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

 Could be the answer for those of us with different length legs or fcked knees!

 I believe Fabien Barel ran different sizes after a bad leg break caused slight difference in leg length

 Note how he is pushing uphill. These 155's are just for show.

 Of course I'm assuming pedals were flat one side, clipped on the other?You are way behind the trend otherwise

 @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.

 CANFIELD FOREVER

 @SixxerBikes: remember the Hubs with the special mounting for smaler cogs. Also a big Innovation which was picked up later by the big Brands

 didn't know that...and just another notch in the belt for Canfield race innovations that were truly wayy ahead of their time.

 Dide Canfield ever sponsor Joe Barnes tho?

 "Balance" is also very similar to the raved about "DW" link

 @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.

 @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.

 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.

 @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.

 Think I've had canfield 155mm cranks as 6 years on the DH bike lol

 @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)

 @inside-plus: No, but Orange did.

 @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

 @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.

 @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.

 @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.

 @ripcraft: sounds like a really good parent to me. Covers all applications leaving no room for "slightly different".

 @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.

 @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*.

 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.

 @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.

 go ride you a Canfield, dude

 Is the dickens good or bad?

 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.

 @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.

 Dickens Cider is my wife’s favorite. Nothing she craves more after a long day than a nice warm dickens cider.

 @nateb: hahah im dead!

 @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.

 @nataspihsrow: I think they meant to type chickens. With parallel feet they turn like moto's.

 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.

 @lj17: how tall are you, boi ..?

 @lj17: for every 5mm change in crank you are spinning a 31.4mm smaller circle

 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.

 For every 5mm reduction in crank length you are spinning roughly a 5000mm^2 smaller circle.

 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.

 @SixxerBikes: wot?

 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.

 @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.

 @SixxerBikes: 6’ (183 cm)

 @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

 @PauRexs: Agreed.

 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.

 @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

 CoG isn’t higher if 165/160 becomes the norm and manufactures increase BB drop by similar amounts...

 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.

 160's slap even harder for someone your size, kiiid

 @SixxerBikes: that's the opposite of what you should have taken away from message.

 allow your mind to be blown yet again..balance

 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?

 i would think the opposite? the lower the crank, the closer to the ground, lower cog on the outside foot (top) foot?

 @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.

 @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.

 @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.

 @kpickrell: not reading all that. You do you.

 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

 Canfield makes cranks down to 145mm.

 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.

 @sanchofula: 5dev does 135mm cranks, Trailcraft does 127mm

ride5dev.com/products/new-crank-product-page

www.trailcraftcycles.com/product/direct-mount-cranks-arms-only

 @sanchofula: had their 155 cranks on my Jedi. Honestly didn't notice a difference.

 @sanchofula: spawn makes an 89mm

spawncycles.com/spawn-cycles-alloy-cranks-89mm

 @sanchofula: sr suntour 152mm is only $80

www.srsuntour.us/collections/cranks/products/zeron-1-x

 @wburnes: Those things look so sketchy! I kinda want to try it.

 but imagine...imagine you shortened the distance those same pedals stuck out by going 5mm less on crank length

 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.

 @fentoncrackshell: facts, you're right

 I'm interested

 no more South African logic

 More like stool sampler

 you would benefit even better from 160mm's

 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.

 @peterman1234: But imagine if your BB was lower to reduce that stack height...

 @jclnv: but it’s not

 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.

 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.

 The insecurity is strong with this one lmao

 Joe mentioned it in the vid.

 @watchtower: you're right, my bad

 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.

 Of course, motorbikes use 0mm cranks.

 @sverreandre: I tried 155 on my E-Bike and they seem to effect the motor assist, but it was just all in my mind!