Street trials crank length preference?

[Dhrisher]

After looking on the forum it seems that people prefer 160-170mm (ali c included). This is confusing as it seems that basically all inspired trials bikes come with 175mm standard and all street cranks offered on tartybikes are 175mm. Is this maybe the new standard and 160-170mm was an older style of riding?

[Swoofty]

Crank length is pretty much an endless debate. 99% of all the 'crank length' vids on youtube mostly concern roadies, but they're not far off. I rode 175mm for years buying into the fact that torque = force at a distance. Now I have bikes with 170mm arms and I don't notice any difference whatsoever in 'torque'. What you do notice is stiffness. 170mm, no matter the brand, feels stiffer. You also have less fitment issues with 170 not hitting the chainstay on smaller bikes. Not sure why Tarty wouldn't have 170 and smaller available unless it's still supply issues. Whenever trials riders start up the 'crank length' debate I just remind them that Charlie Rolls rides 165mm ;-)

[Dhrisher]

1 hour ago, Swoofty said:

Crank length is pretty much an endless debate. 99% of all the 'crank length' vids on youtube mostly concern roadies, but they're not far off. I rode 175mm for years buying into the fact that torque = force at a distance. Now I have bikes with 170mm arms and I don't notice any difference whatsoever in 'torque'. What you do notice is stiffness. 170mm, no matter the brand, feels stiffer. You also have less fitment issues with 170 not hitting the chainstay on smaller bikes. Not sure why Tarty wouldn't have 170 and smaller available unless it's still supply issues. Whenever trials riders start up the 'crank length' debate I just remind them that Charlie Rolls rides 165mm ;-)

Thanks for the reply. I guess the issue is moreso the supposed loss of balance or inability to spin as easily with longer cranks. I'm not sure how accurate this is.

[Matt24.]

Back in the day typically you'd see 165 -20", 170 24", 175 26". I personally think it is a preference thing where you will tailor what feels right for you. 

[Mark W]

On 1/7/2023 at 3:49 PM, Swoofty said:

Whenever trials riders start up the 'crank length' debate I just remind them that Charlie Rolls rides 165mm ;-)

I think part of that will be that that's what you'd usually get on a mod and it's what he'll have had supplied on his bikes from Crewkerz, but also part of it is just that it helps out more for UCI comp stuff - even more so now that UCI sections are seemingly evolving into a series of static hooks on awkward stuff, so all the help you can get with pedal clearance will help.

I always ran 175s, but 22:16 felt a little too light and 22:15 felt a little too hard. 170s helped bridge the gap. I stuck with 22:16 when I fitted the 170s and it made my gear ratio feel a bit harder, although definitely more towards the 16t side than 15t side. I think a few others switched to 170s for similar reasons. I wouldn't say there were any particularly notable performance advantages for one over the other really.

[financecajole]

On 1/8/2023 at 4:26 AM, Matt24. said:

Back in the day typically you'd see 165 -20", 170 24", 175 26". I personally think it is a preference thing where you will tailor what feels right for you. free games

I think 170 24 is the most suitable option.