# 170mm or 165mm cranks??



## Porrick (May 20, 2004)

I'm getting ready to buy some Sugino 75 track cranks. I've got sorta stubby legs (5'10.5" with a 30" inseam), but have been riding 175mm singlespeed MTB cranks and 172.5 on the road. Sheldon's site says 165mm are the way to go for fixed, but I was wondering what folks around here use and why. Is this just a user preference thing?

Thanks,

Porrick


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Porrick said:


> I'm getting ready to buy some Sugino 75 track cranks. I've got sorta stubby legs (5'10.5" with a 30" inseam), but have been riding 175mm singlespeed MTB cranks and 172.5 on the road. Sheldon's site says 165mm are the way to go for fixed, but I was wondering what folks around here use and why. Is this just a user preference thing?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Porrick



I use 170mm and I have the same inseam. All but one of my fixed/ss used converted road cranks and 170mm is more common than 165mm. The one track specific crank is also 170mm... One of the reasons for 165mm is cornering clearance but I haven't had any issues with 170's.


----------



## Dennis Rex (Feb 9, 2002)

Honestly, I think the difference between 165 and 170 is pretty darned minor. Though, I have to say I've been lusting after the NOS Suntour Pro's on Harris, and they're 160s, which might actually make a difference.


----------



## 6was9 (Jan 28, 2004)

*Also interested to know..*



Porrick said:


> I'm getting ready to buy some Sugino 75 track cranks. I've got sorta stubby legs (5'10.5" with a 30" inseam), but have been riding 175mm singlespeed MTB cranks and 172.5 on the road. Sheldon's site says 165mm are the way to go for fixed, but I was wondering what folks around here use and why. Is this just a user preference thing?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Porrick


I have kinda sorta similar propotions... I use 170mm & 172.5mm on my road bikes but curious to know what fixie cranks I should get.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Dennis Rex said:


> Honestly, I think the difference between 165 and 170 is pretty darned minor. Though, I have to say I've been lusting after the NOS Suntour Pro's on Harris, and they're 160s, which might actually make a difference.


On one of my road bikes, I rode for an entire season with 170 driveside and 172.5 non-driveside. I was taking apart the bike to clean it when I noticed it. I had two sets of old Dura Ace cranks and I switched arms by mistake.


----------



## Veni Vidi Vici (Feb 10, 2004)

*I'll bet you'll be sorry.....*



Porrick said:


> I'm getting ready to buy some Sugino 75 track cranks. I've got sorta stubby legs (5'10.5" with a 30" inseam), but have been riding 175mm singlespeed MTB cranks and 172.5 on the road. Sheldon's site says 165mm are the way to go for fixed, but I was wondering what folks around here use and why. Is this just a user preference thing?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Porrick



if you get 165's. I'm a bit over 5' 11" and run 170 and 172.5 on my two fixies
and wish they where both 172.5 if not 175's


----------



## matchmaker (Aug 15, 2009)

I guess it depends on the fixed gear you use. If it is a smaller gear and you spin to get more speed, than I think you will like the 165's. If you mash a high gear then go for longer cranks.

I am saying this from practical experience, as I have one bike with 165 cranks and another with 170 cranks and undeniably the 165 cranks spin faster, but once you have to push you miss the leverage of longer cranks. I have no real preference for one over the other, it is just different. There is always a trade-off. The 165's allow you to spin faster, but also gets your cardiovascular system more involved. The 170's allow you to keep your hart rate a bit lower, but you are using more leg power and when you hit the bottom of your power reserve, you will feel it.


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

matchmaker said:


> I guess it depends on the fixed gear you use. If it is a smaller gear and you spin to get more speed, than I think you will like the 165's. If you mash a high gear then go for longer cranks.
> 
> I am saying this from practical experience, as I have one bike with 165 cranks and another with 170 cranks and undeniably the 165 cranks spin faster, but once you have to push you miss the leverage of longer cranks. I have no real preference for one over the other, it is just different. There is always a trade-off. The 165's allow you to spin faster, but also gets your cardiovascular system more involved. The 170's allow you to keep your hart rate a bit lower, but you are using more leg power and when you hit the bottom of your power reserve, you will feel it.




how/why'd you end up replying to a 6 year old thread???


----------



## mtnbikecrazy55 (Apr 9, 2009)

FatTireFred said:


> how/why'd you end up replying to a 6 year old thread???


+1

???
:idea: 

but i ride 170's :thumbsup:


----------



## powhatan (Feb 16, 2003)

So which ones did he choose and how did they work out?


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

FatTireFred said:


> how/why'd you end up replying to a 6 year old thread???


There's a similarly epic thread-dredge over in General.


----------



## veloreality (Apr 5, 2010)

i have 172.5 and 165's. huuge difference. for longer road rides i prefer 172.5, but my brother is 6'1" and im 5'9" so i gave him the 172.5's and im riding the 165. if you dont plan on riding the track id say go long.


----------

