Originally Posted by
Wesley36
I run 155mm cranks, and I love them. Advocates of short cranks cite the following advantages:
(a) more RPMs for the same foot speed (pedaling in smaller circles)
(b) knee flexion - this is probably the main reason I have come across. If one does squats, it becomes very clear that when the knees are flexed beyond 90 degrees one loses power as opposed to when the knees not flexed beyond 90 degrees. The idea with short cranks is that one can apply power more efficiently throughout the pedal stroke, as opposed to having a zone of the pedal stroke where one's knees are excessively flexed and therefore unable of generating the same power. Further, deep knee flexion aggravates knee problems for many (especially those with problems related to muscles or connective tissue).
Interestingly, testing with power output and different crank lengths shows the highest power output at 145mm
(see http://www.powercranks.com/cld.html), although the difference between 145 and 170 is not statistically significant.
No, it didn't.
Originally Posted by
Wesley36
Interestingly, testing with power output and different crank lengths shows the highest power output at 145mm (see http://www.powercranks.com/cld.html), although the difference between 145 and 170 is not statistically significant.
Because of this. If it lacks statistical difference, it's not different.
All this "study" shows, if anything, is that 145 and 170mm cranks are both different in power output from 120 and 220mm cranks, and NOT different from each other.
Science is a mutha...