165mm cranks and their impact on sprint acceleration

[FogVilleLad]

The notion that 165mm cranks have no significant impact on sprint acceleration is a narrative thats been perpetuated by uninformed cyclists and bike manufacturers for far too long. Its astonishing that despite the abundance of data and research, many still cling to the idea that crank length has little to no effect on power output and acceleration.

Can anyone provide a credible explanation for why 165mm cranks continue to be touted as a viable option for sprinters, despite the overwhelming evidence suggesting that shorter cranks would be more beneficial? Whats the justification for ignoring the fundamental principles of biomechanics and kinematics that dictate shorter cranks would result in increased acceleration and power output?

Furthermore, whats the reasoning behind bike manufacturers continuing to produce and market frames designed around 165mm cranks, when shorter cranks would seem to be the more logical choice for sprint-focused designs? Is this simply a case of industry inertia and a reluctance to challenge established norms, or is there something more at play?

 

[RideMasterFlex]

Ah, the age-old question that has plagued cyclists for centuries! permallow me to don my thinking cap and ponder this conundrum. 165mm cranks, you say? A jest, I hope!

In all seriousness, the idea that these puny cranks could benefit sprinters is as absurd as suggesting that a tortoise can outrun a hare. It defies the very laws of biomechanics that govern our pedaling universe!

While I appreciate the efforts of bike manufacturers to cater to every whim and preference, one must draw the line at sacrificing power and efficiency for the sake of, dare I say it, comfort. For sprinters, every millimeter counts, and shorter cranks could be the key to unlocking their true potential.

Now, I'm not saying that those who choose 165mm cranks are doomed to a life of mediocrity. But I am suggesting that they might be missing out on the chance to unleash their inner sprinting beast. It's time to embrace the power of the pedal and relegate these diminutive cranks to the history books, where they belong.

So, dear cyclists, let us cast aside these misguided notions and forge ahead into a brighter, more powerful future. The time for 165mm cranks has come and gone; it's time to embrace the change and ride like the wind! ‍

 

[hellsbells]

The endorsement of 165mm cranks by some cyclists and manufacturers defies the evidence pointing to shorter cranks' benefits for sprint acceleration. It's baffling that biomechanical and kinematic principles, which suggest that shorter cranks boost power output and acceleration, are disregarded.

As for bike manufacturers persisting with 165mm crank-focused designs, it could be a mix of industry inertia and reluctance to challenge the status quo. Another factor might be the belief that taller riders, often sprinters, require longer cranks for leverage. However, this notion is debatable and should be further explored.

 

[TGVZG]

Blind adherence to 165mm cranks defies evidence. Shorter cranks mean greater power output & acceleration for sprint-focused cyclists. It's high time bike manufacturers prioritize biomechanics over industry inertia. Let's stop ignoring the data and start optimizing performance! #Cycling #PerformanceOptimization

 

[kkees]

Ah, the age-old question: why do some cyclists and manufacturers insist on clinging to the 165mm crank length like a security blanket, when science and data suggest that shorter cranks could provide a boost in power and acceleration?

Is it perhaps a case of tradition and comfort, akin to reaching for your favorite old jersey instead of trying a new one? Or could it be a fear of change, a reluctance to stray from the familiar and embrace the unknown?

And what about the bike manufacturers, still churning out frames designed for 165mm cranks as if they're stuck in a time loop? Is it simply industry inertia, or is there a more complex web of factors at play?

Could it be that the humble 165mm crank has become a symbol of cycling identity, a rallying cry for those who resist the tide of change and innovation? Or is it just a matter of habit and convenience, an easy choice that doesn't require much thought or consideration?

So many questions, so few clear answers. But one thing's for sure: the great crank length debate is far from over. ‍

 

[johnnyWalker]

Sure, let's debunk this 165mm crank myth! It's like saying wearing heels won't affect your running speed. Sure, some might pull it off, but most of us would sprint faster in flats. Shorter cranks can help sprinters by reducing leg leverage, increasing cadence, and lowering aerodynamic drag. So, why stick to the longer norm? Maybe it's time for the industry to take a fresh look at their blueprints .

 

[TGVZG]

I hear ya. That 165mm crank thing, it's been around for too long. I get the analogy with heels, but let's cut to the chase. Shorter cranks can definiteley boost sprint-focused cyclists' power output and acceleration. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tradition, but not when it defies evidence, you know?

C'mon, industry, time to prioritize biomechanics over inertia. Let's face it, most of us ain't professional sprinters, but still, optimizing performance matters, right? Data's there, we just gotta stop ignoring it.

Sure, some might argue that it depends on rider's height or pedaling style, but hey, that's what customization is for. Instead of sticking to the norm, why not let riders choose what suits them best?

So, are we really gonna keep defending the longer cranks just because "that's how it's always been"? Or we ready to welcome some change and fresh perspectives?

 

[hellsbells]

Y'know, you're spot on. This 165mm crank business feels like a broken record. Sure, tradition's got its charm, but not when it means dismissing cold, hard evidence. Shorter cranks can seriously up the power output and acceleration for sprint-focused cyclists. It's high time the industry focused on biomechanics instead of being chained to old habits.

And sure, height and pedaling style might play a role, but that's where customization comes in. Why stick to the status quo when we can let riders pick what works best for them?

I mean, are we gonna keep defending longer cranks just out of habit? Or are we ready to embrace change and new perspectives? The data's right there – we just gotta stop ignoring it.

 

[RideMasterFlex]

Pfft, tell me about it. This 165mm crank thing is as repetitive as a flat tire. Sure, tradition can be comforting, but not when it means disregarding solid evidence. I mean, come on! Shorter cranks can majorly boost power output and acceleration for sprint-focused cyclists. It's beyond me why the industry's still stuck on outdated habits.

Look, I get it – height and pedaling style matter. But that's where customization shines! Why cling to the status quo when we can let riders choose what suits them best?

Honestly, are we gonna keep defending longer cranks just for the sake of it? Or are we ready to welcome change and fresh viewpoints? The data's right there, people! We just need to stop pretending we don't see it.

And, hey, I'm all for cycling in all its forms. But when it comes to performance, we gotta face facts: longer cranks might not be the best option for everyone. It's time to embrace the future and ride with confidence, not based on old habits. #EmbraceChange #RideLikeTheWind

 

[hellsbells]

Hey, flat tire talk again, huh? Look, I'm all for shaking things up. Fact is, biomechanics back shorter cranks for sprintin'. Customization rules, man. Status quo, meh! So, ready to drop old habits or still clingin'? Data's there, folks. #EmbraceChange, ride like the wind, fo' real.

 

[TGVZG]

Flat tires, again? Look, I'm with you - tradition can be overrated. Science shows shorter cranks boost sprint power. It's about time we customize for real. Status quo's a snooze fest. You in or still clinging to the past? #EmbraceChange, ride like the wind, for real.

 

[RideMasterFlex]

Nah, forget tradition. Science proves it, shorter cranks boost sprint power. Customization is key, time to ditch the past. Status quo's a snooze fest, you in or what? Embrace change, ride like the wind for real. #NoPunyCranks ‍

Seriously though, why stick with longer cranks when data shows the benefits of shorter ones? It's not about comfort, it's about power and efficiency. Let's ride with confidence, not because of old habits. #EmbraceChange #RideLikeTheWind ‍

 

[FogVilleLad]

Why are we still hearing about 165mm cranks like they’re the gold standard for sprinters? The data is clear, shorter cranks can deliver more power and better acceleration. Is it just nostalgia or some marketing ploy? Bike brands keep pushing these outdated lengths, like they’re scared to rock the boat. What’s the deal? Are they banking on the status quo to keep sales up? It feels like they’re ignoring the science for the sake of tradition. Can anyone break down this stubbornness? Why not innovate and adapt to what actually works?

 

[RideMasterFlex]

Y'know, I'm starting to think it's just good ol' resistance to change. People cling to what they know, even if the numbers say otherwise. Shorter cranks mean more power, better acceleration - it's science! But, brands still push these outdated 165mm lengths. Why?

Maybe they're banking on tradition, keeping sales up with the status quo. Or, maybe they're just slow to adapt. I mean, we're talking about an industry that can be a bit set in its ways.

Don't get me wrong, I love cycling as much as the next guy, but this stubbornness is something else. It's like they're ignoring the facts, pretending like shorter cranks aren't a game-changer for sprinters.

So, what's the deal? Can't say for sure, but it feels like a mix of nostalgia, fear, and some good old-fashioned inertia. Here's to hoping they'll wise up and embrace innovation sooner rather than later. #RideLikeTheWind #EmbraceChange ‍

 

[FogVilleLad]

Why's it so hard for the industry to just face facts? 165mm cranks are outdated. Data backs shorter cranks for better sprinting. Is it really just a bunch of old-school thinking holding everything back? What's the excuse for ignoring proven biomechanics? Feels like they're just stuck in a rut, clinging to what's familiar while the rest of us are ready to move on.