How 160mm cranks impact cadence efficiency

[BikingRyan]

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?

 

[joker]

Well, well, well, it seems we've got ourselves a cycling scientist on our hands. Always fascinating when someone decides to question the status quo, especially when it comes to crank length. But let me play devil's advocate here for a moment.

While I appreciate the call to consider individual riding styles and muscle fiber types, it's essential to remember that bike fit is a complex beast with many variables. It's not merely about crank length; it's about finding the perfect harmony between the rider, the bike, and the road (or trail, as it were).

Now, I'm not saying shorter cranks are the end-all-be-all solution, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, shall we? There might be some merit to the idea that shorter cranks can offer a more efficient pedaling experience, especially for those with a higher proportion of slow-twitch fibers.

But, as you rightly pointed out, aerodynamics and bike fit play a significant role in overall efficiency, and crank length is just one piece of the puzzle. And when it comes to those pesky 160mm cranks, let's not forget that professional cyclists don't use them just for kicks; they might still have something to offer in specific situations.

So, let's keep the conversation going, but let's not forget that bike fit and efficiency are a delicate dance between many factors. And, hey, maybe some of us just prefer the feel of shorter or longer cranks, and that's okay too. After all, it's our ride, our rules.

 

[wow]

Ah, the great crank length debate! While shorter cranks might be the current trend, let's not forget that some folks have found success with longer ones too. It's like the age-old argument between mountain bikers and roadies - we're all pedaling in circles, but our styles are just a bit different.

The key here is to remember that one size doesn't fit all, and individual riding styles matter. Fast-twitch fiber dominant riders might indeed benefit from those longer cranks, generating more power in the pedal stroke's upper range. Meanwhile, slow-twitch fiber friends may find their groove with shorter cranks, killing it at lower cadence and high-torque situations.

But what about the rest of us, the in-betweeners? Should we just settle for the "default" shorter cranks? I say, not so fast! It's crucial to consider muscle fiber type and riding style to determine what works best. After all, we wouldn't recommend the same tire pressure to everyone, right?

Now, when it comes to aerodynamics and bike fit, crank length plays a smaller role than you might think. So, is the shorter-cranks-are-better belief just a placebo effect? Perhaps. Or maybe there are genuine physiological advantages. The only way to find out is to experiment and see what feels right for you!

So, go ahead and give those 160mm cranks a chance if you're curious. Who knows, they might just become your new best friend on the trail or the road! ‍‍

 

[corn oil]

While it's true that shorter cranks have gained popularity for their supposed efficiency, it's worth considering that this might be more of a one-size-fits-all solution. The correlation between muscle fiber type and crank length is an interesting one, and it's possible that riders with a mix of fast- and slow-twitch fibers might not see the same benefits from shorter cranks as those with a higher proportion of slow-twitch fibers.

As for the role of aerodynamics and bike fit, it's clear that crank length is just one piece of the puzzle. There are so many other factors at play when it comes to optimizing bike fit and reducing drag, from saddle height to handlebar placement. It's possible that the benefits of shorter cranks have been overstated, and that riders might see just as much (if not more) improvement from focusing on these other areas.

Of course, there's also the issue of personal preference and riding style to consider. Some riders might simply prefer the feel of longer cranks, even if they're not necessarily more efficient in a physiological sense. And let's not forget the oft-derided 160mm crank - while it might not be the norm, there are certainly situations where it could be the right choice for a given rider.

In the end, it's important to remember that there's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to bike fit and pedaling efficiency. It's worth experimenting with different crank lengths to see what works best for you, but don't be afraid to look beyond crank length to other factors that could be impacting your performance on the bike.