The importance of crank length to the cyclist.

[acoggan]

How about this alternative for measuring drag coefficients (Coastdown test), without PM http://www.hadland.me.uk/coastdown.pdf.

I am not saying that we should go back to stone age, but there is alternative.
It may be complicated but lot cheaper than 2000$ PM

It is also a lot less precise.

 

[FrankDay]

It is also a lot less precise.

But, from a racing perspective, is it less effective? That is the problem for the GM, it has never been proven that the "increased precision" to be more effective at improving racing performance than methods that are "less precise" (e.g., HRM, PE). I will give you and Fergie that GM's actually measure wattage pretty well. Other than giving people bragging rights, can it be shown this information actually makes a racing difference? NO!

 

[CoachFergie]

But, from a racing perspective, is it less effective? That is the problem for the GM, it has never been proven that the "increased precision" to be more effective at improving racing performance than methods that are "less precise" (e.g., HRM, PE). I will give you and Fergie that GM's actually measure wattage pretty well. Other than giving people bragging rights, can it be shown this information actually makes a racing difference? NO!

By your logic the type of scales used will affect the weight loss process. I have always felt that red scales are better than blue scales. Which scales will help me lose weight faster?

Training, diet, recovery, motivation, technique, tactics, position, cadence, aerodynamics all influence performance.

A measurement device measures the above. So you can tell if they did make a difference.

It appears that Drew improved his performance at Everest Challenge (and I "think" he did) but you can't quantify this and you can't discount that he may have performed worse. You can't quantify what aspects improved performance and what may have hindered performance.

By the same logic Alex Simmons is producing more power now after a lower leg amputation than before. Now I am not going to chop a leg off but should I consider a brace that makes my ankle's immobile?

 

[FrankDay]

It appears that Drew improved his performance at Everest Challenge (and I "think" he did) but you can't quantify this and you can't discount that he may have performed worse.

Drew improved his finishing from 26th to 9th overall. I look forward to hearing your argument as to how he might have performed worse.

 

[CoachFergie]

Drew improved his finishing from 26th to 9th overall. I look forward to hearing your argument as to how he might have performed worse.

That would be confusing the performance with the result. I think Drew did perform better, I just can't provide any evidence that he did, that he performed worse or differentiate aspects of performance that may have risen or fallen on the day. Neither can you.

 

[Martin318is]

Drew improved his finishing from 26th to 9th overall. I look forward to hearing your argument as to how he might have performed worse.

Easy - the standard of competition was lower this year than last year. Next!

 

[Martin318is]

Drew improved his finishing from 26th to 9th overall. I look forward to hearing your argument as to how he might have performed worse.

Joking asside, that has never really been the question Frank. The question is, how can you possibly assert that he improved his performance between the two runnings of the event because of his change in crank length.

There are so many other differences in the two events that it is entirely possible that he would have done even better if he had stayed on the same length both times - you simply DON'T know one way or the other.


Incidentally, I do find it entertaining that you keep attacking Powermeters as a gimmick because they apparently don't do anything you cannot do with a HRM. Strange, I seem to recall similar resistance when that HRM was introduced to coaching....

 

[CoachFergie]

Incidentally, I do find it entertaining that you keep attacking Powermeters as a gimmick because they apparently don't do anything you cannot do with a HRM. Strange, I seem to recall similar resistance when that HRM was introduced to coaching....

In Aus??? When I did the ACF Level 2 coaching course in Sydney in 1997 (inc Phil Anderson and Dean Woods) everyone had a Polar monitor on. I used a HR monitor from 1990 to 1992 and threw it away (literally). I spent my undergrad degree reading all the studies on HR training and HR zones and came to the conclusion it was all BS.

When I started coaching in 1992 I tried training riders by HR zones but an exercise physiologist I ran my ideas past (Will Hopkins) said it was all BS. I went to RPE and never looked back.

On that coaching course was the current head of the Sport Science department at Massey who was ostracised from Australia for writing an article saying HR monitors were of questionable value. No one could question the science of his argument but Neil Craig (AIS cycling exercise physiologist) was the main importer of Polar in to Aus.

Later in 1997 Graeme Obree visited Christchurch and in a speech said "throw away your heart rate monitors" and when I chatted with him after and said I did that years ago he said I was a very progressive coach.

Now we have power meters which are a valid and reliable measure of work performed on the bike. For a small research project I am doing I had hoped to compare power and heart rate data from a road racing series. Only problem was 75% if the riders using a power meter didn't wear a heart rate strap and that includes the current NZ Time Trial Champion and the BikeNZ Men's Track Endurance Coach.

Handy tools to have when claims are made about results and performances. I have the data from Everest Challenge over the last four years from one rider so can accurately determine how much his performance did or didn't improve on the day.

 

[FrankDay]

Joking asside, that has never really been the question Frank. The question is, how can you possibly assert that he improved his performance between the two runnings of the event because of his change in crank length.

There are so many other differences in the two events that it is entirely possible that he would have done even better if he had stayed on the same length both times - you simply DON'T know one way or the other.


Incidentally, I do find it entertaining that you keep attacking Powermeters as a gimmick because they apparently don't do anything you cannot do with a HRM. Strange, I seem to recall similar resistance when that HRM was introduced to coaching....

Actually, the only thing I have really asserted is it seems clear that 110 mm cranks did not inhibit his performance. I think that most people would be surprised that someone on 110 mm cranks would finish so well on an event such as this. The fact that he improved his time so much and his overall placing makes it possible to also suggest that he might have improved his performance.

 

[FrankDay]

Easy - the standard of competition was lower this year than last year. Next!

I compared his result to 12 others who did both races but finished above or near him last year. Only one had a better improvement. I think your analysis is flawed.

 

[CoachFergie]

Actually, the only thing I have really asserted is it seems clear that 110 mm cranks did not inhibit his performance.

But you have no measure of his performance.

 

[CoachFergie]

I compared his result to 12 others who did both races but finished above or near him last year. Only one had a better improvement. I think your analysis is flawed.

How can you compare results when different grades started at different times. It's a race not a time trial so the objective is to cross the line first. You don't win by any more if the difference to the person behind you is 10mins behind or 1 second.

As mentioned in Cat 3 there was a rider who towed the group over a 5 min start gap to the Pro/1/2 riders one day this year.

I think your analysis is flawed.

 

[FrankDay]

Incidentally, I do find it entertaining that you keep attacking Powermeters as a gimmick because they apparently don't do anything you cannot do with a HRM. Strange, I seem to recall similar resistance when that HRM was introduced to coaching....

I don't attack GM's for any reason other than those who advocate for them have absolutely zero evidence they do the racer any good to have one. Dr. Coggan has written a book telling people how to use one for both training and racing. Forums are devoted to the topic so advocates can tell each other how smart they are. People pay money so they can download their data for analysis. Yet, there is not a scintilla of scientific evidence that this does the racer any good whatsoever.

But, these same people hold me and my product to an entirely different standard. Anyone dare come to a forum and say PowerCranks made them better and they get attacked as to how do they know? What proof do they have that the product made any difference? Does it matter that the TDF champion actually uses the product. Not at all, what possibly could he know? Snake oil, that's what they are and I am a snake oil salesman.

I start a thread on crank length and when I don't cave to their biases they start attacking me and PowerCranks. Here we are on my thread on crank length and we are discussing power meters and PowerCranks. How bizarre is that?

Dr. Coggan is an academic bully and Fergie is a wannabe. But, I have the academic background to stand toe to toe with Coggan and argue the science. And, I don't put up with that crap, when I see it. Of course, with Fergie one never knows what one is arguing but it certainly isn't about science. As Blutto posted, Fergie is about as close to being a scientist as an alchemist is to being a chemist. But a moderator pulled that post, as I suspect you will pull this one.

Anyhow, there is no resistance to the concept of a PM from me. I actually like the concept as it appeals to the geek in me. However, I am open minded enough to understand there isn't a scintilla of scientific proof to back up any thought that use of GM might improve performance compared to the alternatives. I am simply tired of the BS. It is a gimmick meter to me here until proved otherwise.

Now, can we get back on topic?

 

[Martin318is]

I compared his result to 12 others who did both races but finished above or near him last year. Only one had a better improvement. I think your analysis is flawed.

for someone who keeps diving to 'science' your own analysis is pretty poor Frank.

You are deriving conclusions from 'facts' that are not there. The actual situation is that there are too many changes between the two years to derive any conclusion whatsoever about any one change. It is entirely possible that the benefits from a change in cleat position had overcome the negative influence of crank length. You hold no evidence to counter that possibility.

There is no more evidence demonstrating that using 110mm cranks had no negative impact on his performance than there is that 10 heads 'guarantees' the next throw will be tails.

You are married to subjective assessment and completely opposed to objective where the item under analysis is proposed by you, but when someone else puts something forward you suddenly dive for research papers and data

 

[FrankDay]

for someone who keeps diving to 'science' your own analysis is pretty poor Frank.

You are deriving conclusions from 'facts' that are not there. The actual situation is that there are too many changes between the two years to derive any conclusion whatsoever about any one change. It is entirely possible that the benefits from a change in cleat position had overcome the negative influence of crank length. You hold no evidence to counter that possibility.

There is no more evidence demonstrating that using 110mm cranks had no negative impact on his performance than there is that 10 heads 'guarantees' the next throw will be tails.

You are married to subjective assessment and completely opposed to objective where the item under analysis is proposed by you, but when someone else puts something forward you suddenly dive for research papers and data

Ugh, in the case of the crank lengths I haven't made any claim that anything is proven. I presented an anecdotal report that, IMHO, supports my hypothesis. That is all.

Now, where is the scientific support that supports spending $2k or so on a GM if one is getting it to help improve racing performance.

Subjective reporting and anecdotal reports is what sports runs by. If it is ok for GM's it is ok for PC's and short cranks.

 

[CoachFergie]

I don't attack GM's for any reason other than those who advocate for them have absolutely zero evidence they do the racer any good to have one. Dr. Coggan has written a book telling people how to use one for both training and racing. Forums are devoted to the topic so advocates can tell each other how smart they are. People pay money so they can download their data for analysis. Yet, there is not a scintilla of scientific evidence that this does the racer any good whatsoever.

Still confused between measuring a difference and the process involved in making that difference.

But, these same people hold me and my product to an entirely different standard. Anyone dare come to a forum and say PowerCranks made them better and they get attacked as to how do they know? What proof do they have that the product made any difference? Does it matter that the TDF champion actually uses the product. Not at all, what possibly could he know? Snake oil, that's what they are and I am a snake oil salesman.

Cadel also uses a SRM. He actually used it in the Tour. Poor misguided fool

I start a thread on crank length and when I don't cave to their biases they start attacking me and PowerCranks. Here we are on my thread on crank length and we are discussing power meters and PowerCranks. How bizarre is that?

Well it is nearly 600 posts and you have not advanced beyond a claim lacking any evidence.

Dr. Coggan is an academic bully and Fergie is a wannabe. But, I have the academic background to stand toe to toe with Coggan and argue the science.

That's quite insulting to Andy comparing his academic record and yours.

And, I don't put up with that crap, when I see it. Of course, with Fergie one never knows what one is arguing but it certainly isn't about science. As Blutto posted, Fergie is about as close to being a scientist as an alchemist is to being a chemist. But a moderator pulled that post, as I suspect you will pull this one.

Oh boo hoo, someone on the Internet disagree's with me. How will I live.

Anyhow, there is no resistance to the concept of a PM from me. I actually like the concept as it appeals to the geek in me. However, I am open minded enough to understand there isn't a scintilla of scientific proof to back up any thought that use of GM might improve performance compared to the alternatives. I am simply tired of the BS. It is a gimmick meter to me here until proved otherwise.

Keep repeating the lie Frank, we know you understand the difference between what measures performance and what changes performance but repeating that message if it will somehow become true shows how much contempt you have for the intelligence of others here.

Now, can we get back on topic?

We are waiting for that evidence to support your claims.

 

[CoachFergie]

Ugh, in the case of the crank lengths I haven't made any claim that anything is proven. I presented an anecdotal report that, IMHO, supports my hypothesis. That is all.

Now, where is the scientific support that supports spending $2k or so on a GM if one is getting it to help improve racing performance.

Subjective reporting and anecdotal reports is what sports runs by. If it is ok for GM's it is ok for PC's and short cranks.

There is no scientific evidence that spending $2K plus on a power meter will improve performance. Absolutely none, nada, nothing.

Just as an anecdote, not once in 6 years of power meter use has my Powertap or Power2Max or the SRM and Quarg I will test ever turned the pedals for me! It's not actually an anecdote because I have 6 years of data that conclusively shows that every time stopped pedalling I stopped producing power. Yeah you would think for the money you would get a cheeky watt here or there.

If someone wishes to claim that theirs did I will subject their "claim" to the same scrutiny I do for short cranks or arch mounted cleats.

 

[Martin318is]

I presume it was you who pulled what I thought was Blutto's insightful commentary on the quality of some of the observations posted here by one particular participant

you do realise that Blutto's post was in a different thread to this one, right? Thats a point I raised before - and was the inspiration for Blutto's post. You and Fergie launch into the same two arguments regardless of the topic of the thread.

With regard to why I removed Blutto's post, irrespective of your decree of 'insight' what I saw was a sarcastic attacking post that used reworking of a user's name and derision to belittle another member in an exact example of why I wrote the warning in the thread.

 

[FrankDay]

All I know is he did it the year before on 182.5. I will try to find out. Edit: Also, that year was his best year but it was also the first year he race on his PowerCranks.

So, here is the story. Apparently he has been riding 175 cranks for years. It was after he got the PC's about 2 years ago that he moved to 182.5 because the PC's allowed him to do so and he could push a "massive gear". In his 175 days his Everst challenge times tended to be mid 12 hours. In 2010 he made two big changes doing the race both on PowerCranks and with 182.5 cranks. In 2010 he was under 12 hours, about 30 minutes faster than he was used to.
In 2011 we also know what happened.

So, we have three crank length points and it is an inverted U. Slowest times on 175 cranks and fastest times on 182.5 and 110 cranks. One confounding factor is the two fastest times were also done on PowerCranks.

 

[FrankDay]

yWith regard to why I removed Blutto's post, irrespective of your decree of 'insight' what I saw was a sarcastic attacking post that used reworking of a user's name and derision to belittle another member in an exact example of why I wrote the warning in the thread.

You removed a post directed to Fergie because it contained sarcasm and was "attacking" and because it "belittled another member"? Ugh, do you actually read what Fergie posts about anyone who happens to disagree with him? One of the funniest posts I had seen in a long time. I am sorry it is gone.

 

[Martin318is]

You removed a post directed to Fergie because it contained sarcasm and was "attacking" and because it "belittled another member"? Ugh, do you actually read what Fergie posts about anyone who happens to disagree with him? One of the funniest posts I had seen in a long time. I am sorry it is gone.

You are imagining things, Frank. I re-read it again about half an hour ago - there was very little humour in it (unless you are referring to the dodgy re-workings of CoachFergie's username - and even then a bunch of *&^@#$ is hardly the paragon of wit)

 

[CoachFergie]

You are imagining things, Frank. I re-read it again about half an hour ago - there was very little humour in it (unless you are referring to the dodgy re-workings of CoachFergie's username - and even then a bunch of *&^@#$ is hardly the paragon of wit)

Sounds like a goodie, sorry I missed it

 

[oldborn]

It is also a lot less precise.

You say so. I am saying it would be interesting to measure drag with those two methods and then compare.
If any coach really need PM (so hard) to assess rider doing well, than we should ask ourselves of that coach knowledge.
In fact we still can not see any dramatical improvement in cycling over years of PM introduction on market.
It is lot faster and accurate in measure rider watts, but only that.
If coaches like Fargo need PM to be honest to rider about how one is doing well, I say quit coaching Dude
I am just saying

 

[FrankDay]

You are imagining things, Frank. I re-read it again about half an hour ago - there was very little humour in it (unless you are referring to the dodgy re-workings of CoachFergie's username - and even then a bunch of *&^@#$ is hardly the paragon of wit)

What you are describing isn't what I remember. Certainly others "botch" Fergies screen name. If there was anything off-color it certainly didn't stand out to me. (although I guess it is possible as he did PM me and apologize for his outburst) What I remember ws a somewhat unhappy camper expressing his frustration at the inability of those who might be interested in some of my views or these topics to have a reasonable discussion while he is around. And, I especially remember his relating coaches claimed science based postings to some other relationships that seemed to be an expression of his frustration, the part that I remember as being particularly funny. (Fergie being as close to being a scientist as an alchemist is to being a chemist, and others.) Of course, I have no way of checking my memory - maybe I will have to take screen shots so I can save some of the "better" stuff that supports my view.

Perhaps I missed the "crossing the line" invective in view of what gets thrown my way, especially by Fergie, that doesn't seem to cross "the" line. I have always wondered if any line ever existed here in view of what I get called. Now that I know there is one I still don't have a clue where it is.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

You say so. I am saying it would be interesting to measure drag with those two methods and then compare.

It's already been done, scientifically, using high frequency data loggers For speed measurement (i.e. not an ordinary bike speed recorder), and that's possibly what Andy is referring to as demonstrating less precision.

Indoor coast down testing:
Candau et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31:1441-1447.

Outdoor coastdown testing:
Cameron. Human Power 1995; 12:7-11

Outdoor testing in particular showed a high Coefficient of Variation, certainly when compared to what's possible when field testing with a power meter.