Check Out: Sustainable Clothing, Slick Bike Storage, Short Cranks, & "e-bike Shoes"
A lot of gear comes across our desks here at Pinkbike. Check Out is an occasional round-up of everything our tech editors have gotten their hands on. Sometimes it's products we're doing long-term tests on, other times it's stuff we're stoked about but don't have time to fully review. And, sometimes it's crazy shit someone sent us unsolicited and we're having a laugh.
Stashed SpaceRail System
First, locate your roof joists to anchor the rails.
The unloaded hooks stay put while you're installing a bike.
Features
• Fits 1 to 24 bikes, 4 bikes per rail
• Weight limit: 30kg per hook, 120kg per rail
• Roof, under-stairs or wall-mount options
• Weight limit: 30kg per hook, 120kg per rail
• Roof, under-stairs or wall-mount options
 | Stashed Products' SpaceRail allows you to store bikes in a very efficient and convenient way. It comprises of modular rails in 1.2 m (4 feet) lengths, each of which can accept up to four bike-holding hooks. These rails can be joined together to create bigger systems for as many bikes as you like. I have an 8-bike system (two rails) which retails for £569.99 (about $658 USD). That's a serious investment, but a more typical user might only need a four-bike system which goes for £299.99. Yes, you could make something similar yourself if you're so inclined - this video shows you how for about $238. If you want to do that, go for it! But let's be honest, there are plenty of bikers with more money than time. Plus, the SpaceRail has some neat features which you might not get on a DIY project. The modular nature means it's easy to add rails, split them apart, or move location as needed. The hooks have a locking mechanism so when they're unloaded they stay put, making it a little easier to hang a bike, then slide it freely once a bike is installed. Installation is pretty easy. Just make sure to carefully locate the ceiling joists with a stud detector (if you don't know what that is, ask your mom) so you screw the system into something solid and don't end up with your ceiling collapsing. It's recommended to be mounted 600-700 mm from the wall so that the bikes can slide and rotate without touching the wall. I chose to mount mine closer, such that the wheel contacts the wall. That way, the bikes don't stick out into the room so much. You can also get wall-mounted versions or ones for under an angled ceiling like below the stairs. The beauty of the SpaceRail system over other bike racks is that it combines space efficiency with easy access to any of your bikes. Bikes you aren't using can pack together super tightly in a top-and-tail arrangement yet it's easy to slide the others out of the way to get access to the bike you want. This is something you can't achieve with fixed hooks or racks. You can get pedal wraps to protect your bikes from pedal scratches, but you could also use a pair of old socks, or you know, just be careful when packing them together. It's also useful for hanging up muddy kit, wheels, or whatever else needs to be out of the way. If you can live with the price, it does the job nicely. |
Monserat Clothing
2A vest
3A jersey
TP01 pants
Features
• Made in Europe
• Made from up to 100% recycled plastic
• TP01 pants - 119,95 €
• Made from up to 100% recycled plastic
• TP01 pants - 119,95 €
| Monserat is a new Fairwear MTB clothing company based in Germany. Their clothes are made from 90-100% recycled plastics (depending on the model), all sourced in Europe and sewn in Poland. They have a range of products for men and women, including trousers, shorts, jerseys, and jackets, as well as casual wear. The TP01 pants are made for mild temperatures (above freezing) and feature a ratchet waist closure, a snug fit with enough room for kneepads, and four-way stretch fabric. Unlike some riding pants, the pockets are nice and roomy and the fit isn't too baggy. The 3A jersey gets its name from the three fabric zones used: warm and thick in the upper chest, upper arms and neck; thinner in the lower arms and front; with even thinner, breathable fabric in the lower back. It's a cozy garment best used for chilly or windy days; the thick turtle neck feels a bit like wearing a buff and there's no zip to adjust the ventilation. But for cold weather, it makes a great wind-proof mid-layer in combination with a zippable outer layer. The 2A vest is wind-proof and water-repellant, but with a breathable mesh upper back panel. A zip allows some heat to escape and it packs down small if it's too much. |
Appleman 2XR cranks
Features
• 135 mm to 175 mm crankarm lengths
• 5 spindle lengths for all bikes
• 642g as shown
• 5 spindle lengths for all bikes
• 642g as shown
• Made in the USA, 5-year warranty
• Price: $485 USD (Exc. chainring & shipping)
• www.applemanbicycles.com
• Price: $485 USD (Exc. chainring & shipping)
• www.applemanbicycles.com
| Matt Appleman of Appleman bicycles wasn't content with the limited range of cranks to fit his custom bikes. The 2XR is a modular crankset with a wide range of arm lengths: 135, 145, 155, 165, or 175 mm. Note the 155 mm arms which I have here are the shortest I've ever tried but they are in the middle of Alppleman's range. Matt Appleman is specifically looking for shorter crank options, which is backed by science. On their website, Appleman recommends picking a crank length that's 20% of your inseam. Personally, with my long legs approaching Cathroesque proportions, that rule of thumb would put me on something like 185 mm arms, but my interpretation of the science on crank length is that unless you're riding a toy bike it doesn't really matter for power production so you may as well get more ground clearance. According to some, you might get less joint pain and a better descending position too. That's TBC from my perspective though. The 30 mm spindle is available in five lengths to suit all major styles of bike: road, gravel, MTB, mid-fat and fat bike. It's compatible with most bottom bracket standards too, including BSA (English threaded), ITA, PF30, BB86, BB92 BB30 T47, 386EVO, BBRight, + more ( BB90/BB95 not compatible). Finally, there are three spiders to suit MTB (104 BCD), road/gravel, or track cranks. All parts are modular so you could swap cranks between bikes or you could change crank length without buying a whole new crank. The cranks require no proprietary tools to install, just a 5 mm Allen key. Play is adjusted by adding shims on either side of the bottom bracket - there's no threaded collar. The price is steep and the weight is so-so (comparable to Shimano SLX), but the adaptable modular design, unusual length options, and five-year warranty counteract that. |
Fizik Terra Ergolace X2 Flat Shoes
Features
• Flexible sole for hiking and e-biking
• Weight: 758 g (size 46)
• Weight: 758 g (size 46)
| Depending on where you look, you can sometimes see these described as "e-biking shoes", and while that designation is sure to raise some rightly cynical eyebrows, they also make sense for those who want to combine mountain biking with walking. That could include backpacking, touring, commuting, or casual off-road cycling. The sole is pretty flexible. This could lend itself to e-biking, where pedaling efficiency isn't as important, but it also makes them comfy for walking and general wearing. Combined with the pedestrian looks, they make a great alternative to casual outdoor trainers or even an approach-style shoe. On the bike, they grip pretty well. You won't confuse them with your Five Tens and the flex makes them less than ideal for serious mountain biking on long, rough descents, but they hold the pedal well enough for anything up to what I'd call regular trail riding. For commuting, touring or bike-packing missions, they could save you taking a second pair of shoes. |
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
[UPDATED] Final Elite XC Results & Overall Standings from the Mairiporã XC World Cup 2024
42245 views
42245 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe4CHWulnDs
These channels:
www.mcmaster.com/Trolleys/strut-channel-5
with these trolleys inside
www.mcmaster.com/strut-channel-trolleys
Then I screw in Park bike hooks, the machine threaded type.
Was about $250 if I recall, and I have 10 bikes stored that I can move around and fit into very small space
www.pinkbike.com/photo/edit/?inList[]=23986552
Here's the Pic Link: www.pinkbike.com/photo/23986552
7 bikes hanging and I think it cost me $30 but I already had leftover house paint.
This fancy system does look pretty slick though!
Thanks for all the comments! Great to see so much interest in our SpaceRail system.
Of course you can make something yourself… you can make anything yourself if you really want to, but will it be better than what we spent 100’s of hours developing and refining as professional engineers? Probably not to be honest with you.
A lot of early prototypes were made with the ideas mentioned, but they certainly lacked a lot of the features that make our system work really well and that maybe aren’t fully communicated in the article.
The auto-lock hooks make it much easier to hang your bikes as they don’t move when you hit them with your wheel, our trolleys have tuned friction so bikes don’t slide too fast, the whole system is made in Wales UK and is fully rebuildable to last a lifetime, the included trolley spacer tokens keep bikes spaced apart correctly, the mounting points are position adjustable…. I could go on and on about features you don’t get in a homemade system. But check our website out for more details: www.stashedproducts.co.uk
If you value your free time, appreciate a refined and high-quality product and don’t want to spend your weekends developing and making a bike storage system, then we have the solution for you… if you don’t, then that’s cool too
Thanks,
Stashed Products
www.homedepot.com/p/Superstrut-10-ft-12-Gauge-Half-Slotted-Metal-Framing-Strut-Channel-in-Gold-Galvanized-ZA1200HS-10/100125003
it's a shame that the bike industry (especially road and triathlon) spend all this time in r&d for aero, stiffness, this and that, then slap on 170-175mm cranks for bike sizes xs to xl.
www.specialized.com/us/en/s-works-epic-world-cup/p/206077?color=336699-206077&searchText=93123-0002
12k race bike. built for speed, but except putting a 170mm crank on it limits the riders body position. just stupid. that's like buying a ferrari and putting regular in it.
Seb wrote, “ carefully locate the ceiling joists with a stud detector (if you don't know what that is, ask your mom)”
I loled!
I went to 165mm cranks on my new build, and even as someone with a 36.5in (~927mm) saddle to pedal distance, I see no downsides.
But why is it that all fancy crank options only come in 30mm spindle diameters? Is there some reason we can't get short cranks in 24mm spindle diameters?
I'm 6ft, 775-780mm saddle height and LOVE 165s, been running them on my trail bikes since 2015. I'd like to try 155s, but cranks are pricey to try out - Shimano offers most of their mainstream MTB offerings in as short as 165, but if I could snag a Deore or SLX 155 or 160 to try, that'd be worth the price to me.
Canfield cranks use sram gxp bb style but cranks are 24mm steel axle
Thats actually exactly the crank I'm running. Raceface Aeffect R's in 165mm. I've been really happy with them. I'd totally be open to trying a shorter crank in the future.
Its just weird how few fancy/shorter cranks are available in 24mm spindles (Canfield cranks are GXP only, Eewings are 30mm only, 5dev are 29mm/30mm only, etc).
I couldn't get any short cranks in 24mm so I molested a pair of old isis spline rf cranks.
Picture here;
www.pinkbike.com/u/d3toid/album/homemade-short-cranks
If anyone is interested I can upload more pics of the milling ops.
Looking to swap out to 165 on my Fugitive when I try out a mullet setup
I don’t think any study has shown any real measurable difference in either of those, but you may have a preconceived idea about it.
How are you measuring the power and torque output?
Incidentally, anyone on an ebike with brose or bosch motor, they are an isis interface. My partners bike has 152mm miranda isis cranks on it, it's done wonders for her confidence descending.
After riding like that for a couple weeks, I realized something was wrong. Took a look at the crank arm and saw they were 175. Went online and looked at the specs and saw that my bike came with 165.
Maybe coincidental, but my first gravel bike came with 165, I always had knee pain. I replaced that bike and the new one had 170's, knee pain was gone. 170's on my XC and gravel feel off, but tolerable. 172.5 on my roadie feels fine. 175 on my E29 are wonderful.
N=1: I don't like short cranks.
I've seen that lastly (don't remember in which arricle), but cranks with "threaded flip chips" is THE shit that every crankset brand should have already proposed. The brand new Trek Fuel Ex is great with all its geo adjustments... but it would be even neater with modulable cranks
Can we get a comment gold for this please!
That’s a well calibrated seat of pants you’ve got there.
Maybe give these a read
www.roadbikerider.com/crankarm-study-says-length-doesn-t-matter-d1
cyclingtips.com/2017/09/crank-length-forget-leverage-power-fit
It’s an advantage on steeper, faster trails, but a disadvantage on tighter punchier ones.
You understand a preconceived notion right, weird how they work.
Sometimes, even when presented with evidence or facts that say otherwise, people choose to believe what they believe.
Cool story about levers though
In reality, fit is more important than length.
I do however enjoy poking at peoples claims sometimes.
We do really hold fast to our beliefs sometimes, all of us.
The notion that we are such finely tuned machines that we can feel a 1% power difference, or 5mm of handle bar width, or whatever other number we tend to fixate on is pretty silly. When in reality the average leg length difference is something like 20mm, and 15mm for arm lengths……we just learn to accommodate, just like we do for a slightly longer or shorter crank arm, or handle bar, or……you get it
So you didn’t read it.
That’s cool, appreciate that you were willing to keep an open mind, maybe challenge yourself, and others a bit. Stoked for you!
The difference between a lever alone, and a bicycle drivetrain, is that we have another layer of mechanical advantage (gearing) involved.
Shortening the crank arms does> reduce the leverage of the crank on the chainring, but doesn't change the human power. To compensate mechanically for the shorter crank arms, just drop from a 32t, to a 30t chainring, thus making the leverage the shorter cranks have over the smaller chainring, about the same as the longer cranks and larger chainring.
The studies that onawalk is mentioning were about humans output capabilities. They put people on bikes with wildly different crank length differences, and concluded that the humans output the same amount of power either way. And since the speed of a bike when pedaling is based on the power we output, it really doesn't change things big picture.
Crank length affects a bunch of things (saddle height, pedal clearance), but ultimately preferences/body fit will win any of these "best length" discussions. But it is cool to see that we are getting more options now, where before it was almost 100% dominated by 175mm cranks.
Personally I went to shorter cranks for pedal strike clearance after shattering a big toe in 5 places on a wicked pedal strike. But I was happy to find that for me, I don't notice the shorter length changing how my bike climbs, and I do notice the extra pedal clearance. So for me, no downsides to report as of yet.
If you ride a stationary bike maybe you might not notice. But no way on a bicycle outdoors climbing.
For what its worth, I didn't say not noticeable, but I did say I didn't perceived any downsides, and that I didn't notice it changing how my bike climbs (ie, I still sit and spin either way, and perceived effort is the same). So, I stand by what I said. No negatives for me as of yet.
100%, after building my bike from the frame up, I didn't think about crank length for a full 3 rides. I was so excited to be on a new bike, and fiddling with suspension settings/etc, that I literally didn't think about it. After remembering to think about it, I did notice it (the "no downsides as of yet" thing applies).
Whats more, I've let 4 buddies borrow my bike for a lap or few without me telling them I had shorter cranks on it. And afterwards I specifically asked each of them "what did you think about the cranks". Not one of them noticed they were shorter than what they had on their bikes. Maybe they were busy adapting to other parts of the bike though.
As a side note, I feel that everything is magnified on a stationary bike. I got a smart trainer a year ago, and have done a bit over "1000 miles" in virtual distance (whatever that means) since then. But IME bike fit issues become VERY apparent when you're sitting still, not even having to balance/move your weight around for 2+ hours at a time. The bike I'd ridden for years as a commuter, I found I was having to adjust saddle angles/etc to prevent getting saddle numbness after only 45min when mounted to the trainer.
As I noted before, in reality fit is the most influential factor, and fit is something that can be fairly personal (it’s another topic that we all seem to get worked up about)
Can we agree, that if you were comfortable, and felt you had the same power and torque, riding a shorter crank has some pretty tangible benefits, rock strikes, and grounding out being chief among them?
I’d like to suggest, that doing back to back testing of your own, trying to determine which you “feel” is faster is a pretty arduous task, as we go into these kinds of things with a preconceived notion of the outcome. Anyone conducting testing knows that, and then retires to “test to remove any of those variables. So unless you did some sort of blind testing, where you had no idea which crank you were using, you didn’t give yourself a fair shot.
If you’re testing a crank you’ve spent years on, against one that you’re trying, well it wouldn’t be a stretch to think that the familiarity of one, will win out over the change to the other.
Sometimes those changes require a change in how we ride, or a different technique to clear a section, but that doesn’t negate the inherent benefits of one over the other.
So if we assume that the shorter crank has some benefits, and we assume that the lab tests show there isn’t a real measurable difference, it might be worth really challenging what we believe to be “correct”
When I ride my short travel bike on a local trail, I feel like I’m flying, I’m pushing into the bike hard, I’m actively weighting the front end for grip, I’m pedalling out of every corner, and I feel like I’m going faster than I ever have. Riding the same trail on my enduro bike, well it’s not the same feeling, I don’t have to be as active, as the bike is able to take care of more things, and ultimately I’m faster (timing myself) on the big bike.
When I’m on the short bike, I’m getting knocked off line more often, and fighting to stay on the fastest line, roots, and ruts, and rocks are an opportunity to air the bike, and every input seems to produce and equal output. I’m on the edge of control, and that’s usually where I like to ride, it feels fast!
The big bike, well it needs to be going twice as fast to experience similar sensations, and even then, they’re more muted. I need bigger lips to air the bike, so it’s on the ground more often. It doesn’t get knocked off line much at all, so I have the time and space to put it exactly where it needs to go. I simply can’t go fast enough on that trail to achieve the same feeling as flying on the short travel bike, but I’m miles faster on the big bike.
I “feel” faster on the small bike, much faster, but the reality doesn’t jive with my perception.
I don’t want to tell you you’re wrong, but I want to poke you to challenge what you “think” or “feel”.
Happy to spend a day in the woods with anyone to test those sorts of things, it fascinates me to no end.
Dropped to a smaller chainring, which killed my top end for road commuting to the trail head but didn't quite make up for the lack of leverage climbing. In short order just unbolted them and gave them a stern disapproving glare in the parts bin.
Turned out after a few weeks of adapting to the new BB height and 170's, pedal strikes were no longer a problem anyway.
Wish I'd heard an honest take on the drop in leverage before wasting time and money on the experiment.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think I'd be sending them off any huck to flats, I don't know just what the quality/overall strength is, but they were a damn sight cheaper than 155mm hopes as an experiment (which has been a resounding success, instant confidence boost for her on climbs with an extra 18mm of ground clearance when pedaling).
I think the points in my last post still ring true, and our differences in pedalling only add to that. I still think the benefits make sense, so working on adapting your pedalling can help for sure.
There’s a steep grunt of a technical climb at the top of my local hill, it’s all slab rock with crumbly bits thrown in. It’s one of the more technical climbs I’ve ever done. It’s been a goal of mine to climb it without resting or dabbing for 3 years now. I’ve steadily been working on both climbing stamina, and technique in the last year and finally made it to the top. I was on my new Bike, 165mm cranks, 170 travel, I didn’t think this was the bike for the job.
I’ve tried it a couple more times on my shorter travel bike, I still blow up about 3/4 into the climb, usually the same area, not the exact same spot (it’s fairly wide open, rock slab, so you can go many different ways, but there’s a couple clear ways for sure)
Purely anecdotal, and I don’t push shorter cranks as a fix for anything, it was just an interesting story, and I’m not sure why I have cleaned it on the big bike, and not the little bike, cause in any other situation, the little bike “feels” way faster on climbs
Might still opt for something a tad cheaper to try it out
Again if this is a trade off that anyone is happy with I think that is completely reasonable to take this disadvantage for the other benefits of the shorter cranks. I just don't want people to go get shorter cranks because there is "no difference" in climbing and feel that they have been misled. Like all things in design there are trade offs.
Maybe this says more about me than the world but I just can't let it go. Short cranks have a downsides. "No measurable difference" is becoming MTB dogma because of road bike studies on indoor trainers. It's just not the same thing.
The drop in leverage going from 175 to 165mm cranks is a bit less than 6%
dropping 2 teeth on a 34t chainring compensate exactly for that. dropping 2 teeth on a 30t chainring is too much of a difference. And many cassette aren't spaced that closely to even be able to find the "right torque" at this point.
I don't think there is a huge negative effect of short cranks outside nocebo effects. We can adapt to much more variations on a bike, like a 50% wider bar as we did in early 2000's, 15-20% more reach, and the list goes on.
People always complained that it was stupid change or that it is "unrideable" for their location and so one. Yet we are, several years later, not willing to go back.
Save this comment, in 10 years 170mm crank will be considered "long" and no one will complain that the 160 or 165mm crank they received their new bike with are too short. Only old guys with their habits and beginners blaming hardware are talking now.
@ViolaVesperlin: amusing, but Archimedes has no place to stand here, either
But I would like to think the ground clearance of a shorter crank would by advantageous, I don't have a problem with it. I did have to adapt my timing a little more, but pedal strikes are rare for me now. Everybody's riding style, preferred trails, and ability/willingness to adapt is different, so your mileage may vary.
Shorter cranks are supposed to have several other benefits like aero (not an issue on an MTB), and less flexibility requirements (I'm also dabble in ultra running and rock climbing, joint mobility isn't much of an issue right now for me). For me, the knee discomfort was reduced going to a longer crank.
"stress risers in the tissues"...stop your killing me. Don't forget that crank length may help promote reduced coefficient of friction.
Too often we think longer is better, shorter is better, slacker is better.
What fits you properly is better, full stop
But that doesn't mean shorter cranks have no effect on pedaling dynamic for road racers. Shorter cranks don't affect peak power, but they make it take just a little longer for riders to achieve their peak power. For road racers who breakaway from the pack and grind it out for an hour, this difference doesn't matter and they'd happily take a more aero position and lose a little jump in a sprint. But for racers who do a lot of crits or who sprint for the line at the end, that's a big sacrifice!
Similarly, if you're grinding out climbs on your MTB on a relatively smooth surface or consistent gradient, you probably don't care to lose a little bit of punchiness and jump, as long as you can achieve the same max power and 20 minute FTP. After all, who doesn't love more pedal clearance on the way down! But for people who enjoy technical climbing, we need our jump! Technical climbing is like one violent acceleration after another, forever. This is the reason why pro BMX racers use 180 and even 185mm crankarms- their race is only 25 seconds, so the only thing that matters for them is how fast they can achieve their max power. Instant acceleration is the goal.
All of the scientific tests cited here are based around seated efforts, typically at constant power levels akin to a 20 minute threshold (FTP) effort. That doesn't translate to technical climbing where you're stopping, accelerating, and changing cadence constantly, and often standing. It's not apples to apples. I'm 6'3", and this is why I run 170 cranks on my road bike (most of my rides are base miles and long climbs, and I'd like to relx my hip flexors and get low and out of the wind), but 175 cranks on my MTB (surge-y technical climbing and zippy sprinting when racing DH & Enduro). YMMV
I've been on 170s forever, but my buddy just got 175s and he's suddenly killing me on the technical climbs where I've been consistently better than him for years.
In process of building a hardtail now, going to try 175's
Wait a minute... nevermind.
...nevermind
On muni my preferred length was 150mm, but on a bike I ride 160mm on a 29er FS and a 27.5 FS; my jump bike has 155.
I think the long crank diehards are funny, no amount of cajoling or science will dislodge them from their beliefs
Long live the debate!
PS Love the appeal to "science" until it turns out it does not agree with your preference. A 20% of inseam length takes you to 185, oh well I'll use 165 anyway!!!!! It is the new trend, right?
And that is why this is a band-wagon, like the dozen bandwagons that the industry and its megaphones like pinkbike dump on us on a regular basis!!!
SRAM GX Eagle Dub Crankset - Boost Lunar Grey, 165mm/32t a.co/d/5NDNiCj
Others have claimed longer cranks give you more rider range of motion and more ability to torque the bike around more or put more pressure on tires for traction. Lots of factors, and personal preference based upon experience.
Trying squats in both positions, I didn't notice much difference but felt like I had better side to side balance in the foot peg position and it bothered my bad knee less.
I though of doing this or shelling out the money for Alta Racks dolly and rack system.
Buying second hand is good too, but it is definitely not sustainable in the literal sense. We will run out of used items if nobody makes new ones.
So when reduce and re-use are not viable options, what is better than recycling stuff that others throw away?
In many cases apparel manufacturers use plastic from PET bottles, because that delivers very consistent material quality. However, in most parts of the world, a PET bottle that has been collected becomes a PET bottle again and again. Unless someone colors the PET and uses it for a cycling jersey, then it will never become a bottle again.
Another tip: If your ceiling is too high, repurpose old bike chains as extensions that connect an eyelet screwed to ceiling and a simple metal hook on the other end that holds your bike by the wheel. (I worked in a bike shop that did this for years, works great and is just a few dollars all in)
Short cranks need/should have a higher cadence. Aside from ground clearance, ever notice track bikes use 165 and shorter cranks despite those dude having the ability to put out massive numbers? Spinning smaller circles > more leverage spinning bigger circles; it's more sustainable over longer periods which is why alot of roadies say "spin to win". Power meters have proven this that you can generate more calories over time despite having a lower wattage.
I have two in my bedroom now (GF's roadie and my gravel), everything else in the van or living room. Separate bedroom is better.
That should change your mind.
Luddite to the bone!
Shorter cranks caused me knee pain. Knee pain stopped when I went 170mm, with 175mm being the most comfortable.
In reality, the study basically says "crank length doesn't matter, they all produce the same power" within .05% between 145mm and 170mm cranks, so chose what is most comfortable.
I encourage people to run shorter cranks because all the data suggests that there are plenty of advantages. But if it causes you, or me in this case, discomfort, then obviously there is a disadvantage.
I ride between 12,000 and 14,000 (100,000 on Strava) miles a year (over 1000 hours is my annual goal) between all my bikes and have been doing so for many years...and a few bikes now. Everything from racing Ironman distance triathlon (140.6) to hitting all the "Pro Line" downhills at the bike parks (and everything in-between). I spend a lot of time in the saddle and spend a lot of time trying to make sure every bike is comfortable.
My most comfortable bike is the one with 175mm cranks (Enduro). Second has 172.5 (Supersix Evo), gravel and XC have 170mm and I don't bother replacing those as I am reasonably ok with 170mm and run power meters on both, don't see the need to spend the money replacing those if they are good enough for 8 hour endurance races.
175mm always gave me the best leg position, balance and comfort to power up hills, but I've compromised with 170's for a little rock clearance. It was worth trying 165mm just like it's worth trying shorter/longer stems to see what fits best.
You forgot "Oh, and they're fugly as shite"
Check my website for other mtb hacks, smalldickenergy@getalife.ca
I cleared them all, on my BIKE, and then rode around all his eBike friends blocking the trail.