It was expected that increments in CAL would result in decrements in Min joint angles, and increments in joint ROM (if the seat height was controlled). However, the reverse was found for
the ankle angle (i.e., increment in Min and decrement in ROM) with increments in CAL. This unexpected trend, in conjunction with a significant increment in the Min ankle angle between
the 145 mm and 180 mm CAL (from 87.8 deg [i.e., a dorsiflexed position] to 91.5 degrees [i.e., a plantar flexed position]) may be attributed to: (1) insufficient flexibility of the ankle and/or
physical constraints/limitations to dorsiflex (due to the structure of the ankle joint) as the CAL is increased; (2) greater ankle force production potential (in a more effective portion/range of
the force-length curve) as the Min ankle joint angle increases (from a dorsiflexed position to a plantar flexed one); and (3) increased ankle joint angles to a plantar flexed position (with
longer CALs) which alters the joint angles to allow the larger hip and knee muscles to more effectively produce force (i.e., changes the length of the hip and knee muscles so it is in a
more effective portion of the tension-length curve to produce force). This appears to be supported by the result that a systematic increase of 35 mm in CAL from 110-250 mm did not
result in an equivalent systematic decrease in Min knee angle. In fact, with each change in CAL by 35 mm (from 110 to 145 to 180 to 215 to 250 mm), the minimum knee angle decreased
14.5, 13.3, 11.1, and 7.3 degrees, respectively. Further investigations in this area are required to understand the relationship between CAL, joint angles, muscle length, force/torque
production and cycling performance.