as the title says. 170mm,165,mm or 160. i have no idea. mostly gonna use the bike for commuting. whats the difference? thanks in advance

i would say 165, i'm running 170 right now and wish they were a lil shorter.

how tall are you? how fast will you ride? how hard do you corner? how hilly is the route?

short arms favor shorter legs, high rpm spinning, cornering clearance, and less leverage.
longer, the opposite.

i have fairly short legs (29" inseam), ride 20mph +/- 5 in rolling hills, and watch my corners. i started with 165 and moved to 170. i like the extra leverage, upped my gear one tooth to slow the spin and take advantage. have yet to strike a pedal, but do try to keep the bike more upright in the corners.

$0.02.

170's.

165 is for higher cadence / spinning. I had 165's (ride a 54cm, 5'9, 32" inseam) and like the 170's a lot better.

ahh i see. thanks for all the info and help

I have a 65 on the right and a 70 on the left!
its awesome....nooot
but hey I gotta use what I got

o.O

lol +1

I have 170s on my Rob Roy, have yet to strike a pedal, but have ground/scratched up the crank ends with bad pedal position going over obstacles (oops... beausage?). Seem to work nicely for me, I can still spin upto 120/130 usually no problem, higher than that is a rare effort

Compromise with 167.5

Anybody running 175's? I have a 35" inseam and I wonder if 170's would be long enough.

???

Any thoughts?

PF

pedal strike sucks. 165 is ideal

I have 175s on my FG cross bike. I have yet to have any issue in a race, or otherwise. If you're tall... 175s are the way to go.

If you have an actual FG you don't have to worry as the BB is almost as high as a mountain bike... if you're riding some road conversion, pedal strike is more of a threat.

62cm. IRO Mark V. I think I will stick with 175's.

Many Thanks,

PF

I have some FSA Vero which are like 173.5 or some **** like that


I really want 165's to see what spinning is like w/ the shorter crank arms