Like this site? Help us to make it better.


Are shorter cranks better on your bike? Find out why bike fit experts recommend going shorter

Short cranks could make you pedal better, ride faster and even make your saddle more comfortable. Read on to find out the science behind going shorter

Should you be using shorter cranks? Bike fit experts increasingly recommend a change away from the accepted wisdom of yore, especially for riders with hip issues, time triallists and anyone who wants to get into a really deep tuck. We spoke to the two Phils of bike fit, physiotherapist Phil Burt and Phil Cavell of London’s CycleFit studio, to find out why.

Here’s the executive summary of why shorter cranks — meaning 165mm for a typical adult male rider — are a good thing according to the experts:

  • They enable a deeper, more aerodynamic riding position for sprinters and time triallists
  • They allow more fluid, comfortable pedalling
  • They can reduce or eliminate lower back, hip and knee pain
  • For triathletes the transition from cycling to running becomes easier  
  • Shorter cranks can even make your saddle comfier

For literally decades the accepted wisdom in cycling was that male riders of average height should be on cranks that are about 170mm or 172.5mm long. 

But in the last few years a quiet revolution has been underway, with bike fit experts recommending shorter cranks for many riders. What’s going on?

> How to fit new cranks to your bike

Some advantages of shorter cranks have long been known. If you don’t lift your knees as high as you pedal, you increase the angle between the bones of the leg, the femur and tibia, and that can reduce the peak load on the knee, reducing the risk of injury. Similarly, shorter cranks open up the angle at the hip and depending on your riding priorities that can allow you a deeper tuck for the same hip angle or a more comfortable pedalling action if you have any hip problems.

But it was long thought that there was a price to pay for all this: shorter cranks meant less leverage and that in turn meant less power.

Phil Burt - credit Alex Whitehead SWpix

Phil Burt (Alex Whitehead, SWpix)

Phil Burt was lead physiotherapist at British Cycling for 12 years and consultant physiotherapist for Team Sky for five years. He now has his own bike-fit and physiotherapy practice, Phil Burt Innovation, which has brought him into contact with hundreds of ordinary riders like us, as well as the elite cyclists he used to look after.

The crank length revelation

In his recent book Bike Fit he writes: “I've had a suspicion that crank length is the elephant in the bike fit studio for a long time and, although we saw the aero benefits of shortening cranks for time trials and pursuit during my time with British Cycling, since working with a wide range of riders I've really seen the impact it can have on both comfort and power production. This almost Damascene realisation … regarding crank length is probably the most significant and impactful thing I've learned since working with a broader range of cyclists.”

> Which chainset is right for you?

Burt explains the research that led to experts like himself taking another look at shorter cranks: “Paul Barret who was the biomechanist at British Cycling and is now head of performance at Team Ineos, did his PhD with Dr Jim Martin and they were looking at whether crank length was actually relevant to power. We all grew up believing that if you’re bigger, with longer legs, you need a longer lever, so you can match that to your power. Well, they totally blew that apart. 

“It’s relevant in maximal cycling, which is what Chris Hoy does in the first two revolutions of a team sprint, but it's not what me and you do at all. So once you uncouple crank length being relevant to power, why wouldn't you not manipulate it?”

In his book, Burt cites his favourite example: “The analogy I often use with clients is, if you had a one-metre plyometric box and a 15-centimetre step and I offered you £100 to jump onto one a hundred times, which would you pick? Of course you'd want to pedal a smaller circle and shift any problems to your gears rather than your ankles, knees, hips and lower back.”

Phil Cavell - 1 (1)

Phil Cavell

Phil Cavell, co-founder of London bike fit specialists CycleFit, agrees, explaining that the discovery that shorter cranks don’t affect power, “liberated [bike fitters] because what it meant was that crank length became a function of two things. One is hitting your flexion ranges and the second is your taste, what you like.

“What we find is if someone's got a hip flexion constraint, if you shorten their crank length by five mil or seven mil they just pedal better, their pedal stroke becomes way more fluid. Their body's not compensating and adapting around this biomechanical constraint so you get more power more evenly in a safer environment. So their knees don’t hurt, and particularly their hips don't get injured.

“So in one sentence, short cranks is very safe and protective of your body. That's the kind of big takeaway there.”

Burt points out that long cranks can actively prevent riders from being comfortable and attaining an optimal pedalling rate. “Quite often people will say to me, I really struggle to get up to 80, 90 cadence. That's because they’re on a massive crank length and it closes the hip up at the top. So it causes discomfort and they wobble around.”

What are the benefits of shorter cranks?

One group of athletes that have embraced shorter cranks is the swim-bike-run crowd: triathletes. “We look after British Triathlon’s fit process,” says Burt, adding that triathletes are much more open to changes like this than dyed-in-the-wool club cyclists. “So I look after the Brownlees and Alex Yee. When we went in, we made a similar shift down in crank lengths with those people.

“They found that dropping crank length helped them hold a more aero position and a better position, but when they're transitioning to running, they felt much freer. You can translate that to anybody who’s got a lower back problem.”

There are knock-on aerodynamic benefits too. In the run-up to the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio, Burt says he and Team GB’s support squad made the decision to put riders on 165mm cranks. 

“Bradley [Wiggins] heard that and said to me ‘I should change.’ And he was on 177.5mm cranks and he dropped down to 170mm in one go, then 165mm the next day. He dropped his front end 30 millimetres and got a three and a half percent drop in CdA [drag coefficient] on the track. That's a man who won the Tour de France right? Well, you wouldn't say he had a bad position would you?”

Wiggins of course went on to be a member of the pursuit team that beat Australia in the final in Rio, landing him his fifth Olympic gold medal. That was despite Burt and his team saying that Wiggins shouldn’t make such a big change in one go. Dealing with elite riders, says Burt “you become very risk averse to threatening someone's performance,” but he now says “I'm yet to meet a rider who wouldn't benefit from shorter cranks.”

Of course it’s not just a matter of a change of cranks, there will be other adjustments to your position depending on what you’re trying to achieve. You’ll want to raise your saddle to accommodate the shorter cranks, and perhaps your handlebars too, or you might leave them where they are and take advantage of the deeper position you can now achieve.

You might even find your saddle feels more comfortable. “With shorter cranks, peaks in saddle pressure are reduced and I've seen many riders experience a significant reduction in saddle discomfort by reducing crank length,” Burt writes in Bike Fit.

How can you tell you need shorter cranks?

What if you think everything’s fine with your current crank length? Is there any way to tell if you might benefit from shorter cranks? Hip pain or any other hip problem is the big giveaway, but Phil Cavell says there’s a more subtle tell.

“In the absence of any pain or discomfort, what they might find is that as they get to the top of the pedal stroke, their knee is abducting, and that means going to the outside. If one or both knees are moving laterally to the outside, at the top of the pedal stroke that's a sure sign that there's a constraint and a shorter crank might be more comfortable, more efficient, etc, etc," he says.  

"So that'll be the biggest takeaway, that’s our biggest telltale, if you like, that there's a constraint there.”

Cavell also has strong advice for anyone who has a known medical hip condition: “Anyone who's had hip issues, impingement, an accident or an injury, or they've got a family history of hip replacements, or partial hip replacements, all those people should preemptively look at a shorter crank.”

Are there any downsides?

Because switching to shorter cranks means you’re going to have to pedal faster to produce the same power, it won’t work for a few riders. Phil Cavell explains: “Some people have a problem with cadence that they can't lift their cadence from [say] 87 to 91, for whatever reason, then they are going to lose a bit of power. There's no need for them to lose that power if they've got an extremely good hip inflexion range. So if someone’s got a great hip inflexion range, but they do have a tendency to low cadence, why change their crank? The longer cranks are almost certainly going to work better for them.”

If you do switch to shorter cranks, you can expect an adaptation phase as your body gets used to the new position, but it might not take as long as you think.

Phil Cavell says: “Generally going from 170 to 165, there’s a very short adaptation phase. It can almost be at the end of the [bike fit] session. 

“At the end of the session, they're done, they're fine. They’re acclimatised and for some people, it’s an epiphany. They were cycling in pain, they feel discombobulated, they feel uneven and wonky, and then you put them on a shorter crank, and suddenly they can pedal better. So for them the adaptation is really rapid. But for other people it can be a bit longer. If you go from 175 to 165 that can take longer.”

These are minor downsides, so let’s give the final word to Phil Burt: 

“Cranks are the most common component I change for riders who come to me for a fit, and the impact is often a game changer.”

Who makes short cranks?

One of the problems if you want to switch to shorter cranks is simply finding them in the first place. Most manufacturers offer 165mm cranks, but few list cranks shorter than that. Shimano goes down to 160mm for Dura-Ace and Ultegra 12-speed cranks, and Shimano 105 12-speed and 11-speed. SRAM offers just one 160mm road crankset in 12-speed Rival. Campagnolo doesn’t list cranks shorter than 165mm in any current groupset.

The most readily available shorter cranks come from smaller manufacturers who’ve specialised in solving fit problems or are addressing the triathlon market. Rotor Aldhu cranks come in lengths as low as 150mm, while if you want something a bit less spendy FSA Gossamer cranks are available as short as 145mm.

rotor aldhu-4.jpg

However, there’s a bit of a difference between what’s listed in manufacturer websites and what you can actually buy. 165mm cranks are reasonably easy to find, so, as usual, us average-sized blokes are okay, but smaller riders who might want to switch to 160mm cranks (a size Burt says is “completely appropriate” for smaller riders, who tend to be more women than men) or shorter are going to struggle. 

FSA Gossamer Pro crank

In Bike Fit, Phil Burt writes: “Unfortunately, the bike industry is still catching up with the science and probably has a load of 175mm cranks that they still have to get rid of!”

He recommends Rotor as one of the easiest to source and having spent some time scouring retail sites I have to agree: You can just order them from Rotor. Similarly, you can order Gossamer cranks direct from FSA.

John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.

He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.

Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for Along with founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.

John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.

He joined in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.

Add new comment


wtjs | 1 year ago

Of course, the power output is purely determined by the speed, assuming the same bike, rider and terrain. What the human (+/- motor in these enlightened days) has to do to achieve that power output is what is under discussion. In the human case, it's a pretty complicated force/time/movement sum and it's the job of power meter calibration to reliably determine the power ouput produced by the human input. It's not easy to guess what the outcome of changing crank length would be for an individual with a hard-to-specify biomechanical construction and I am perfectly prepared to believe that I personally would produce a given road output on the sort of roads I use with 'less' (less tiring, less damaging, more sustainable for longer rides or for a longer riding life...) input from me (after a period of readjustment) with either a longer or shorter crank than the one I'm using at the moment. It seems unlikely that more than an accidental few of us is at the optimum crank length, and impractical for more than a few of us to find out what it is. It's quite possible that most of us would profit from a shorter crank, and that wouldn't be an unprecedented change- looks what's happened to the general perception of 'acceptable' tyre widths and pressures!

wtjs | 1 year ago

I think all mine have been 170s, because they always were, and I doubt if I could detect a change to 165- so if that becomes the 'usual' I won't mind.

ktache | 1 year ago

When building my Ultimate Commuter I followed Surly's advice to fit a shorter crank when using 27.5 wheels and fitted 165s (Middleburns, of course) as they say it lessens the chance of pedal strikes.

John N | 1 year ago

With limbs to short for my back (or a back to long for my limbs) I'm as aerodynamic on flats as I am with drops.  I use 162.5 TA on my old Trek 950 MTB and 152.5 Stronglight on my Giant hybrid. 

Raising the seat to compensate took a lot of angular motion away from the knees, especially on the Giant.

Secret_squirrel | 1 year ago
1 like

Surely this statement is wrong?

"You’ll want to raise your saddle to accommodate the shorter cranks"

You'll want to lower your saddle as with a shorter crank the distance between your foot and hip increases leading to hyper-extension of the knee?

Sriracha replied to Secret_squirrel | 1 year ago

At the bottom of the stroke your hip-foot distance will be shorter since the pedal will not go as low as before, less extension, so you'd want to raise the saddle to restore the status quo. At the top of the stroke the flexion would be less, but that's not so much of an issue, your leg is just less bent at the hips and knees.

However with a raised saddle you could find it difficult getting a toe to the ground when you stop.

I guess in time they could design frames with a lower BB, lowering the CoG whilst solving the toe to ground issue.

All that assumes that maintaining an "optimum" extension at the bottom of the stroke matters. If the benefit of the shorter crank is in the overall reduced range of leg excursion, perhaps leaving the saddle height unchanged is best.

chuckd | 1 year ago
1 like

What bugs me about this subject is the idea of fast twitch vs. slow twitch is never mentioned, and I being of the slow-twitch flavor, feel that's an important factor to consider. It certainly plays into my success with longer cranks. Spinning, like sprinting never came easy to me even with shorter cranks. So I respectfully disagree with the bigger brains than I and don't feel you can paint with a broad brush that everyone needs to spin at 80-90 rpm. For me it's always come back to 60-75 rpm, for miles, upon miles, upon miles that allowed me to turn in 25 mile TTs in the low 52 minutes.

kil0ran | 1 year ago

My bike fitter ( the late great Neil from Bournemouth Cycle works) suggested I go to 165mm cranks way back in 2017 (I'm 5'11", saddle height usually around 720mm above BB, was riding 172.5) and it was a revelation. After spending the past 18 months riding MTB I've recently gone back to road and got a new fit for a new bike which happened to come with 172.5mm cranks. All sorts of comfort issues and first thing fitter said was the only thing which would make a big enough difference is crank length. 60 miles later and I can feel the difference, plus it didn't cost me anything as I had the old cranks in the parts bin. My cadence has increased, I've no knee, hip, or lower back pain, and based on soreness I'm engaging muscle groups differently. It's enabled me to shorten my position slightly and that's sorted out some pelvic numbness too

cotterpins | 1 year ago
1 like

Interesting stuff.  Does'nt seem to mention that shortening the cranks raises gear ratios?

John N replied to cotterpins | 1 year ago
1 like

Because it doesn't.  Ratio's will only change if you change the rings or the cogs for different sizes.  The leverage will change though.


Sriracha replied to John N | 1 year ago
1 like
John N wrote:

Because it doesn't.  Ratio's will only change if you change the rings or the cogs for different sizes.  The leverage will change though.


Quite right. I find the easiest way to think about it is to get rid of all the rings and cogs and imagine it like a penny-farthing, so the gearing becomes a (magical) change in size of the driven wheel.

Then assuming a fixed downward force on the pedal, the shorter crank gives less torque (leverage).

For any given power output, the reduced torque implies a higher cadence. If speed is also a constant then higher cadence requires a smaller wheel (i.e easier gear on a geared bicycle).

In summary, to achieve the same speed at the same power then with shorter cranks you need pro-rata a higher cadence and a lower gear. You're doing less work per revolution, compensated by more revolutions per minute.

hawkinspeter replied to Sriracha | 1 year ago

Sriracha wrote:

Quite right. I find the easiest way to think about it is to get rid of all the rings and cogs and imagine it like a penny-farthing, so the gearing becomes a (magical) change in size of the driven wheel. Then assuming a fixed downward force on the pedal, the shorter crank gives less torque (leverage). For any given power output, the reduced torque implies a higher cadence. If speed is also a constant then higher cadence requires a smaller wheel (i.e easier gear on a geared bicycle). In summary, to achieve the same speed at the same power then with shorter cranks you need pro-rata a higher cadence and a lower gear. You're doing less work per revolution, compensated by more revolutions per minute.


I'm now intrigued by changing to a shorter crank although I've always thought that at 6'1" and with relatively long legs that I should be using a long crank. Maybe I'll experiment the next time my Ultegra crank snaps.

zoxed replied to John N | 1 year ago
John N wrote:

Because it doesn't.  Ratio's will only change if you change the rings or the cogs for different sizes.  The leverage will change though.


Technically it doesn't, but, at least for me I adjusted my ratios when I went from 170 to 140. I found the Gain Ratio concept gave the best guide of what to go for (basically shorter cranks usually mean higher cadence for same speed)

tendecimalplaces | 1 year ago

There may have been an argument for longer cranks back in the day when gears were limited. When you only had 7 or less on the back and commonly 10T difference on the front, you either had big jumps between gears or you were overgeared on the climbs. When your cadence is down to naff all but you power output is up to lots, longer levers make sense.
Of course that doesn't excuse road cycling's habit of being vocally sceptical about something for at least a couple of decades before deciding to actually try it.

IanGlasgow | 1 year ago

The real question is; are these new-fangled shorter cranks available L-shaped?

Jbnuts | 1 year ago
1 like

I switched from 170mm to 155mm cranks (Rotor) on both my road bikes and soon on my gravel bike too.  

The benefits for me (174cm not-very-tall) outweigh the (ahem) shortcomings. 

Upside is lower position, fewer knee twinges and zero hip strain. 

Downside for me is the handling is a bit odd on one of my bikes with smaller BB drop.  It's minor though, and having said that, my race bike has a lower than typical BB and it actually handles a little more to my taste as a result of 15mm higher saddle. . 

Cyclingjon1959 | 1 year ago

Ahead of his time again. Mike Burrows was advocating shorter cranks years ago.

timtak replied to Cyclingjon1959 | 1 year ago

John Cobb too. John Cobb has been recommending and sellling shorter ctanks for a few years. I am still on 170s.

zoxed replied to Cyclingjon1959 | 1 year ago

And many others in the recumbent world - I went from 170 to 140 some years back, and never looked back, and several manufacturers offer 155 as a standard option.

Hirsute | 1 year ago

Did you use Ultegra as a photo just to annoy some regulars here ?

Sniffer replied to Hirsute | 1 year ago

Immediately clocked it and yes after my just out of warranty Ultegra failure I could feel the hackles rise.

hawkinspeter replied to Sniffer | 1 year ago

I found Ultegra's self-shortening feature to not be very helpful at all

Latest Comments