The crank length thread

[FrankDay]

Thaks for proving my point. So if Greg Lemond proved that an aerodynamic position gives an advantage, now maybe you can prove that your pedaling technique is an advantage.
Everybody is looking for an edge and you are claiming to have one. There is away to prove it.

Actually, he as an individual doesn't have the ability to prove anything. All he can say is I did this and X happened and I believe X happened because I did this. Proof requires a formal study normally done by someone with no interest in the outcome. Actually, it normally requires more than one formal study. Coapman surely could provide better data than he does which might interest people in studying the idea but it is not possible for him to prove the efficacy of his idea with any scientific rigor. Those of you asking him to do so clearly do not understand the process.

People copy what the winner of the TDF does regardless of whether there is any proof of efficacy of any specific thing. No thinking required to do that.

 

[elapid]

Actually, he as an individual doesn't have the ability to prove anything. All he can say is I did this and X happened and I believe X happened because I did this. Proof requires a formal study normally done by someone with no interest in the outcome. Actually, it normally requires more than one formal study. Coapman surely could provide better data than he does which might interest people in studying the idea but it is not possible for him to prove the efficacy of his idea with any scientific rigor. Those of you asking him to do so clearly do not understand the process.

People copy what the winner of the TDF does regardless of whether there is any proof of efficacy of any specific thing. No thinking required to do that.

We understand the process. However, researchers design and perform studies in their area of interest. If we did not do this, then work and life wouldn't be much fun. We do not have this level of interest in coapman's theory because we do not believe in the basic fundamentals of his theory. The burden of proof is with coapman, whether he does the research himself or sponsors this research. The acceptance of any research is dependent on study design and repeatibility of results. If coapman had a well-designed study which showed a difference in performance, then his results may spark enough interest for someone else to repeat his study and verify his results. However, his unwillingness to test his own theory reinforces our skepticism and your insistence that someone else should perform this research deliberately removes your and himself from the responsibility of proving your theories and hence these innane debates continue unabated.

 

[veganrob]

actually, he as an individual doesn't have the ability to prove anything. All he can say is i did this and x happened and i believe x happened because i did this. Proof requires a formal study normally done by someone with no interest in the outcome. Actually, it normally requires more than one formal study. Coapman surely could provide better data than he does which might interest people in studying the idea but it is not possible for him to prove the efficacy of his idea with any scientific rigor. Those of you asking him to do so clearly do not understand the process.

people copy what the winner of the tdf does regardless of whether there is any proof of efficacy of any specific thing. No thinking required to do that.

This is a false statement and you know it. There are always going to be some people that wil do what TdF winner does but there is way more knowledge out here now as far as training, nutrition, fitting, that actual studies have been done and proven that people will not blindly follow one TdF winner. TdF winners are freakish great athletes and not mortals like us. No comparison.
You may be banking on the sheep with your PC's without having done any studies. What are you and coapman afraid of. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose, right. Or do you?

 

[ustabe]

So, despite the lack of data supporting the theory that pedaling technique can make you go faster or longer, I'm sure that to a man (or woman), everyone on this forum does some combination of foot-scraping, football-kicking, ankling, pulling up, unweighting, or pedaling circles that they believe gives them whatever they need to ride with the peloton, ride all day, climb mountains, or at least prevent injury. Is there any data that says simple mashing is just as effective? And if mashing is effective, should it be done at high, medium, or low RPM, and with or without the feet attached to the pedals?

 

[CoachFergie]

So, despite the lack of data supporting the theory that pedaling technique can make you go faster or longer, I'm sure that to a man (or woman), everyone on this forum does some combination of foot-scraping, football-kicking, ankling, pulling up, unweighting, or pedaling circles that they believe gives them whatever they need to ride with the peloton, ride all day, climb mountains, or at least prevent injury. Is there any data that says simple mashing is just as effective? And if mashing is effective, should it be done at high, medium, or low RPM, and with or without the feet attached to the pedals?

I ride my bike. Others who try and overcomplicate this are trying to sell you something.

 

[FrankDay]

[/size][/SIZE]
[/size]This is a false statement and you know it. There are always going to be some people that wil do what TdF winner does but there is way more knowledge out here now as far as training, nutrition, fitting, that actual studies have been done and proven that people will not blindly follow one TdF winner. TdF winners are freakish great athletes and not mortals like us. No comparison.
You may be banking on the sheep with your PC's without having done any studies. What are you and coapman afraid of. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose, right. Or do you?

If you say so.

Hmmmm. I wonder why so many bike and bike component manufacturers are scrambling to pay millions of dollars to get TDF teams to ride/use their equipment. Couldn't be because it helps sales despite zero evidence of efficacy, other than race results? When Lance was dominating did Trek sales soar because Trek was a better bike? Was everyone trying to ride with higher cadences because it had been shown higher cadences was superior? In this very thread it has been pointed out that if shorter cranks were superior why aren't the Pros riding them? IMHO, cyclists, in general, are a bunch of sheep. They would prefer to look fast and be part of the group than to actually be fast.

But, you are right, there is zero scientific evidence of my contention. I apologize for bringing it up.

 

[coapman]

Not true. In 1988 I was beaten into third place at the Canterbury 40km TT Champs by two riders using Triathlon Bars down in little old New Zealand.

There has been innovation all the way through the history of cycling. Sorry it doesn't conform to your narrow mindset.

But that's my point, thanks to Boone Lennon tri bars were being used by triathletes long before Lemond's TT, it was only when he won that TT by using them that REAL CYCLISTS and their coaches would accept the fact that they gave an advantage. Any sensible person would have known this, there should have been no need for Lemond to prove it. Why were you not using them in that TT ?
The same applies to the advantage of having the ability to apply additional maximal torque to the cranks in time trials in a sector where all other riders' legs are idling.

 

[CoachFergie]

But that's my point, thanks to Boone Lennon tri bars were being used by triathletes long before Lemond's TT, it was only when he won that TT by using them that REAL CYCLISTS and their coaches would accept the fact that they gave an advantage. Any sensible person would have known this, there should have been no need for Lemond to prove it. Why were you not using them in that TT ?
The same applies to the advantage of having the ability to apply additional maximal torque to the cranks in time trials in a sector where all other riders' legs are idling.

What comes first? 1988 or 1989???

Why did Fignon not use them, the French are like that! Have a few friends ride on big French Pro Teams and said it was like going 20 years back in time.

Me? Budget.

But anyway this all distracts from the fact that whether you can or can't apply maximal torque unless you can prove it has an influence on performance which can be tested with any power meter. Till you can show that it actually matters to racing cyclists in competition it's a pointless waste of time measuring the pedal forces.

 

[coapman]

What comes first? 1988 or 1989???

Why did Fignon not use them, the French are like that! Have a few friends ride on big French Pro Teams and said it was like going 20 years back in time.

Me? Budget.

But anyway this all distracts from the fact that whether you can or can't apply maximal torque unless you can prove it has an influence on performance which can be tested with any power meter. Till you can show that it actually matters to racing cyclists in competition it's a pointless waste of time measuring the pedal forces.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

 

[elapid]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

This is an invalid comparison. You cannot compare advancements in equipment to unproven changes in pedalling technique. People have been riding bikes for well over a century and pedalling technique has been essentially the same. To challenge the concept of this pedalling technique with no proof whatsoever is laughable, especially when races are won on minute advantages and everyone is looking for whatever advantage they can meek out. Your pedalling technique is not a matter of leading a horse to water, it is more like a stadium full of people laughing at the clown in the middle.

 

[CoachFergie]

The quiet perusal of any power file's quadrant analysis shows that cycling is not about applying maximal torque anyway. We can always apply more torque over durations greater than 2-3 seconds by just pushing harder. Of course the more power we deliver to the pedals the lower the duration we can sustain it for. Cycling is an aerobic sport and the gains in performance come from building energy stores, improving energy pathways and becoming more efficient with how we deliver use that energy.

Crank length, like cadence, like seat height, like most things is only changed for the worse if one goes too far towards either extreme.

 

[coapman]

The quiet perusal of any power file's quadrant analysis shows that cycling is not about applying maximal torque anyway. We can always apply more torque over durations greater than 2-3 seconds by just pushing harder. Of course the more power we deliver to the pedals the lower the duration we can sustain it for.

Of course you can apply more power by pushing harder but as you say you can't sustain it because you have only a short sector 2-4 o'c to apply this power and almost half the force you apply between 1-2 is wasted force, so it becomes too stressful on your muscles. By more than doubling that tangential max power sector and eliminating that wasted force,you can apply that same increased power with less than half the stress on the muscles. That's what makes this the ideal technique for flat TT's where uninterrupted continuous high gear winning power can be applied.

 

[CoachFergie]

Of course you can apply more power by pushing harder but as you say you can't sustain it because you have only a short sector 2-4 o'c to apply this power and almost half the force you apply between 1-2 is wasted force, so it becomes too stressful on your muscles. By more than doubling that tangential max power sector and eliminating that wasted force,you can apply that same increased power with less than half the stress on the muscles. That's what makes this the ideal technique for flat TT's where uninterrupted continuous high gear winning power can be applied.

Sounds like an easy hypothesis to test. Hop to it!

 

[FrankDay]

The quiet perusal of any power file's quadrant analysis shows that cycling is not about applying maximal torque anyway. We can always apply more torque over durations greater than 2-3 seconds by just pushing harder. Of course the more power we deliver to the pedals the lower the duration we can sustain it for. Cycling is an aerobic sport and the gains in performance come from building energy stores, improving energy pathways and becoming more efficient with how we deliver use that energy.

Crank length, like cadence, like seat height, like most things is only changed for the worse if one goes too far towards either extreme.

Quadrant analysis looks to me like a big waste of time now that technology has caught up with the need. From the linked Training Peaks web page about quadrant analysis:

Unfortunately, at present no power meter directly measures the force applied to the pedal. However, it is possible to derive the average (i.e., over 360 degrees) effective (i.e., tangential to the crank) pedal force (both legs combined) from power and cadence data. The equation looks like this:AEPF = (P*60)/(C*2*Pi*CL)

It is clear that this page is going to need to be revised since power meters now exist that directly measure the force applied to the pedal and that others will soon be available. It will be interesting to see what they say. Quadrant analysis is only a method for trying to make up for the fact that better analysis cannot be done using a standard power meter. Even training peaks acknowledges this fact. You ought to get with the program.

Again, this stuff is off topic for this crank length thread (unless you consider that their formula has a crank length term).

 

[FrankDay]

While this paper is not directly related to crank length it goes to my basic thesis that getting into the aero position costs most a lot of power and that this can be mitigated by going to shorter cranks.

VO2 and HR values in AP were significantly higher by 1.5 mL.kg-1.min-1 and 5 beats.min-1, respectively, compared with UP. We concluded that riding a bicycle in an extreme aero-position increases the metabolic cost of cycling when wind resistance is not taken into account.

 

[FrankDay]

And, another paper that supports the last one.

the upright position permits greater VO2, ventilation, heart rate, and workload maxima. Further, in the steady state, exercise cycling may be less costly in the upright position.

Would shorter cranks mitigate this effect? My hypothesis is a big fat YES!

 

[coapman]

And, another paper that supports the last one.Would shorter cranks mitigate this effect? My hypothesis is a big fat YES!

The question which remains to be answered is, how low or how short can you go ?
http://www.cervelo.com/en/engineering/ask-the-engineers/crank-length.html

 

[sciguy]

While this paper is not directly related to crank length it goes to my basic thesis that getting into the aero position costs most a lot of power and that this can be mitigated by going to shorter cranks.

Many of us who train with power see that increased metabolic cost of riding aero greatly diminish if not completely vanish with time spent training in the aero postion. I'm not talking about 10,000 hours here either, just an hour or two per week.

This part is interesting as well:

However, when the mechanical power losses of 9 W (estimated by the VO2 increase) are compared with the expected aerodynamic power savings of approximately 100 W, it appears that aerodynamic advantages by far outweight their metabolic cost

IIRC you had a client spend time in the wind tunnel and it looked as if going to shorter cranks made him noticeably less aero as one of the forum members had predicted.

2. Presuming that my 180 numbers are very low for what should have been the best position for this rider I have concluded that there are two competing interests in the aerodynamic equation when it comes to crank length, upper body/head and the legs. Shorten the cranks and the upper body aerodynamics will generally improve and the leg aerodynamics will generally worsen. If the body is already low that aspect won't improve much and the overall drag will actually increase. I see no other explanation to explain this data. Therefore, if you have a poor, pretty upright position (as most do) I would expect your aerodyamics to improve with shorter cranks. If you already have a very good position, then I would expect no aerodynamic benefit from shorter cranks and I would only look at shorter cranks as to how they might affect other aspects of racing: power, comfort, efficiency, etc. If going shorter does not improve any of those then stay with the longest cranks you can ride that doesn't deteriorate any of those things.

So, as I alluded to, my new mantra regarding crank length and aerodynamics is: IT DEPENDS

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

Many of us who train with power see that increased metabolic cost of riding aero greatly diminish if not completely vanish with time spent training in the aero postion. I'm not talking about 10,000 hours here either, just an hour or two per week.

LOL. Your problem here, of course, is you need to come up with a study to show that such an adaption occurs regularly and uniformly with time as opposed to your anecdotal report.

This part is interesting as well:

However, when the mechanical power losses of 9 W (estimated by the VO2 increase) are compared with the expected aerodynamic power savings of approximately 100 W, it appears that aerodynamic advantages by far outweight their metabolic cost

Which explains why aero bars and position have fallen into common use. Wouldn't it be nice though if the rider could get the aero advantage without the power loss penalty. Wouldn't the advantage of the aero position be even greater then? Or, are you of the opinion that some improvement is enough, no need to push for more?

IIRC you had a client spend time in the wind tunnel and it looked as if going to shorter cranks made him noticeably less aero as one of the forum members had predicted.

Yes. After that experience I came to the conclusion that once one gets the torso "optimally flat" that further lowering in front from further shortening of the cranks ends up being a wash. My current recommendation is cyclists should ride the longest cranks that allow them to get into a good aero position that also do not hurt power production. That will vary from rider to rider and depend, IMO, mostly on how tall they are and how flexible they are. Each person needs to experiment to see what is best for them. If you are 5' 2" and can get flat on 175 cranks with no loss in power go for it.

 

[sciguy]

LOL. Your problem here, of course, is you need to come up with a study to show that such an adaption occurs regularly and uniformly with time as opposed to your anecdotal report.

See that's the wonderful thing about training with a power meter. All training is testing and all testing is training. No study needed for me to quickly see how well I'm adapting back to aero position after time off. All that is needed is my bike with power meter or Computrainer, heart rate monitor and a half hour or so of trials. I ran a series just this morning and will readily admit I need to start putting some of my trainer time into aero trainer time.

Unlike you, I'm not trying to sell something unproven, just trying to improve my own performance.


Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

See that's the wonderful thing about training with a power meter. All training is testing and all testing is training. No study needed for me to quickly see how well I'm adapting back to aero position after time off. All that is needed is my bike with power meter or Computrainer, heart rate monitor and a half hour or so of trials. I ran a series just this morning and will readily admit I need to start putting some of my trainer time into aero trainer time.

Unlike you, I'm not trying to sell something unproven, just trying to improve my own performance.


Hugh

The problem is you don't know if you would also adapt to the aero position with an increase in power if you also were on shorter cranks and didn't see the initial power drop. It is all a big guess but you rationalize your ignoring the science that suggests there is something there because you have a power meter giving you anecdotal results that tell you you don't need to explore this possibility. It is laughable yet you call yourself sciguy.

 

[FrankDay]

See that's the wonderful thing about training with a power meter. All training is testing and all testing is training. No study needed for me to quickly see how well I'm adapting back to aero position after time off. All that is needed is my bike with power meter or Computrainer, heart rate monitor and a half hour or so of trials. I ran a series just this morning and will readily admit I need to start putting some of my trainer time into aero trainer time.

One more question. Why is it that as soon as someone has a power meter they believe their anecdotes turn into science?

 

[sciguy]

The problem is you don't know if you would also adapt to the aero position with an increase in power if you also were on shorter cranks and didn't see the initial power drop. It is all a big guess but you rationalize your ignoring the science that suggests there is something there because you have a power meter giving you anecdotal results that tell you you don't need to explore this possibility. It is laughable yet you call yourself sciguy.

No Frank, my power meter provides me with a measure of my power output not an anecdotal result. My heart rate monitor gives me a measure of my heart rate and if you're to be believed a good measure of my metabolic stress. With those two measures it is certainly possible for me to carry out a useful study of how my riding position influences metabolic stress. I really don't need funding or to publish in order to carry out a bit of personal science.

Didn't you recently say?

stay with the longest cranks you can ride that doesn't deteriorate any of those things.

Why would I ride shorter cranks when a short period of adaptation allows me to output power nearly equivalent to a more upright posture? You just told me to ride the longest cranks possible due to the aerodynamic penalty caused buy having more vertical leg exposed to the wind?

Thanks for the remark regarding my screen name. It shows a certain level of classiness.

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

No Frank, my power meter provides me with a measure of my power output not an anecdotal result. My heart rate monitor gives me a measure of my heart rate and if you're to be believed a good measure of my metabolic stress. With those two measures it is certainly possible for me to carry out a useful study of how my riding position influences metabolic stress. I really don't need funding or to publish in order to carry out a bit of personal science.

It is not science because one cannot do a statistical analysis of the results to determine whether what you are seeing is due to something or due to chance. What you are doing is, of course, useful to you - it is what we are all forced to do when we try to choose between two (or more) alternatives - but what you have done has no meaning in regards to this crank length thread yet you are trying to pretend that it does.

Why would I ride shorter cranks when a short period of adaptation allows me to output power nearly equivalent to a more upright posture? You just told me to ride the longest cranks possible due to the aerodynamic penalty caused buy having more vertical leg exposed to the wind?

But, you don't know if you are seeing a power penalty or not because you have not compared what you can do on shorter cranks (is nearly equivalent equivalent?). Yet you have, seemingly, done zero crank length testing. You are making the assumption that because you see the power come back up to something nearly equivalent after a period of time that it is coming to the same that you would see if you were on shorter cranks. You are rationalizing your result to allow you to do what you want to do anyhow. It ain't science. Your post would also seem to imply that everyone else should expect to see the same result you are. Why do you want to mislead anyone else following this thread? No one can know what is best for them without appropriate testing. Just because you are seeing a certain result after your very limited testing in this regards means nothing regarding what anyone else might expect. Or, do you disagree with this statement also?

 

[42x16ss]

It is not science because one cannot do a statistical analysis of the results to determine whether what you are seeing is due to something or due to chance. What you are doing is, of course, useful to you - it is what we are all forced to do when we try to choose between two (or more) alternatives - but what you have done has no meaning in regards to this crank length thread yet you are trying to pretend that it does. But, you don't know if you are seeing a power penalty or not because you have not compared what you can do on shorter cranks (is nearly equivalent equivalent?). Yet you have, seemingly, done zero crank length testing. You are making the assumption that because you see the power come back up to something nearly equivalent after a period of time that it is coming to the same that you would see if you were on shorter cranks. You are rationalizing your result to allow you to do what you want to do anyhow. It ain't science. Your post would also seem to imply that everyone else should expect to see the same result you are. Why do you want to mislead anyone else following this thread? No one can know what is best for them without appropriate testing. Just because you are seeing a certain result after your very limited testing in this regards means nothing regarding what anyone else might expect. Or, do you disagree with this statement also?

I don't see anything at all where SciGuy says that his setup works for everyone and that we should all be following his steps, only a statement that using a PM and HRM allows SciGuy to tweak HIS position easily using HIS OWN data collected BY HIMSELF, FOR HIMSELF.

This is the beauty of a measuring device Frank. You can tell if something works for you or not BY YOURSELF. If you tried one for a while you might just get it.