The importance of crank length to the cyclist. - Page 177 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Form & Fitness > General

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1761  
Old 02-08-13, 06:54
42x16ss's Avatar
42x16ss 42x16ss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Perth, Aus
Posts: 2,671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
Well, if you had actually read the entire thread you might have seen this chart taken from about the only scientific study on the subject of crank length (that I know of) done by Martin out of the University of Utah.

I know it isn't a lot but at least it is something. Now show me what you have to back up your statement.
I have been following this thread, for quite a while too. I still haven't seen any evidence to make me want to switch.

If you go back about 30 pages you'll find I suggested that you could come up with a convincing argument for or against by simply getting a powertap wheel and testing power output on one of your bikes with adjustable length cranks - but you won't even do that (IIRC you actually asked why I don't do it!)

You keep forgetting that you are challenging the norm, so therefore the ball is heavily in your court...

If someone comes up with a ground breaking study proving a substantial improvement with shorter cranks, backed up with real, peer reviewed data, then I and many others will happily drop 30mm or so from our cranks. Until then, I think you should understand our scepticism.
  #1762  
Old 02-08-13, 14:41
fortysixandtwo fortysixandtwo is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2
Default

How is this thread not locked in the name of science? I was poking around for some information on crank length and came across this and waded through about 30 pages before I realized it was a poor attempt to sell an unproven product. The attempt to sell a product in a thread thinly veiled as "discussion" has to be a violation of this forum's TOS. If I proposed that running a 70t chainring made you go faster, and then spammed the forum with only anecdotal evidence to promote my product, I think we'd all be in agreement the thread should be closed and I should be banned. C'mon on mods, shut it down.
  #1763  
Old 02-08-13, 18:45
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 42x16ss View Post
I have been following this thread, for quite a while too. I still haven't seen any evidence to make me want to switch.

If you go back about 30 pages you'll find I suggested that you could come up with a convincing argument for or against by simply getting a powertap wheel and testing power output on one of your bikes with adjustable length cranks - but you won't even do that (IIRC you actually asked why I don't do it!)

You keep forgetting that you are challenging the norm, so therefore the ball is heavily in your court...

If someone comes up with a ground breaking study proving a substantial improvement with shorter cranks, backed up with real, peer reviewed data, then I and many others will happily drop 30mm or so from our cranks. Until then, I think you should understand our scepticism.
But, the main benefit of going shorter for most is not more power but the ability to get better aerodynamics for the time trialist. How on earth do you do that by "simply getting a powertap wheel and testing power output on one of your bikes with adjustable length cranks."

Further, isn't that essentially what Martin did in his study? It would appear that if he had 2-3 times more subjects in that study he would have reached a statistically significant difference between 145 and 170, what would you be saying then? Anyhow, why do I need to repeat Martin's study with N=1?

We are all different when it comes to how much "evidence" it takes to make us change what we are doing. The lack of convincing evidence either way is all the more reason to discuss a subject. Perhaps such discussions will get some researchers off their bottoms and get some good evidence to definitely answer the question. Until then those who are unwilling to experiment on themselves to see what is best for them are "guessing" as to what is best for them.

Last edited by FrankDay; 02-08-13 at 18:52.
  #1764  
Old 02-09-13, 02:25
hiero2's Avatar
hiero2 hiero2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In Descartes' reality
Posts: 2,624
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fortysixandtwo View Post
How is this thread not locked in the name of science? I was poking around for some information on crank length and came across this and waded through about 30 pages before I realized it was a poor attempt to sell an unproven product. The attempt to sell a product in a thread thinly veiled as "discussion" has to be a violation of this forum's TOS. If I proposed that running a 70t chainring made you go faster, and then spammed the forum with only anecdotal evidence to promote my product, I think we'd all be in agreement the thread should be closed and I should be banned. C'mon on mods, shut it down.
You know - I had a similar thought myself, a long time ago, before I was mod. I'll take a look at this again, I will. However, in the meantime - remember we (as in you, I, or Joe Shmoe) can also start threads to discuss the topic.
__________________
It is of great use to the sailor to know the length of his line, though he cannot with it fathom all the depths of the ocean. ~ John Locke
  #1765  
Old 02-09-13, 10:13
Alex Simmons/RST's Avatar
Alex Simmons/RST Alex Simmons/RST is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiero2 View Post
You know - I had a similar thought myself, a long time ago, before I was mod. I'll take a look at this again, I will. However, in the meantime - remember we (as in you, I, or Joe Shmoe) can also start threads to discuss the topic.
You could also think of it as the garbage collection thread. Put a lid on it and the trash will start to pile up elsewhere....
  #1766  
Old 02-09-13, 15:58
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiero2 View Post
Quote:
How is this thread not locked in the name of science?
You know - I had a similar thought myself, a long time ago, before I was mod. I'll take a look at this again, I will. However, in the meantime - remember we (as in you, I, or Joe Shmoe) can also start threads to discuss the topic.
You know, if a thread is to be locked "in the name of science" you would only be able to discuss pretty much nothing. So much for the forum. If everything were scientifically proven there would be no need to discuss anything. Can you name one thing in cycling (aside from, perhaps, if one trains more one is likely to get better as long as they don't get injured doing so) in which one idea has been scientifically proven to be superior to another. I am not aware of any scientific proof that doing any of the following will make one a better or faster cyclist:

1. getting and using a power meter in training or racing
2. getting and using a HRM in training or racing.
3. getting a coach
4. using any particular supplement
5. using or not using strength training as a supplement
6. getting a bike fit let alone that one bike fit philosophy is superior to another
7. the superiority of any of the myriad crank length formula's out there
8. etc., etc., etc.

Scientific proof of any concept as complicated as bicycle racing is very difficult to obtain because of the need to control for all of the variables. The fact that scientific proof does not exist is not proof that a concept is invalid. So, we continue to see post after post of someone coming to this site saying "what is the best thing I can do to get fast?" and one of the more common responses is "get a power meter". No one objects to the "lack of science" in those threads because the answers conform to the current, unproven but generally accepted, bias

It just blows me away that some of these folks get their panties in a bunch when they see a "scientific study" on my device involving part-time use lasting 5-6 weeks that doesn't follow the manufacturers directions. I will admit that anyone who expects to see benefit from training with PowerCranks in 5-6 weeks of part-time use before they give up on them would be better off not getting them at all. Some here consider those studies "scientific proof" of the inadequacy of the product. I don't. Neither do thousands of very happy users. But, those happy users don't constitute scientific proof. Neither do the happy users of any other training or racing device.

Anyhow, I am somewhat appalled that you, as a moderator, would even consider this request based upon the science. These threads would be much better (I doubt we would be above 100 posts and off the front page a long time ago) if you would simply ban those who only know how to respond with personal attacks. Where is the science there? Your consideration of this is especially troubling in view of the fact that I have been told that several of the "big boys" either are manufacturing shorter cranks now (Rotor) or expect to soon be manufacturing shorter cranks. Something must be making them do this but, I suspect, it sure as heck is not the naysayers who hang out here. Will you still ban crank length discussions when Shimano starts making 150 mm cranks? Or, is it only my input that is troubling?

Last edited by FrankDay; 02-09-13 at 16:22.
  #1767  
Old 02-09-13, 16:34
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
You know, if a thread is to be locked "in the name of science" you would only be able to discuss pretty much nothing.
Would have to look at the history of the poster. You have started numerous Spam threads in various forums and have been banned from several forums.

Quote:
1. getting and using a power meter in training or racing
There is actually plenty of evidence that a power meter does indeed measure power.

Quote:
2. getting and using a HRM in training or racing.
Ditto

Quote:
3. getting a coach
Again a testable hypothesis and a large amount of research on various coaching syles in just the same way there is a volume of research on different teaching approaches.

Quote:
4. using any particular supplement
Huge volume of research. BJSM publish a review of current supplement research in every issue.

Quote:
5. using or not using strength training as a supplement
Again a volume of research.

Quote:
6. getting a bike fit let alone that one bike fit philosophy is superior to another
Okay, not a huge amount of research but most aspects have been covered to some degree.

Quote:
7. the superiority of any of the myriad crank length formula's out there
Again very well covered, but I guess ignorance is bliss.

Quote:
Scientific proof of any concept as complicated as bicycle racing is very difficult to obtain because of the need to control for all of the variables. The fact that scientific proof does not exist is not proof that a concept is invalid. So, we continue to see post after post of someone coming to this site saying "what is the best thing I can do to get fast?" and one of the more common responses is "get a power meter". No one objects to the "lack of science" in those threads because the answers conform to the current, unproven but generally accepted, bias
Again well proven that a power meter, does indeed measure power in much the same way a scale measures weight, a HR monitor does measure heart rate and a stopwatch measures time.

Quote:
It just blows me away that some of these folks get their panties in a bunch when they see a "scientific study" on my device involving part-time use lasting 5-6 weeks that doesn't follow the manufacturers directions. I will admit that anyone who expects to see benefit from training with PowerCranks in 5-6 weeks of part-time use before they give up on them would be better off not getting them at all. Some here consider those studies "scientific proof" of the inadequacy of the product. I don't. Neither do thousands of very happy users. But, those happy users don't constitute scientific proof. Neither do the happy users of any other training or racing device.
Plenty of evidence that physiological adaptations to exercise occur in a matter of seconds to hours and huge adaptations can be made in weeks and that after 5-6 weeks most regimes start to plateau and the training stimulus needs to be varied.

Quote:
Or, is it only my input that is troubling?
Look at the pattern of offending!
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

Power Meters like Powercranks don't improve performance one bit. But at least with a Power Meter you can see yourself not improving because of it
  #1768  
Old 02-10-13, 02:00
M Sport's Avatar
M Sport M Sport is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 616
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
These threads would be much better (I doubt we would be above 100 posts and off the front page a long time ago) if you would simply ban those who only know how to respond with personal attacks.
The common denominator in the personal attacks is you, Frank. That's why you have been banned from nearly every cycling message board you have tried to pedal your GimmickCranks in.
__________________
Lo Sceriffo - To call him the Fabian Cancellara of his day would be more accurate when Fabian wins yet another Paris-Roubaix, a few more classics, the World Championship road race, a Grand Tour and continues to kick @rse for another five years. - Velominati
  #1769  
Old 02-10-13, 02:29
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Sport View Post
The common denominator in the personal attacks is you, Frank. That's why you have been banned from nearly every cycling message board you have tried to pedal your GimmickCranks in.
If this is all you have to offer to this thread on crank length you make my point. I simply don't understand why you all think I am bothered by this stuff such that I might go away. I am quite comfortable in my knowledge and opinions which is what I try to discuss on these threads. If you actually have some facts to present that might bring me around to your view please present them. Either way, thanks for participating I guess.
  #1770  
Old 02-10-13, 03:00
M Sport's Avatar
M Sport M Sport is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 616
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
If this is all you have to offer to this thread on crank length you make my point. I simply don't understand why you all think I am bothered by this stuff such that I might go away. .....
I have posted pieces from various studies in this thread since 2011, I noticed one just circled back into discussion a couple of days ago. You are such an ignorant c<nt though you don't take any notice of what other posters may contribute, you just carry on with the sales pitch of your sh1thouse GimmickCranks and Freds that ride them.

You want a scientific discussion but don't want to do the study to prove your crack pot hypothesis.
__________________
Lo Sceriffo - To call him the Fabian Cancellara of his day would be more accurate when Fabian wins yet another Paris-Roubaix, a few more classics, the World Championship road race, a Grand Tour and continues to kick @rse for another five years. - Velominati
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:15.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.