I went with 165mm cranks and did not like them. Well.......
I guess so far I seem to feel a difference in a positive way running 170mm cranks. So, I could see trying 165mm cranks on a gravel bike. Thing is, I am not into 12 and 13 speed drive trains, and well..... Maybe I could set up something in 11 speed, I just have not looked that hard yet. Something I'm still thinking about....
 |
| Singular Albatross 32"er prototype. Image courtesy of Singular Cycles. |
Of course, no one else seems to be onboard with this idea, so all the prototyping and testing has been centered around off-road type equipment.
32" seems a no-brainer from a gravel riding perspective to me though. Momentum of those bigger wheels has to be a factor in being able to carry more speed over the rollers here. Additionally the longer tire contact patch will be something which will make vibrations less, and make the bike more stable on fast, loose gravel descents.
I know MG is getting one of these bikes to try out, and he will probably try it on gravel. I cannot wait to hear his take on this. Until then, I will be dreaming of a drop bar set up for gravel and 32"ers.
Maybe someday....
 |
| Clik Valve |
I really like the system. It is SUPER easy to use, and otherwise is no issue at all. Yes - You have to have a proper Clik Valve pump head to enjoy all the benefits of Clik Valve. So, in this way, it is a big commitment.
A competing valve standard has arisen promising big airflow, less clogged valves, and ease of use. It is from BBB and is called CoreCap.
CoreCap utilizes the Schrader compatibility you already have and is a system which simply replaces a removable Presta valve core. Simple. Could be a winner.
I can see the benefits from a tubeless user's standpoint. I do not see it as being "easier" to use, because Clik Valve is so stupidly easy to use it would take a miracle to beat it out in terms of ease of usage. However; the standard does require a change which many people will balk at. (Note: You can inflate a Clik Valve equipped tire with a standard pump. You just lose the ease of use.)
You can read more about the BBB CoreCap on my blogging compatriot's site HERE. Muddy Moles will be testing these out soon, so keep abreast of his updates, or just visit his blog. I have it linked in the right sidebar on this page.
That's about it from my brain dump today! More thinkering (if the Winter drags on) to come.
It's interesting, because every time I try shorter cranks, I can't get myself through the adaptation period. It's just too different... Maybe I should try 170mm cranks on my 32er when it comes? You know, add another variable into the mix... Yeah, maybe not.
ReplyDelete@MG - Mike Curiak and Bob Poor were early adopters of 29"ers in Crested Butte when Wes Williams was making Willits New Sheriffs. with the Nanoraptor 29"er tires. At that time I recall Mike saying they all ran 170mm cranks because they worked better with the big wheels.
DeleteIt was a thing, I heard, with all the Crested Butte 29'er pioneers. Mike never explained the "why", in typical Mike fashion, but I tried it on my Blackbuck SS 29"er and I never have taken those cranks off that bike since.
Something going on there and maybe (?) it would transfer over to 32"ers. I'd be curious to know what Mike is doing with regard to crank length on his 32"er.
@Guitar Ted – Interesting... I do have a 170mm crank that I took off my Top Fuel to swap for an XTR 175mm, so I could try that out. Funny, I was joking, but now that you jog my memory, I recall that Mike said that. Might be worth a try.
Delete@GT the story I always heard was the CB boys used 170 cranks for clearance on their rocky rutted trails
DeleteYou are probably well aware of this, but it is worth mentioning anyways. Going shorter on your cranks can affect a multitude of other things in the way you fit/interact with your bike. For myself, I have settled on 155's. My overall saddle height is lower compared to the old 172.5's, with more saddle set-back and a slightly longer stem for more reach to the bars. Power is not reduced in the least, perhaps peak torque is reduced (say, 1st couple of strokes of a max effort standing start), but not sustained power. For reference, I'm 62 y/o, 5'9", 200lbs, and a body of someone who has done manual labor his entire life.
ReplyDeleteHere you can find some good thoughts about crank length https://drwelby.net/bikewrites/
@james - Interesting. Thanks for this comment. There is, as you state, a lot going on here.
DeleteThis all relates to why I thought I would hate the Honeman Flyer, the single speed gravel bike I have with geometry based off a 1936 track bike. By all accounts, it should not be good when measured against the current coaching/bike fitting thought.
The super-slack seat angle does the opposite of the short crank/saddle forward/steeper seat tube the Pros use now. But I found the HF was easier and more efficient for me to climb in the saddle than anything else I have.
Doesn't match up with the current thoughts on rider positioning, but everyone is different, so....
That's my blog, and the Honeman Flyer makes an appearance in https://drwelby.net/bikewrites/bike-check-sc-1/. But the big question I have about it is whether Honeman ran one of the forward offset seatposts that were common at the time, making the seat angle measurement a red herring.
DeleteThe pros have been moving forwards to reduce hip restriction when trying to get lower in the front, but this puts more weight on your hands. Riding at high power outputs will then take that load back off, but for normies it's just going to cause hand pain, upper body fatigue, and even restrict your breathing.
For those of us that aren't whippet-thin shorter cranks let you sit further back and more balanced without out "generosities" getting in the way.
Hey GT, I found a 165 GRX crank on eBay a few months ago and it was cheap enough so I thought I would give it a try. My cranks have always been 172.5. I put it on my road bike, adjusted the saddle a little higher and back a little. About halfway through the first ride I forgot it was there. I don’t have a GRX derailleur so it doesn’t upshift that well. It does seem to help when I am a little tired and I start pulling up on the pedals and making circles, I can spin better. I am looking for an Ultegra crank and then I’ll move this to the gravel bike…also saw where dickie over at bad idea racing took his new 32er for a test ride, he seemed pretty happy…I don’t need one but if they become popular there might be a lot of good used 29ers on the market soon.
ReplyDelete@Marc Pfister - Thank you for the comment and for linking back to my Honeman Flyer post. It is much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen or found any evidence to show Willie Honeman was using a set-forward seat post. Typically, as I understand it from my research, those posts (and corresponding stems) were utilized as a way for a team to have one custom bike which would fit multiple club riders. Probably a way to save costs as opposed to the burden which would have been required if each rider had to purchase their own race bike.
At any rate, Honeman's bike was made especially for him by Pop Brennan and appears to have been utilizing a zero seat back, or nearly zero set back post.
Of course, without clear images or access to documentation of such nuances in Honeman's fit, I could be wrong. I certainly was aware that a set-forward post may have been used and was willing to have one made until I tried what was produced by King Fabrications and found it was working for me well.
32" for gravel makes total sense. They would eat up your chunky Iowa gravel. Excited to see more 32" gravel frames out there. This is the way...
ReplyDeletePodcast comment: is NYRoll really young enough that he doesn’t remember when every quality crankset was a square taper steel BB with aluminum arms? Including that 1992 XTR crank.
ReplyDeleteThey did, and still, work just fine as long as they are installed correctly.
@shiggy person - Yeah, I was a bit taken aback when he started out with that rant. Must be gin and tonics talking which he started drinking recently! :>)
Delete@GT at least we aren’t still using cottered cranks.
DeletePlease give Mr Roll my best Point/Counterpoint Dan Ackroyd rebuttal
"So, I've been interested in this entire development on the 32"er platform."
ReplyDeleteLet me know if you need more info.