The importance of crank length to the cyclist.

[Martin318is]

Speaking for myself, I have a comfortable efficient riding position created over 20 years of training and racing.

For me to consider moving to a different position, I would want to see a demonstration of improved performance over my current position. To do that, I would want to see a study demonstrating the improvement, or failing that, I would wand to be able to trial the two on the same day in the same configuration with a power meter. I would ride at the same power in the two positions for an extended period to find out if I do indeed travel faster for the same effort with short cranks AND that I physically continue to feel comfortable on the bike.

The problem is that without any of this, I am forced to ask - what length should I shift to? I would have to trial out numerous sets of cranks until I got it right - and who would pay for all of those?

As I said in another conversation, I don't have any objection to arch cleats for example - however, for myself I feel that I lose cornering and sprinting feel by cutting out the ability to pivot on the ball of my foot.

 

[Night Rider]

But, others have. It is the most common come back I hear when I talk to (encourage) them to try short cranks. This is especially true coming from the mountain bikers. All they see to be able to think about is the "leverage" they will lose.

Have you thought of offering some scientific evidence to support your theory? If they were confronted with irrefutable evidence that shorter cranks offer performance gains climbing hills then surely they would be all over them?

 

[CoachFergie]

But, others have. It is the most common come back I hear when I talk to (encourage) them to try short cranks. This is especially true coming from the mountain bikers. All they see to be able to think about is the "leverage" they will lose.

Why do you feel this compulsion to encourage people to try shorter cranks apart from the fact that you sell adjustable length cranks?

There is no significant evidence that they increase power, improve efficiency and there are options for improving aerodynamics that don't involve costly equipment and positional changes.

 

[CoachFergie]

Speaking for myself, I have a comfortable efficient riding position created over 20 years of training and racing.

For me to consider moving to a different position, I would want to see a demonstration of improved performance over my current position.

Makes sense, why make the change when there is no evidence of any improvement, improved efficiency and there are a lot of free options for improving aerodynamics. Not only would it be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic but it would include paying top dollar for the privilege.

To do that, I would want to see a study demonstrating the improvement, or failing that, I would wand to be able to trial the two on the same day in the same configuration with a power meter.

Good news, Martin (the other one) has done that for you.

I would ride at the same power in the two positions for an extended period to find out if I do indeed travel faster for the same effort with short cranks AND that I physically continue to feel comfortable on the bike.

Prior learning and a training effect would confound the results. Bit like this Drew chap, was it the cranks, was it the Gimmickcrank, was it the weather, was it his use or non use of lucky red socks, was it the training he did?

The problem is that without any of this, I am forced to ask - what length should I shift to? I would have to trial out numerous sets of cranks until I got it right - and who would pay for all of those?

Think Titanic and have a look at Short Interval Training. Burgomaster saw a 100% increase in time to exhaustion after just two weeks of training. Sure competition performance gains would not be similar but still costs you nothing to experiment with training.

As I said in another conversation, I don't have any objection to arch cleats for example - however, for myself I feel that I lose cornering and sprinting feel by cutting out the ability to pivot on the ball of my foot.

Two women's world road titles won in the sprint using arch mounted cleats. But two studies showing no change in performance or economy from doing that either.

 

[Boeing]

its all about word choice here.

just back up and call it a hypothesis for now.


coachfungi, a hypothesis is a.....ahh never mind

 

[CoachFergie]

Have you thought of offering some scientific evidence to support your theory? If they were confronted with irrefutable evidence that shorter cranks offer performance gains climbing hills then surely they would be all over them?

Science hasn't been very kind to Frank and his claims.

 

[Martin318is]

Prior learning and a training effect would confound the results. Bit like this Drew chap, was it the cranks, was it the Gimmickcrank, was it the weather, was it his use or non use of lucky red socks, was it the training he did?

no, no, I realise THAT - what I was talking about could perhaps have been worded as "extended duration" meaning that I would want to know that it not only improved my performance in a short event but that it was as comfortable as my existing position after several hours of riding.

Two women's world road titles won in the sprint using arch mounted cleats. But two studies showing no change in performance or economy from doing that either.

yeah, I know. but in MY experience, I didn't like it and felt it impinged my ability tomake small changes to position to corner at extreme speeds/corner angles on descents etc. In the end, I dont care if it is proved outright that arched cleats are better in general, for me they aren't.

 

[FrankDay]

Have you thought of offering some scientific evidence to support your theory? If they were confronted with irrefutable evidence that shorter cranks offer performance gains climbing hills then surely they would be all over them?

Ugh, scientific evidence can only come from a scientific study. And, to be really useful it needs to be independent. Therefore, scientific "proof" will have to come from others. In the meantime, we have as much scientific evidence supporting this theory as those who think having a GM will improve their racing.

I started this thread with a proposal that people might see improvement if they moved to shorter cranks and I gave my reasons why I thought that so. Our own experience at that time mostly on the flat seemed to support my theory. This result is just one more result that reinforces the idea. It is not proof but it might be enough to get some of you to be willing to experiment and see what happens to you.

Last year Drew rode on 182.5 cranks (believing as most that the increased leverage would help him with all the climbing). This year he rode on 110 cranks. I doubt that there is a single person here a year ago, other than me, who might have predicted he would have done better on the shorter length for this particular race. In fact, I doubt any would have predicted this a week ago. But now, I'll bet a few are thinking.

Here is another thing he wrote to me last night: "awesome time on the 110s Frank. felt good yesterday and had the ride of my life today. i felt the best that i have ever felt up on these monster climbs. kept the cadence up around 75 sometimes even 80-90 and this seemed to keep the power up.

last year i would not have believed this was possible as i was on 182.5 cranks."

 

[FrankDay]

Speaking for myself, I have a comfortable efficient riding position created over 20 years of training and racing.

For me to consider moving to a different position, I would want to see a demonstration of improved performance over my current position. To do that, I would want to see a study demonstrating the improvement, or failing that, I would wand to be able to trial the two on the same day in the same configuration with a power meter. I would ride at the same power in the two positions for an extended period to find out if I do indeed travel faster for the same effort with short cranks AND that I physically continue to feel comfortable on the bike.

The problem is that without any of this, I am forced to ask - what length should I shift to? I would have to trial out numerous sets of cranks until I got it right - and who would pay for all of those?

As I said in another conversation, I don't have any objection to arch cleats for example - however, for myself I feel that I lose cornering and sprinting feel by cutting out the ability to pivot on the ball of my foot.

Each of us has a threshold before we will consider change. For the "early adopters" that threshold is much lower. Early adopters make many more mistakes but when they are right they are usually ahead of the game. And, part of my point is that we cannot know what will work for us because of what works for someone else. Arch cleats work for Drew. You have tried them and they don't work for you. But, the key is you tried them so feel comfortable with your decision. That doesn't mean they won't work for someone else.

You are clearly, not an early adopter. That is fine with me. But, you shouldn't feel threatened by the early adopters out there who are willing to try things like this because they are the ones who tend to move sport forward even if they are frequently wrong.

 

[CoachFergie]

Ugh, scientific evidence can only come from a scientific study.

Not really. If one gets data from a valid and reliable measuring tool that is properly calibrated and the data is un-tampered with then that is sufficient evidence.

In the meantime, we have as much scientific evidence supporting this theory as those who think having a GM will improve their racing.

Yup keep repeating the lie. Love the contempt you have for people Frank.

I started this thread with a proposal that people might see improvement if they moved to shorter cranks and I gave my reasons why I thought that so.

You started this thread to Spam the forum about Gimmickcranks.

 

[FrankDay]

Ugh, scientific evidence can only come from a scientific study.

Not really. If one gets data from a valid and reliable measuring tool that is properly calibrated and the data is un-tampered with then that is sufficient evidence.

You are correct, I have to admit. Scientific evidence can be pretty much anything. It is scientific proof that requires a bit more rigor.

 

[CoachFergie]

Beyond maths and logic nothing is ever proven, there is just more or less evidence for it.

Scientific Proof

Hence the need for valid and reliable measures when making claims about anything.

 

[FrankDay]

Beyond maths and logic nothing is ever proven, there is just more or less evidence for it.

Scientific Proof

Hence the need for valid and reliable measures when making claims about anything.

Ugh, a proposed theory is not a claim.

 

[CoachFergie]

Ugh, a proposed theory is not a claim.

Nice link, especially like...

including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties

and

A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations

Staggering someone would confuse a marketing claim with a scientific theory.

 

[Martin318is]

Each of us has a threshold before we will consider change. For the "early adopters" that threshold is much lower. Early adopters make many more mistakes but when they are right they are usually ahead of the game. And, part of my point is that we cannot know what will work for us because of what works for someone else. Arch cleats work for Drew. You have tried them and they don't work for you. But, the key is you tried them so feel comfortable with your decision. That doesn't mean they won't work for someone else.

You are clearly, not an early adopter. That is fine with me. But, you shouldn't feel threatened by the early adopters out there who are willing to try things like this because they are the ones who tend to move sport forward even if they are frequently wrong.

HUH?

You acknowledge that I have tried something - prior to it becoming a mainstream thing to do - and decided against it. Then you tell me I am not an early adopter and not to feel threatened by those who are....

Why would I feel threatened by people who use arch cleats?

What I believe I have said so far in this and other threads is - do what you like and good luck to you but I am not going to modify my on bike position just because some random guy comes up with a new theoretical claim. (see what I did there? LOL)

Anyway - For every good idea out there there are tens of thousands of power-balance band sellers

 

[FrankDay]

HUH?

You acknowledge that I have tried something - prior to it becoming a mainstream thing to do - and decided against it. Then you tell me I am not an early adopter and not to feel threatened by those who are....

Why would I feel threatened by people who use arch cleats?

What I believe I have said so far in this and other threads is - do what you like and good luck to you but I am not going to modify my on bike position just because some random guy comes up with a new theoretical claim.

For every good idea out there there are tens of thousands of power-balance bands

Everyone is different. Some are more interested in seeing where something new might lead. Others are more interested in preventing mistakes. You came across as more of a "preventing mistakes" type of guy to me. If you believe otherwise, cool. Clearly, though, am a "see where this might lead" kind of guy. And I am willing to throw my ideas out to see what others might think and to see if I can learn anything.

 

[CoachFergie]

Clearly, though, am a "see where this might lead" kind of guy. And I am willing to throw my ideas out to see what others might think and to see if I can learn anything.

It's just funny that all roads "lead" to a Gimmickcrank purchase.

 

[FrankDay]

So, the results are finally posted. I have compared all of the riders who did both this year and last year who finished near or above Drew last year to see how things compare. I also confirmed with the race director that the course change did shorten the course some, although this was not published anywhere.

Anyhow, I found 13 people including Drew. Here are the comparative results and times.

Name................2010...............2011...........diff......2010.....2011......diff
English..........10:02:35...........9:55:16.........7min.....1st.......1st.........0
Prado............10:44:03..........10:06:50......29min.....5th.......2nd......+3
Walker..........10:39:10..........10:18:19......21min.....4th.......7th........-3
Rand.............10:55:21.........10:16:12.......39min.....8th.......5th.......+3
Burnham........11:01:47.........10:20:58......41min.....9th.......8th........+1
Moskowitz......11:07:08.........10:42.16.......25min....11th.....24th......-13
Amelburu.......11:12:25.........10:23:32.......59min....12th.....10th......+2
Chauner.........11:22:39.........10:36:28.......46min....15th....22nd.......-7
Dapice...........11:41:31.........10:29:29.......72min....21st.....14th......+7
Cody ............11:46:13.........10:15:32.......91min....23rd.......4th.....+19
Hornbeck.......11:46:39.........10:27:31.......79min....25th.....13th.....+12
Peterson........11:47:30.........10:22:22.......85min....26th.......9th.....+17
Breck............11:48:00.........10:54:11.......54min....27th......28th......-1

50 minute average improvement
average place improvement 2.5

No athlete was slower than the year before, English the fellow who won was only 7 minutes faster. Of particular note only 4 of the 13 were more than an hour faster than the year before with the biggest improvement going to Cody with a 91 minute improvement in time and moving from 23rd to 4th place. Peterson had the second largest improvement in this group with 85 minutes and moving from 26th to 9th overall. As an indication that competition might have been tougher this year Chauner improved his time 46 minutes but dropped his placing from 15th to 22nd.

Anyhow, I think it would be hard to argue, based upon these results that Drew Peterson did anything but improve between 2010 and 2011 and that his use of very short cranks and arch cleats did not hurt his performance. Of course, one cannot say for certain, from this data alone, these changes account for his improved performance.

 

[CoachFergie]

I also confirmed with the race director that the course change did shorten the course some, although this was not published anywhere.

This was seen in the power meter data.

Now this is a little less than the 60 minutes your athlete reported for the "same" power but perhaps this is because this is the pointy end where absolute improvements are always less for any change like this.

Athlete didn't report, he had a valid and reliable measure of.

Rider in question was a Cat 3. If you had a Pro, Cat 3 and Cat 5 where would you expect to see the greatest potential for improved times?

No athlete was slower than the year before, English the fellow who won was only 7 minutes faster.

Different course, different weather and year apart. If power meter data showed power for 2010 and 2011 races you could claim that performance improved.

A rider could have physically performed better but have let himself down in other areas (Cancellara in Worlds TT nearly crashing, Schleck's in TdF TT not learning the course). This event has neutralised sections mid race and in one of the grades had an elite MTB rider riding in a lower road category because he didn't have the points to ride in an appropriate grade.

I think it would be hard to argue, based upon these results that Drew Peterson did anything but improve between 2010 and 2011 and that his use of very short cranks and arch cleats did not hurt his performance.

So still no evidence that short cranks, Gimmickcranks, arch mounted cleats or lucky red socks actually improve performance. The only benefit I see is to your bank balance.

Even if he had used a power meter to measure his work performed you couldn't separate which factors caused any claimed improvements. Which is why we run studies that show Gimmickcranks, Crank Length or Arch Mounted Cleats improve power delivery or improve efficiency/economy.

Of course, one cannot say for certain, from this data alone, these changes account for his improved performance.

You haven't shown an improvement in performance. The chap who supplied me data improved by 60min from 2010 and produced 4.5 more watts. That figure would be well within the TEM of a power (Quarg in this case) meter.

493 posts and the only evidence for a short crank is that in increase's your bank balance.

 

[FrankDay]

Rider in question was a Cat 3. If you had a Pro, Cat 3 and Cat 5 where would you expect to see the greatest potential for improved times?

The rider in the data with the biggest improvement was a Cat 3. Cat doesn't mean much in races like this because ultra cyclists frequently don't do enough racing to improve their category to reflect their ability.

Different course, different weather and year apart. If power meter data showed power for 2010 and 2011 races you could claim that performance improved.

Straight from the horses mouth as to where the difference was.
"but when I placed the directional and safety signs Saturday morning, I noticed the main difference being that the descent from South Lake is now part of the race INSTEAD OF the descent from Mosquito Flats."

If the course was shortened on the descent where I suspect most are coasting, recuperating for the next climb. Your friend showed no power difference and improved 60 minutes. Where was he relative to Peterson? Peterson did not measure power but improved 85 minutes (and I think was faster overall than your athlete). Can anything be inferred from that about his power? I suspect so.

A rider could have physically performed better but have let himself down in other areas (Cancellara in Worlds TT nearly crashing, Schleck's in TdF TT not learning the course). This event has neutralised sections mid race and in one of the grades had an elite MTB rider riding in a lower road category because he didn't have the points to ride in an appropriate grade.

Your point? While any one rider might have a bad day we don't expect every rider to have a bad day compared to our subject of interest. I compared his results to 12 other riders of around the same ability last year. Only one improved more. 11 improved less. The one who improved more was a Cat 3 (Cody) - looks like he might be your elite mountain biker.

 

[CoachFergie]

Your point?

My point? Still no evidence for your claims.

 

[FrankDay]

… All they see to be able to think about is the "leverage" they will lose.

Here is an example from a recent post on slowtwitch "…but considering I'm a masher, 75 to 78 rpm in a tt as an average, I'm thinking a longer lever might be better. I do realize we are talking 2.5mm."

When it comes to crank length people seem incapable of looking at the big picture.

 

[CoachFergie]

Here is an example from a recent post on slowtwitch "…but considering I'm a masher, 75 to 78 rpm in a tt as an average, I'm thinking a longer lever might be better. I do realize we are talking 2.5mm."

When it comes to crank length people seem incapable of looking at the big picture.

Ummm someone's opinion from Slowtwitch is not evidence of anything.

Was that quote meant to motivate people to rush out and try shorter cranks. Even from a marketing perspective that is pretty lame.

 

[FrankDay]

Ummm someone's opinion from Slowtwitch is not evidence of anything.

Was that quote meant to motivate people to rush out and try shorter cranks. Even from a marketing perspective that is pretty lame.

Sigh. that was simply an extension of a back and forth I had with Martin awhile back (see post 475). (You do understand the terms discussion and back and forth don't you?) When I saw that post on ST I thought it was a good illustration of the point I was trying to make. But, you can, as usual, take it however you want.

 

[Martin318is]

Sorry Frank but did you say that Drew previously rode 182.5mm cranks?

Just wondering if he has ever tried the event on normal length cranks.