Cadence

[Cloxxki]

The other camp is defending the easier argument. No serious cyclist "ever" trains for a month or longer with vastly longer or shorter cranks.

I once fitted a bike for 6'8" rider. Quite an athletic guy.
He came from a 26" bike with 175mm cranks, I had a customer 29"er built for him, corrected for the also custom (conservative for his meter-plus inseam) 195mm cranks.
He hated the cranks for several weeks, and was ready to put back on the 175's. Then, his legs worked it out, and it became a fit. He moved from the back to the front of his competitive riding group with that bike. A jolly giant conquering a hard core glacier expedition shortly just month later, waiting for his much shorter, all but half-weight buddies at the summits.
I'll concur, for me, longer cranks just take getting used to. Shorter cranks, are instantly OK. Just, I can't offer explosive torquey power with them.
Another friend though, 6'4" like me, went from 180mm to 200mm, and was immediately quick. Took the lead in the WC Singlespeed even, and the guy doesn't ever ride bikes, he just sells them for a living, a greater poser than myself. Talent, yes, but the cranks didn't give him problems. He felt the additional climbing torque, without less of top end spin rpm's, netting a quicker lapspeed, easy as that.
It won't be plug 'n play for everyone, but I don't see it becoming a fashion to seriously work a year on getting the proper cranklength and seat position. It's about the riding itself, after all?

 

[usedtobefast]

way back when, i was coached that spinning was the way to go. the faster you
can go in any given gear, the faster you can go, period. so that is what i did/do. although pushing a big gear just because you can, is fun too.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Doubt it. The 23-27% efficiency is from a 2009 paper. The 22-25% is often quoted because I think it is from an earlier paper. This difference probably reflects different measurement techniques or other factors. I wouldn't read too much into it.

Sorry to go on about this & i know it's a bit off topic but...."RESULTS: DE increased (P < 0.01) from 23.61 +/- 2.78% to 26.97 +/- 3.7% from the first to the fifth year". So my reading is that efficiency for 12 cyclists who have been pros for 5 years is 27 +/- 4%, not a range of 23 - 27. Which is why I say that these data don't fit the often quoted 22 - 25% range of efficiency for elite cyclists, measured in an earlier paper.

It's a good point that the difference could be due to measurement techniques. Whatever the cause of the difference, it seems large enough to indicate that the 22- 25% cycling efficiency range might be rather less accurate that previously thought....

 

[elapid]

Sorry to go on about this & i know it's a bit off topic but...."RESULTS: DE increased (P < 0.01) from 23.61 +/- 2.78% to 26.97 +/- 3.7% from the first to the fifth year". So my reading is that efficiency for 12 cyclists who have been pros for 5 years is 27 +/- 4%, not a range of 23 - 27. Which is why I say that these data don't fit the often quoted 22 - 25% range of efficiency for elite cyclists, measured in an earlier paper.

It's a good point that the difference could be due to measurement techniques. Whatever the cause of the difference, it seems large enough to indicate that the 22- 25% cycling efficiency range might be rather less accurate that previously thought....

You are right. I never intended to imply that 24-27% was the new range, just show that efficiency improves over time in professional cyclists and thus Coyle's findings on Armstrong, even if they were correct, is not actually that amazing. For this paper, the mean efficiency in the first year of testing was 23.6% and this had increased to a mean of 27.0% by the fifth year. Using the standard deviations of these averages, this would mean the range in year 1 was roughly 19.8-26.4% and 23.3-29.7% in year 5.

 

[Oldman]

way back when, i was coached that spinning was the way to go. the faster you
can go in any given gear, the faster you can go, period. so that is what i did/do. although pushing a big gear just because you can, is fun too.

It still holds true. Lost in all the technical analysis and crank-length discussions is the variety of positions used by really good racers to extend their abilities. Andy Hampsten could climb on the front of the saddle at high cadence, push back and use a bigger gear and would attack out of the saddle. His out of saddle position was a revelation: he had his pelvis pushed forward and was more on this toes. I tried this on steep hills in a smaller gear and the acceleration was improved. It left enough fresh leg fibres to drop a bigger gear hammer at the climb's crest. The end result was alot less discomfort and wear. You will note LA and Contador do the same thing.

Lemond always seemed to be flogging a bigger gear (granted I've only seen footage from WCL tapes) and got away with it until after '90. The riders he faced after that point seemed more rounded. Whether opponent's doping alone made the difference in Lemond's lack of success from that point is debatable but you rarely see a bike-wrestler succeeding as a GT climber anymore.

 

[usedtobefast]

It still holds true. Lost in all the technical analysis and crank-length discussions is the variety of positions used by really good racers to extend their abilities. Andy Hampsten could climb on the front of the saddle at high cadence, push back and use a bigger gear and would attack out of the saddle. His out of saddle position was a revelation: he had his pelvis pushed forward and was more on this toes. I tried this on steep hills in a smaller gear and the acceleration was improved. It left enough fresh leg fibres to drop a bigger gear hammer at the climb's crest. The end result was alot less discomfort and wear. You will note LA and Contador do the same thing.

Lemond always seemed to be flogging a bigger gear (granted I've only seen footage from WCL tapes) and got away with it until after '90. The riders he faced after that point seemed more rounded. Whether opponent's doping alone made the difference in Lemond's lack of success from that point is debatable but you rarely see a bike-wrestler succeeding as a GT climber anymore.

lemond did push a bigger gear. he was usually in 80rpm versus 90rpm for others. he did say so at the time, if memory serves.