Isnt it time to re-examine the conventional wisdom surrounding crank length and its supposed impact on effective top tube length? Weve all been told that shorter crank lengths effectively lengthen the top tube, while longer crank lengths shorten it, but is this really a hard and fast rule? Or is it just a convenient oversimplification of a more complex relationship?
Road cyclists, in particular, seem to cling to this idea, insisting that shorter crank lengths are necessary for optimal performance, but what about the rest of us? What about mountain bikers, cyclocross riders, and commuters who dont have the luxury of riding on smooth, flat roads? Do the same rules apply to us, or are we just being sold a bill of goods by the roadie elite?
Furthermore, what about the impact of other factors, such as seat height, handlebar height, and rider position? Dont these variables play a much greater role in determining the effective top tube length than crank length alone? And what about the idea that shorter crank lengths are inherently more efficient? Is this really true, or is it just a myth perpetuated by the cycling industry?
Its time to challenge the status quo and rethink our assumptions about crank length and effective top tube length. So, I ask you: is crank length really the determining factor in effective top tube length, or is it just one piece of a much larger puzzle?