The importance of crank length to the cyclist.

[FrankDay]

That is quite a correction. Three hours and forty minutes, a 36% increase. The six minutes to ten minutes change beats that at 67%. Of course, self reported numbers tend to be untrustworthy. That is why real research actually measures things.

I will wait for the next correction to bring the numbers closer to reality.

Oops. My bad. My correction was incorrect. I got confused as to what page I was reading when I went back to confirm. Here are the published results. About 6 minutes behind the top three. Over 20 minutes ahead of #5.

1 7360 Rudd Michael - Anacortes, WA United States 10:14:12
2 6462 Dodson Gilbert - Long Beach, CA United States 10:14:29
3 7310 Howard Martin - Long Beach, CA United States 10:14:31
4 5247 Clark Mike - Kirkland, WA United States 10:20:29
5 3891 Sifferman Justin - Kent, WA United States 10:43:00

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

Oops. My bad. My correction was incorrect. I got confused as to what page I was reading when I went back to confirm. Here are the published results. About 6 minutes behind the top three. Over 20 minutes ahead of #5.

1 7360 Rudd Michael - Anacortes, WA United States 10:14:12
2 6462 Dodson Gilbert - Long Beach, CA United States 10:14:29
3 7310 Howard Martin - Long Beach, CA United States 10:14:31
4 5247 Clark Mike - Kirkland, WA United States 10:20:29
5 3891 Sifferman Justin - Kent, WA United States 10:43:00

Get back to use when you have results from a real race rather than a glorified century.

 

[FrankDay]

This "report" is a product endorsement. If you're serious you would be paying a pro to ride them and get real feedback from someone with experience. Relying on this "feedback" is a feeble marketing strategy. You should just take out an ad and take up less bandwith. I'll stop wasting electrons, now.

Get back to use when you have results from a real race rather than a glorified century.

Huh? A product endorsement for junior size BMX cranks? That is what he used. And, I do have a pro doing this stuff (without my needing to pay him to do so). He happened to win Ironman Weatern Australia this year on 145 cranks and has subsequently gone shorter. Here is a picture comparing how he has been able to improve his aerodynamics from when he was racing on 172.5 cranks (in an IM race in which he finished in 2nd place in 2006) and on very short cranks in 2011 (note where the pedals are in relation to the chain ring). He did the WA '160km' ITT Championships, (West Coolup, April 17, 2011) this year on 115 mm PowerCranks at a speed of almost 40 k/hr finishing second only to Matt Illingworth (a commonwealth games bronze medalist) who averaged about 41 km/hr. He thinks short cranks are saving him 10-15 minutes over an IM distance. But, that is only his opinion.

http://i56.tinypic.com/2mg5pgp.jpg

 

[CoachFergie]

So get back to us when you have real data. Not changes in HR or Speed. Power data is the currency of cycling science. Till then all you have is IMHO!

 

[FrankDay]

So get back to us when you have real data. Not changes in HR or Speed. Power data is the currency of cycling science.

Perhaps you could explain how power, "the currency of cycling science" to you, measures the change in aerodynamic drag expected from the illustrated positioning change. Power may be the "currency of cycling science" but, IMHO, speed is the currency of cycling racing. Thanks for your valued input into this thread.

 

[CoachFergie]

Wrong yet again Frank.

I know you like to delude yourself that changes in speed or changes in heart rate from day to day and race to race actually mean anything but the reality is that power is the only dependant variable worth measuring to test for performance improvements.

Power in relation to aerodynamics. Too low a position can restrict power production. When we have cda we can divide that by power to determine power relative to frontal area.

 

[FrankDay]

Fergie, what I find most amazing about you (and a few others here) is your total inability to discuss anything theoretical. If something hasn't been proven scientifically you have no interest in it or what anyone might say about it. Not all of us are quite that rigid. Anyhow, 3 more quotes recently received from people willing to try shorter cranks to see what might happen. Enjoy.

#1 writes: "Oh man. rode the 145mm length cranks on the valdora. This was awesome. I felt like i was climbing faster heart rate lower more comfortable. more aero. flat back. … Overall was a dynamite ride and I am sold on the 145s. will go down slowly from here and see when i bottom out. I felt like i could still climb real well with this length. out of the saddle was good too." … "There came a point in the ride about half way thru coming down from santa ysabel i was pulling and pushing with equal force and it felt good - like a machine. normally on longer cranks it's just a lift push motion - now it was pull push."

#2 writes: "I had a great ride today on 130's. Rode one of my normal routes faster than last time I rode it although it was first day I felt good in a couple of weeks. I haven't adjusted the gearing yet. I'll keep you posted."

#3 (this fellow is doing a crank length study and being blown away by the preliminary results) writes about his friend Tim: "Tim, today, took first in a local sprint. The best part is that neither of us is "training" right now. We're just 'goofing off' in relative terms and showing large differences. oh, and he did it nursing a calf injury. he commented that he owes the performance to both PC's and 130mm cranks." (Tim raced on 130 mm PowerCranks)

Anyhow, to those here not afraid to try something different, I would suggest experimenting with shorter cranks and see what happens. If you need to wait for others to prove that something works before you will try it I would suggest you wait.

 

[CoachFergie]

Three meaningless anecdotes that don't advance your argument one bit.

It would be nice for me to coach people and tell them that "I believe you're going faster" or "I think you look more aero" or "I feel you have improved 40%" or use irrelevant metrics like "you did that time trial at 5bpm higher than 4 weeks ago" or "you are 2kph faster than last year" but most people understand that none of the above reflect a real improvement in performance.

You have still failed to show how going to a shorter crank increases power.

 

[FrankDay]

Three meaningless anecdotes that don't advance your argument one bit.

Sure they do, I am arguing a potential. Those anecdotes support that potential.

You have still failed to show how going to a shorter crank increases power.

I have argued that if there is a power increase it will be small, as shown by Martin. My main argument is that the major benefit is a potential improvement in aerodynamics. So, even if shorter cranks resulted in a decrease in power, the racer could still see an an improved racing performance because the combination could result in improved overall speed or less energy cost. But, you are so locked into power being the only metric that means anything to the racer (or coach) that you cannot see the big picture. So be it. Hopefully, the typical person showing up at these threads can see through your obfuscations.

 

[CoachFergie]

Sure they do, I am arguing a potential. Those anecdotes support that potential.

They provide no objective evidence of any potential.

My main argument is that the major benefit is a potential improvement in aerodynamics.

Depends on the person. I have taken riders into the wind tunnel and no matter what we experimented with, we couldn't get them more aero. Jim Martin said that he got as aero as he could using 165mm cranks on his TT bike.

Also seeing this is a cycling forum we have to take into account that riders will be doing more than just time trials so it makes sense to run similar length cranks between road, track, MTB or time trial bikes.

So, even if shorter cranks resulted in a decrease in power, the racer could still see an an improved racing performance because the combination could result in improved overall speed or less energy cost.

Yup that is why I spend time with the riders in the wind tunnel and down the track tinkering with their position to find the optimal balance between power and aerodynamics. Think I might have mentioned before that I have suggested that the trend on track to go to longer cranks for Teams Pursuiting is misguided and some would benefit in terms of finding that power, aerodynamics (and cadence as I feel they are running too big a gear, but that is another story) balance.

But, you are so locked into power being the only metric that means anything to the racer (or coach) that you cannot see the big picture. So be it. Hopefully, the typical person showing up at these threads can see through your obfuscations.

I trust people can see through your smoke and mirrors and look for the data which will show them whether their equipment selections, position decisions and training programmes are helping them improve or not.

There is more than just the raw power figure. I have been collecting data files from a local racing series and these are the following categories I have been tracking...

Age
Gender
Weight
Height
Frontal Area
FTP
Grade
Power Meter Used
Wheels
Temp
Weather
Race Time
Race Watts
Race W/kg
Race W/FSA
Race W/kg^.32
Kj
Race % of FTP
Race %of20MP
Race %of5MP
Race %of30sP
Race BPM
Race MHR
Race % MHR
Race RPM
Race Max RPM
Race Kph
Race Max Kph
20MP
20 min % of FTP
20min W/kg
20min W/FSA
20min W/kg^.32
20min % of 5min
20min % of 30sec
20M RPM
20M HR
% MHR
5MP
5min % of FTP
5min W/kg
5min W/FSA
5min W/kg^.32
5min % of 30sec
5min RPM
5min HR
5min % MHR
30sW % of FTP
30sec W/kg
30sec W/FSA
30sec W/kg^.32
30sec RPM
30sec HR
30sec % MHR
1st half of race Watts
1st half of race % FTP
2nd half of race Watts
2nd half of race % of first
2nd half of race % of FTP
% in Training Zones AR BE Tempo Thr MAP An Cap
% in Quadrants 1-4 HiP HiC HiP LoC LoP LoC LoP HiC

So maybe just a little more than just using raw power as the only determinant of performance. Have to say that cadence and HR have very little utility in determining how a rider performed.

 

[Oldman]

Coach Fergie,
Don't argue with a salesman. They just add more oil to the pitch...

 

[CoachFergie]

Coach Fergie,
Don't argue with a salesman. They just add more oil to the pitch...

It's just so amusing.

Funny how after reading Franks posts I have the urge to watch Monty Python movies.

 

[Oldman]

It's just so amusing.

Funny how after reading Franks posts I have the urge to watch Monty Python movies.

Some of the dialogue does remind me of Medieval healers.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

Some of the dialogue does remind me of Medieval healers.

Do not give him any ideas or soon we will be seeing Power Leeches, "the natural and time tested method of recovery (tm)." There will not be any testing or data that proves that they work, in fact there will be a steadfast refusal to do any sort of meaningful measurement at all, but there will be many testimonials that will be spammed year after year to every cycling and triathlon forum where a certain Mr. Day has not yet been banned.

 

[Oldman]

Do not give him any ideas or soon we will be seeing Power Leeches, "the natural and time tested method of recovery (tm)." There will not be any testing or data that proves that they work, in fact there will be a steadfast refusal to do any sort of meaningful measurement at all, but there will be many testimonials that will be spammed year after year to every cycling and triathlon forum where a certain Mr. Day has not yet been banned.

But the leeches could surely relieve you of the Evil Humors masquerading as free radicals. Since no studies exist debunking their therapeutic value they must be helpful.

 

[FrankDay]

They provide no objective evidence of any potential.



Depends on the person. I have taken riders into the wind tunnel and no matter what we experimented with, we couldn't get them more aero. Jim Martin said that he got as aero as he could using 165mm cranks on his TT bike.

Also seeing this is a cycling forum we have to take into account that riders will be doing more than just time trials so it makes sense to run similar length cranks between road, track, MTB or time trial bikes.



Yup that is why I spend time with the riders in the wind tunnel and down the track tinkering with their position to find the optimal balance between power and aerodynamics. Think I might have mentioned before that I have suggested that the trend on track to go to longer cranks for Teams Pursuiting is misguided and some would benefit in terms of finding that power, aerodynamics (and cadence as I feel they are running too big a gear, but that is another story) balance.



I trust people can see through your smoke and mirrors and look for the data which will show them whether their equipment selections, position decisions and training programmes are helping them improve or not.

There is more than just the raw power figure. I have been collecting data files from a local racing series and these are the following categories I have been tracking...

Age
Gender
Weight
Height
Frontal Area
FTP
Grade
Power Meter Used
Wheels
Temp
Weather
Race Time
Race Watts
Race W/kg
Race W/FSA
Race W/kg^.32
Kj
Race % of FTP
Race %of20MP
Race %of5MP
Race %of30sP
Race BPM
Race MHR
Race % MHR
Race RPM
Race Max RPM
Race Kph
Race Max Kph
20MP
20 min % of FTP
20min W/kg
20min W/FSA
20min W/kg^.32
20min % of 5min
20min % of 30sec
20M RPM
20M HR
% MHR
5MP
5min % of FTP
5min W/kg
5min W/FSA
5min W/kg^.32
5min % of 30sec
5min RPM
5min HR
5min % MHR
30sW % of FTP
30sec W/kg
30sec W/FSA
30sec W/kg^.32
30sec RPM
30sec HR
30sec % MHR
1st half of race Watts
1st half of race % FTP
2nd half of race Watts
2nd half of race % of first
2nd half of race % of FTP
% in Training Zones AR BE Tempo Thr MAP An Cap
% in Quadrants 1-4 HiP HiC HiP LoC LoP LoC LoP HiC

So maybe just a little more than just using raw power as the only determinant of performance. Have to say that cadence and HR have very utility in determining how a rider performed.

I am particularly interested in how you measure frontal area, the 5th item on your list.
and you seemed to have left out a word or two, when you wrote: "Have to say that cadence and HR have very utility in determining how a rider performed."
I also note you don't seem to note (or care) how they placed in the race absolutely or in comparison to peers as that metric is not on your list.

 

[CoachFergie]

I am particularly interested in how you measure frontal area, the 5th item on your list.
and you seemed to have left out a word or two, when you wrote: "Have to say that cadence and HR have very littleutility in determining how a rider performed."
I also note you don't seem to note (or care) how they placed in the race absolutely or in comparison to peers as that metric is not on your list.

FSA is just an estimate as it is a road race and position will change in a race.

http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2011/04/estimation-of-cda-from-anthropometric.html

Using the AIS formula multiplied by Cd. Allometric scaling gives a pretty similar result.

I have pondered about including placing as part of the data but these are from a 9 race series, includes different grades and as we all know bike racing is not a maths contest where the best numbers gets the best result.

We have a big race on the weekend and you can rest assured that my coaching of riders for this event is more than just telling them what numbers they need to hit

 

[Martin318is]

I am particularly interested in how you measure frontal area, the 5th item on your list.
and you seemed to have left out a word or two, when you wrote: "Have to say that cadence and HR have very utility in determining how a rider performed."
I also note you don't seem to note (or care) how they placed in the race absolutely or in comparison to peers as that metric is not on your list.

In anything other than a timetrial that is a pretty pointless metric is it not?

 

[FrankDay]

FSA is just an estimate as it is a road race and position will change in a race.

Fergie, ye of the "you can't tell nuttin without actual power numbers" fame, exactly what do you do with this estimate. I mean, you must consider this of some value and be doing something with data if you are taking the trouble to "estimate" this value and then write it down with each race.

 

[CoachFergie]

In anything other than a timetrial that is a pretty pointless metric is it not?

On the day it is the only metric I'm interested in.

As part of a process it's utility is probably even less than HR or cadence.

 

[CoachFergie]

Fergie, ye of the "you can't tell nuttin without actual power numbers" fame, exactly what do you do with this estimate. I mean, you must consider this of some value and be doing something with data if you are taking the trouble to "estimate" this value and then write it down with each race.

I wouldn't call spending 5sec putting it in excel where it is calculated automatically each time as trouble.

It's utility comes in narrowing the gap between riders in the same grade in assessing performance.

I raced in D grade with a 16 year old girl I coach. Her power numbers were way better than mine in terms of raw power and W/kg. Using the FSA or cda estimate, or allometric scaling the gap is reduced to a point where we could say the difference was me using deep section wheels and her box section rims, my 26 years of racing experience against her 8 months, her being on U17 restricted gears and me having unlimited gears.

 

[FrankDay]

In anything other than a timetrial that is a pretty pointless metric is it not?

I saw a lot on that list that seemed pretty useless. We are talking racing aren't we? Nobody here cares where the athlete actually finishes? To each his own I suppose.

 

[CoachFergie]

I saw a lot on that list that seemed pretty useless.

That is why I coach and you sell snake oil and misinformation.

Yes the HR and Cadence data is pointless but each of other data points all contribute a little (or a lot) towards the performance puzzle.

 

[FrankDay]

I wouldn't call spending 5sec putting it in excel where it is calculated automatically each time as trouble.

It's utility comes in narrowing the gap between riders in the same grade in assessing performance.

I raced in D grade with a 16 year old girl I coach. Her power numbers were way better than mine in terms of raw power and W/kg. Using the FSA or cda estimate, or allometric scaling the gap is reduced to a point where we could say the difference was me using deep section wheels and her box section rims, my 26 years of racing experience against her 8 months, her being on U17 restricted gears and me having unlimited gears.

You couldn't reach that conclusion without putting in a frontal area estimate into the spreadsheet? Or, even, without having any data comparing you two? How on earth did coaches ever give any useful advice before the era of power meters?

 

[CoachFergie]

You couldn't reach that conclusion without putting in a frontal area estimate into the spreadsheet? Or, even, without having any data comparing you two?

I didn't want people to feel insecure because I can do...

(0.00215*weight+0.18964*(height/100)-0.07961)*0.7

...in my head just from looking at a rider.

How on earth did coaches ever give any useful advice before the era of power meters?

Either slowly or badly.