The importance of crank length to the cyclist.

[CoachFergie]

It is not my suggestion, it was the conclusion of Phil Holman. Phil was an experienced track cyclist and naysayer before he got on them similar to you. He couldn't believe such improvements as I suggested could be possible but he agreed to try them (using them exclusively as I required, except for his track workouts) on my dare and we would see what happened. He concluded "they worked for me." But, what would he know compared to you? (What is your experience with the product again?)

"So Frank Day"

Do I need to have smoked to really understand that cigarettes might cause me harm?

There is no evidence that they worked for Phil. He improved but as pointed out his improvements are fairly average in terms of pursuiting, especially over a 7 month period. Actually a little ordinary IMO

You don't think that other factors may have contributed to a 2-3mph increase in speed over a whole 7 months? Now if you had un-tampered power files you might be able to show an actual increase in work capacity for the pursuit. Not that this would tell you anything about how that increase was achieved. Phil did perform other training.

Perhaps that other training made up for the lack of improvement that is seen in the better studies on Gimmickcranks.

 

[FrankDay]

Perhaps that other training made up for the lack of improvement that is seen in the better studies on Gimmickcranks.

Perhaps 5 weeks of part-time use would not be expected to give similar results to the 7 months "exclusive use" done by Phil Holman or 6 or 13 months of exclusive use done by the Spanish guy. "better studies" indeed.

 

[CoachFergie]

Perhaps 5 weeks of part-time use would not be expected to give similar results to the 7 months "exclusive use" done by Phil Holman or 6 or 13 months of exclusive use done by the Spanish guy. "better studies" indeed.

More than adequate time. The response to exercise stress is rather rapid.

Phil did not do "exclusive use", you yourself said he was performing track workouts. Love how you keep contradicting yourself.

"So Frank Day"

 

[onetrack]

hi, just thought I'd pop in to share my experience with with shorter cranks. This summer, I switched from 172.5mm cranks to 145mm cranks.

I immediately noticed, a smoother feel on the bike, more power (much more then 1%), better climbing, better endurance, I was able to raise my seat while lowering my handle bars and the overall position is more comfortable to ride in than the less aero position with standard crank lengths.

 

[FrankDay]

hi, just thought I'd pop in to share my experience with with shorter cranks. This summer, I switched from 172.5mm cranks to 145mm cranks.

I immediately noticed, a smoother feel on the bike, more power (much more then 1%), better climbing, better endurance, I was able to raise my seat while lowering my handle bars and the overall position is more comfortable to ride in than the less aero position with standard crank lengths.

Thanks for your report. Put on your flak jacket.

 

[elapid]

I've been reading this thread with interest. Regardless of the antagonism between the two opposing points of view, there are good points for both camps. Coming from a scientific background, I agree with Coach Fergie's approach in wanting scientific proof to justify the use of shorter cranks. This proof is apparently lacking.

Anecdotal evidence of individual rider's performance improvements with shorter cranks does not equate to sufficient proof that shorter cranks are effective in improving performance. But ... that should not stop any cyclist from trying something different and seeing if it works for them. If onetrack or any other cyclist prefers using shorter cranks because of improved performance and/or better position on the bike, whether real or perceived, then this should not be denigrated.

I know there is more going on with Frank Day v Coach Fergie, but there is merit to the POVs for both camps.

 

[FrankDay]

hi, just thought I'd pop in to share my experience with with shorter cranks. This summer, I switched from 172.5mm cranks to 145mm cranks.

I immediately noticed, a smoother feel on the bike, more power (much more then 1%), better climbing, better endurance, I was able to raise my seat while lowering my handle bars and the overall position is more comfortable to ride in than the less aero position with standard crank lengths.

This just showed up on my Facebook wall

102 m///le El Cajon Julian loop. was going to just ride to Santa Ysabel but the nice smooth highway 78 beckoned me up it. Rode 130mm cranks and really liked it. Feel less tired overall with them. Will go smaller until my leverage loss equals my hig angle gain. capice? 412 miles for the week. Now puppy time.

This guy does a lot of climbing and just couldn't believe real short could be real good. Took a lot to get him to go smaller than 165, then 145. Will see where he settles. Now, are you ready to go shorter than 145 to see what happens?

One more question, how much were you able to lower your front end with this change?

 

[FrankDay]

Coming from a scientific background, I agree with Coach Fergie's approach in wanting scientific proof to justify the use of shorter cranks. This proof is apparently lacking.

There is quite a gap between wanting scientific proof and the ability to obtain scientific proof, especially in this area of athletic performance where there are many variables involved and many years of training are usually involved. Where is the scientific proof for the benefit of power meters, coaches, strength training, nutritional programs, etc. etc? It doesn't exist because it is almost impossible to design a study (and then find people willing to participate in such a study) to look at these questions.

Where scientific proof doesn't exist then we are stuck making decisions based upon the data that does exist and on theoretical considerations but most simply choose to use their ingrained bias.

 

[elapid]

There is quite a gap between wanting scientific proof and the ability to obtain scientific proof, especially in this area of athletic performance where there are many variables involved and many years of training are usually involved. Where is the scientific proof for the benefit of power meters, coaches, strength training, nutritional programs, etc. etc? It doesn't exist because it is almost impossible to design a study (and then find people willing to participate in such a study) to look at these questions.

Where scientific proof doesn't exist then we are stuck making decisions based upon the data that does exist and on theoretical considerations but most simply choose to use their ingrained bias.

I am not arguing with you, hence the second paragraph of my post.

An athlete is free to chose what they think makes intuitive sense to them. There may not be any scientific proof for the benefit of power meters and coaches, but these are intangibles which make sense for any cyclist trying to maximize their potential but for which scientific studies will never be able to validate.

However, tangibles such as nutritional programs (e.g., protein level x% v protein level y%) or crank length (e.g., 145mm v 175mm) are studies that can be done. I am not a exercise physiologist and I don't know what end points would be best tested to validate the study, but a cross-over study with trained cyclists would be quite easy to test short v regular crank lengths.

 

[FrankDay]

I am not arguing with you, hence the second paragraph of my post.

I was only commenting on your seeming agreement with Fergie's desire for scientific proof before accepting change. Fergie doesn't seem to accept that anything can be an improvement unless scientific proof can be shown (with the exception of the use of power meters, of course). He can't seem to allow for the presentation of anecdotal evidence as having any relevance if it is something his bias finds disagreeable.

He doesn't understand that, when it comes to new ideas, the lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking. He might be right but neither of us, right now, can prove their case. Therefore, it is up to the individual to decide whether to try something different or not based upon the arguments and anecdotal experience of others. That is what forums like this are for, to allow people to share ideas and experience. Early adopters are that because they are more willing to try something different based upon scant evidence. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose (betamax).

Thanks again for posting your experience with this change to this thread.

 

[CoachFergie]

There is quite a gap between wanting scientific proof and the ability to obtain scientific proof, especially in this area of athletic performance where there are many variables involved and many years of training are usually involved. Where is the scientific proof for the benefit of power meters, coaches, strength training, nutritional programs, etc. etc? It doesn't exist because it is almost impossible to design a study (and then find people willing to participate in such a study) to look at these questions.

Where scientific proof doesn't exist then we are stuck making decisions based upon the data that does exist and on theoretical considerations but most simply choose to use their ingrained bias.

"So Frank Day"

-A power meter is a measuring tool

We don't lose weight because of the way we measure body fat. A car isn't faster because of the type of speedo. A plane doesn't fly better because we can measure altitude. Still havent figured that one out Frank

-A coach is a teacher

Even the best coach can be made to look stupid if the rider doesn't follow their advice and the worst coach can be made to look excellent if the rider has the most talent.

-Strength and Nutrition

Both can be measured in terms of cycling performance if that is the dependant variable of interest. Some very good studies out there and some very bad ones.

The thing with personal experience is that for every person who "claims" success with a shorter crank there will be someone who claims the same about longer cranks. There was one such chap on Wattage a couple of months ago claiming that because he had been hand held timed faster on 200mm cranks that this was evidence that longer cranks allowed greater power.

Or worse the "appeal to authority" of "Indurain used long cranks".

I use a levels of proof approach....

1. RCTs
2. Other studies
3. Theoretical constructs (studies of similar concepts)

I will take that bias over others personal experience any day

 

[CoachFergie]

I was only commenting on your seeming agreement with Fergie's desire for scientific proof before accepting change.

Well it's not about Fergie. It's about the riders he coaches and the desire to not lead them on a wild goose chase every time someone has a new Gimmick. The current rate appears to be a new Gimmick per week.

Fergie doesn't seem to accept that anything can be an improvement unless scientific proof can be shown (with the exception of the use of power meters, of course). He can't seem to allow for the presentation of anecdotal evidence as having any relevance if it is something his bias finds disagreeable.

And happily so.

The MIT Grad was so caught up in his bias that he ignored calibration of a power meter and the oddity of his 60min power from a rollers based test being higher than his 20min power from an uphill time trial.

Or your own bias that Gimmickcranks are the only way a person can make considerable performance gains in cycling. You see Cadel win the Tour and post "Wow Gimmickcranker Cadel wins Tour" ignoring little details like that use is not exclusive, is in the off season, is for a minimal time and the truck load of normal training and racing. If Cadel can see the benefit of the system why doesn't he or any other Pro use them in the time trial stages of major events?

He doesn't understand that, when it comes to new ideas, the lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking. He might be right but neither of us, right now, can prove their case.

In both cases of improved power from short or long cranks and changing power delivery through the pedal stroke the research is there but your own bias means you ignore it because it shows no benefit to your product.

Therefore, it is up to the individual to decide whether to try something different or not based upon the arguments and anecdotal experience of others.

"So Frank Day"

That is what forums like this are for, to allow people to share ideas and experience. Early adopters are that because they are more willing to try something different based upon scant evidence. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose (betamax).

"Boldly going where no man has gone before"

How noble. Not really. It's just spam Frank. Your only interest on any of these threads is selling snake oil.

 

[onetrack]

One more question, how much were you able to lower your front end with this change?

I went from riding 98% of the time on the hoods to dropping the bar 1 cm and riding about 75% in the drops. seat went up 27.5mm. so the overall change in drop not counting the transition to the drops comes to -37.5mm. I want to reiterate that this is more comfortable than the previous more upright position. The only caveat is that this cuts off blood flow like nothing else. I had to switch to an ism seat to keep from going numb.

 

[FrankDay]

I went from riding 98% of the time on the hoods to dropping the bar 1 cm and riding about 75% in the drops. seat went up 27.5mm. so the overall change in drop not counting the transition to the drops comes to -37.5mm. I want to reiterate that this is more comfortable than the previous more upright position. The only caveat is that this cuts off blood flow like nothing else. I had to switch to an ism seat to keep from going numb.

Thanks. People who think you have to raise the handlebars because you raise the seat with this change clearly haven't tried it. I also have an ISM saddle and also have to tilt the nose down some to be comfortable there.

 

[CoachFergie]

Check out Cobb Cycling videos on youtube. He has some ideas that might help. I tilted my saddle up and dropped the bars 3cm and have no issues and better aerodynamics. Go figure.

I went from riding 98% of the time on the hoods to dropping the bar 1 cm and riding about 75% in the drops. seat went up 27.5mm. so the overall change in drop not counting the transition to the drops comes to -37.5mm. I want to reiterate that this is more comfortable than the previous more upright position. The only caveat is that this cuts off blood flow like nothing else. I had to switch to an ism seat to keep from going numb.

 

[FrankDay]

Check out Cobb Cycling videos on youtube. He has some ideas that might help. I tilted my saddle up and dropped the bars 3cm and have no issues and better aerodynamics. Go figure.

Hey Fergie, has Cobb got any scientific studies to back up his ideas that you seem to have jumped on?

 

[CoachFergie]

Not that I am aware of.

But that is your bias that I don't move an inch without guidance from the best randomised control trial's available.

 

[FrankDay]

But that is your bias that I don't move an inch without guidance from the best randomised control trial's available.

No Fergie, that is what you stated in post #212 above. It happens to be my "bias" that you do lots and lots of things that have little or no scientific support because that is what everyone in this business is forced to do because there is so little scientific support for most of what we do. That which has good scientific support everyone does. What sets people apart in sport is what they choose to do that doesn't have good support. We all mostly make those decisions based upon what we think is best using our own experience and the experience of those we trust. It is the early adopters and experimenters who move sport forward. Sometimes they get it wrong but when they get it right sport changes. Knute Rockne, **** Fosbury, Greg LeMond, etc. Those types move sport forward, not your type.

 

[CoachFergie]

No Fergie, that is what you stated in post #212 above. It happens to be my "bias" that you do lots and lots of things that have little or no scientific support because that is what everyone in this business is forced to do because there is so little scientific support for most of what we do. That which has good scientific support everyone does. What sets people apart in sport is what they choose to do that doesn't have good support. We all mostly make those decisions based upon what we think is best using our own experience and the experience of those we trust. It is the early adopters and experimenters who move sport forward. Sometimes they get it wrong but when they get it right sport changes. Knute Rockne, **** Fosbury, Greg LeMond, etc. Those types move sport forward, not your type.

I know you see yourself as crusader and place yourself among these people as a pioneer in the sport. But the reality is you have done nothing but lead people on a wild goose chase for the last 11 years. You only contribution to cycling has been a long list of spam threads trying to market your product.

Cobb provides a physiological and anatomical rationale for his saddle tilt suggestions. They are tied to the marketing of his brand of saddles but no exaggerated claims are made.

The changes I have made have been measured using video analysis and the back is flatter and have opened the hip angle and dropped the bars creating a more aerodynamic position that I can comfortably ride in for three hours.

An experiment doesn't have to be published to be useful if one uses meaningful measures. Looking at changes in results, speed or heart rate over different days are not valid or reliable. I haven't run the Chung test for frontal area but am able to maintain my normal power for rides so for N=1 I have improved aerodynamics and have not compromised power production.

Will everyone on Team Ferg be made to tilt their saddle up. Of course not. Changes are made if things are not working or progress is not being made.

Best thing is the improvement was free. If I wanted to make a buck I could make a killing telling people to do weights (and obligatory personal training sessions), take supplements (with the obligatory kickbacks) and use the latest Gimmicks (and BS them with claims of lower HR or increased speed).

The only cost was the measurement to ensure that I wasn't just imagining improved performance. Seeing I have so many riders now training and racing with a power meter I can't hide behind HR or speed to "claim" improvements. The power meter doesn't lie, unless the data comes from Spain

 

[Shady87]

Going back to the original 'Importance of crank length to the cyclist'

According to this study:
Gonzalez, H & Hull, M, L 1989, ’Multivariable optimisation of cycling biomechanics’,
Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 22, no. 11/12, pp. 1151-1161.

Crank length is the second most important thing.

 

[CoachFergie]

Going back to the original 'Importance of crank length to the cyclist'

According to this study:
Gonzalez, H & Hull, M, L 1989, ’Multivariable optimisation of cycling biomechanics’,
Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 22, no. 11/12, pp. 1151-1161.

Crank length is the second most important thing.

Optimising of energy cost which is not the same as performance in a cyclist.

It's a bit like me telling someone to try and average a certain power in a bike race. Technically correct but not very practical. I remember doing a lactate threshold test in 1991 and being told my threshold HR was 165bpm and if I raced over that bad things would happen very fast. That weekend I raced for 3 hours at 180bpm and got to the end realising that the "science of HR training" wasn't all that!

115rpm was the optimal cadence.

Not the Gonzalez paper but co-author with Hull...

w4.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/1786/1659

or 155rpm for optimal peak power.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2229090

 

[blutto]

"So Frank Day"

-A power meter is a measuring tool

We don't lose weight because of the way we measure body fat. A car isn't faster because of the type of speedo. A plane doesn't fly better because we can measure altitude. Still havent figured that one out Frank

-A coach is a teacher

Even the best coach can be made to look stupid if the rider doesn't follow their advice and the worst coach can be made to look excellent if the rider has the most talent.

-Strength and Nutrition

Both can be measured in terms of cycling performance if that is the dependant variable of interest. Some very good studies out there and some very bad ones.

The thing with personal experience is that for every person who "claims" success with a shorter crank there will be someone who claims the same about longer cranks. There was one such chap on Wattage a couple of months ago claiming that because he had been hand held timed faster on 200mm cranks that this was evidence that longer cranks allowed greater power.

Or worse the "appeal to authority" of "Indurain used long cranks".

I use a levels of proof approach....

1. RCTs
2. Other studies
3. Theoretical constructs (studies of similar concepts)

I will take that bias over others personal experience any day

....so let me get this straight...

...you reject "appeal to authority" even using the example of a 5-time Tour winner to buttress your contention...has it occurred to you that rejecting something out of hand is about as dumb as embracing it out of hand...

...and then we have the rejection of personal experience because there are differences in how people may respond to stimulus...has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, people are in fact different from one another...

...but of course for you the situation is saved because we have the sacred science that will lead us to the promised land....

...but you yourself undercut that approach by telling us there are good studies and bad studies ( all broadly defined as scientific I'm sure but seemingly no less reliable as a class of information as those infernal personal opinions you seem to poo-poo )...

...but thru it all you still stick to science as the saving grace if only to beat people over the head with it when they don't agree with you...

...and before you go tearing off on another mind-numbing rant here are some words of wisdom from the world-famous astro-physicist Dr. M.R.McKay ( unfortunately somewhat paraphrased but you should get the point )..

The only thing that is consistent about science, is that over the long run, it is always wrong.

...so go find another stick to beat people over the head with, because the one you have been using is busted ( or maybe just a figment of your imagination )...

Cheers

blutto

 

[CoachFergie]

....so let me get this straight...

...you reject "appeal to authority" even using the example of a 5-time Tour winner to buttress your contention...has it occurred to you that rejecting something out of hand is about as dumb as embracing it out of hand...

Only if I advocated everyone riding 180mm cranks because Indurain did.

...and then we have the rejection of personal experience because there are differences in how people may respond to stimulus...has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, people are in fact different from one another...

More likely people are more the same. If you put all the lab data from the Tour de France like VO2max, HR, muscle biopsies etc on the table without the names you could not pick out Cadel, Alberto or Andy.

Cheers

blutto

No thank you! Most amusing wee rant.

 

[Shady87]

Cant find the posts, but a while back there was something about the Australian and British Cycling Federations using powercranks, but Fergies contacts not knowing about it.

I know for a fact, as I've held the things in my own hands, that the AIS track program is using cranks with variable length.
The ones I saw were certainly not FrankDays powercranks, but had a similar concept of adjusting the length.

 

[CoachFergie]

Cant find the posts, but a while back there was something about the Australian and British Cycling Federations using powercranks, but Fergies contacts not knowing about it.

I know for a fact, as I've held the things in my own hands, that the AIS track program is using cranks with variable length.
The ones I saw were certainly not FrankDays powercranks, but had a similar concept of adjusting the length.

SRM make an adjustable length track crank.

There is some other models out there that I can't talk about (with London next year) that allow the rider to measure power and experiment with different lengths.