If short cranks are supposed to reduce fatigue on long rides, why do so many professional cyclists still opt for standard crank lengths, and whats the actual scientific basis for this supposed benefit, or is it just another marketing gimmick to sell more expensive bike parts to amateur riders who dont know any better.
Is it possible that the perceived benefits of short cranks are actually just a result of riders being forced to adopt a more efficient pedaling style, rather than any inherent advantage of the shorter crank length itself.
And if short cranks really do reduce fatigue, why dont we see more riders using them in high-intensity events like criteriums and track racing, where fatigue is just as much of a factor as it is on long endurance rides.
Can anyone provide some actual data or studies to support the claim that short cranks reduce fatigue, or is this just another example of the cycling industrys tendency to perpetuate unsubstantiated myths and misconceptions.