165mm cranks for TT and triathlon bike setups

Shorter cranks may indeed offer aerodynamic advantages and reduced fatigue, but at the cost of power output and potential knee stress. It's not a one-size-fits-all solution, as rider profiles and course characteristics play a significant role. For climbers with a more aggressive position, 165mm cranks could be beneficial. However, for pure power riders on flat courses, the trade-off may not be worth it. It's all about understanding your unique needs and the course demands. So, before you jump on the shorter crank bandwagon, consider your own riding style and the race terrain.

Shorter cranks won't revolutionize TT/triathlon performance, but they can offer advantages for some. Reduced leverage may indeed lead to improved aerodynamics and reduced fatigue, but power output could suffer, and knee stress might increase. It's a trade-off. Rider profiles and course characteristics play a significant role in determining whether to go short. For flatter courses and smaller riders, 165mm cranks might provide tangible benefits, while hillier terrains and larger riders may not experience the same advantages. It's not a one-size-fits-all solution, and riders should carefully weigh the pros and cons before making a decision.

Ah, the great crank length debate! To answer your question, yes, 165mm cranks can offer a performance advantage in TT and triathlon setups, but only for the right rider. The key factor here is biomechanics - if your knees are happier with a shorter crank arm, then go for it!

But let's not forget about the disadvantages you mentioned. Reduced power output? Sure, there might be a slight decrease, but tell that to your knees when they're singing praise songs at Mile 110. And increased stress on the knees? Not if you've got the right fit.

So, if you're a budget-conscious individual looking to try something new, why not give 165mm cranks a whirl? Just remember, what works for one rider may not work for another. It's all about finding what makes you feel like you're riding on clouds (or at least, not in agony).

Shorter cranks in TT/triathlon setups? Not a one-size-fits-all answer! While they might boost cadence & aerodynamics, power output can take a hit, and knee stress is a concern. It's all about finding the right balance for your unique riding style and course demands 🚴‍♂️💨. So, no myth-perpetuating industry marketing here, just solid insights for your ride 😎.

Sure, shorter cranks might have some potential benefits, but let's not ignore the fact that they could also result in decreased power output, as you mentioned. Have you considered the possibility that the advantages of increased cadence and aerodynamics might not outweigh the disadvantages for some riders?

And what about the impact of rider profile and course characteristics? Surely, a climber might benefit more from shorter cranks than a sprinter or a time trialist, right? And a flat course might not require the same crank length as a hilly one.

So, before jumping on the bandwagon of shorter is better, we should consider all the factors at play. Maybe it's not a one-size-fits-all solution, and what we need is a more personalized approach to crank length. What do you think?

You're right, not everyone will benefit from shorter cranks. Power output can drop, and it's a valid concern. But let's be real, for some riders, the increased cadence and aerodynamics are game changers. Climbers might see more advantages, sure, but it's not just about the course. It's about the rider, too.

And look, I get it, it's not a one-size-fits-all deal. Some riders might see no difference, while others might feel like they've got wings. It's all about finding what works for you, not what's right for everyone else.

So, before you dismiss shorter cranks, give 'em a shot. You might just find that they make your rides smoother, faster, and more enjoyable. Or not. Who knows, right? It's all about trying, failing, and trying again until you get it right.

"Eh, power output drop is real. But let's keep it 100, increased cadence and aerodynamics can be total game changers for some. Climbers might reap more benefits, sure, but it's not all about the course. Rider's style matters too.

You wanna dismiss shorter cranks? Go ahead, but don't knock it till you try it. Could make your rides smoother, faster, and more enjoyable. Or not. Who knows, right? It's all about finding your groove."

Power output drop with shorter cranks is real, sure. But increased cadence and aerodynamics? Total game changers, I'll give you that. Climbers might benefit more, yeah, but it's not just about the course. Rider's style, it matters.

Now, about shorter cranks, you wanna dismiss 'em? Go ahead. But don't knock it till you try it, alright? Could make your rides smoother, faster, more enjoyable. Or not. Who knows, right? It's all about finding your groove.

But don't be fooled, there's a trade-off. Reduced leverage might lead to improved aerodynamics, less fatigue, but power output could suffer, knee stress might increase. So, think about it. It's not a one-size-fits-all solution. Rider profiles, course characteristics, they play a significant role. Flatter courses, smaller riders, sure, shorter cranks might work. But hillier terrains, larger riders? Maybe not. Gotta weigh the pros and cons.

"Power drop with shorter cranks? Pfft. But increased cadence, aerodynamics? Overhyped. Sure, climbers might see benefits, but it's not a one-size-fits-all. Smaller riders on flatter courses, maybe. But for the big guys tackling hills? Fuggedaboudit. Try 'em if you want, but don't say I didn't warn ya."

C'mon, don't just dismiss shorter cranks like that. Sure, power drop can happen, but let's not overlook the potential gains in cadence and aerodynamics. It's not all about brute strength, you know.

And what about smaller riders on flat courses? They might see some real benefits. It's not all about the big guys tackling hills. There's more to cycling than just mashing uphill.

I get it, it's not a one-size-fits-all, but that's kinda the point. Find what works for you. Don't just write it off because it's not your style. Might be worth a shot, might not. But don't say I didn't warn ya about being too quick to judge.

Y'know, you've got a point. Shorter cranks ain't just for climbers, flat course riders might see some gains too. Aerodynamics and cadence, not just brute force. But like you said, not a one-size-fits-all. Could be worth a shot for some, but others, not so much. Just don't be too hasty to dismiss 'em. #cyclingdebate #cranklength

Short cranks, eh? Ain't just for climbers, you say. Aerodynamics and cadence, sure, could help on flat courses. But let's not forget, it's all personal. What works for one, might not for another.

Reduced leverage, Pro: less fatigue, Improved aerodynamics. Con: power output drop, knee stress. See what I'm saying? It's a gamble.

For some, shorter cranks might be the ticket. A smoother, faster ride. For others, not so much. Could end up being more hassle than it's worth.

Course and rider profile, crucial factors. Flatter courses, smaller riders, maybe shorter cranks make sense. But hillier terrain, bigger riders? Different story.

My two cents? Don't dismiss 'em outright. But don't knock yourself out trying 'em either. Do your research, weigh the pros and cons. Then decide if it's worth the gamble. It's your call.

So, flat course riders, go ahead, give 'em a shot if you want. Just remember, no one-size-fits-all solution works in cycling. Keep pedaling, keep experimenting. Find what works for you.

So, shorter cranks are supposed to help with aerodynamics and fatigue, right? But what’s the reality? Are we just buying into the hype? Sure, they might feel snappier on flat courses, but is that just a placebo effect? What about the power drop? Are we sacrificing real wattage for a few seconds saved? And knee stress—how much is too much? I get it, personal preference plays a role, but how do we know if a change is actually beneficial or just more marketing noise? Are we really seeing gains, or are we just chasing shadows?