Can a 10-15mm reduction in crank length actually increase power output in Zone 2 by optimizing the riders muscle recruitment patterns and reducing the risk of overstriding, or is this just another example of cyclings obsession with marginal gains at the expense of real-world performance benefits.
Theres been a lot of discussion lately about the potential benefits of shorter cranks, particularly in the context of time trialing and triathlon, where riders are often forced to adopt an aerodynamic position that can compromise their pedaling mechanics. Proponents of shorter cranks argue that by reducing the distance between the riders foot and the center of the pedal rotation, they can reduce the energy wasted on hip and knee flexion, and instead focus on generating torque through their ankle and foot.
But is this really the case, or are we just seeing another example of the placebo effect at work. Some riders swear by the benefits of shorter cranks, but others claim that they make no difference whatsoever, and that any perceived benefits are purely psychological.
From a biomechanical perspective, its clear that shorter cranks do alter the riders pedaling mechanics, particularly in terms of the muscle recruitment patterns and joint angles involved. But whats less clear is whether these changes actually translate into real-world performance benefits, particularly in the context of Zone 2 riding, where the rider is already operating at a relatively high level of intensity.
So, Id love to hear from anyone whos experimented with shorter cranks and seen a measurable improvement in their power output, particularly in Zone 2. What kind of improvements did you see, and how did you measure them. And for those who are skeptical of the benefits of shorter cranks, what are your arguments against their use.