gaucho777 

5'11" and a 30" inseam (pant size)--pretty short-legged. I use 172.5mm on a road bike, 175 on MTB or TT bike (though I don't ride any TT bikes any longer). I'm one of those people that can tell the difference in crank sizes. When I used to race, 172.5 cranks seemed to me a good compromise between shorter, 170mm cranks (good for sprints/crits), and 175mm (good for road races/hilly rides). The added leverage of 175's is good for time trials and mountain biking where spinning/sprinting is not important. 172.5mm is what I got used to, and now I always try to find 172.5s if at all possible. I'll use 170s if it's a rare model or if that's what came on a bike (as is usually the case) but it's not my preference.

P.s. By the way, if anyone wants to trade 172.5mm Campagnolo cranks for 170s (NR or SR) or 175s (C-record, etched), I'm all ears.

RobbieTunes

+1
I've got them from 170 to 175 and don't think about it. I'm 5'6" and 31 inseam (trousers).

By the way, I've got some 9-sp Records cranks in 180mm....

rhm

6' height, 32" pants; I voted "165."

But the truth is more complicated.

I have 145's on my recumbent, have ridden a lot of bikes with 152's (6") and currently have two bikes with 160's, several with 165's, some with 170's, and a very beautiful 6.75" crank. It's long but just too pretty to get rid of. I used to have 172.5 and 175's but I have successfully got rid of all those.

You can get used to anything. Anything more than 5 mm off what you're used to will feel wrong at first but you will adapt quickly. I have ridden thousands of miles on 140's and hundreds on 127's (5"). I didn't much like the latter but it was a single speed and a pretty terrible bike anyway so maybe not a fair test of the crank.

On long rides, long cranks make my leg muscles very sore; I don't have that problem with shorter ones. But as I say, you can get used to anything, and that's what I'm used to.

mikemowbz

Still interested in those, right here!

jr59

6'4 and 32 inseam on my pants

WNG

I chose 170mm as that's what I've mostly ridden the past 30 years. But I've rode 175mm on a mtb, and didn't notice much difference.
Therefore, I've not been choosy when acquiring cranks, and have 170, 172,5 and 175 models for both road and mtb models.
Most of my C&V bikes have 170. Daily road beater has 170, and two future modern road builds will sport 175, and a Campy 172.5 respectively. It will interesting to compare the three.

I'm about 5'10" pant inseam is 30", short leg/long torso build. 9.5W shoe size (as I also feel shoe size factors), and I'm a spinner not a masher.

thinktubes 

172.5, 6' 1", 32 inseam

wrk101

+1 This.

Velognome 

34" riding 175mm

Oh you ment inseam

KZBrian

170, 68", 32" pants.

cyclotoine

6'3.something" 32" pant, I hate walking on my pant legs! So I like them just so.

I have 170mm on my track, but have some 172.5s somewhere for it, I have 172.5mm on my fixed gear (road 170s forever on it), I have 175s on my mountain bike and used them for polo too and my winter beater. I have 180s on my cross bike and my road bike and my touring bike and now on my cross/beater/fast touring/slow road bike. I have some 185s to that used to be on my road bike, but the square taper is not for me anymore on a road bike. The cranks, for a number of reasons, had too much flex and shifted poorly and I had one chain derailment that caused me some pretty bad road rash... they are TA Carmina's BTW and were mated to a phil wood titanium magnum BB (the best I could possibly get for these cranks). I may tripilize them and put them on my touring bike in place of the 180 ritchey compact pros I have currently (old 94bcd mtb cranks, very cool).

for anyone that wonders why longer cranks are the norm on mtbs... well... try riding up a mountain on your road bike with longer cranks and you will no longer wonder why someone thought that was a good idea.

rootboy 

OK guys. Are we talking pants length or fromunder to floor?

Rx Rider

s'pose to go to the floor.

6', 33.5''. I've noticed I "ankle" my 172.5 a lot but don't my 175. I like 175 a wee bit more, (masher).

Bianchigirll 

I favor a 172.5 and it mioght be in my head but they just feel better. I have never been a good spinner and these slightly cranks just feel right. I am without heels a statuesque 5' 11"

curbtender

6', 32", 175 on most of my bikes and I like the 172.5 on my commuter. Tend to mash.

clubman 

30" inseam, 170 road bike, 165 track, usually 175 mtn bike. Just cuz.

LesterOfPuppets

I like 172.5, but they're hard to find for MTBs so put 175s on those.

I prefer 170 on flat road rides but just put up with the 172.5 mostly.

Wildwood 

6'1" and a bit. I've ridden 170/172.5/175 with no problem. Now over 60 yrs I intuitively (?) know a smaller circle should be easier on knees when properly centered on the frame. Right? For me, the wider Q on my triple is more of an adjustment, no an annoyance.

I want to try 165.

photogravity

I have bikes with 140mm, 165mm, 170mm and 175mm crankarms. I'm about 5' 10" and my pants inseam is roughly 30 inches. The only cranks that I can really tell are shorter are the 140mm, but that's a full inch shorter than the other cranks, so it stands to reason I'd notice the difference.

jonwvara 

I'm probably 6' 3.5", not especially long-legged. I ride 170 and 175 interchangeably--can't detect any difference between them. I DO notice that the cottered cranks on my old Dawes Double Blue seem kind of short, but there's no length marking on them as far as I know. I should measure them sometime. I like they way they feel, though, so I probably wouldn't mind going even shorter than 170.

mapleleafs-13 

i usually have 172.5 or 170, i don't think i notice a difference.

GamblerGORD53

I am 5'8 with 825mm standover using runners.

In highschool I rode an antique 45 lb XL Rudge with 180mm cranks. It was the easiest peddling bike I ever rode.
Next came 2 Raleighs and 2 hybrids. They all had gutless 165mm cranks.
This year I put XL SA5w hubs on the 1990 Raleigh frame with the cotter crank off the 1974 Raleigh.
I did 3 centuries on this 53 lb (loaded) frankenbike. With the short cranks it went up only 3%ish hills sitting down.
It still went up all hills if standing up. GI's are 43.4 to 111.1 I needed 14.5 mph speed to push ok in 3rd gear.
Then I got 180mm ENO cranks/Phill BB. It now goes up 8 or 10% sitting, although at low revs, 25 or 30.
The gears all then shifted 2 or 3 mph lower also. Now I mostly shift at 10.5 mph to 3rd.
I then easily upped my all-time speed record to 44.63 mph on a 44m drop hill about only 500m long. This hill I went up at 6 to 7 mph while sitting and tired from 96 all day miles and 30 yet to ride.
That is 9.1% force difference from 165 to 180. Newton's Laws are CONFIRMED.

Pars 

5'8" (maybe a bit less), 30" pant inseam (can't remember bike inseam), 170mm

DTM006

6'1, 34" (32" pants), 170mm

why 170mm? That's what my bikes have--I'll be switching out to 172.5 on a trial basis

dbakl

Mostly 170s, though I have one bike with 172.5 that always felt good to ride...

6', I don't know, 32"