RipMo crank arm length?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 39 of 39
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CactusJackSlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,552

    RipMo crank arm length?

    Yes, there are lots of info out there on crank length.... but given this "new" geometry with the RipMo - like the seat tube angle and ever longer front triangle - I just had to ask....

    I'm almost done building up my RipMo.... All I need to do is install the crankset.

    I ordered 175's. They sent 170's. I've been on 175's all my life. I'm 5'10 and a bit long legged.

    I know it's only like 3% difference and this is obviously not my XC racer, so maybe using these shorter cranks is no big deal... and I will be running the Eagle 50t pie plate in the back.

    I know it will slightly reduce crank strikes with the 5mm extra clearance, but I've just never used anything other than 175's on my MT bikes.

    Any thoughts, experiences or advice?

    Signed,
    Nervous and over analyzing Nelly
    Largest NorCal XC Race Series
    http://www.bicyclingevents.com
    http://www.UavTechReview.com
    Best in the West!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    483
    Same boat. Iíve been on 175ís forever. New bike (Spot Mayhem) came with 170ís. About 150 miles so far, and damned if I can tell any difference. Iíd say donít sweat it and run the 170ís.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CactusJackSlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by ripn View Post
    Same boat. Iíve been on 175ís forever. New bike (Spot Mayhem) came with 170ís. About 150 miles so far, and damned if I can tell any difference. Iíd say donít sweat it and run the 170ís.
    Yeah.... I decided to try them out, thanks for the support!
    Largest NorCal XC Race Series
    http://www.bicyclingevents.com
    http://www.UavTechReview.com
    Best in the West!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    14,083
    I tried 170mm cranks on my last bike due to low BB height and on my new bike I spec'd 175mm cranks. In the end I don't think it matters a huge amount from a pedalling perspective. I'd probably be equally happy on either.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CactusJackSlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,552
    I ended up going back to 175's.... I think I've just been on 175's too long (my whole MTB life) and I just get the same feel/spin. Maybe it's a bit in my head, but the 175's for my leg length felt better.
    Largest NorCal XC Race Series
    http://www.bicyclingevents.com
    http://www.UavTechReview.com
    Best in the West!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: R_Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    1,197
    I went from 175's to 165's to gain more BB clearance on my last build and there was zero difference in feel or performance.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,688
    There have been plenty of studies that show there isn't really much to length. It's even mentioned the fitting article on here.
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: redmr2_man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,254
    I couldn't stand 170's on my hd3, it might have been in my head, but I went back to 175's.

    for what it's worth, I think Rotor makes a 1x specific crank in 172.5 if you wanna split the difference

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHROMAG19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    635
    There no reason to go any longer than 170mm.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,411
    The only thing you'll notice is fewer pedal strikes.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    7
    Did you order a large or medium? Just curious.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,959
    I run 165mm, greatly reduces pedal strike, no noticeable loss of leverage, more efficient spin with less leg movement.

    Just a heads up on the Ripmo and crank-B.B. interface. The complete Ripmo specd with SRAM cranks comes with DUB cranks, which have a DUB B.B.; not reverse compatible.

    The aluminum DUB cranks come in 175, 170, and 165.

    Iíve run cranks as short a 75mm (uni) and as long as 185mm. The difference in 5mm is not noticeable, so yeah, itís in your head

    My wife rides a Levo FSR which has a super low B.B. I swapped her crank from 170mm to 150nn, she went from constant pedal strikes to no pedal strikes.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SoCal-Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    681
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Just a heads up on the Ripmo and crank-B.B. interface. The complete Ripmo specd with SRAM cranks comes with DUB cranks, which have a DUB B.B.
    Are the NX cranks still GXP? I didn't see DUB as a BB option for NX on the SRAM site.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,049
    At 5'11" going to 170mm cranks was a (good) revelation. It blows me away that some can't feel that difference. The reduced pedal strikes was nice but not the primary advantages.

    Oh well, to each his own!

  15. #15
    the refurbished one
    Reputation: hball's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    723
    if you do not have some issues with your knee e.g. you wouldnt feel the difference. hence, in the past you said that shorter cranks are for higher pedal turn frequency and the longer do benefit for riders that ride with more muscle power.

    a friend of mine is riding one 175 an one 165. that works beause he had a big surgery on one knee. this way his hips are even, he saves the expensive shoe transformation for the sorter leg an all is good.

    and a customer at my lbs rode 3 years with one 170 and one 175 with no problems.

    its really mental or you need a special length for some special reason.
    Sokrates is dead, Galilei is dead, Newton is dead, Einstein is dead, Pantani is dead and i am feeling sick too.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,049
    With smaller cranks I personally rotate the cranks a slightly faster speed. But the distance my feet cover remains the same, because the cranks have a smaller diameter. So I don't feel more tired or as if I'm working harder or something at all. The end result is I don't get hung up on really tough climbs nearly as easily as I did on 175mm cranks. Easier to keep my cranks spinning and keep going.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,959
    No idea, the Descent crank is DUB, NX could be DUB or old stock. All the non DUB cranks are discontinued. DUB uses a slightly smaller diameter spindle, B.B. is different as well, so no mixing old and new.

    Get the GX bike, itís a way better build for not much more $$: 12sp Eagle w/10-50, better cranks and bb, and XT Brakes (far better than anything SRAM can build).

    Quote Originally Posted by SoCal-Rider View Post
    Are the NX cranks still GXP? I didn't see DUB as a BB option for NX on the SRAM site.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,959
    Not mental, thereís research to back it up. Ideal length is 165mm, do some googling, data is out there.

    Shorter cranks reduce the distance your knee, four, leg travel because you turn a smaller circle, hence theyíre more efficient.

    What confounds me is the industryís insistence on using 170/175mm cranks on all bike sizes, yet we have stem length choices galore.

    GX Eagle and Descent can be had in 165mm, but carbon only comes in 170/175.

    Quote Originally Posted by hball View Post
    if you do not have some issues with your knee e.g. you wouldnt feel the difference. hence, in the past you said that shorter cranks are for higher pedal turn frequency and the longer do benefit for riders that ride with more muscle power.

    a friend of mine is riding one 175 an one 165. that works beause he had a big surgery on one knee. this way his hips are even, he saves the expensive shoe transformation for the sorter leg an all is good.

    and a customer at my lbs rode 3 years with one 170 and one 175 with no problems.

    its really mental or you need a special length for some special reason.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: juan_speeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Not mental, thereís research to back it up. Ideal length is 165mm, do some googling, data is out there.

    Shorter cranks reduce the distance your knee, four, leg travel because you turn a smaller circle, hence theyíre more efficient.

    What confounds me is the industryís insistence on using 170/175mm cranks on all bike sizes, yet we have stem length choices galore.

    GX Eagle and Descent can be had in 165mm, but carbon only comes in 170/175.
    If the data is so conclusive, then why does basically nobody who rides road bikes professionally, ride 165mm cranks? Maybe there's a couple of shorties who do, but they're outliers.
    Scarlett Johansson loves my hummus.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,049
    I will say that if I was a road Rider or cross-country Rider I would prefer the 175 cranks. If you don't ride terrain where you find your feed coming to a complete stop fairly often, the advantage of the smaller cranks evaporates for me.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    14,083
    Quote Originally Posted by juan_speeder View Post
    If the data is so conclusive, then why does basically nobody who rides road bikes professionally, ride 165mm cranks? Maybe there's a couple of shorties who do, but they're outliers.
    As soon as anyone says everyone across all sizes and body types should ride with X setup you know they are wrong. It doesn't take any further debate/investigation.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    906
    For what it's worth, my XL came with 175 cranks.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,959
    Old habits die hard.

    The more likely answer is a professional rider has so much more power than us normal folks that longer cranks are likely beneficial.

    I got a buddy who was national single speed champ for a few years, he rides gears that Iíll never touch. Iím not a weak rider, but one day we were riding up a fairly steep trail with exposure and switchbacks, heís talking on the phone, riding one handed, and pulling away for me.

    Think of crank length as a lever, longer levers are great for torque, but they suck for efficiency. If youíre a spinner, then shorter cranks are your friend. If you like to stand and pound for miles on end, old school style, then stick with long cranks.

    I ride 165mm on all my bikes, 6í/32Ē inseam.

    Quote Originally Posted by juan_speeder View Post
    If the data is so conclusive, then why does basically nobody who rides road bikes professionally, ride 165mm cranks? Maybe there's a couple of shorties who do, but they're outliers.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Chukwithak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    168
    What kind of 165's? Last race face's a I bought were 170's because I couldn't find 165's. Looking for 165's for my ripmo.
    '18 Ibis Ripmo Xo1/XX1 DT - Vesper/s35 - 4P XT Brakes

    Backup - 2013.5 Stumpy EVO 29 - backup
    '18 Ibis Ripley LS V3 in Vitamin P (retired)

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: eysikal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    138
    Does anyone know what length comes stock on a Large GX-build Ripmo?

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    906
    Quote Originally Posted by eysikal View Post
    Does anyone know what length comes stock on a Large GX-build Ripmo?
    I think itís what your shop asks for. Itís a bare frame and parts in a box when they get it at the shop.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: eysikal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    138
    Man, for the life of me I can't come to a decision on this crank arm length thing. I'm getting a SRAM XO1 Eagle crankset and I'm leaning towards the 170mm. That's what I ride on my current bike that has a low bottom bracket. I like the idea of it being a little shorter to hopefully avoid some pedal strikes.

    But I know I will second guess not going for the 175mm. I'm 5'11".

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    14,083
    Quote Originally Posted by eysikal View Post
    But I know I will second guess not going for the 175mm. I'm 5'11".
    I'm 5'11" and have 170mm cranks on one bike and 175mm on the other. Doesn't really make a huge difference. Go with whatever seems like the best choice and forget about it.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velodonata's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I'm 5'11" and have 170mm cranks on one bike and 175mm on the other. Doesn't really make a huge difference. Go with whatever seems like the best choice and forget about it.
    Yes, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference. I have always run 175mm but recently had an opportunity to try 165mm on a bike that was also new to me and I didn't notice a difference. Maybe I would have on one of my old familiar bikes but it doesn't seem to be a big deal. I put the 165s on a friend's bike and he had a similar reaction. If you use Sheldon Brown's gear calculator and solve for gain ratios, it factors in crank arm length. Dropping from 175 to 165 is similar to going from a 32 to a 30 tooth chainring. I am going to keep running 165mm on my bike with the least BB clearance.
    Last edited by Velodonata; 06-21-2018 at 05:25 PM. Reason: clarity

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: eysikal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I'm 5'11" and have 170mm cranks on one bike and 175mm on the other. Doesn't really make a huge difference. Go with whatever seems like the best choice and forget about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Velodonata View Post
    If you use Sheldon Brown's gear calculator and solve for gain ratios, it factors in crank arm length. Dropping from 175 to 165 is similar to going from a 32 to a 30 tooth chainring. I am going to keep running 165mm on my bike with the least BB clearance.
    Thanks guys. I know Iím getting hung up on something that doesnít really matter too much.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    906

    RipMo crank arm length?

    Quote Originally Posted by eysikal View Post
    Thanks guys. I know Iím getting hung up on something that doesnít really matter too much.
    For what itís worth, I currently have 175 cranks and everytime I ride in a rocky area, I wish I had 170. As an old school XC/ trail guy, I have been resisting this trend that the DHers have been doing for awhile on their trail bikes. Iíve talked to people at Evil and Guerrilla Gravity who have been doing it for years. I think itís time to try it out. Fortunately, the GX cranks are only $100 to try it with.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: eysikal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Whambat View Post
    For what itís worth, I currently have 175 cranks and everytime I ride in a rocky area, I wish I had 170. As an old school XC/ trail guy, I have been resisting this trend that the DHers have been doing for awhile on their trail bikes. Iíve talked to people at Evil and Guerrilla Gravity who have been doing it for years. I think itís time to try it out. Fortunately, the GX cranks are only $100 to try it with.
    Yeah, I think I've decided to go with 170mm. The price of that X01 Eagle crankset had me obsessing over this.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    7
    I went with 170 on my XL Ripmo and haven't noticed any negatives. I don't know that I could even notice the difference, and I don't know if I'm having less pedal strikes because I never had 175 on this bike to compare to, but I rarely have pedal strikes so I guess it's working

  34. #34
    Lev
    Lev is offline
    You Guys Riding?
    Reputation: Lev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    640
    Resurrecting an old thread.

    I had an all time pedal strike crash this past week that resulted in a trip to the ER and some stitches. Still recovering and I found this older thread.

    I've been running 175mm cranks on my 2 month old Ripmo and I've noticed a few more strikes than usual for my regular trails. Part of that is my riding, part of that is probably my bike. Might be running a little too much sag, but I'm highly considering down sizing my cranks for safety purposes.

    Anyone have significant improvement going from 175 to 170mm cranks? Seems like such a minor change, but I'm still thinking about doing it. Would probably consider 165s, but I'd prefer to keep carbon cranks and looks like they don't make them in 165 DUB.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,049
    5mm difference is quite noticeable.
    I run 170s at 5'11" tall.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Lev View Post

    Anyone have significant improvement going from 175 to 170mm cranks? Seems like such a minor change, but I'm still thinking about doing it. Would probably consider 165s, but I'd prefer to keep carbon cranks and looks like they don't make them in 165 DUB.
    Yes. Currently on a Ripmo AF (bottom bracket is pretty low) in rocky AZ. 170's make a noticeable difference when it comes to less pedal strikes. I can't tell the difference anywhere else though. Also switched recently to different pedals that are thinner. Honestly I'd like to try 165s... hanging a pedal at speed or getting hung up on a rocky technical obstacle while climbing is way worse than some nominal percentage lost in power that's not humanly noticeable.

    JMHO.

    I'm 6'2"
    "Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast."

    Real Estate Professionals llc.
    realestate-professionals.com

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Lev View Post
    Resurrecting an old thread.

    I had an all time pedal strike crash this past week that resulted in a trip to the ER and some stitches. Still recovering and I found this older thread.

    I've been running 175mm cranks on my 2 month old Ripmo and I've noticed a few more strikes than usual for my regular trails. Part of that is my riding, part of that is probably my bike. Might be running a little too much sag, but I'm highly considering down sizing my cranks for safety purposes.

    Anyone have significant improvement going from 175 to 170mm cranks? Seems like such a minor change, but I'm still thinking about doing it. Would probably consider 165s, but I'd prefer to keep carbon cranks and looks like they don't make them in 165 DUB.
    here you go- as light as carbon in a 165
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Cannond...ty!20872!US!-1
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  38. #38
    EDR
    Reputation: eatdrinkride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    9,874
    I have short legs. Went from 175's (all my mtb life) to 170's in a search to mitigate rock strikes on my new M3 earlier this year. This did help with pedal strikes but what surprised me was other tangible improvements that were noticed even more so. Namely, climbing short steeps in the saddle was easier. What I never noticed before was how my high side leg/knee had to flare out to the side b/c my pedal stroke was too high. This is not an optimal way to transfer power while pedaling of course. Never had given it any thought until I went with shorter cranks arms. The difference in 'feel' was immediate. Pretty sure I could use 165's just fine as well.
    I also noticed that when standing on the pedals and 'surfing' downhill I'm more comfy. My feet are a tad closer together and it's more stable and natural.

    I'm sure longer legged riders will not feel these same benefits. Crank length is really about ergonomics not rock strikes. Some can realize improvements in both areas by going shorter.
    Last edited by eatdrinkride; 10-15-2019 at 08:47 PM.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    499
    The only downside to running shorter cranks is you need your seat higher, which for me put pressure on my hands while seated. I could raise the bars but that was worse out of the saddle, so I went with the longer cranks.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2492
    Last Post: 1 Day Ago, 05:02 PM
  2. Ibis Ripmo - 145/160mm long travel 29er
    By fc in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-16-2019, 12:48 PM
  3. Ibis Ripmo - long travel 29er good for Norcal?
    By fc in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 133
    Last Post: 05-22-2018, 05:45 PM
  4. RIPMO fork st at 150
    By pctloper in forum Ibis
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-30-2018, 04:12 PM
  5. Ibis Ripmo unboxing and first ride!
    By bikenweed in forum Ibis
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-27-2018, 08:21 PM

Members who have read this thread: 14

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.