I'm curious how Hogg arrived at that 5.48 formula, which would put me on 185 mm cranks (ideally, 186.3) That's not a problem for me, since I recognize it as nonsense, but on Bike Forums occasionally we encounter guys who have found Hogg's advice, or Zinn's, and are looking for ridiculously long cranks.
I guess I don't understand the criticism. You don't think cranks should be proportional to leg length or what? I have a 31.5" inseam, so 172.5 cranks by the 5.48 formula, and ride 170 on my singles and 175 on our tandem, both comfortably. You think my wife should ride shorter than 148 cranks? Of course making crank length proportional to leg length immediately leads to non-industry-standard BB heights for tall riders. But why should there be an industry standard BB height for everyone? What sense does that make, since every frame size has different geometry anyway? I ride with a long-legged 6'5" guy who's on 180 cranks, and looks ridiculous with them, like a clown bike and it's a custom bike, too.
There are some interesting articles on proportional crank length, all worth reading, here:
https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...gth-which-one/
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/t...-crank-length/
https://www.velonews.com/2003/11/bik...nk-length_5257
Note that while proportional cranks lengths seem to be universally advocated, the formula is very much in question.
Thus if those interested in commenting would be so kind as to do the following, it would be very helpful: Measure your inseam barefoot by standing against a wall, shoving a clipboard up against your pubic bone, and measuring the distance from its top to the floor. Take that number in inches, divide it into your favored crank length in mm and report that ratio!
Thanks.