The importance of crank length to the cyclist.

[elapid]

Guys it is almost midnight here, so we should all take a deep breath now, close your eyes, imagine like we are swimming among dolphins, all of a suddenly (or sudden?) big SOB gray whale... you know.

+1. Glad it has broadened beyond Frank v Coach Fergie, but other than insults are we really achieving anything with this thread anymore? There is the potential for some decent philosophical debates, which we see glimpses of, but I feel like I am being drawn into a bad sitcom. It's so bad that it is appealing to see who will fling what whimsical rebuttal next.

 

[Tapeworm]

Guys it is almost midnight here, so we should all take a deep breath now, close your eyes, imagine like we are swimming among dolphins, all of a suddenly (or sudden?) big SOB gray whale... you know.

Actually I think a WHITE whale would be more appropriate.

Call me Ishmael.

 

[blutto]

Indeed, maybe you should practise what you preach. Did you read or understand the quote I posted?

And using utterly inappropriate punctuation continually isn't making you look "kinda" smarter.

Perhaps google "sarcasm" for the last bit.




Which is what? Do you mean the types of fallacy outlined by Aristotle or his own theory of moving bodies, which was a fallacy?




So at what point does something go from driving science forward to being either inconsequential, good marketing (but still inconsequential), or just plain old snake oil? What is your level of evidence required to prove something or disprove it?

Lab studies? Or is the "overwhelming" amount of anecdotal evidence sufficient for you?

....first things first...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And using utterly inappropriate punctuation continually isn't making you look "kinda" smarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
...please be aware that blutto not smart therefore no attempt made to be smart...very happy being dumb...when blutto try to be smart head hurts...blutto not like that very much...better be dumb...

...and as the for the second thingee....that Fallacy problem...see below the relevant part of my earlier post that deals with the fallacy issue...sorry that I couldn't map it out in plainer language...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
...the point is that science is plagued by what is known as The Aristotelian Fallacy....that is, the map is not the territory....or as Whitehead/Russell explained a set is not a member of itself....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

...there is actually another way to present that whole ball of wax but it gets kinda long and for some becomes pretty tedious real fast...it runs thru Godel, Wittgenstein, Whitehead, Korzybski, Innis, Wiener, Watzlawick and a bunch of other guys whose names are presently lost in the mists of time...all told, gives a nifty insight into the workings of science and other stuff like language...

...oooh head start hurt...gotta run....

Cheers

blutto

 

[FrankDay]

+1. Glad it has broadened beyond Frank v Coach Fergie

+1. + extra characters to satisfy bot filter.

 

[Tapeworm]

The point of punctuation is to allow effective means of communication. It does not denote intelligence as such as it is rather a basic skill. Unless English is a second language there is no real reason not to use it (though for many for whom English is a second language often put native speakers to shame). Spelling and the odd missed comma is just a casualty of the Internet.

Whilst not overly familiar with philosophy or "pure" mathematics I would be more than happy to read your analysis of 1) What "The Aristotelian Fallacy" actually is (i can find no reference to it)and 2) how the works of Grödel and the like pertain to this discussion.

 

[CoachFergie]

So at what point does something go from driving science forward to being either inconsequential, good marketing (but still inconsequential), or just plain old snake oil? What is your level of evidence required to prove something or disprove it?

Lab studies? Or is the "overwhelming" amount of anecdotal evidence sufficient for you?

Blutto is in my ignore list with Boing and Oldcoward, and anyone else who doesn't have anything intelligent or (as in Frank's case) amusing to add.

On a ride with one of my riders who has been doing weights for rehab on his knee and "claims" that the weights are making him stronger on the bike. All good and well but no increase in peak power let alone power relative to duration. We can all think and claim what we like but at times it's nice to have actual evidence to back ones arguments up.

 

[CoachFergie]

+1. Glad it has broadened beyond Frank v Coach Fergie, but other than insults are we really achieving anything with this thread anymore? There is the potential for some decent philosophical debates, which we see glimpses of, but I feel like I am being drawn into a bad sitcom. It's so bad that it is appealing to see who will fling what whimsical rebuttal next.

Well we have the science and we have the anecdote from a guy who is trying to sell a product. You do the math!

 

[blutto]

Well we have the science and we have the anecdote from a guy who is trying to sell a product. You do the math!

...did the integration in several ways and unfortunately there is always a very large remainder that cannot be accounted for...and that, in a nutshelf, is the problem...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Tapeworm]

I did the integration in several ways and unfortunately there is always a very large remainder that cannot be accounted for. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.

Cheers,

Blutto.

Fixed. Much neater.

 

[blutto]

Fixed. Much neater.

...good one...and yes, it does look neater...but I did, at least, get the comma thingee somewhat right ( so there may be hope for me after-all )...

Cheers

blutto

 

[oldborn]

Actually I think a WHITE whale would be more appropriate.

Call me Ishmael.

Great book, nice to meet you
Cpt Ahab

 

[onetrack]

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.

yes, back comfort in an aero position would seem to be a function of seat to bar drop. I'm sure most if not all people who tried short cranks would agree it's actually related to hip angle at tdc.

 

[onetrack]

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.

thanks, I'll keep that in mind. The ism is too wide for me to sit anywhere other than on the very front of the nose. I noticed in cobb's videos he lowers the bars quite a bit for people with back pain. He says that with the back flatter it acts more like a leaf spring whereas the more upright position is more rigid and gets jarred going over bumps. This definitely checks out with my experience dropping the bars 37.5mm and riding more in the drops. I must have long tibias because I was already as low as I could get on 172.5mm cranks without hitting my knees on my chest.

 

[FrankDay]

yes, back comfort in an aero position would seem to be a function of seat to bar drop. I'm sure most if not all people who tried short cranks would agree it's actually related to hip angle at tdc.

I am sure that there are some who have anatomical issues preventing them from bringing their back lower not related to hip angle at TDC but our experience agrees with yours, that in most cases how low one can go is limited by the hip angle at TDC.

However, there is another comfort issue that comes up as one goes lower, that is the neck. The lower the body is the more one must hold the neck up to see where one is going. This gets very tiring. There are some accommodations one can do to minimize this problem (I have seen several pros doing some of these) but that is probably an issue for another thread as it is slightly OT. We can discuss it here if someone would like.

 

[onetrack]

mirrors on the handlebar?

won my second cx race on 145s.

 

[FrankDay]

mirrors on the handlebar?

That is one potential accommodation. One doesn't need to hold the head up to look forward if one can look forward when looking down. Not such a great "fix" for pack racing but works fine for TT.

won my second cx race on 145s.

Congratulations. Another advantage of shorter cranks for cyclocross is, I guess, the pedals being further from the mud.

 

[FrankDay]

Another FB update: "Rode the 120s into work today and felt good. a few months ago this would have felt so strange - now it feels excellent. as the cranks go smaller the front end wants to get down and more aero. I will drop the bars around 4 cm. this will be a saddle to bar difference of around 19cm. I was thinking an analogy would be this - if you were to climb up a stairs for 5 hours would you want to climb big steps or small steps."

This guy is not afraid of challenges. Here is what he did on his next ride:

"Yesterday i rode the 115s and absolutely loved them but rode real far. all the way up to anza 100 miles and then back. around mile 146 I got sick and got off the bike and just layed down. Some nice folks drove me to a market where i waited for a ride. trying to figure out what happened. It was hot out but this was at around 5pm when it cooled down. I was stung by a bee at around 11am. also maybe i was bent too low for too long and my stomach wasn't digesting right. I did drop the bars 4 cm so now the bar to saddle difference is 19cm. I felt so incredibly fast though in this position it was amazing! Will have to try some more experiments."

He thinks his problem may also have come from something he ate in Anza. Anyhow, first ride on a new crank length and new handlebar drop and he decides to go 200 miles!!!

 

[CoachFergie]

For every short crank testimonial there are just as many going long with the same claimed improvements...

http://www.polaris.net/palmk/crexampl.html

The chap Keiran is the one who claims that 200mm cranks give him more power on the track because his hand held timing efforts are better

If only there was some method of comparing between two pieces of equipment, training methods or training tools

 

[FrankDay]

For every short crank testimonial there are just as many going long with the same claimed improvements...

http://www.polaris.net/palmk/crexampl.html

The chap Keiran is the one who claims that 200mm cranks give him more power on the track because his hand held timing efforts are better

If only there was some method of comparing between two pieces of equipment, training methods or training tools

Hey Fergie, thanks for keeping this thread alive by reiterating that different people have different views so it is reasonable to discuss this.

Of course, you have missed pretty much the entire tenor of my argument for short cranks by your coming back to using the power meter to measure which one is better. The PM cannot make this determination because I make the argument that short cranks are probably better, even if power drops, because I believe the aerodynamics can be improved to more than compensate for any such drop, should it occur. Therefore, a stop watch might actually be a better tool to make this determination than your cherished power meter.

Anyhow, anyone who thinks that longer cranks are better is welcome to come to this thread and make their argument. The same goes to those who think crank length makes no difference.

 

[CoachFergie]

Of course, you have missed pretty much the entire tenor of my argument for short cranks by your coming back to using the power meter to measure which one is better.

I missed the part where I said it could only be measured with a power meter. I was referring to scientific method to assess the difference between all sides of the debate.

The PM cannot make this determination because I make the argument that short cranks are probably better, even if power drops, because I believe the aerodynamics can be improved to more than compensate for any such drop, should it occur.

Power to frontal area would give an objective measure just in case one didn't have a current FB status update to provide as evidence.

Therefore, a stop watch might actually be a better tool to make this determination than your cherished power meter.

Actually, not really.

Anyhow, anyone who thinks that longer cranks are better is welcome to come to this thread and make their argument. The same goes to those who think crank length makes no difference.

I look forward to more anecdotes as these play a big part in guiding my decisions as a coach

 

[FrankDay]

I missed the part where I said it could only be measured with a power meter. I was referring to scientific method to assess the difference between all sides of the debate.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to exactly what your "scientific method" is that an individual might use to assess this difference that didn't involve a stop watch? Isn't the metric that most racers are looking for is to get faster?

Power to frontal area would give an objective measure just in case one didn't have a current FB status update to provide as evidence.

While P/FA ratio would be useful (even if it is a bit tricky, perhaps beyond the reach of most here, to obtain), it is only part of the equation since shape also plays a role in the aerodynamics equation. Again, isn't the real metric of improvement most are interested in is how much FASTER one is?

I look forward to more anecdotes as these play a big part in guiding my decisions as a coach

I am not quite sure why you hang out here. Clearly it isn't to get new ideas to possibly incorporate in your coaching practice. Clearly it isn't to broaden your knowledge by engaging in back and forth with others with different perspective because if anyone expresses an opinion contrary to you you call them stupid. Why are you here, other than to save the world from me?

 

[CoachFergie]

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to exactly what your "scientific method" is that an individual might use to assess this difference that didn't involve a stop watch? Isn't the metric that most racers are looking for is to get faster?

Any metric that isn't confounded by third variables like weather or user error. Wonder why they use timing pads in competition and of course you make an assumption that the rider follows the measurement line of the track or takes the shortest line in a time trial.

While P/FA ratio would be useful (even if it is a bit tricky, perhaps beyond the reach of most here, to obtain), it is only part of the equation since shape also plays a role in the aerodynamics equation. Again, isn't the real metric of improvement most are interested in is how much FASTER one is?

In competition the metric of interest is placing. First prize doesn't change if you win by a second or a minute or a cm or a kilometre. Unless there is a bonus for breaking a record.

I know you like to cling to the illusion that faster from day to day is meaningful but so many confounding factors are at play that makes power the best metric for measuring meaningful differences. Even JSCR won't accept HR or speed as performance metric.

I am not quite sure why you hang out here. Clearly it isn't to get new ideas to possibly incorporate in your coaching practice. Clearly it isn't to broaden your knowledge by engaging in back and forth with others with different perspective because if anyone expresses an opinion contrary to you you call them stupid. Why are you here, other than to save the world from me?

Watching the performance artist contradict himself with amazing regularity is highly entertaining.

You have no interest in science Frank, this started as a spam thread because you're too cheap to pay for advertising. Seeking discussion with a link to the Gimmickcrank site. Stupid refers to those who can't see through that.

 

[Night Rider]

Some anecdotal evidence that longer (or normal) length for TT's is better than short. Not worth much on it's own but probably more reliable than a triathletes Facebook update.

Tony Martin 177.5mm
Fabian Cancellara 177.5mm
Alberto Contador 175mm TT and Road

Probably worth adding that they are all considered among the most aero of TT riders, and they go lower in position than others, not higher.

Again, all anecdotal of course.

For Road Racing, no question that 'normal' length range is best. As soon as you need to go up hills or change pace to follow attacks then shorter cranks will consume more energy, it takes more torque to produce the accelerations.

 

[FrankDay]

Some anecdotal evidence that longer (or normal) length for TT's is better than short. Not worth much on it's own but probably more reliable than a triathletes Facebook update.

Tony Martin 177.5mm
Fabian Cancellara 177.5mm
Alberto Contador 175mm TT and Road

Probably worth adding that they are all considered among the most aero of TT riders, and they go lower in position than others, not higher.

Again, all anecdotal of course.

For Road Racing, no question that 'normal' length range is best. As soon as you need to go up hills or change pace to follow attacks then shorter cranks will consume more energy, it takes more torque to produce the accelerations.

The fact that someone very good rides a longer crank is not particularly good evidence that crank length is best for them or that it is best for you. It is simply what they have chosen to do. We don't know what they have done that caused them to choose that crank length. Further, I have theorized that the more power one is putting out the longer the optimum crank length. Therefore, again, the fact that these top pros are riding longer cranks is not evidence that is optimum for you if you are putting out less power than they are, which I suspect you are.

The fact that someone can get into a good aero position with a longer crank length is not evidence that they are not losing some power while doing so or evidence that you can achieve a similar position (clearly, most can't) or achieve a similar position without losing a lot of power.

Further, I would like to see some actual evidence that shorter cranks require more energy to go up hills or change pace. It will take exactly the same torque, as measured at the wheel, to achieve similar results, regardless of crank length. I can make the argument that torque can actually increase with shorter cranks because, at the same cadence pedal speed is reduced, making it easier to actually apply more force to the pedal, which could increase torque.

Anyhow, these are all theoretical considerations. No good scientific evidence exists to support any of this stuff.

 

[CoachFergie]

Anyhow, these are all theoretical considerations.

"So Frank Day"

Anecdotes, especially ones from Facebook status updates are okay if they aid your spamming Gimmickcranks.

No evidence aye?

Jim Martin Presentation

"170mm cranks will compromise the power of the tallest and shortest riders by at most 0.5%"

So not that important.

"Cyclists can ride the cranks they prefer without concern of decreasing efficiency"

Again no importance for crank length.

"No effect on fatigue"

And then Jim goes on to reiterate that some more stuff about pedalling technique that would appear to be at odds with the marketing claims of Gimmickcranking Inc.

No good scientific evidence exists to support any of this stuff.

Only if you ignore the stuff that doesn't help you spam Gimmickcranks

Martin goes on to suggest that the real performance gains come from...

* Training aerobic thresholds for endurance riders
* Well designed programmes
* Inc Muscle and Anaerobic capacity for Sprinters
* Nutrition and hydration
* Recovery

and reducing the performance demands by
* Improved aerodynamics
* Drafting
* Decreasing weight
* Maintaining equipment

No magic crank length, cadence or pedalling technique.