recommended crank arm length for fixed gear

i have crank arms 175mm long. is this too long? i've heard that riders usually sport 165mm or 170mm. does anyone have answers? (oh, i'm converting to fixie)

Just from personal experience: shorter makes for better spin, when I moved from 165mm to 170mm (foolishly trying for a touch more leverage) it hurt my spin quite a lot, and gave me nearly no lever advantage. Most people will try to sell you on the virtues of not striking a pedal in a corner, which would be a consideration as well. In any case, yes, if I buy a new crank it's going to be 165mm from now on out.

As long as you're not clipping the ground or the front wheel in tight turns, it's pure personal preference. I prefer longer on all my bikes, fixie included.

__________________
Harry

I run what I have. I have been using 175's. I had a set of 170's on there but they felt wierd as all my other bikes have 175's.

Whatever you're comfortable with. I ride 170s on my fixie, 172.5 on my roadie, 175 on my MTB, because that's how they came. I'm smoother and more comfortable spinning up the shorter cranks but that might just be me and my pedalling style.

[QUOTE=armchair_spacem]Whatever you're comfortable with.........

Here-here! I think it also depends on the length of your leg bones. I only have little legs (they only just reach the ground when walking) and always chose 6 1/2" for comfort. People with longer leg bones would probably be happier on longer cranks.

The Victorian sprinter Zimmerman could do 40 m.p.h. on 66" fixed, which represents nearly 200 full revs per minute. That's twiddling! - mind you, he was on 6" cranks.

John.

Lots of factors with most being mentioned. I'm used to 175mm arcoss all bikes. I have tried 165 on my track bike but just couldn't get a big gear going like I can now with 175 cranks. I'd suggest if you currently have 175's on the bike you are fixing, try it. Then if you do find it OK, you've saved yourself some cash. If you don't, then buy some 170's or 165's and you will be wiser