what crank length in a muni?

[john_childs]

It is interesting to note that pretty much everyone who did the expert ride (Downieville) at the last California Muni Weekend had long cranks. I guess we’re all idiots over here and don’t know that 150’s are the way to go.

I’ll take a look at Moab this year and see if anyone does the big rides on 150’s. Betcha I don’t find any 150’s in that group either. I guess we don’t know what’s good.

Why does Kris ride skinny logs and rails with long cranks on his muni? I guess he doesn’t know that using 150’s would make it easier to ride skinnies like that.

Crank length preferences seem to be very regional. That would imply that the choice is due to the style of trails in the area. For areas with steep and technical trails the long cranks are more popular. For areas with pathetic wimpy trails the short cranks are more popular.

[ChangingLINKS.com]

Originally posted by Rowan
[B]

1. Technique is more important than torque and leverage in most situations I think.

2. Haha, yeah right, John does not know what he is talking about (in this case) due to his inexperience with 145mm cranks on his MUni. If he spent a bit more time with them he would soon find himself riding hard lines on the trail even faster than before, and even lines that were impossible before due to the reduced pedal scrapes. Amen.

3. Thinuniking, don’t be fooled by the lanky 170mm crank users, unless you have rediculously long legs like them.

4.Go for what suits you best, not just what Unicycle.com recommends and what other people use. If you liked 150mm then 145mm should fit you well. Listen to Tony Melton, he knows what he is talking about. [/B]

1. Question, what size cranks do the MUni riders with the most technique use?

2. Reduced pedal scrapes? In one sentence you talk about technique - in the next you mention troubles over a pedal being less than 2" closer to the ground.

3. I thought about this before you posted it - seems like we’re on the same page. I DO have long legs (and size 16 feet). Short cranks have never felt right for me. The crank length is also exactly the same as on my mountain b*ke.

4. Here we all agree. Each person should go for what suits them best. However, in making such decisions, asking for advice (as done here) can be a good thing.

Questions to ask yourself:
Do I want to get short cranks just to imply skill?
Is speed my top priority (if so, why go with a MUni)?
Could a larger wheel help (using 170s with a 26’ wheel)?
Could a smaller wheel help (would a strong trials be better)?
Will I be more or less balanced with my feet closer together?
What size cranks do the “expert riders” use in various situations?
What size cranks are on downhill mountain b*kes vs. cross country?
What does Bedford or Unicycle.com recommed [they get feedback]?

[ChangingLINKS.com]

Originally posted by john_childs
I’ll take a look at Moab this year and see if anyone does the big rides on 150’s. Betcha I don’t find any 150’s in that group either. I guess we don’t know what’s good.

I will be a MOAB also. Riding 170s (but I am a beginner struggling to get good enough to ride some of what I saw on Universe 2 at MOAB).

Hope to see you there. I will be the obvious one.

[Checkernuts]

I just tried out riding some muni today with 145’s. It is a big trade off as far as I can see it. For flatter trails and even ones with small not too steep hills they work great you can go noticably faster with the shorter cranks and you still have good control over all. For anything with steeper hills longer cranks (170s) are deffenatlly a must for me, you just have alot more power standing over the longer cranks to get yourself up steep trails and down steep stuff with much fewer problems. If you ran a brake with short cranks I could see it making downhills alot less of a problem. I had alot of fun on the shorter cranks and will probably keep them on for a bit longer for riding more XC stuff.

A big problem I found with the shorter cranks was starting on upslopes, getting the inital momentum in your wheel is much harder.

[elmer]

In the late 1800’s(even today in some parts) if you wanted to start a fight all you had to do was say Northerners (or southerners) suck, or something like that. Now all you have to do here is say “I really like 150mm cranks.”

[forget_your_life]

Originally posted by john_childs
It is interesting to note that pretty much everyone who did the expert ride (Downieville) at the last California Muni Weekend had long cranks. I guess we’re all idiots over here and don’t know that 150’s are the way to go.

if i didnt have to be back at work on Monday i would have done that ride on my 145’s with a 29 inch wheel…that being said,i did have to walk alot on the first day at Rockville but that was mainly due to the skinny 2.1 tyre i was on.i didnt want to push the envelope to far and have to fix a pinch flat ever 300 yards.

John i seem to remember a certain rocky section at Auburn that i made it though on the 145x2.1 and behind me were your 170’s spinning away without a rider

although i have moved on from a 29" wheel i still ride my 145’s on a 24"

i had 170’s along time ago and the only time they felt good was while hopping around,accually riding them hurt my knees.

[joe]

Hey Ben,

I found 145’s too small for MUni on a 24". It is fast, but harder to stop.

I have 150 on my Muni, which I like alot. I also have a brake, which means I can slow myself down, and still have a fair top speed, as I use my Muni for normal riding, aswell as Muni riding.

Go for the 140’s over the 170’s definatly!!

Speak to you soon,

Joe,

[johnhimsworth]

Re: I am unshore now

Originally posted by thinuniking
i rode phil’s muni the other day and that had 150’s i think and they seemed plenty long

I could be wrong, but last time I looked they were 165’s. Silvery onza cranks right?

John

[onewheeldave]

Originally posted by Rowan
Haha, yeah right, John does not know what he is talking about (in this case) due to his inexperience with 145mm cranks on his MUni. If he spent a bit more time with them he would soon find himself riding hard lines on the trail even faster than before, and even lines that were impossible before due to the reduced pedal scrapes.Amen.
Thinuniking, don’t be fooled by the lanky 170mm crank users, unless you have rediculously long legs like them. Go for what suits you best, not just what Unicycle.com recommends and what other people use. If you liked 150mm then 145mm should fit you well. Listen to Tony Melton, he knows what he is talking about. [/B]

I thought John made several good points in an unbiased manner.

Your comment about lack of experience with 145’s is relevant, but I’d still say that if people with loads of experience are choosing 170’s for the terrain they ride, then there must be good reason.

Originally posted by Rowan Thinuniking, don’t be fooled by the lanky 170mm crank users, unless you have rediculously >long legs like them. [/B]

Glad you brought that up, I’ve often wondered how much leg length affects peoples choice. After all, it seems logical that, all other things being equal, if rider A has legs 20% longer than rider B, then maybe he/she will want cranks 20% longer as well.

I appreciate what people are saying about being ableto do the same stuff with short cranks after getting used to them.

Certainly I find I can get up most steep road hills on my 28"with 125’s, than I could on my 24x3 muni with 150’s- it took a while to get to that stage, but something about the extra speed makes the hills less of a drag.

However, when hills get stupidly steep, there’s a point where they are only possible with the muni.

Currently I’m not doing much off roading; when I do I’m often surprised at what the 29-er can manage, but it’s never going to be as consistent on steep or tricky stuff as the muni.

Basically, longer cranks mean more leverage, any manouver that requires some element of still standing control is surely going to be easier with longer cranks. By still standing control I’m talking also of the ‘micro’ stands that occur when climbing up really steep hills, the little pauses that give you time to assess the next line etc.

As I said before, I prefer short cranks, but that’s because I do little of the kind of terrain that a lot of the 170 users are doing.

[thinuniking]

the muni won!

I have been think about getting a muni for ages but also really need a splined hub+ cranks for my trials as the old the hub is dieing but after watching universe 2 i want 2 get into muni even more.So i am getting a muni instead but with a splined hub+ cranks as i can do trials on a 24" but can’t really do muni on a trials.
Ben

[Memphis_Mud]

Originally posted by elmer
In the late 1800’s(even today in some parts) if you wanted to start a fight all you had to do was say Northerners (or southerners) suck, or something like that. Now all you have to do here is say “I really like 150mm cranks.”

Why did you not capitalize Southerners like you did Northerners?

I use 170s on 24" MUni and have fun tackling the tougher technical areas. I use 150s on 29" for Crosscountry (same MUni path) and go way faster on the flats, but can’t tackle the toughest stuff. Both ways are entertaining but accomplish different goals.

[paco]

Originally posted by Rowan
Thinuniking, don’t be fooled by the lanky 170mm crank users, unless you have rediculously long legs like them.

I just wanted to point out that I’ve ridden the same trail on 150’s and 170’s. There are some extremely steep sections of the trail that I could not do with 150’s, but I cleared them pretty easily with 170’s. But my real point is that I’m only 5’8" tall, and I still prefer 170’s. I’ve ridden my 170’s on the street, and it’s true that they feel very wobbly and awkward because of the crank length. But for offroad use, I wouldn’t go for anything shorter.

[Klaas_Bil]

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:56:07 -0600, TheObieOne3226 wrote:

>Shorter cranks mean your legs need to do less work (well not less work,
>less distance), which means you should be able to turn them faster which
>means the wheel will turn faster which means you will go faster.

Contrary to popular belief, shorter cranks are not necessarily faster.

In the first place, there is this thing called fear factor, which mainly kicks in on semi-flat ground with a high gear ratio. This is the fear of going too fast and not be able to correct some imbalance that might occur. Because of fear factor, you will ride more conservatively with very short cranks, meaning you will go slower.

In the second place, if you go uphill or ride technical terrain, you may not be able to ride it at all with too short cranks. Guess who is faster then! (Of course what is ‘too short’ is determined very much by the rider.)

Klaas Bil

I posted this 16 hours ago but the gateway once more doesn’t work so I repost directly at the forum. Sh*t!!

[Mikefule]

See, it’s all preference.

When I bought my 26 MUni, I struggled to freemount. I was self taught, and had a bad style, with the pedals at 12 and 6.

I read the blurb and bought some 170s. Hey presto, my freemounting improved.

I found I could also control the uni on steep descents.

I NEVER found any significant improvement on climbs, because the ungainly pedalling action cost me more in speed than it gained me in torque.

I have a personal Everest hill, against which I measure myself periodically. My best ever run up was on a 24 with 150s. The 26 with 170s was nowhere near as good on this hill. The crank:wheel radius ratios are baout the same. Hence my theory that you get the engine right (cranks to match rider) then get the gearing right (wheel to match hill).

But compare also: the 24 with 102 mm cranks: I have climbed hills on this which have surprised me. Or the 28 with 110s. Somehow, the finer control of short cranks can really help in certain situations. Also, the Coker (36) with 150s will achieve stuff I used to find hard on the 26.

I last took the 26 out with 170 mm cranks on some very uneven ground, and hated it so much I gave the cranks away. And that wasn’t just inexperience, because I’d ridden many hours/miles on those cranks. I now have 150s on the 26, and I’d rather walk a bit more often to enjoy the better ride of 150s, than plod about on the 170s all the time.

My Suzuki 4x4 has a low ratio gear box. It’s great when I need it, but who’d want to be stuck in low ratio for the 99.9% of the time you don’t need it?

So I remain convinced that 170s, just like ultra short cranks, are for specialist use only.

Experience, technique, a handle, and decent pedals are each worth a few mm. of crank length.

[xtremeskier]

Re: what crank length in a muni?

Originally posted by thinuniking
I am un disided what crank length would be best for my muni that i hope to be ordering soon what are the advantages of 170’s and the advantages of 145’s in a 24?
Ben

Look what you started…

[john_childs]

Originally posted by forget_your_life
John i seem to remember a certain rocky section at Auburn that i made it though on the 145x2.1 and behind me were your 170’s spinning away without a rider

That was just me being a klutz. I was trying to keep up with you on that section of trail and was doing OK until we got to that rock. I’m not used to hitting obstacles like that at a high cadence. I made a bad decision on what line to take and picked the line that required careful pedal clearance (for a 24" wheel). High cadence and careful pedal clearance don’t mix for me. Your 29er probably sailed right through there with zero risk of a pedal strike.

I seem to remember some hills there where I was riding up while you were walking up.

[system]

Re: what crank length in a muni?

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:56:07 -0600, TheObieOne3226 wrote:

>Shorter cranks mean your legs need to do less work (well not less work,
>less distance), which means you should be able to turn them faster which
>means the wheel will turn faster which means you will go faster.

Contrary to popular belief, shorter cranks are not necessarily faster.

In the first place, there is this thing called fear factor, which
mainly kicks in on semi-flat ground with a high gear ratio. This is
the fear of going too fast and not be able to correct some imbalance
that might occur. Because of fear factor, you will ride more
conservatively with very short cranks, meaning you will go slower.

In the second place, if you go uphill or ride technical terrain, you
may not be able to ride it at all with too short cranks. Guess who is
faster then! (Of course what is ‘too short’ is determined very much by
the rider.)

Klaas Bil - Newsgroup Addict

“Heck, even my toes were aching from trying to grip the soles of my shoes! - Tommy Thompson”

[duaner]

Re: Re: what crank length in a muni?

Originally posted by Klaas Bil
In the second place, if you go uphill or ride technical terrain, you may not be able to ride it at all with too short cranks. Guess who is faster then! (Of course what is ‘too short’ is determined very much by the rider.)

I’m a fan of longer cranks myself, but this use of “faster” may be a bit of an mis-statement?

My experience has been that when the hills get quite steep or the terrain quite technical, then the uni-walkers are actually faster than the uni-riders. (Much more fun to ride though).

[joemarshall]

Re: Re: Re: what crank length in a muni?

Originally posted by duaner
[B]

I’m a fan of longer cranks myself, but this use of “faster” may be a bit of an mis-statement?

My experience has been that when the hills get quite steep or the terrain quite technical, then the uni-walkers are actually faster than the uni-riders. (Much more fun to ride though). [/B]

I think on 150s, the point the uphills get too steep to ride is well beyond the point where it’d be quicker to walk / run. Even more so for 170s.

Downhills are different to uphills though, if its too steep for 150 cranks, then a 170 crank rider will be at an advantage. However, if the 150 rider has a brake they’ll probably be a bit faster riding the same downhill as braking power is the limiting factor.

I think offroad, on 125s on a 29" wheel, you’ve got a pretty optimal setup speed wise, especially if you have a brake for maximum speed downhill. For almost all mountain bike races except ones with very big drops, I think that’d be the setup to use.

Joe

[Klaas_Bil]

Re: Re: Re: what crank length in a muni?

Originally posted by duaner
this use of “faster” may be a bit of an mis-statement?

Touché. I implied that if A rides and B doesn’t ride, then A rides faster automatically. But that implication isn’t true.

Klaas Bil