hmmmm....worth a try.
My dimensions are almost identical to yours (182cm, 89.5cm inseam, size 43 Sidi), and after my failed 12 month 180mm crank experiment, I'm now tossing up between 175 and 172.5. I've just about settled with the 175s.
Before the 180s I was on 175s, and before that I was riding 170s for 5 years (following a knee injury scare), and before
that I was on 175s...yada yada......plus, 170s originally in the late '80s, and 165s on my track bike........so, I've had some experience with different lengths, plus I'm currently obsessed with the topic.
To sum up the whole issuse, I've gotta say it's overrated,
in that long cranks don't provide "magical" leverage that's gunna give the rider a secret weapon (even though that's how it feels when longer cranks first go on the bike), and shorter cranks won't provide super-fast cadence; it's about comfort and the correct position for the individual.
The big conundrum with longer cranks is that they put the rider in a slightly lower, weaker position, but this is only really noticeable with 5mm or more increase. If the rider is too low to 'get over' the long cranks, the leverage is useless. When I went from 180 back to 175, I was every bit as fast, maybe even faster, because I was in a better (higher) postion for 'me'
I reckon the 'spin' issue is really nothing, unless you're a pure sprinter -- or using massive cranks -- because we have gears, so I wouldn't worry about cadence. I did a few criteriums with the 180s, and I had no problems 'spinning it up ' out of corners. Some pros (I think it's Tom Boonen and Magnus Backstedt) are sprinting on 177.5 without any 'spin' problems.
Most guys at clubs will just trot out the old 'spin' cliches without really knowing what they're on about.
Anyway, back to your question.....yeah, worth a try, as you may prefer the feel, and you definitely won't lose any spin or acceleration
