The importance of crank length to the cyclist. - Page 136 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Form & Fitness > General

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1351  
Old 05-01-12, 23:35
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by acoggan View Post
And, while individual differences clearly exist, general guiding principles (e.g., keep your legs close together) can still be stated, thus saving people from wasting a lot of time chasing uninformed speculations.
Excellent advice. It's why when I go into the tunnel to test individuals I am guided by those general principles and the time is spent working on fine tuning.

It's also why I don't experiment with crank length as the research suggest's it's not worth the time. Especially when there are areas that provide far greater improvement (see reviews from Jeukendrup and Faria).
__________________
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
  #1352  
Old 05-01-12, 23:58
Martin318is's Avatar
Martin318is Martin318is is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,002
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
Which is why you shouldn't be participating in these threads devoted to some of these anecdotes. Further, if your understanding of the science can't explain all of the observations being made then you shouldn't be here pretending that your understanding is complete and coming here criticizing those of us trying to discuss some of these more "off the wall" things.
Strange logic there. If a group of people are discussing a topic that is new to them and their understanding of the topic is lacking information that you have, wouldn't you consider it helpful to provide that information?

The alternative - that you appear to be arguing - is that only unproven theories can be discussed in this thread and that anyone with real knowledge on the topic should stay away...
__________________
No, I am not a Moderator on CyclingNews - stop bothering me!

http://velorooms.com

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastersracer
Ironically, statistical studies confirm (with statistical significance!) that people who make these sorts of claims about statistics have an IQ at least 2 standard deviations below the mean.
  #1353  
Old 05-02-12, 01:33
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin318is View Post
Strange logic there. If a group of people are discussing a topic that is new to them and their understanding of the topic is lacking information that you have, wouldn't you consider it helpful to provide that information?
Ah yes, if only that would happen, someone with the knowledge of Dr. Coggan would actually come into one of these discussions and provide helpful information. But, that isn't what he does. I refer to him as an academic bully. He will come in and make some cryptic comment implying that someone with a certain point of view is not only wrong but stupid. After several tries to get him to expand on why he thinks that he will generally post some graph that has not context (as he did in this thread) or tell people to go google something (as he did in this thread, something that google doesn't seem to find in this instance) or post a bunch of links to scientific articles, without any explanation. The problem is, if anyone has the background to go read and understand this stuff (as I do) and they go look at what he is referring too one finds that these references hardly ever address the specific issue being discussed or that Dr. Coggan has over interpreted what the paper says or, sometime, completely misinterpreted what the paper says. If one wants to discuss the nuances of these papers with him he just disappears. I happen to have an engineering and science background, and a medicine background with a special emphasis in metabolism and physiology (especially cardio/pulmonary physiology) and, having been an endurance athlete (albeit not an elite one), a passing interest in sports physiology and performance. Dr. Coggan doesn't like it that I want to discuss the details regarding his point of view so he seems to have decided that it is more effective to simply call me stupid.
Quote:

The alternative - that you appear to be arguing - is that only unproven theories can be discussed in this thread and that anyone with real knowledge on the topic should stay away...
Phoeey, why would I argue that? I am interested in learning, if I wasn't I would keep my musings to myself. But, it is not enough for Dr. Coggan to come here and say: "trust me, this is the way it is", especially when he doesn't seem to understand what the question actually being asked was. Especially in a thread where one is speculating about the possibilities of doing something radically different. (If Coggan were advising Valery Brumel he would be saying "ignore that crazy Fosbury fellow, what he is doing hasn't been proven. The barrel roll is king (and technique doesn't matter anyway)") According to Dr. Coggan (and a few others) speculation and discussion is not allowed.

This is a thread about crank length and how it affects the cyclist. So, if Dr. Coggan has any "real knowledge" on the issue of crank length and all the ways it affects the cyclist let him come here and tell us in language we can all understand what that "real knowledge" is and what science it is based on. If he wants to participate let him actually add to the discussion instead of sniping. Otherwise, I will continue to push him for details and call him out as being the academic bully I believe him to be.
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer
  #1354  
Old 05-02-12, 01:44
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,293
Default

Don't elevate yourself to the level of the true innovators of this world Frank.

You are only here to sell units and this has been a wildly amusing spam thread.

Your only scientific endeavour was to manipulate the data to support your theory on aerodynamics and you couldn't even do that right.

The evidence against your claim's has been presented here several times. Sorry you choose to bury your head in the sand.

I welcome Andy's frankness!
__________________
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
  #1355  
Old 05-02-12, 03:22
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
Especially in a thread where one is speculating about the possibilities of doing something radically different. (If Coggan were advising Valery Brumel he would be saying "ignore that crazy Fosbury fellow, what he is doing hasn't been proven. The barrel roll is king (and technique doesn't matter anyway)")
What do you think happened when Fosbury did that jump. Biomechanists everywhere had a little orgasm and then started to study the technique and concluded it was a better than the scissor kick.

Just the same as when people researched crank length the current data would suggest this is a dead end in terms of investing time. Funny how the only person flogging this dead horse just happens to market cranks with adjustable length.
__________________
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
  #1356  
Old 05-02-12, 11:09
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
What do you think happened when Fosbury did that jump. Biomechanists everywhere had a little orgasm and then started to study the technique and concluded it was a better than the scissor kick.

But not before saying, if this technique is permitted we will have high jumpers around the world breaking their necks. Typical negative attitude.
In Anquetil's case, they could not study it because it revealed absolutely nothing, so the negative attitude continues today and attributes his TT success to everything but technique.
  #1357  
Old 05-02-12, 12:19
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
Aero is important.

Perhaps if you asked questions that had any relevance to form or fitness people would respond.


Aero did not result from "cycling research", it arose from work done by Boone Lennon in the triathlete camp. Until then cyclists, scientists and coaches were content with their shoulder bars and low profile TT bikes. What distinguishes a cycling coach from an athletic coach, not forgetting that pedaling technique is ignored and considered unimportant.
  #1358  
Old 05-02-12, 12:56
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by acoggan View Post
I thought my explanation was perfectly clear: the reason that things haven't changed is that, from an evolutionary perspective, humans haven't changed .


As Frank says, why can't you give a straight answer. What you are saying is, you believe it is impossible for the human body to apply max torque at 12 o'c when in the natural racing seated position? Which is why scientists including Martin wasted research time and still continue to waste it, attempting to create and perfect equipment that could partially compensate for this inability. The fact is, it is as easy if not easier to apply max torque at 12 than at 3 o'c while in that position.
  #1359  
Old 05-02-12, 15:10
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by acoggan View Post
I thought my explanation was perfectly clear: the reason that things haven't changed is that, from an evolutionary perspective, humans haven't changed .
In the history of human evolution, how long have humans been riding bicycles? What does human evolution have to do with how we ride or should ride bicycles? All evolution has done is determine what we have to work with when trying to figure out the best thing to do.
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer
  #1360  
Old 05-02-12, 15:25
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post

Just the same as when people researched crank length the current data would suggest this is a dead end in terms of investing time. Funny how the only person flogging this dead horse just happens to market cranks with adjustable length.

Frank is attempting to expand on Martin's research results by using them to improve the aerodynamic position of a rider without hindering performance. What's wrong with that ? On the other hand, I ask the question which A Coggan failed to answer, why do the longer cranks in the 145/195 range not improve performance? because it is not what one would expect to find. I believe that, like the dead spot sector, this could be directly linked to the pedaling technique used. I don't see it as a dead horse.
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 11:52.


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.