For many years, I have supported the use of short cranks. So when I had the opportunity to spend some time using the Appleman 2XR cranks, I was excited to find out if switching to very short cranks would actually resolve all the issues I’ve experienced while riding. Can short cranks help with knee problems, hip flexibility, and smoother pedaling, or is there a point where they might cause more harm than good?
Are ultra-short MTB cranks truly worth the hype for the typical rider, or are regular cranks sufficient? I found myself pondering this question while evaluating these 2XR cranks from Appleman Bicycles. Although I don’t have a clear-cut answer, I do have some insights that can assist you in making an informed choice.
How Far is Excessive?
Crank arms as short as 165 mm, or even 160 mm, are not uncommon, but a few years back, a crank length of 170 mm was seen as relatively brief for mountain bikes. Most manufacturers have recognized that cyclists are seeking shorter cranks, responding to this need by offering cranksets under 170 mm. Companies such as Race Face, Hope, E*thirteen, 5 Dev, Canfield, and even Shimano and SRAM now provide options with 165 mm or shorter crank arms, suggesting that shorter is likely preferable.
TL;DRShort cranks are beneficial for downhill riding and addressing bike fit issues, but you should consider adjusting your gear setup and riding technique before opting for extremely short cranks for mountain biking.
There are still the most extreme options on the spectrum, just as you might mock a 180mm crankset, a 155mm crankset could also provoke laughter, and I’ll confess I chuckled a bit when I took the tiny Appleman 2XR cranks out of the box. They are indeed small, but they have their use, and for a cyclist aiming to optimize their bike fit or alter how they engage with the bike, a shorter crank is a solid starting point.
Related: These Chainsets Are Universal, Modular, and Produced in the USA
First Impressions
Installing the Appleman 2XR cranks is very straightforward. With the right bottom bracket tool, all you need to install these cranks is a 5mm Allen wrench. That’s all that’s required, even if you plan to replace the spider and/or spindle to fit a different bike. This flexibility is another major benefit of the Appleman 2XR cranks, and having one crank that can easily adapt to a wide range of bikes can address many issues for those looking for short cranksets for various bicycles.
The finish on the 2XR cranks is clearly high-end, and every aspect of them justifies the price, which begins at $525 USD. That said, this is a steep cost for a crankset, particularly when other brands provide comparable lengths at a much lower expense. Very few manufacturers are producing cranks as short as 100mm, along with the option to personalize colors and seamlessly switch them between different bikes.
Why You Might Prefer Short MTB Cranks
The main advantages of a shorter crank on a mountain bike are clear in terms of smoother pedaling, better bike handling, and more balanced weight distribution. With shorter cranks, the feet remain closer together when the pedals are horizontal, and a shorter leverage length allows for higher cadence, which decreases the chance of hitting the ground with the pedals. But is making them that much shorter necessary?reallythat noticeable?
Yes, it’s actually quite noticeable, and when I switched from my usual 170/165mm cranks to 155mm, I was initially quite confused. The first obvious change was the need to adjust the saddle higher, but the sensation of riding with shorter cranks became very apparent while climbing. These shorter cranks made pedaling feel extremely unusual, and in the end, I ended up shifting gears more often. I often chose a lighter gear in situations where I would normally go for a slightly heavier cog, and I found myself bouncing back and forth trying to find the right balance.
Matt Appleman presents an intriguing analysis of the philosophy behind shorter cranks onthe Appleman Bicycles website, but I’ll briefly outline the main points here.
Crank length significantly impacts a bike’s fit, comfort, and performance; however, typical choices don’t differ much from human body variations. Choosing the appropriate length can enhance posture, breathing, and efficiency, while also minimizing joint discomfort, pedal contact, and toe interference.
The optimal crank length is best identified by considering knee and hip angles—too much bending can lead to discomfort—and formulas that take into account tibia length or inseam provide helpful initial guidelines. Smaller cranks can enhance aerodynamics, pedaling speed, and joint well-being, particularly for cyclists competing in road, triathlon, and mountain biking events, whereas longer cranks might be more advantageous for situations requiring greater torque.
The research indicates that the idea that longer equals more power could be somewhat out of date. Studies reveal that crank length has a small effect on power production. Substantial differences (10 mm or greater) are evident, whereas small adjustments (2.5 mm or less) typically aren’t. In this specific instance, the change was apparent.
The Appleman website adds, “In addition to the comfort provided by short cranks… you’ll also be hitting fewer rocks, roots, and other obstacles with your pedals and crank arms. There’s a claim that longer cranks are more suitable for mountain biking due to increased leverage. The frequent starts and stops while riding would benefit from a leveraged crank. Although longer cranks do provide more leverage, achieving the same ease of acceleration can be done with shorter cranks and a lighter gear. It all comes down to balancing comfort, space, gear selection, and which part of your riding experience you value most.”
Related: Why Mountain Bike Arms Are Becoming Shorter
Maybe I had simply become used to the slightly longer cranks I had been using for years, and it would take some time to adjust to riding a shorter crankset on my usual climbs. I was interested in finding out how these shorter cranks would perform on the descent. Many athletes who advocate for very short cranks often speak highly of the advantages they offer when going downhill.
The shift in position while going down was quite apparent, and I had the feeling that my feet were much closer together, but I didn’t immediately notice the advantages; rather, it felt somewhat unusual and kept causing me to lose balance in tight turns or deep g-outs. Because your feet are close together, the overall stance on the bike becomes much more narrow, and the base you use for balancing is significantly smaller. This thought continued to occupy my mind and made it difficult to apply power effectively through the corners and generate strong pedal strokes.
Even though the first impressions were puzzling, I kept testing the cranks, hoping to become accustomed to these modifications. After riding these sturdy 155mm cranks on different bicycles over the last few months, I’ve discovered some intriguing insights that match the science of short cranks.
Although shorter lengths offer advantages, there is clearly a point where the benefits decrease, and it’s possible to take it too far. Cranks are all influenced by the individual rider’s physical structure, and just because the industry is promoting shorter lengths doesn’t mean you have to conform to the trend.
Related: What Is It Actually Like to Use the World’s Shortest Mountain Bike Cranks?
Although I wasn’t immediately impressed by the extremely short crank arms, I’ve grown to appreciate them, and I’ve quickly gotten used to the sensation of these small cranks. I have some thoughts and opinions to share about how using shorter cranks might benefit or hinder your riding.
Ride Impressions
View the original article to see embedded media.
Descending
It’s no secret that shorter cranks can boost confidence for certain riders when descending. Having your feet in a more neutral position might offer increased accuracy on the bike and improved control when handling tight parts of the trail, but it could also have the reverse effect, depending on how well your bike fit is adjusted. I was comfortable using 160, 165, and 170mm cranks, and I found them to be the ideal length for my riding style, allowing me to handle the rear wheel consistently with a wider and more stable base for my legs.
While some people like the feeling of a smaller crankset when going downhill, the 155mm platform was too narrow for me to lean into and truly benefit from. They are definitely stiffer, and the smaller leverage arm feels much more responsive. These adjustments were enough to make the bike feel less predictable and sometimes wobbly at first. In my opinion, a wider position offers more stability, and no one wants their bike to feel unstable. Although these differences are small (just a few millimeters), they do impact how easily and consistently the bike can be controlled. I am 6’2″ and mostly legs, and the 155mm cranks really work well when I put on some flat pedals. This extra width gives you a solid feel on the bike, similar to how you’d feel on a motorcycle, which helps offset the changes in the front and rear positioning.
Crank length is greatly influenced by a rider’s height, as shorter cranks can cause you to ride with a slightly higher posture when using level pedals. This happens because the width of your stance decreases, although only marginally. This adjustment can offer significant advantages, as it allows for greater vertical movement of the bike with your legs, enabling you to crouch deeper and more comfortably into the frame. The ability to absorb more of the trail with your body enhances your control over the bike’s vertical motion, and decreasing the foot offset can also lead to smoother cornering on your non-dominant side. The difference between left and right foot forward is less noticeable with these shorter cranks, which becomes apparent during quick jumps and corners, though it does require some time to adjust to.
Once I got used to them in the bike park using flat pedals, the link between shorter cranks and downhill performance became very clear, and everything started making sense — I’m not sure if the advantages of 155mm cranks are worth the trade-off when going uphill, though.
Climbing
This is where the 155mm cranks started to bother me a bit, and that’s why I believe it’s simple to choose something too short. The pedaling circles are very small, and there’s a clear decrease in power, particularly as someone who enjoys varying things during long climbs. I usually spend 50% of my time spinning at a high cadence, and then switch to a lower cadence to push through for a while and engage different muscle groups.
View the original article to see embedded media.
With the tiny 155mm arms, it was more challenging to generate power in lower gears. This became particularly apparent on technical climbs, where having the right gear ratio can mean the difference between successfully navigating a section and losing balance. I often found myself re-evaluating my gear selection to adjust for the shorter crankset, and as someone who prefers routine, this was usually wrong. However, as I spent more time riding it, I grew more accustomed to the sensation and learned to choose the correct gears.
Using a smaller chainring could address this problem, but it would result in losing high-speed gear ratios for downhill sections. To explore this idea further, I will carry out extended testing with different crank arm lengths, using power data to analyze differences in pedaling efficiency and figure out if the reported power loss is genuine or just a psychological effect.
Bike Fit
Using shorter cranks might exactly be what you need to address hip, knee, or back problems while riding, but making them too short could make things worse if you’re not following the recommendations from a certified bike fitter. Still, most casual mountain bikers don’t have a strong interest in bike fit beyond typical frame geometry.
The most probable challenge you’ll face when switching to significantly shorter cranks is having to elevate the saddle slightly to compensate for the decreased leg extension during the pedal stroke’s lowest point. I found myself needing to raise my saddle a little, which isn’t ideal for downhill riding since I prefer keeping my saddle as low as possible. Fortunately, with today’s long-travel dropper posts, this is more manageable than ever. However, transitioning to a 155mm crankset disrupted my previously calculated dropper post settings.
Final Thoughts
In general, I felt more comfortable on the bike with the shorter cranks, and I think that as I ride more with them, I’ll get used to the sensation, which could lead me to make small changes to my gear setup. I don’t have a problem with the idea of using shorter cranks, and I’m remaining open-minded about it. I’m excited to continue testing these distinctive, elegant little cranks.
Keep an eye on this area for ongoing testing and reflections on these short monarchs.
