DarkSpeedWorks wrote:
ericMPro wrote:
Are you finding power losses across the spectrum or just at threshold? The benefits of short cranks usually outweigh any perceived losses for long course races at submaximal efforts.Is there any evidence (anecdotal, peer reviewed, or otherwise) that shorter cranks have no benefit, negative benefit, or less benefit, on shorter courses like, say, a 40 km TT at near maximal effort?
I wouldn’t frame it that way. Stop saying “shorter” and start using “optimal”.
Everyone can be on optimal length cranks, but only elites are on elite crank lengths.
IOW we should copy elites because of their optimalness, not because of the length.
In my personal work, I see 10% like shorter cranks and increase power, 80% like shorter cranks and have no power change, 5% dislike shorter cranks despite positive or neutral power, and 5% dislike shorter cranks and have a loss of power.
My theory is that when you’re riding at 65% of FTP, you can have whatever position you want, ie the most aerodynamic one, so the longer the race the lower you go, which is counter intuitive. IOW your power usage spectrum is not linear. Your position or cranks might cost you 5% of FTP but 0% of IM power.
YMMV.
E
Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting
“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”