The effect of 165mm cranks on pedaling biomechanics

Ever considered that rider preference and comfort might play a role in crank length choice? While 165mm cranks can offer optimal biomechanics for some, others may find longer cranks more comfortable or powerful, especially in specific disciplines like track or downhill racing. It's also possible that cyclists are hesitant to change due to familiarity and the cost of new components. Could the solution be more education on crank length selection and its impact on performance?

The insistence on 165mm cranks as the ultimate choice for all cyclists is a bit narrow-minded. Yes, they may offer benefits for some, but to claim they're the best choice for everyone is an oversimplification. Human bodies vary greatly, and what works for one person may not work for another. Perhaps the focus should be on providing a range of options to accommodate different body types and preferences. And let's not forget that cycling is not just about raw power and efficiency. Comfort and enjoyment are equally important, and sometimes, a longer crank length might just provide that extra bit of comfort.

While 165mm cranks may offer advantages for some cyclists, claiming they're the "only logical choice" disregards individual differences. Taller riders, for instance, might benefit from longer crank arms. Also, power output isn't solely determined by crank length; pedaling style, muscle composition, and bike fit play crucial roles. Mandating a single crank length could limit riders' comfort and performance.

"Think again, not so fast. Longer cranks can offer advantages, despite the 165mm hype. Taller riders or those seeking more power may benefit. It's not one-size-fits-all. Manufacturers' slow adoption may reflect this diversity in rider needs."

Y'hear that? Longer cranks can bring advantages, especially for taller riders or those after more power. Forget the 165mm hype, it's not one-size-fits-all. Manufacturers' slow adoption = they get it, different riders, different needs.

So, if longer cranks are the go-to for some taller riders, why’s that? Is it really just about the power or is there more to it? Seems like a lot of folks cling to the idea that bigger cranks equal better performance, but is that just a myth? I mean, 165mm cranks have science backing them up, so what’s the deal? Are we really looking at a situation where riders are just too stubborn to switch? And these manufacturers, are they really that slow to catch on? Or is there a money angle we’re not seeing? Like, do they think longer cranks sell better or something? It’s wild to think how many riders might be stuck in the past, ignoring what’s actually working. Gotta wonder if they even care about the evidence or just want to stick with what they know. Anyone got thoughts on how we can shake this up?

Look, longer cranks can make a difference for some. But it's not a one-size-fits-all thing. Riders got their reasons to stick with what works for 'em. Maybe it's comfort, power, or habit.

Manufacturers? They're businesses, dude. If they think longer cranks sell, they'll make 'em. If not, then nah. Don't expect 'em to rush into things.

Science matters, yeah. But so does personal preference. We gotta respect that. And maybe, just maybe, we should educate ourselves more on this topic. Share the knowledge, y'know?

But let's not be too quick to judge. Folks gotta try new things for themselves before dismissing 'em. And if you're still stuck with old cranks, well, you're missing out on some gains, mate. Just sayin'.

So, if longer cranks are still the norm for some, what’s the real reason? Is it just a comfort thing or are they totally missing the boat on efficiency? Seems like they’re ignoring the data, right? Is it stubbornness? Or are they just not aware of the science? And why aren’t bike brands pushing 165mm as the standard? Is it purely a sales tactic?

Longer cranks ain't for everyone, pal. It's not stubbornness or ignorance, it's about what feels right for different bodies. Brands got options, not just pushing one size. And y'know, comfort matters too. #varietyiskey #cyclingslang

So, if comfort's the thing, why's the industry still pushing longer cranks when there’s solid data backing 165mm? Feels like they’re stuck in a time warp, holding onto the old ways. Is it a performance myth that just won’t die, or is it more about marketing? Like, do they think if they keep cranking out these longer lengths, they'll sell more bikes? It’s wild how many riders might be caught up in that trap, not realizing they could be way more efficient. Anyone else feel like we’re just going in circles here?

Pfft, tell me about it. Industry's stuck in their ways, huh? Longer cranks ain't one-size-fits-all. Comfort matters, and it's high time they start offering real choices, not just pushing their "ideal" length. #giveusoptions #cyclingdiversity

Seriously, why are brands still shoving longer cranks on us? It's like they're stuck in a time loop, ignoring all the science. Is this just some marketing gimmick, or do they think we're that gullible? Who's buying into this nonsense? 165mm's got the data, so what's the hold-up? Do they really think we're all just gonna keep riding on dinosaur tech?