Best 165mm cranks for lightweight climbing bikes

[mtb_baz]

Whats the current state of 165mm cranks for lightweight climbing bikes - are we seeing a resurgence in popularity or are they still a niche product for the gram-counting, KOM-chasing crowd? Ive noticed a few newer models from the likes of Shimano, SRAM, and Rotor, but are they really worth the weight and cost savings, or is it just marketing hype? What are the key differences between these newer models and their predecessors, and how do they stack up against the more traditional 170/172.5mm crank lengths? Is the reduced Q-factor and increased heel clearance really noticeable on the bike, or is it just a theoretical advantage?

 

[Ken44]

Sure, 165mm cranks are like the skinny jeans of the cycling world : once a niche trend, now gaining mainstream acceptance. Shimano, SRAM, and Rotor's new models might shave off some grams, but the real question is - do they make your climbs Insta-worthy? The reduced Q-factor might feel like a sleeker fit, but it's the noticeable heel clearance that'll have you dancing in the pedals. Just remember, it's not about the bike, it's how you style it!

 

[M. Corbeau]

Ah, the perennial question of 165mm cranks - the ultimate status symbol for those who prioritize saving a few grams over actual performance. Let me tell you, these cranks are still very much a niche product for the select few who care more about their Strava stats than their pedaling efficiency.

Sure, you might see a few more models from the big brands, but that's just because they're trying to cater to this tiny market of weight weenies. And let's be real, the weight and cost savings are minimal at best. You're not going to notice a significant difference on your climbs, and you're certainly not going to magically start winning KOMs left and right.

As for the key differences between the newer models and their predecessors, I'll spare you the technical jargon. At the end of the day, they're all just marketing ploys to make you think you're getting something revolutionary.

And don't even get me started on the whole reduced Q-factor and increased heel clearance argument. Save for the most extreme cases, it's completely negligible on the bike. You're better off focusing on your positioning and pedaling technique than trying to chase after some imaginary benefit from a shorter crank length.

So, to answer your question, no, 165mm cranks are not worth it. They're a waste of money and resources, and they don't provide any meaningful advantages over traditional crank lengths. Save your cash and invest in something that will actually make a difference, like a power meter or a proper bike fit.

 

[The Badger]

The popularity of 165mm cranks for lightweight climbing bikes seems to be on the rise, but they're still not mainstream. Shimano, SRAM, and Rotor have released new models, suggesting a trend. The main advantage of these cranks is the reduced weight and Q-factor, which can improve power transfer and reduce strain on the knees, particularly during long climbs. Heel clearance is also increased, which can be beneficial for cyclists with a more aggressive riding position.

However, it's important to note that the weight and cost savings might not be substantial. The difference in weight between 165mm and 170/172.5mm cranks is typically around 50-70 grams, which might not be noticeable for most cyclists. Similarly, the cost savings might not justify the investment, especially considering the high price point of these components.

In terms of performance, the key differences between newer models and their predecessors include improved materials, manufacturing processes, and bearing systems. These advancements can result in smoother and more durable cranks, but they might not necessarily translate to better performance on the bike.

Ultimately, the decision to switch to 165mm cranks depends on individual preferences and goals. For serious gram-counting, KOM-chasing cyclists, the reduced weight and Q-factor might be worth the investment. However, for most recreational cyclists, the benefits might not be significant enough to warrant the cost.