^ worth reading the link to Cervelo’s article on it.
But for each of these pros, the change to a shorter crank solved a range of motion issue at the hip that allowed them to comfortably make other changes to reduce aero drag without decreasing power.
That’s the key bit for me, it’s just part of a bike fit. I’ve changed to a shorter crank (165-170mm at 34.5″ IL, hardly short but as a tweak it seemed to help) on a long-distance bike to suit a different seated position, nothing to do with aero, all about comfort over long periods. Shorter allowed me to sit and pedal effectively in a comfier position. Before that I’d been able to get comfy but felt like I lost output somehow, ie comfier meant relaxed and less pedal impetus. Yet another bike with a really laid back position is fine on 175mm, it’s a SS MTB so I stand to ride or to pedal a lot more.
I’d say it’s related to bike position and use as well as a simple leg length relationship, maybe about whether you spin or mash also, and 5mm is not really a big difference anyway.
Pinnacle specced 170mm cranks on an MTB in the larger sizes a couple of years ago, got marked down in a test and we had a suprising amount of negtive feedback on it so we went back to 175. I thought most L size MTBs would be better on 170s, tbh it wasn’t a big change or a big deal either way imo, but there seems to be a perception that 175 is correct for any male of average height or above.