The importance of crank length to the cyclist.

[BroDeal]

Really??? That's hilarious coming from someone who refuses to even consider using a PM (Frank not you)

Oh, yeah. The whole sordid affair should be on Slowtwitch unless the thread has been disappeared. Threads seem to vanish on that site. FDay claimed ignorance, but it's sort of like Dubya claiming he didn't know that Cheney was doctoring the intelligence on Iraq.

 

[42x16ss]

Oh, yeah. The whole sordid affair should be on Slowtwitch unless the thread has been disappeared. Threads seem to vanish on that site. FDay claimed ignorance, but it's sort of like Dubya claiming he didn't know that Cheney was doctoring the intelligence on Iraq.

I just follow Frank for novelty value now. He has some good ideas but when you unite two of Australia and NZ's best known coaches and a physiology PhD (who specialises in cycling) against you there has to be something you are doing wrong....

 

[oldborn]

I'm just laughing at the fact this thread is still running. There are roughly 3 salient points on each side of the discussion, after which this entire discussion is about powercranks.

Frank (and Fergie, et al) how about discussing ONLY the crank length and leaving the product placement out of it? Clearly, if a particular crank length IS important to a cyclist, the brand of crank that gets them there is irrelevant.

Wait a minute, are you talking like mod or super user, like Krishna you know

You can laughing, but at your place I would cry instead. Soon we should not have to read anything here, except clinic
So be happy that any thread in F&F is alive due to your overkill, unmistakable talent for over moderation.

I must remind you (do I really) that users and only users are relevant of popularity of any thread, book or movie, not moderators and censors, wait there is country where moderators are in charge, North Korea.

So this place is dying cos those huge errors. Be happy to have those people here Martin, be happy.

Wait, rename thread in something: "The importance of moderation on purely harmful threads in F&F, and impact on their premature death"

Stay well!

 

[CoachFergie]

Convinced of the efficacy of short cranks is a meaningless comment unless you have data to back it up.

NZ Age Group Track Nationals is on at the moment and my riders are sitting on 5 Gold, 2 Silver and 3 Bronze medals and none of that was influenced by crank length.

Show us the "importance of crank length" Frank! You're stories are meaningless!

 

[Boeing]

Really? with what data can you support your assertion? and is there a sample survey larger than your paying customers?

 

[lostintime]

man .... this "debate" is like watching two blindfolded boxers ...... they both miss the mark completely ! .... but it's funny watching them stumble around the ring anyways ......

 

[elapid]

man .... this "debate" is like watching two blindfolded boxers ...... they both miss the mark completely ! .... but it's funny watching them stumble around the ring anyways ......

+1. I know I shouldn't watch, but I am strangely drawn in just to read the ongoing saga. Like a soapie ... pervasive but nothing ever really changes.

 

[FrankDay]

Nobody is afraid of discussing the topic Frank. Everything useful there was to say on the topic came out inside the first 100 posts. After that, it has been stuck in a rather boring and sad loop.

Of course they are afraid to actually discuss the topic. Rather that inserting their own experience or other useful information their responses are usually nothing more than personal attacks against me.

Or, of course, the usual complaints that my anecdotal data and belief does not constitute proof. Of course my data and belief does not constitute proof, what I present are anecdotal reports and what I have come to believe based on my personal experience. What those with that complaint fail to realize is that it is anecdotal reports and personal experience that usually lead to scientific experiment to determine if these observations hold any water scientifically. Scientists are supposed to be, first and foremost, good observers.

It is blatantly obvious that neither yourself nor several others will ever change your positions on the topic, therefore making this not so much a discussion, more a shouting match of paliamentary proportions.

Come up with a new angle or just let the thread die the death it has been begging for.

I, for one, am perfectly willing to change my position on almost any subject once the other side presents persuasive arguments supporting their view. It is part of the reason for starting such discussions, to see what evidence exists for alternative viewpoints such that I might learn something. This is a great site to look for views regarding cycling. So far, the evidence contrary to my thoughts (aside from the rare anecdotal report) seems to be non-existent while several have posted I tried shorter cranks and it seemed to work.

Anyhow, I tend to try to keep track of how much interest there are in these controversial threads. In most of the controversial threads I have been involved in it would appear that as the threads move along people just stop looking at it and at the end there might be 25-50 people following the thread. However, with this thread, it is behaving in the complete opposite and it appears interest has picked up with time. During recent "down periods" it seems the number of views between posts has increased to almost 500. That suggests to me that there is a lot of interest in this subject rather than people clicking to see where the soap opera has gone now.

Anyhow, I try to do my best to keep my posts on topic. I will endeavor to do better in the future.

 

[oldborn]

Convinced of the efficacy of short cranks is a meaningless comment unless you have data to back it up.

NZ Age Group Track Nationals is on at the moment and my riders are sitting on 5 Gold, 2 Silver and 3 Bronze medals and none of that was influenced by crank length.

Show us the "importance of crank length" Frank! You're stories are meaningless!

Pff 5 Gold, here there is no coach without 10 or 12 Gold on Nationals.
Pff... big deal!

 

[42x16ss]

Of course they are afraid to actually discuss the topic. Rather that inserting their own experience or other useful information their responses are usually nothing more than personal attacks against me.

Or, of course, the usual complaints that my anecdotal data and belief does not constitute proof. Of course my data and belief does not constitute proof, what I present are anecdotal reports and what I have come to believe based on my personal experience. What those with that complaint fail to realize is that it is anecdotal reports and personal experience that usually lead to scientific experiment to determine if these observations hold any water scientifically. Scientists are supposed to be, first and foremost, good observers.

I, for one, am perfectly willing to change my position on almost any subject once the other side presents persuasive arguments supporting their view. It is part of the reason for starting such discussions, to see what evidence exists for alternative viewpoints such that I might learn something. This is a great site to look for views regarding cycling. So far, the evidence contrary to my thoughts (aside from the rare anecdotal report) seems to be non-existent while several have posted I tried shorter cranks and it seemed to work.

Anyhow, I tend to try to keep track of how much interest there are in these controversial threads. In most of the controversial threads I have been involved in it would appear that as the threads move along people just stop looking at it and at the end there might be 25-50 people following the thread. However, with this thread, it is behaving in the complete opposite and it appears interest has picked up with time. During recent "down periods" it seems the number of views between posts has increased to almost 500. That suggests to me that there is a lot of interest in this subject rather than people clicking to see where the soap opera has gone now.

Anyhow, I try to do my best to keep my posts on topic. I will endeavor to do better in the future.

There's one way you can put this to bed Frank. Get yourself a Power Meter, test some various crank lengths and then you just might have some CONCLUSIVE PROOF. Rent a powertap for a few days and you're laughing.

Wait a second - I forgot. You have powermeterophobia

 

[Martin318is]

Wait a minute, are you talking like mod or super user, like Krishna you know

You can laughing, but at your place I would cry instead. Soon we should not have to read anything here, except clinic
So be happy that any thread in F&F is alive due to your overkill, unmistakable talent for over moderation.

I must remind you (do I really) that users and only users are relevant of popularity of any thread, book or movie, not moderators and censors, wait there is country where moderators are in charge, North Korea.

So this place is dying cos those huge errors. Be happy to have those people here Martin, be happy.

Wait, rename thread in something: "The importance of moderation on purely harmful threads in F&F, and impact on their premature death"

Stay well!

I have a long time ago announced that where Frank Day and CoachFergie are concerned I am not acting in the capacity of Moderator and am instead just posting as a member. Any moderation actions will be performed by someone other than me.

And while we are throwing stuff like that around - your fake poor english is getting over the top. Particularly when a simple search shows posts where your english is very good. Dial it back a bit and you will have more impact. Just a friendly tip ;-)

 

[FrankDay]

There's one way you can put this to bed Frank. Get yourself a Power Meter, test some various crank lengths and then you just might have some CONCLUSIVE PROOF. Rent a powertap for a few days and you're laughing.

If you will carefully read this entire thread you will see where many have already done this. One of my pro-triathletes did this and tested best at 115 mm crank length.

So, I throw it back to you. Why don't you go and buy an series of cranks of various lengths (easily available on the interweb at less than $100 per pop) and run your own test and prove my contention wrong. Of course, you would only be testing the power contention when you do so, which I believe to be a minor consideration here, and not testing the aerodynamic consideration, which I consider to be the major benefit of this change. I guess if all you care about is the power number, rather than how fast you are going, which seems to be the focus of many here, that would be adequate. But, give us your data to support your contention that I am full of you know what.

 

[42x16ss]

If you will carefully read this entire thread you will see where many have already done this. One of my pro-triathletes did this and tested best at 115 mm crank length.

So, I throw it back to you. Why don't you go and buy an series of cranks of various lengths (easily available on the interweb at less than $100 per pop) and run your own test and prove my contention wrong. Of course, you would only be testing the power contention when you do so, which I believe to be a minor consideration here, and not testing the aerodynamic consideration, which I consider to be the major benefit of this change. I guess if all you care about is the power number, rather than how fast you are going, which seems to be the focus of many here, that would be adequate. But, give us your data to support your contention that I am full of you know what.

Frank, Frank, Frank. The reason why so many of us are concerned about power figures is this:

Increased power with no loss of aerodynamics = more speed. Even you should be able to comprehend this

Edit: One other thing - aero kinda goes out the window on a 5% + climb. POWER (or more specifically sustainable power to weight) is what comes into play here.

 

[FrankDay]

I have a long time ago announced that where Frank Day and CoachFergie are concerned I am not acting in the capacity of Moderator and am instead just posting as a member. Any moderation actions will be performed by someone other than me.

Then, why don't you actually participate in the discussion than posting such as the following

Frank (and Fergie, et al) how about discussing ONLY the crank length and leaving the product placement out of it? Clearly, if a particular crank length IS important to a cyclist, the brand of crank that gets them there is irrelevant.

 

[FrankDay]

Frank, Frank, Frank. The reason why so many of us are concerned about power figures is this:

Increased power with no loss of aerodynamics = more speed. Even you should be able to comprehend this

Edit: One other thing - aero kinda goes out the window on a 5% + climb. POWER (or more specifically sustainable power to weight) is what comes into play here.

But, increased aerodynamics, even in the face of a drop in power can also result in an increase in speed. Power is just one part of the overall "go fast" equation. Focusing on power may result in losing sight of the forest for the trees. Anyhow, Martin showed power was maximum at 145 mm crank length. If you are riding longer than 145 mm cranks (even if it is on a 5% climb) I assume you have a particularly good reason. I would like to hear what that reason is beyond you think longer cranks should be more powerful.

Oh, and aero is particularly important on a 5% descent. So, unless it it an uphill time-trial (an unusual event in most peoples racing), and you have evidence longer cranks are more powerful, it seems silly to focus on this. So, pick your poison. What do you want to focus on or can we discuss this as something we might want to know more about.

 

[Martin318is]

Then, why don't you actually participate in the discussion than posting such as the following

Frank, you already quoted my answer to that earlier today:

It is blatantly obvious that neither yourself nor several others will ever change your positions on the topic, therefore making this not so much a discussion, more a shouting match of paliamentary proportions.

Come up with a new angle or just let the thread die the death it has been begging for.

If you go back to the genesis of this thread you will find that I did indeed contribute to the discussion. That is before I realised that we've heard it all before and will hear it all again.

 

[FrankDay]

That is before I realised that we've heard it all before and will hear it all again.

Then why prolong, what you consider agony, by posting your thoughts again? Seems we have all heard your thoughts over and over again. Why fixate on Fergie and me?

 

[BroDeal]

Of course they are afraid to actually discuss the topic. Rather that inserting their own experience or other useful information their responses are usually nothing more than personal attacks against me.

That is because you have such a long history of using whopping lies to sell your product that you have no credibility. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Your assertions are transparently fatuous. Your attacks on power meters are risible. Your attempt to portray yourself as open minded is a masquerade.

Or, of course, the usual complaints that my anecdotal data and belief does not constitute proof. Of course my data and belief does not constitute proof, what I present are anecdotal reports and what I have come to believe based on my personal experience. What those with that complaint fail to realize is that it is anecdotal reports and personal experience that usually lead to scientific experiment to determine if these observations hold any water scientifically. Scientists are supposed to be, first and foremost, good observers.

Dr. Venkman, you are a poor scientist. The plural of anecdote is not data. You don't have any data.

Your purpose here is the same as it is everywhere you spam: To bury questions about your bamboozle in a crap flood of posts where you feign objectivity while promoting ludicrous anecdotes and misconstruing studies, which are often poorly constructed.

I, for one, am perfectly willing to change my position on almost any subject once the other side presents persuasive arguments supporting their view.

The years and years of you of spamming forums, being told time and time again why your bogus claims are wrong, and rejecting every attempt by rational people to guide you to a path of sanity stands as unassailable proof that the above statement is a lie as big as the ones you use to support your products.

It is part of the reason for starting such discussions,

No. Your reason for starting these "discussions," if you can call them that, is to promote your snake oil products with a blizzard of anedotes, obfuscation of fact, and outright denial of the usefulness of any type of measurement or testing that will expose your fraud.

So far, the evidence contrary to my thoughts (aside from the rare anecdotal report) seems to be non-existent while several have posted I tried shorter cranks and it seemed to work.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -- Upton Beall Sinclair

Anyhow, I tend to try to keep track of how much interest there are in these controversial threads. In most of the controversial threads I have been involved in it would appear that as the threads move along people just stop looking at it and at the end there might be 25-50 people following the thread. However, with this thread, it is behaving in the complete opposite and it appears interest has picked up with time. During recent "down periods" it seems the number of views between posts has increased to almost 500. That suggests to me that there is a lot of interest in this subject rather than people clicking to see where the soap opera has gone now.

In other words you track the number of thread views to see the result of your spamming.

 

[richwagmn]

+1. I know I shouldn't watch, but I am strangely drawn in just to read the ongoing saga. Like a soapie ... pervasive but nothing ever really changes.

Well said. I can't believe it's still going on. But I can't stop reading it either.

 

[Martin318is]

Then why prolong, what you consider agony, by posting your thoughts again? Seems we have all heard your thoughts over and over again. Why fixate on Fergie and me?

To help new readers of the thread avoid wasting their time and effort pointing out the... oh never mind, I see that BroDeal has it covered.

 

[42x16ss]

unless it it an uphill time-trial (an unusual event in most peoples racing), and you have evidence longer cranks are more powerful, it seems silly to focus on this.

Hmmm, so it isn't a consideration on an uphill or mountain top finish? I'm sure a whole bunch of pro's will be delighted and relieved to hear that overall power is a silly factor to focus on

 

[FrankDay]

That is because you have such a long history of using whopping lies to sell your product that you have no credibility. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Your assertions are transparently fatuous. Your attacks on power meters are risible. Your attempt to portray yourself as open minded is a masquerade.



Dr. Venkman, you are a poor scientist. The plural of anecdote is not data. You don't have any data.

Your purpose here is the same as it is everywhere you spam: To bury questions about your bamboozle in a crap flood of posts where you feign objectivity while promoting ludicrous anecdotes and misconstruing studies, which are often poorly constructed.



The years and years of you of spamming forums, being told time and time again why your bogus claims are wrong, and rejecting every attempt by rational people to guide you to a path of sanity stands as unassailable proof that the above statement is a lie as big as the ones you use to support your products.



No. Your reason for starting these "discussions," if you can call them that, is to promote your snake oil products with a blizzard of anedotes, obfuscation of fact, and outright denial of the usefulness of any type of measurement or testing that will expose your fraud.



"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -- Upton Beall Sinclair



In other words you track the number of thread views to see the result of your spamming.

LOL. Thanks for reminding those who come here, who you seem to deem totally incapable of thinking for themselves, of my sordid past, at least in the imaginations of some. This one post had the potential of extending this thread another 500 posts. Next time try to follow the advice of Martin to me and Fergie and stay on topic.

 

[FrankDay]

Hmmm, so it isn't a consideration on an uphill or mountain top finish? I'm sure a whole bunch of pro's will be delighted and relieved to hear that overall power is a silly factor to focus on

I am sorry. Do you have any actual evidence that longer cranks are more powerful for an uphill time-trial? I know you think they are but do you have any supporting evidence for that contention.

 

[Boeing]

In reference to the thread title : The importance of crank length to the cyclist. and the fortitude and persistence it takes to repeat their dogmatic claims pro or con, Is it fair to ask if Frank and coachfergie are indeed cyclists?

 

[FrankDay]

Is it fair to ask if Frank and coachfergie are indeed cyclists?

Why would it matter? The argument is a theoretical one. Were Einstein's musing's about the behavior of light less important because he wasn't actually a light particle and able to travel at the speed of light?