The importance of crank length to the cyclist.

[CoachFergie]

LOL. Phooeey. One only needs evidence if one is trying to prove something. One can make an argument on theoretical grounds with zero evidence. I think that is what Einstein did with the theory of relativity.

Seeing the evidence is lacking lets see what theoretical basis you have for the importance of crank length.

 

[Martin318is]

LOL. Phooeey. One only needs evidence if one is trying to prove something. One can make an argument on theoretical grounds with zero evidence. I think that is what Einstein did with the theory of relativity.

Which is why you were doing fine until you added the following statement.

...one thing, I think, can be said for sure, those cranks did not slow him down.

You are not making a theoretical claim - you were making a statement of fact. Which as I pointed out, you cannot make.

Note - this is different to calling for you to provide a research paper, etc. I am just saying that if you are truly trying to have an interesting theoretical discussion, you will ruin it by introducing illogical 'facts'

 

[FrankDay]

Which is why you were doing fine until you added the following statement.



You are not making a theoretical claim - you were making a statement of fact. Which as I pointed out, you cannot make.

Note - this is different to calling for you to provide a research paper, etc. I am just saying that if you are truly trying to have an interesting theoretical discussion, you will ruin it by introducing illogical 'facts'

I think when I stated that "I think" it means I was stating an opinion, not a fact.

 

[Martin318is]

I think when I stated that "I think" it means I was stating an opinion, not a fact.

Okay, but saying "I think it is interesting" is not the same as saying, "I think X can be said for sure".

To be clear about something though, my comment on this is indifferent to the performance of shorter cranks in this regard. I no more think that this performance was evidence that the cranks didn't hurt his performance than I would think that they did hurt him if he finished 20mins slower than last year.

The most that can be said for sure from this performance is that he rode very well and should be very proud of his effort

 

[FrankDay]

Okay, but saying "I think it is interesting" is not the same as saying, "I think X can be said for sure".

To be clear about something though, my comment on this is indifferent to the performance of shorter cranks in this regard. I no more think that this performance was evidence that the cranks didn't hurt his performance than I would think that they did hurt him if he finished 20mins slower than last year.

The most that can be said for sure from this performance is that he rode very well and should be very proud of his effort

I think you folks are so biased you cannot think straight. And, this from a moderator. In English, when someone says "I think …" it means an opinion is being expressed. It doesn't matter what follows.

 

[CoachFergie]

Anyhow, one thing, I think, can be said for sure, those cranks did not slow him down.

Yes you did contradict yourself. Perhaps if you can be clearer in your communication!

 

[FrankDay]

Yes you did contradict yourself. Perhaps if you can be clearer in your communication!

I did not contradict myself, that is my opinion. Improve your reading and comprehension skills Fergie.

 

[Francois the Postman]

I think you folks are so biased you cannot think straight. And, this from a moderator. In English, when someone says "I think …" it means an opinion is being expressed. It doesn't matter what follows.

Well, I think you are being a bit pedantic there Frank.

If you state that you think it can be said "for sure" you are kinda claiming you consider it a fact. And then to get huffy when people take issue with the general tone of your statement, and suggest that "I think" is enough to magic the bit that follows away...that is a bit rich, from where I am sitting.

All the more if it has been on the back of an issue where a handful of people appear to have taken pretty uncompromising positions on a general issue, one that has remained unsettled here for how many posts now?

This issue seems very personal to a few of you here, I don't care one way or the other who is right, or who is wrong. What I do know is that a disagreement is becoming petty, needlessly repetitive, unresolvable, more and more personal, even drawing more and mods in, in public and private, getting us involved in what is -in essence- mainly a private spat between very few people.

Martin has even alerted the mods that he would like to step aside from dealing with people in this thread so he could remain just a poster here, rather than having to keep ruling on the ongoing moderation that some in this thread keep triggering.

There is a limit to our patience. You and CoachFergie were already assigned a thread to contain the disagreement you had. No name-calling. No baiting. No finding yet another way to get under someone's skin. Debate the issues.

It has gotten to the point, between some of you, and you know who you are here in this thread, that if we feel someone is pushing it a too blatantly, or becoming overly petty, we will not keep dancing that merry dance with you. Think before you post.

If there is crank or power-meter issue that you think merits further debate, and one that hasn't been touched on yet, by all means, keep debating that issue (only), and you won't hear a peep from us.

 

[FrankDay]

Well, I think you are being a bit pedantic there Frank.

If you state that you think it can be said "for sure" you are kinda claiming you consider it a fact. And then to get huffy when people take issue with the general tone of your statement, and suggest that "I think" is enough to magic the bit that follows away...that is a bit rich, from where I am sitting.

Well, it is a fact that it is my opinion that I think one can say for sure that the cranks didn't slow him down in view of the fact he won his category at the world championships. If they slowed him down it must have been by a miniscule amount, hardly enough to get ones undies in a bunch about my comment. What makes me "huffy" is when someone tells me "you can't say that" when it related to my opinion. It is my opinion and no one can tell me what opinions I can or cannot have. I get especially huffy when that person is a moderator.

If there is crank or power-meter issue that you think merits further debate, and one that hasn't been touched on yet, by all means, keep debating that issue (only), and you won't hear a peep from us.

Cool.

 

[180mmCrank]

No Question you are entitled to your opinion. AND you can expect others to take issue if they don't agree. I think that's what is called a discussion. We are all for that on a discussion forum. Go for it...

AND Mods can have Opinions too. Many of us were active posters in the forum before we were admin. All of us except she who shall remain nameless are volunteers and despite promises of swag from CN have received no payment for our services to date.

 

[Boeing]

of course there are some here telling us how long their crank is all the damn time and others how short theirs is so what do I know. the length I know works best for me feels the best and in no way indicative of the kind of man I am

now lets talk about the significance of girth errrrraaaa I mean Q-factor

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Frank - stop making things petty and personal.

<snip>

I'm sorry that you see this point of view as being somehow linked to Fergie but frankly it is really basic logic.

I was not attempting to shoot holes in you or whatever, but I think you shoot yourself in the foot with that type of statement.

You are, in my opinion, up against it if you think it will change Frank's natural gift when it comes to the use of logical fallacies.

These include (examples of Frank doing this are on display in many threads):
- Ad hominem (although to be fair, it's others that resort to this more than Frank does)
- Ad ignorantiam
- Appeals to the consequences
- Red Herring
- Strawman
- Cum Hoc (confusing association with causation)
- Inconsistency
- Passing off anecdotes as evidence

 

[Martin318is]

Lets rule a line under all of this please.

As per Francois the Postman's post above, this thread is to stay on topic of short cranks, etc or the moderator team (which in this instance does NOT include me) will likely intervene.

[mod edit] For clarity: moderation concerns have a sub forum all of their own too. Cranks only here.

 

[FrankDay]

Here is a slideshow with some pictures of Drew Peterson at Furnace Creek for those of you who might be interested. I guess these constitute some sort of "proof" he actually did do the ride on these very short cranks. Click on the "show info" button on the upper right for a commentary on each picture.

I was told the race organizer was had a "What are you doing with those things on your bike? This is Furnace Creek!" attitude (as if Drew wasn't taking it seriously) before the race.

 

[CoachFergie]

Who was disputing that Drew rode short independent cranks?

I thought the aim of this thread was to discuss the "importance" of crank length.

 

[CoachFergie]

Some of the issues with this thread are...

Crank length is not a form or fitness issue. The original post should have been made in the bikes and gear section.

Race results provide no indication of performance. Racing should be discussed in the appropriate racing sections of the forum.

Seeing this is the Form and Fitness section the discussions should revolve around that.

In doing that, any claims of improved form or fitness should be supported with actual evidence of any improvement.

 

[sciguy]

Hey Fergie, it is anecdotal evidence. I think that qualifies as "any evidence".

Anyhow, a little more information. This year both his swim and his run were within 1 minute of his last year's 3rd place times. But, his bike was 11 minutes faster. If he gives me any insight as to what he felt about the change when I hear from him I will pass it on.

I see that Greg wore an aero helmet this year and if I remember correctly he wore a conventional lid last year. Might that plus the more ideal wind conditions had a bit of affect on his bike time?

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

I see that Greg wore an aero helmet this year and if I remember correctly he wore a conventional lid last year. Might that plus the more ideal wind conditions had a bit of affect on his bike time?

Hugh

Of course, anything is possible. Although I seem to remember Greg wearing an aero helmet for the past several years. I would be surprised if he didn't wear one last year.

Maybe when I get his race report (assuming I do) he will have more thoughts on what the change did for him. I will pass them on.

 

[onetrack]

I see that Greg wore an aero helmet this year and if I remember correctly he wore a conventional lid last year. Might that plus the more ideal wind conditions had a bit of affect on his bike time?

Hugh

wind could definitely have an affect. I think the takeaway from these examples is that, with drastically shorter cranks people are still performing at the same level (some better) in a variety of situations ironman, hill climb stage races, ultra endurance races, double centuries, cyclocross. So if you can ride at the same power with short cranks, that opens up a huge potential for aerodynamic savings and improving comfort at the same time.

 

[FrankDay]

wind could definitely have an affect. I think the takeaway from these examples is that, with drastically shorter cranks people are still performing at the same level (some better) in a variety of situations ironman, hill climb stage races, ultra endurance races, double centuries, cyclocross. So if you can ride at the same power with short cranks, that opens up a huge potential for aerodynamic savings and improving comfort at the same time.

Didn't I say something like that about 70 pages ago?

 

[onetrack]

Ahah, so not only are we adding short cranks to the mix, there is also independent cranks and osymetric rings. I have highlighted all the opinions made in this post. Where is there any real evidence?

Don't forget the arch mount cleats! In a discipline with "10,000 variables" all anyone has is their opinion. Even if I had wattage data showing before/after the short crank change I couldn't prove which of the 10,000 variables caused the wattage change. What I can say with certainty is that I am now more comfortable, ride a more aggressive position, and complete long rides feeling fresher. Unfortunately I don't have the kind of cash to throw around on comfort meters so you'll have to take my word for it.

 

[CoachFergie]

wind could definitely have an affect. I think the takeaway from these examples is that, with drastically shorter cranks people are still performing at the same level (some better) in a variety of situations ironman, hill climb stage races, ultra endurance races, double centuries, cyclocross. So if you can ride at the same power with short cranks, that opens up a huge potential for aerodynamic savings and improving comfort at the same time.

If performance has been measured why has no data been presented? So far only result based anecdotes have been presented.

Looking at the riders from Men's World Time Trial Champs who were all using 175mm or longer cranks they all appear to have very aerodynamic positions and I'm sure all spent considerable time in the wind tunnel. Where would this huge potential for aerodynamic savings come from?

 

[CoachFergie]

Don't forget the arch mount cleats! In a discipline with "10,000 variables" all anyone has is their opinion. Even if I had wattage data showing before/after the short crank change I couldn't prove which of the 10,000 variables caused the wattage change. What I can say with certainty is that I am now more comfortable, ride a more aggressive position, and complete long rides feeling fresher. Unfortunately I don't have the kind of cash to throw around on comfort meters so you'll have to take my word for it.

Just shows the reason for caution using case studies. Had Drew or the chap with the Age Group win in Kona had power data to show an actual performance improvement (ie more power). Fortunately we do have studies that have looked at crank length, cleat position, independent cranks and show no significant differences in power.

 

[FrankDay]

Where would this huge potential for aerodynamic savings come from?

LOL. Perhaps you should go look at the average position of the age groupers at the IM World championships or some of the "lesser" races. Even some the the pros have huge potential improvements possible. check out the postion of Raynard Tissink. He is a PowerCranker and finished in the top 10 overall and look at the potential for aero improvement here. Most were much better than him but I consider this position to be just awful. He looks to me like he is trying to mimic a parachute, trying to scoop as much air as possible.

 

[CoachFergie]

It is hideously bad but is crank length the only option to improve his position?

In the wind tunnel I have achieved lower drag and maintained power in everyone I have taken in there.

Onetrack did claim huge potential for aerodynamic savings! Just as you have claimed increased power from going to a shorter crank.

Big claims but little evidence.