The importance of crank length to the cyclist.

[CoachFergie]

Yes congrats, another convicted drug cheat like Ricco and Museeuw who uses your product as an excuse for their extraordinary performances

How do you control for the drug taking in your claim that independent cranks actually improved their performance?

My assessment is that the one day the Pro's had to think for themselves and riding for Countries rather than teams a lot of people showed their reliance on race radios and team directors and came up short.

 

[Boeing]

can we talk about crank arm girth? I mean with today technology its not all about length

 

[FrankDay]

How do you control for the drug taking in your claim that independent cranks actually improved their performance?

I, like everyone else, must rely upon the UCI, to do that. The fact remains, unless Vino fails testing, that he was allowed to race and won the Olympic gold medal in a race that no one in their right mind would have bet against GB and Cavendish. Bettini (X 2), Sanchez, and now Vino - all PowerCrankers. Not bad for a 13 yo company.

Anyhow, back to the crank length discussion.

 

[CoachFergie]

I, like everyone else, must rely upon the UCI, to do that. The fact remains, unless Vino fails testing, that he was allowed to race and won the Olympic gold medal in a race that no one in their right mind would have bet against GB and Cavendish. Bettini (X 2), Sanchez, and now Vino - all PowerCrankers. Not bad for a 13 yo company.

Anyhow, back to the crank length discussion.

So no data to show that independent cranks had anything to do with any of those riders performances.

The same as no data showing any importance of crank length.

 

[FrankDay]

So no data to show that independent cranks had anything to do with any of those riders performances.

Nope, just as there is no "data" to show that your coaching efforts have anything to do with any "outstanding" performances of those you coach.

 

[CoachFergie]

Nope, just as there is no "data" to show that your coaching efforts have anything to do with any "outstanding" performances of those you coach.

Yeah but I never claimed there was.

 

[sciguy]

Alex, Fergie, My delusions, it seems, are destined to continue. Vino's win today gives PowerCrankers 4 wins in the last 4 Olympic road races. You snooze you lose. LOL

I did notice that Vino was racing with conventional length cranks and sported an SRM power meter rather than a set of independent cranks. He is a long time user and advocate of the use of power meters. Might that have anything to do with his success?

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

I did notice that Vino was racing with conventional length cranks and sported an SRM power meter rather than a set of independent cranks. He is a long time user and advocate of the use of power meters. Might that have anything to do with his success?

Hugh

Who knows? I presume they all do what they think gives them the best chance of winning. No one thing can take sole credit for any victory as it is due to the totality of their preparation. The fact remains that the last four Olympic rr gold medalists have all trained on PowerCranks. Can any other piece of equipment make that claim?

 

[CoachFergie]

Who knows? I presume they all do what they think gives them the best chance of winning. No one thing can take sole credit for any victory as it is due to the totality of their preparation. The fact remains that the last four Olympic rr gold medalists have all trained on PowerCranks. Can any other piece of equipment make that claim?

So it would be as equally a legitimate claim to say that independent cranks made no difference at all.

All 4 Olympic Champions used an SRM Power Meter and I will make a claim that this piece of equipment didn't help their performance one bit.

 

[coapman]

I didn't. It is simply what people report to us again and again. Sometimes they see more, sometimes less, but 2-3 is the most frequent number. My presumption is that most riders are smart enough to know when they are faster, even considering all those variables you mentioned, just based upon their experience. Most of them are not stupid even though you seem to think they are.

What do you tell people at these EXPO'S when they ask you, where and how in my pedal stroke will these special cranks increase my power output ?

 

[FrankDay]

What do you tell people at these EXPO'S when they ask you, where and how in my pedal stroke will these special cranks increase my power output ?

I basically tell them it comes from training more muscle mass and improved utilization of the trained muscles using all of the circle. At some time in the, hopefully, not to distant future we will have plenty of pedal force data to help us answer the question more definitively than that.

 

[CoachFergie]

I basically tell them it comes from training more muscle mass and improved utilization of the trained muscles using all of the circle. At some time in the, hopefully, not to distant future we will have plenty of pedal force data to help us answer the question more definitively than that.

That research has all been performed (Sperlich, Bohm and others) and like the importance of crank length your claims were not supported.

 

[coapman]

I basically tell them it comes from training more muscle mass and improved utilization of the trained muscles using all of the circle. At some time in the, hopefully, not to distant future we will have plenty of pedal force data to help us answer the question more definitively than that.

If they ask you what type of pedaling style they will be using when the 6 months of training is complete and the PC cranks are replaced with standard cranks, how would you answer.

 

[CoachFergie]

Be amused to hear how Frank would respond but the research by Fernandez-Pena showed that within days of going from an independent crank to a normal crank the power delivery through the pedal stroke reverts back to normal.

So unless Frank has data that Vino and the other Olympic champions used the independent crank in the week leading up to the race the claim that using a IC at some point in their career had an effect on their Olympic Games performance is incorrect.

But then thanks to the studies by Luttrell, Sperlich, Burns and Bohm we know a training bout of 5-6 weeks (a time frame where numerous other studies have shown dramatic performance changes can occur) using a IC has no significant effect on performance.

 

[the big ring]

Yes, but can CSI Fergie prove who did the "tampering"? I happen to have an untampered file in my possession (turns out it was still in his PT so could be downloaded again) but he was so ****ed at how he was treated by you folks he made me promise I wouldn't provide it to anyone else. He gave it to me and RChung to prove he wasn't lying.

Was his name Joseph Smith?

 

[Boeing]

die thread die...

pull the plug susan please

 

[The Cobra]

Who would have though a thread on crank length would pass 1500 posts!

 

[FrankDay]

die thread die...

pull the plug susan please

It would probably die much sooner if people like you would stop reading and posting and if things like this didn't keep popping up. Back on topic at least. Enjoy.

 

[CoachFergie]

It would probably die much sooner if people like you would stop reading and posting and if things like this didn't keep popping up. Back on topic at least. Enjoy.

Everyone has an opinion. When he puts up some data I will consider this.

 

[coapman]

It would probably die much sooner if people like you would stop reading and posting and if things like this didn't keep popping up. Back on topic at least. Enjoy.

You being the expert on shorter cranks, how do they offer fewer dead spots when you pedal.

 

[CoachFergie]

Be interested to see data on the insulation tape theory. Andy, is this something you could test in your wind tunnel at home?

 

[FrankDay]

You being the expert on shorter cranks, how do they offer fewer dead spots when you pedal.

While I, probably, have more "data" (reports) on short cranks than almost anyone, I am not sure I have good data to answer your question. In fact, I am not sure I would agree with everything the author of this article said, based upon what I "know" now. I am not aware of any data that suggests shorter cranks reduce drag (they may reduce drag on the cranks but, it seems, they increase drag on the rider unless the upper body is lowered as the cranks shorten also), and reduce injuries. As regards the dead spot, if it is easier to get the foot over the top because the knee is further from the chest then I can see shorter cranks resulting in a smaller or lessened "dead spot". When pedal force data is available for the entire 360º I think the answer to your question will become more easily answered.

 

[FrankDay]

Everyone has an opinion. When he puts up some data I will consider this. … Be interested to see data on the insulation tape theory.

Fergie, there seem to be two types of persons in the world, those afraid of making mistakes and those afraid of being left behind because they know that advances are always occurring. You, Coach Fergie, are clearly in the first camp. The problem with that approach is you can never be on the cutting edge. You are always doing what is proven (meaning everyone has access to the data) or what the majority are doing even though proof is lacking (meaning you are doing what everyone else is doing so you have nothing special to offer). Of course, the other camp faces the risk that what they choose to experiment with may actually make them slower instead of making them faster, as they hope. Of course, what they choose to experiment with may make no difference at all, at which point there was nothing lost from the experiment.

Now, the debate over shorter cranks is one of "there might be a benefit but no one can prove it". So, you are in the "unless you can prove it I am not willing to try them" camp. Your approach to risk is not a compelling argument to many and should not influence the debate over the possibilities.

Regarding, PowerCranks, the fact that the last 4 Olympic RR champs have trained on them is not PROOF that they were better as a result but certainly suggests that they were not worse off because of the experience.

 

[CoachFergie]

Fergie, there seem to be two types of persons in the world, those afraid of making mistakes and those afraid of being left behind because they know that advances are always occurring. You, Coach Fergie, are clearly in the first camp.

Poor me.

The problem with that approach is you can never be on the cutting edge.

Lets not confuse cutting edge with performance enhancement. Thanks to the research on independent cranks, crank length I'm glad I have not wasted the time of riders who employ me to improve their performance.

You are always doing what is proven (meaning everyone has access to the data) or what the majority are doing even though proof is lacking (meaning you are doing what everyone else is doing so you have nothing special to offer).

Poor me.

Of course, the other camp faces the risk that what they choose to experiment with may actually make them slower instead of making them faster, as they hope. Of course, what they choose to experiment with may make no difference at all, at which point there was nothing lost from the experiment.

Poor them.

Now, the debate over shorter cranks is one of "there might be a benefit but no one can prove it". So, you are in the "unless you can prove it I am not willing to try them" camp. Your approach to risk is not a compelling argument to many and should not influence the debate over the possibilities.

It's not cutting edge when the research on crank length was done 10 years ago and clearly shows there is no significant advantage in terms of power and efficiency.

Regarding, PowerCranks, the fact that the last 4 Olympic RR champs have trained on them is not PROOF that they were better as a result but certainly suggests that they were not worse off because of the experience.

You have no data to present either way. So your example is meaningless.

 

[FrankDay]

Fergie, In your response to the Burrows article posting (1565) you wrote:

Everyone has an opinion. When he puts up some data I will consider this.

Then, when I point out that not everyone needs proof of a concept before trying it you write:

It's not cutting edge when the research on crank length was done 10 years ago and clearly shows there is no significant advantage in terms of power and efficiency

Now, your responses do seem a little schizophrenic as either the data is firm or it isn't. (I happen to think the data, as sparse as it is, actually supports the view that shorter cranks should offer an advantage, guess the interpretation of the data is what is open to controversy. Of course, more work must be done) Since you are not critical of the Burrows article, simply wanting to see the data that supports his view, it appears that you seem more interested in objecting to anything I might write or post as opposed to actually entering the discussion as to the potential and possibilities of this option for the cyclist.