The importance of crank length to the cyclist.

[oldborn]

Who said I was advocating expensive decisions?
Indeed I am advocating the smart use of a measurement tool so that one can make very effective but quite cheap improvements.
You are talking about changing wheels, helmet & cranks without actually knowing how much improvement they represent for your investment.

Alex I should be stupid to spent 1500 or more something and then test.

But what if some of those changes actually reduces your speed?

Well we would know that after. Are pro riders 100% sure about their set up? No they are not, why do you think that I should be better than they?

And can you distinguish between improvement due to being fitter, due to improved aerodynamics, and/or better weather conditions?

Well smart one, I know weather conditions was, at least wind speed, I would be stupid if I am going hard on wind, with or without PM. I would be happy to see any improvements.

OK, well, going over your list:

Happy to do this

Just 10 points:
1.Removing 1,5cm spacers (getting more aero)
This may or may not improve your aerodynamics and may reduce your power output. Lower is not always better, depends on current positionw Until you test to determine whether or not your power to aero drag ratio increases, then you won't know if this is better for you.

You are wright. IMHO my stem is so high that I have almost 5cm to drop damn thing. I just watched photos from race, too high.
Again I must buy PM to determine CdA or doing really pain in the *** calculation. I choose simple solution.

2.Moving ISM saddle 0,5 cm forward
See #1

3.Shorter cranks 172 or shorter (i am riding 175 from old 58 bike)
See #1

Agree, but that ISM is so wide for my *** that I had trouble with it. Moving forward is going to be more agresive and riding on top of that saddle. Well those cranks are really big for me, I am 178cm.

4.60mm deep rims
Depends on what you are using now. Why not use something even faster if you are spending the money? A rear wheel cover is excellent aero bang for you buck. Don't forget good tyres and latex tubes.

Anything is better than 23mm. Disc is really way out of my budget.

5.Going little bit harder on hills
Harder than what? Perhaps you are already going hard enough and going harder may in fact be sub-optimal. I have examined pacing of many long course triathletes and one of the most common mistakes is going too hard on the hills.

Well I spare myself enough cos reasons you mentioned. Just to answer your question; harder then last race, remember cogs we have, I did all hills on biggest one- 25 teeth with 65 or so cadence, next year 23 teeth with same cadence.

6.Eating and drinking while on small descents
Not sure where on the course you choose to eat will impact your overall speed?

Well I was eating on really flat or uphill parts and loosing time, I think that I can rest and drinking on descents, and concentrate on flat.

7.Aero helmet
Most likely, if your current helmet is not all that aero. However not all aero helmets are the same on all riders (I have tested one aero helmet that was no better than my mass start helmet). What is aero on one rider is not necessarily nearly as aero on another rider. This is especially an item that riders really should test for themselves. Do not rely on what works for someone else.

Thanks for advice, IMHO everything is better than mine 10 years old Giro.

8.Stay aero on 1-3% ascents and going more harder
You mean you weren't staying aero before on shallow gradients?
Then yes this will probably help, although when you go to 2%+ gradient, power to weight plays a much bigger role (at 2% gradient the power to overcome air resistance and gravity is roughly equal), so if you are sacrificing power in your aero position, then you will need to know how to modify that position on such gradients for best overall impact to speed.

Thanks. No I had no strenght to stay in aero, you know how it feels. But then I was watching some pros, damn they just stay down all the time. This would spare me some time as you said.

9.Remove bottles from down/seat tube
As Frank points out, that may or may not help.

Considered done.

10.Adjust elbow pads (getting more aero).
In what way? How will you know if the change is better? e.g. on some riders, narrow elbow pads is faster, for others a wider pad position is faster. Everyone is different. That's why we test to make sure.

Cos I am having really wide shoulders for my torso, moving elbow pads together (and not sacrifice lungs shrunk) might help.

10.and stay in triathlon suit after swimm whatever cold it would be.
No comment. Clothing is one significant area of aero improvement opportunity. Do not allow anything that flaps in the wind.

Yes, I was afraid of getting cold, those are Alps Dude. So I had to choose, getting cold or more aero.

11.Quit smoking LOL

This one will save you money!!

Well we agree at something.

 

[CoachFergie]

But, aren't you advocating that cyclists should spend $1,000 or more for a device without actually knowing how much improvement they will receive for that investment? All the device can do for sure is measure one important aspect of cycling performance but there is no evidence it helps the cyclist attain that improvement.

Staggers me that someone expects the measurement device to improve the performance of what it is measuring. Does the speedo on a car actually contribute to the performance of the car?

 

[FrankDay]

Staggers me that someone expects the measurement device to improve the performance of what it is measuring. Does the speedo on a car actually contribute to the performance of the car?

But, give me a reason to spend $1,000 (or more) for a device that won't make me better. If my goal is to get better, wouldn't that money be better spent on something else that can pretty reliably make me better? Lots of stuff out there fits that bill. Then there is the stuff that might make me better.

 

[sciguy]

But, aren't you advocating that cyclists should spend $1,000 or more for a device without actually knowing how much improvement they will receive for that investment? All the device can do for sure is measure one important aspect of cycling performance but there is no evidence it helps the cyclist attain that improvement.

But it will allow them to very objectively evaluate all future purchases/loans/trials of all sorts of equipment, positions, accessories, cloths, training methods, pacing strategies...............................................

How can you possibly not be getting this? Did Andy C.'s insults to you so hurt your feelings that you can no longer think logically about anything he has been associated with? Grow up, get over it and use your brain.

 

[CoachFergie]

But, give me a reason to spend $1,000 (or more) for a device that won't make me better. If my goal is to get better, wouldn't that money be better spent on something else that can pretty reliably make me better? Lots of stuff out there fits that bill. Then there is the stuff that might make me better.

Why pay to test anything.

Why not just give me a University qualification for having sat through all the lectures and take my word that I have done the requisite learning.

Why buy a car that provides the performance data when I can just take the word of the manufacturer.

Why experiment with crank length when some guy says his time improved in a race from one year to another.

Real measurement verses imagination is why people choose to spend the money to see if their equipment choices, training programmes, tactical decisions, positional decisions, skills training has had a real effect. A witty anecdote is good enough for some. Others like to see a real benefit.

 

[CoachFergie]

But it will allow them to very objectively evaluate all future purchases/loans/trials of all sorts of equipment, positions, accessories, cloths, training methods, pacing strategies...............................................

How can you possibly not be getting this? Did Andy C.'s insults to you so hurt your feelings that you can no longer think logically about anything he has been associated with? Grow up, get over it and use your brain.

Frank gets it very well. He has made some very good comments on the Science of Sports blog. Funny how he acts around a group of people with similar levels of education to him. Here he shows his contempt for people's intelligence trying to undervalue the role of a measurement tool that power meters make. Mainly because they are the best form of measurement to disprove his claims.

 

[FrankDay]

But it will allow them to very objectively evaluate all future purchases/loans/trials of all sorts of equipment, positions, accessories, cloths, training methods, pacing strategies...............................................

How can you possibly not be getting this? Did Andy C.'s insults to you so hurt your feelings that you can no longer think logically about anything he has been associated with? Grow up, get over it and use your brain.

Yes, it will allow you to do all of that stuff. Only one problem from a science perspective. It has never been shown that using that tool to help with the evaluation is superior to using alternative tools for making those evaluations. While one can make the argument that it should be superior the only study on the subject showed no superiority.

So, Sciguy, show us the science that supports your (and Dr. Coggan's) hypothesis.

 

[CoachFergie]

Yes, it will allow you to do all of that stuff. Only one problem from a science perspective. It has never been shown that using that tool to help with the evaluation is superior to using alternative tools for making those evaluations. While one can make the argument that it should be superior the only study on the subject showed no superiority.

So, Sciguy, show us the science that supports your (and Dr. Coggan's) hypothesis.

If only for the amusement of watching another circular argument. What other measures of work performed while riding a bike are there than wattage?

 

[FrankDay]

If only for the amusement of watching another circular argument. What other measures of work performed while riding a bike are there than wattage?

Who cares? Certainly the race director doesn't care how much work you did compared to the others.

 

[CoachFergie]

Who cares? Certainly the race director doesn't care how much work you did compared to the others.

He did if the rider did more work than the other guy and he beat him because of it. Or if you sand-bagged and didn't give your all to get the team leader into a winner position. Axel Merckx gives the Livestrong riders very specific instructions on how to train and checks the files to see which riders were paying attention and who can follow orders.

But don't side step the issue Frank. What other measures of work are there that one can assess in the lab and in cycling only while actually training and competing. What metric do you think would be acceptable for publication in a scientific journal.

What dependant variable would definitively prove that your chap did actually improve his performance in the Everest Challenge. Not that knowing if performance changes would tell if it was manipulating crank length, using Gimmickcranks, training, diet or the wearing of lucky red socks.

 

[Boeing]

you know you're a tool when you reply in a thread shirtless

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

But, aren't you advocating that cyclists should spend $1,000 or more for a device without actually knowing how much improvement they will receive for that investment? All the device can do for sure is measure one important aspect of cycling performance but there is no evidence it helps the cyclist attain that improvement.

You are right, no one should measure anything objectively, since it never helps us understand performance or what we could possibly do to improve it (or prove that something is a waste of time/effort/money). We'd all be better off basing our decisions on belief based practices, hearsay, myth, folklore, astrologers and celebrity endorsement.

By your logic, no one interested in sensible weight loss/gain should ever buy bathroom scales.

One can borrow a power meter, or rent one for much less than buying. But that would take some investment of the mind, not so much money.

I gave an example of using a wheel cover which is circa $100 to create a rear disk wheel instead of buying an expensive new rear 60mm deep rim.

Tell me Frank, given a choice of 2 expensive aero helmets say, and assuming you are not going to spend a thousand $ to get to and spend time in a wind tunnel, how would you advise which helmet a particular rider should buy?

Keep in mind that I was able to demonstrate that for me, there was little difference between such a helmet choice, but for another rider I was able to demonstrate quite a substantial difference.

 

[Tapeworm]

Pretty silly question Alex.

The answer is 100mm Powercranks.

 

[FrankDay]

You are right, no one should measure anything objectively, since it never helps us understand performance or what we could possibly do to improve it (or prove that something is a waste of time/effort/money). We'd all be better off basing our decisions on belief based practices, hearsay, myth, folklore, astrologers and celebrity endorsement.

By your logic, no one interested in sensible weight loss/gain should ever buy bathroom scales.

One can borrow a power meter, or rent one for much less than buying. But that would take some investment of the mind, not so much money.

I gave an example of using a wheel cover which is circa $100 to create a rear disk wheel instead of buying an expensive new rear 60mm deep rim.

Tell me Frank, given a choice of 2 expensive aero helmets say, and assuming you are not going to spend a thousand $ to get to and spend time in a wind tunnel, how would you advise which helmet a particular rider should buy?

Keep in mind that I was able to demonstrate that for me, there was little difference between such a helmet choice, but for another rider I was able to demonstrate quite a substantial difference.

By your logic, racers who do not have gimmick meters should not be able to perform optimally. Well, let's compare running to cycling. Cyclists, of course, have the ability to measure power in both training and racing. Runners do not. Yet, runners seem to break world records much more frequently than cyclists. Marathon record recently broken again http://www.sportsscientists.com/

Anyhow, the issue isn't whether one can make a strong argument for the use of a GM. One can. The question is whether it can be shown that such use is actually beneficial to improving racing performance compared to what can be done without it.

Regarding your aero helmet question how does the GM help one make that decision? One can only test a helmet if one owns one. One can only compare helmets if one owns both. How does the GM help in making the decision as to which one to buy?

 

[FrankDay]

But don't side step the issue Frank. What other measures of work are there that one can assess in the lab and in cycling only while actually training and competing.

Well, there is no other measure of work performed since power is work/unit time. But, the absolute work or power per se has zero to do with racing well. I can assure you that a 200 lb rider in the peloton is always putting out more power than Alberto Contador but that does not assure him of victory. Work rate (power) is only a reasonable predictor of racing performance when all other issues (weight, tires, aerodynamics, etc) are equal. Of course, this is never the case. (edit: and, of course, we never know what power our opposition is at unless they choose to measure it and then tell us. All this information can only help predict racing outcome if one knows everything about the others in the race also.)

So, the question remains. Show me where it has ever been shown that having this data has improved the sport. Since the 80's runners (who do not have the ability to measure power) have dropped the marathon WR more than 4 minutes whereas cyclists in that time (where use of GM's have become commonplace) have improved the hour record, what was it, 11 meters? Doesn't look very good for the GM does it?

 

[CoachFergie]

Doesn't look very good for the GM does it?

Still confusing the ability to measure performance with methods used to improve performance.

 

[sciguy]

Frank,

Running power is very nicely directly related to velocity on relatively flat courses like the track and most running road races. For that reason, time is an excellent proxy for power for running. Perhaps you aren't aware that running power estimators are fairly wide used by athletes. This use GPS data to compute running power as well as work done. Many runners also track their running training stress rTSS using the same algorithm invented by Andy Coggan but applied to running.

Hugh

 

[twothirds]

I have access to an aero helmet that I can borrow. I also have access to another model of aero helmet that I can borrow. I have access to a relatively traffic free road (as well as an indoor track, but most don't have that available to them). I own a powermeter, but I could borrow/rent one if I didn't. I can now pedal down the road (or track) at a steady power output and see what my speed is whilst wearing the first earo helmet. I do the same with the second aero helmet. I've now been able to test both helmets without purchase and find out what works best for me. Can't do that any other way without access to a wind tunnel.

Sure power may not be the only way to measure improvement, or pace yourself. But power is by far the most efficient and instantaneous way to measure one's output, improvement, or efficiency.

 

[oldborn]

Frank,

Running power is very nicely directly related to velocity on relatively flat courses like the track and most running road races. For that reason, time is an excellent proxy for power for running. Perhaps you aren't aware that running power estimators are fairly wide used by athletes. This use GPS data to compute running power as well as work done. Many runners also track their running training stress rTSS using the same algorithm invented by Andy Coggan but applied to running.

Hugh

Jesus Christ, another Dr. Coggan fan. Does dude paying you to make such claims or what?
I am pretty sure that Makau Dude in Berlin today do not have a clue what are you talking about.

2h03min38sec and no trace of PM, just damn old stopwatch.

Cheers
oldborn

P.S. Please tell us what kind of algorithm I need to be faster?

 

[FrankDay]

Frank,

Running power is very nicely directly related to velocity on relatively flat courses like the track and most running road races. For that reason, time is an excellent proxy for power for running. Perhaps you aren't aware that running power estimators are fairly wide used by athletes. This use GPS data to compute running power as well as work done. Many runners also track their running training stress rTSS using the same algorithm invented by Andy Coggan but applied to running.

Hugh

Are you trying to say that cycling velocity on relatively flat courses like the track or loop courses under calm conditions are not "directly related" to power? Have you ever been to analyticcycling.com? Runners could care less about power. So, some of them try to estimate power. What does it mean? Nothing, because it is a big fat guess and meaningless to their performance or training. Runners do quite well in improving without having a clue as to their power. Cyclists can do the same (and, surprisingly, some of them actually do).

Anyhow, you can believe whatever you want about the GM but your belief is based upon theory, anecdotes, and/or myth. Why can't you admit that there is zero scientific support for the implication that using a GM in training or racing makes one better over what can be done without one. In fact, comparing the record progression of runners vs cyclists (who currently rely heavily on the GM) suggests using the GM actually inhibits performance.

Either way, if you consider yourself a science guy, why can't you admit what the science actually says on the subject?

Edit: and where is the scientific support for using TSS? Might be a great system but where is the scientific support for it?

 

[oldborn]

Sure power may not be the only way to measure improvement, or pace yourself. But power is by far the most efficient and instantaneous way to measure one's output, improvement, or efficiency.

Will die for bold part. I do not agree with other, but that is just me.

Stay well!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

By your logic, racers who do not have gimmick meters should not be able to perform optimally.

Strawman. I have implied no such thing.

Well, let's compare running to cycling. Cyclists, of course, have the ability to measure power in both training and racing.

As has been pointed out, due to the different speeds involved, running pace is a very good proxy for power for runners. The same applies to swimming as well.

Perhaps that is why much of Lydiard's training methods make so much sense when applied to cyclists training with power.

Regarding your aero helmet question how does the GM help one make that decision? One can only test a helmet if one owns one. One can only compare helmets if one owns both. How does the GM help in making the decision as to which one to buy?

Another fallacy. I've know people who've test helmets they don't own. Including myself. I simply borrowed some from friends. Cost me a "thank you".

So, what's your answer? Let's say you have the two helmets on loan and can choose?

 

[FrankDay]

So, what's your answer? Let's say you have the two helmets on loan and can choose?

Well, one certainly doesn't need a PM to make the decision. All one need do is ride a known loop on a calm day and if there is a big difference it should be apparent. If there isn't then I would buy the cheapest one.

I would guess than less than 1% of GM owners know how to use the GM (you know, the chung technique) in making such an assessment. In fact, I'll bet less than 1% of PM owners have ever heard of the Chung technique. So, to those people the PM is useless in helping them make this decision.

 

[oldborn]

Alex I did not understand you about wheel cover (think of disc wheel), yes it can help but not available in Europe as I know.

I was just reading your article about 1hr master world record (nice stuff).
BTW, how did you pace your rider?
By m/km (ahead of known record), seconds per lap, speed or...?
Did your rider sometimes look at PM, or not?

 

[CoachFergie]

Are you trying to say that cycling velocity on relatively flat courses like the track or loop courses under calm conditions are not "directly related" to power? Have you ever been to analyticcycling.com? Runners could care less about power. So, some of them try to estimate power. What does it mean? Nothing, because it is a big fat guess and meaningless to their performance or training. Runners do quite well in improving without having a clue as to their power. Cyclists can do the same (and, surprisingly, some of them actually do).

On an outdoor track, way off. Even on an indoor track temperature variations make a huge difference.

Anyhow, you can believe whatever you want about the GM but your belief is based upon theory, anecdotes, and/or myth.

That a power meter measures power. A watt has been a common measure of work for years. A power meter has been shown to be a valid and reliable measure of work performed on a bike.

Why can't you admit that there is zero scientific support for the implication that using a GM in training or racing makes one better over what can be done without one.

You want us to admit that you are right about your own misconception that a measuring device is meant to have an impact on the performance of what it is measuring

"So Frank Day"!

Either way, if you consider yourself a science guy, why can't you admit what the science actually says on the subject?

It's a nice dodge Frank but lets remember what this is all about. You have made another wild **** claim, short cranks lengths allow for greater power with no evidence and when challenged your best response is to down play the role of a power meter as a measurement tool.

"So Frank Day"!

Rather than measure your chap in the Everest Challenge with a performance metric that is valid and reliable you want to make the sole criteria result based from two data points a whole year apart

"So Frank Day"!