Lo Pros, Represent

Look like an hour bike. Arms start to go hoooooooourrrrr.

The longest I rode it like that was 25 miles and it wasn't all that bad, would be mad to ride it without padded shorts though.

I loved the ratty look it had aswell but Indra if you really want, I can crash it a few times, and take a gas torch to it if you want?

No need to worry, I can take care of that :)

BB look hellua low too.

I think there's around 70mm of bb drop so lower than most track frames but not unbearable.

Nothing unusual for a road frame

70mm's fine with clipless and 165mm, my road fixed is 72mm which is just about low enough to corner well.

165mm crankset are for short legs.
I put 25 mm clincher and 172,5 crankset, very narrow pedal or SPD/Time Attack™

I anticipate I remain attentive and I no longer touch

165mm crankset are for fast legs.

ftfy

I changed from 165 to 172.5 to match road cranks. So much better/faster.

You absolutely right Marc, shorter length makes it easier to spin faster cadences, but the important thing is to find a good trade-off.
if you have a sprinter-type urban practice focusing stimulus velocity the 165 cranks are justified for you.
In case you favor an optimal performance it is important to add the size factor legs
this is why one finds 175mm track crankset.

Daft Punk vs Kanye West (Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger) - YouTube

165mm crankset make little to no difference

ftfy.

It's all in your head.

In case you favor an optimal performance it is important to add the old wives tales this is why one finds 175mm track crankset.

ftfy

There is no biomechanical advantage for anybody in using cranks longer than 165mm, and there are likely to be packaging benefits for people dropping down to that size, yielding aerodynamic gains.

Not sow.

By biomechanical you are missing ergonomic?

Mr Dreyfuss is much disappoint.

I mean what I said. If you measure power output and energy consumption, it's really hard to see any change in efficiency from changing crank length over quite a wide range.

Haha Tester I wondered when you were going to land on your big horses...
Well ok I'll put my quick release right then ; )
So

It must also strike a balance between performance"power output and energy consumption" and **comfort **with income as physical recovery.
this is the same debate with oval crank.
What also matters is not constantly change size crank on different bikes. Between 165 and 190 mm the knees are working differently and there could wear out prematurely.
Postural study is effective for all: wheel size, saddle width ...why not crank length???
"Do not forget that the size of the stem is not to compensate for a bad frame size, but is proportional to the frame."

I use 165mm cranks because the part of my leg from hip to knee is rather short compared to the part from knee to ankle. If I use longer cranks my front leg is not in the correct 90 degree position when the cranks are horizontal.

This can be countered with a zero setback seat post as well, but it feels like my saddle position will get way too front without setback.

KOPS is a rough guide for quick and dirty bike fit, not something carved in stone from the gods of musculoskeletal science.

What color the bartape ?
shifer and it's finished.
Got the delta but don't like them.

Black or possibly "team leader" white?

I don't like Deltas either, much prefer Monoplaners or dia Compe AGC 300.

Horizontal QR skewers for moar aero?

Pelten Shade? White >>> Yellow

If there're a master of photoshop ...

shamal pink