TandemGeek my cycling inseam is 99cm.

Using the one calculus (.216) I should be on nearly 215mm cranks. Using the more conservative approach (.210) I should be on 210mm cranks.

I use 205mm cranks on my touring bike, 200mm for the tandem captain's cranks, and 185mm (due to BB height) on the mountain bike. I'm building up another road bike and I'll probably use 200mm on it due to the Davinci deal.

To me its absurd that a 6'1" cyclist would believe that he was optimally efficient on the same crank length as some Basque climber who is 140lbs dripping wet and stands 5'7" in his dreams.

Over the course of the fifteen sizes from 49cm to 63cm, let alone the old touring frame size offerings from 17" to 27", I think its absurd to think that 170mm and 175mm cranks are appropriate. The real reason that 165mm, 177.5, 168.5, and 180mm cranks are no longer offered typically in the marketplace is because it increases complications in terms of production and the supply chain, not because these aren't a more appropriate fit for the range of cyclists purchasing the components.

For almost all tall people, they receive a disproportionate amount of height from their leg length than from their torso. It is very uncommon to find a man over 6'1" that has a proportionately longer torso than leg length. Which is why its absurd that frames 60cm and up come with 175mm cranks. It is laughable that a 63cm bike comes with 175mm cranks for any of the cyclists that fits that frame.

The reality is that most cyclists really don't understand bike fit. Most bike shops completely don't understand bike fit. The fact that most roadies spend 99% of the time on the hoods tells you everything you need to know, that their bike is completely the wrong size.

I'm the fattest cyclist I know, and I can comfortably ride in the drops. Then again, my bike actually almost fits, and the proportional length cranks allow for a 3cm drop in seatpost height compared to where I would be if I had clown cranks.

Thoughts?