The crank length thread

[coapman]

Not sure if I mentioned it on CyclingForums but all I had to do to drop my handlebars 4cm without losing the beer gut was tilt my saddle up a little which allowed me to rotate the pelvis forward.

Where on the saddle is your bodyweight pressing down and why do you have to tilt the saddle up.

 

[CoachFergie]

Where on the saddle is your bodyweight pressing down and why do you have to tilt the saddle up.

My pubic bone and yes the tilting up was counter-intuitive but works. A lot of Specialized BG Fits tilt the saddle downwards to facilitate sitting on the sit bones which leads to a lot of rounded backs, closing of the hip angle and poor aerodynamic position's.

A lot of riders use the ISM saddle for extra comfort in this position. I have had no issues with my standard shaped Prologo Nago saddle apart from having big backside.

 

[FrankDay]

My pubic bone and yes the tilting up was counter-intuitive but works. A lot of Specialized BG Fits tilt the saddle downwards to facilitate sitting on the sit bones which leads to a lot of rounded backs, closing of the hip angle and poor aerodynamic position's.

While this is a little off topic perhaps you could explain why "sitting on the sit bones leads to a lot of rounded backs" and what evidence you might have to support such a statement. Oh, and perhaps you could explain why sitting on the pubic bone solves this issue.

Edit: Could you also tell us what your #1 lady friend thinks about this "sitting on the pubic bone" change thing.

 

[FrankDay]

… the fact that pros are not using anything other than standard crank lengths is conclusive (considering they're the ones who would junp on anything that gives them an advantage)

I find it a little strange that you find it "conclusive" against shorter cranks that pros don't race on shorter cranks (even though their crank sponsors don't make shorter cranks) yet you are not persuaded that the fact that many of these same pros train on my product "means anything" regarding my product (even though none of them have been paid to do so). Can you explain this seeming dichotomy?

 

[FrankDay]

found a site that is somewhat relevant to this thread. English words can have various meanings depending upon the context (edit: and the educational background of the reader). Sometimes you can be both right and wrong. Check out all 38.
http://distractify.com/fun/fails/test-answers-that-are-totally-wrong-but-still-genius/

 

[elapid]

So not "scientifically significant" as generally accepted but that doesn't mean the difference is not real. This study needs to be repeated with larger numbers to see if there really is or isn't a difference.

Your explanation = pseudoscience. Your suggestion that larger number are required is the eternal cry of a person refusing to accept results which do not agree with their own findings or, in your case, beliefs. This is also why you practice pseudoscience and not actual science.

 

[FrankDay]

Your explanation = pseudoscience. Your suggestion that larger number are required is the eternal cry of a person refusing to accept results which do not agree with their own findings or, in your case, beliefs. This is also why you practice pseudoscience and not actual science.

If you say so.

 

[veganrob]

I find it a little strange that you find it "conclusive" against shorter cranks that pros don't race on shorter cranks (even though their crank sponsors don't make shorter cranks) yet you are not persuaded that the fact that many of these same pros train on my product "means anything" regarding my product (even though none of them have been paid to do so). Can you explain this seeming dichotomy?

Rotor makes 150 mm cranks. There are pros riding Rotor. Also, if Fabian Cancellara wanted shorter cranks than are normally produced form Shimano or whoever, you could be damn sure they will make them for him. That, is the truth.

 

[42x16ss]

Even then, Shimano, Campag and SRAM all make their top tier cranks with optional 165mm arms in both 130 and 110 mm BCD and even tiny guys like Sam Dumoulin and Jose Rujano don't use them, even though they are both just over 5 feet tall. If anyone was going to use tiny cranks, you'd think it would be those guys wouldn't you?

 

[FrankDay]

Rotor makes 150 mm cranks. There are pros riding Rotor. Also, if Fabian Cancellara wanted shorter cranks than are normally produced form Shimano or whoever, you could be damn sure they will make them for him. That, is the truth.

Even then, Shimano, Campag and SRAM all make their top tier cranks with optional 165mm arms in both 130 and 110 mm BCD and even tiny guys like Sam Dumoulin and Jose Rujano don't use them, even though they are both just over 5 feet tall. If anyone was going to use tiny cranks, you'd think it would be those guys wouldn't you?

If you folks want to let the choices of others determine what is best for you it is no skin off my back. Go for it!!! Good luck to you.

 

[42x16ss]

Frank, we're just saying that despite your wailing the option is there if pros want to ride shorter cranks. It's not our fault they choose not to and it's not like the sponsors care how long a riders cranks are, just what brand is printed on them.

 

[veganrob]

Frank, I like that you do think outside the box. It should be obvious that we have not reached our full potential as athletes, cyclists etc. But you just **** up your own arguements because you cannot even address the issue what some people are talking about.
Tell you what, send me a set of your PC with adjustable cranks and I will give them a legitimate trial according to your standards and give honest feedback.
Up to you.

 

[CoachFergie]

Frank, I like that you do think outside the box.

Well only if outside the box involves the purchase of his product.

 

[veganrob]

Well only if outside the box involves the purchase of his product.

I'm definitely not buying anything. LOL

 

[FrankDay]

But you just **** up your own arguements because you cannot even address the issue what some people are talking about.

??? What issue am I not addressing?

 

[CoachFergie]

I'm definitely not buying anything. LOL

Well money is money and people will spend whatever they want.

The more important thing is time. If I was going to carry out an personal experiment I would want to see some pretty good research before I committed time to testing anything. Then I would make sure I had a pretty good way to measure any differences

 

[FrankDay]

Well money is money and people will spend whatever they want.

The more important thing is time. If I was going to carry out an personal experiment I would want to see some pretty good research before I committed time to testing anything. Then I would make sure I had a pretty good way to measure any differences

Fergie, you do know that people have different needs and different ways of evaluating risk vs benefit. Many do not need scientific proof of something new before being willing to try it. You seem to think that anyone who thinks the least bit differently from you is an idiot or have been duped by me. You can't even allow those who think differently from you to have a reasoned discussion of the potential that might come from change. Oh well, it is the internet. One has to put up with a lot of background noise a lot of the time.

 

[elapid]

Fergie, you do know that people have different needs and different ways of evaluating risk vs benefit. Many do not need scientific proof of something new before being willing to try it. You seem to think that anyone who thinks the least bit differently from you is an idiot or have been duped by me. You can't even allow those who think differently from you to have a reasoned discussion of the potential that might come from change. Oh well, it is the internet. One has to put up with a lot of background noise a lot of the time.

Frank, a discussion with you is never reasoned and the background noise you're hearing is in fact you. Please silence it.

 

[FrankDay]

Frank, a discussion with you is never reasoned and the background noise you're hearing is in fact you. Please silence it.

I am sorry you find my questions and answers so irritating. Since I start many of the threads I participate in I think it unlikely that I will stop participating in them so might I suggest that you simply try to ignore them or not even open the thread.

 

[CoachFergie]

Frank, a discussion with you is never reasoned and the background noise you're hearing is in fact you. Please silence it.

Report all spam and trolling.

 

[elapid]

I am sorry you find my questions and answers so irritating. Since I start many of the threads I participate in I think it unlikely that I will stop participating in them so might I suggest that you simply try to ignore them or not even open the thread.

Frank, you are like a soap opera. Too bad not to watch, but you can come back months later and nothing has changed.

 

[FrankDay]

Another anecdotal report from the Slowtwitch forum

Starting with a 165mm crank, I just got a Cobb 145mm compact. I'm about your size, with perhaps a bit shorter leg length (size 32x29 pants). So far I have noticed no big difference in power, but a significant increase in comfort, as my upper leg no longer contacts my abdomen (Hip angle is opened up quite a bit). My cadence went up from around 80 rpm to 90+ or so, but still feels OK. I think this is because the foot speed is about the same for both cranks. 165 vs 145 is ~12% drop in circumference (the distance you foot travels in one rotation). 80rpm to 90rpm = ~ 12% increase in rotation rate. Looks like a wash as far as foot movement speed is concerned.
You might find this from Sheldon Brown interesting:…

All in all, I feel the shorter crank arms will be an improvement for me.

 

[simo1733]

165 cranks at 80 rpm sure doesn't sound fast.

 

[sciguy]

165 cranks at 80 rpm sure doesn't sound fast.

It's just a bit over 30MPH,(48.5KPH), if you're turning a 53-11 at 80RPM with 23mm tyres on 700c wheels. So yes not too fast for Fabian but decent for a typical triathlete.

Hugh

 

[veganrob]

It's just a bit over 30MPH,(48.5KPH), if you're turning a 53-11 at 80RPM with 23mm tyres on 700c wheels. So yes not too fast for Fabian but decent for a typical triathlete.

Hugh

53-11 is indeed a big if in this scenario.