The conventional wisdom surrounding crank length and its impact on cadence efficiency is often touted as an absolute, with shorter cranks supposedly providing a more efficient pedaling experience. However, as a group, we seem to be forgetting that 160mm cranks have been used by numerous professional cyclists, particularly in the mountain biking world, with seemingly positive results.
Whats often overlooked is the correlation between crank length, muscle fiber type, and individual riding style. For instance, some riders with a greater proportion of fast-twitch fibers may actually benefit from longer cranks, as they are better suited to generating power in the upper range of the pedal stroke.
In contrast, riders with a higher proportion of slow-twitch fibers may indeed find shorter cranks more efficient, as they tend to excel at lower-cadence, high-torque efforts. But what about the riders who fall somewhere in between? Are we doing a disservice to these individuals by recommending shorter cranks as the default?
Furthermore, as we delve into the realm of aerodynamics and bike fit, it becomes increasingly clear that crank length plays a minor role in determining overall efficiency. So, is the supposed benefit of shorter cranks simply a placebo effect, or are there actual physiological advantages to be gained?
Id love to hear your thoughts on this topic, particularly from those whove experimented with different crank lengths and riding styles. Do you think the benefits of shorter cranks are overstated, or are there legitimate reasons why theyve become the de facto standard? And what about the oft-derided 160mm crank - is it truly a relic of the past, or can it still hold its own in certain situations?