Can shorter cranks really be the magic bullet in reducing cardiac drift during Zone 2 rides, or is this just another case of cyclists chasing marginal gains in all the wrong places. It seems to me that the relationship between crank length and cardiac drift is more nuanced than many are willing to admit, and that other factors such as rider position, bike fit, and even pedal stroke technique may play a far greater role in mitigating cardiac drift than crank length alone.
Furthermore, isnt it possible that shorter cranks may actually exacerbate cardiac drift in certain situations, such as when riding in hilly or mountainous terrain, where the need to maintain a consistent cadence and generate high levels of power is paramount. And what about the potential drawbacks of shorter cranks, such as reduced leverage and decreased efficiency at high speeds - are these not factors that need to be taken into account when considering the potential benefits of shorter cranks.
Id love to hear from anyone who has done extensive testing and experimentation with different crank lengths, and who can provide some hard data and real-world insights into the relationship between crank length and cardiac drift. Is it really worth sacrificing the potential benefits of longer cranks in pursuit of a marginal reduction in cardiac drift, or are there other, more effective ways to achieve this goal.