The importance of crank length to the cyclist.

[onetrack]

The change to shorter cranks for me was dramatic. I don't need a computer to tell me I'm putting out more power. hill times are much better, even when I don't feel good they are much better than they ever were on my best day at standard lengths.

You don't need to look down at a speedometer to know that your deep carbon tubular race day wheels go faster than your heavy training wheels with kevlar belted clincher tires. you can feel it. all the testing in the world says that clinchers have less rolling resistance

 

[Martin318is]

The change to shorter cranks for me was dramatic. I don't need a computer to tell me I'm putting out more power. hill times are much better, even when I don't feel good they are much better than they ever were on my best day at standard lengths.

You don't need to look down at a speedometer to know that your deep carbon tubular race day wheels go faster than your heavy training wheels with kevlar belted clincher tires. you can feel it. all the testing in the world says that clinchers have less rolling resistance

with you till the bit in bold - that one's not quite as clearcut as it used to be.
(although as you earlier specified kevlar belted training tyres your comment still holds pretty much true.)

 

[CoachFergie]

The change to shorter cranks for me was dramatic. I don't need a computer to tell me I'm putting out more power. hill times are much better, even when I don't feel good they are much better than they ever were on my best day at standard lengths.

All very nice, but none of that constitutes evidence. There are a 1000 other variable's that make up cycling performance that one can experiment with and many of them are evidence based.

 

[FrankDay]

Drew Peterson just finished the Furnace Creek 508 (508 miles, 30k ft climbing) in 34h20m13s on his 110mm PowerCranks, which puts him 5th overall I believe. It would appear that the Everest Challenge 2 weeks earlier took something out of him as he was tied for 1st at the first time check at 85 miles but then lost more and more time as the race went on finishing about 4 hours behind the overall winner.

 

[CoachFergie]

One of the many benefits to racing and training with a power meter is not so much assessing the good days. Not good coaching practice when a rider claims a "no chain day" to point out that their power doesn't support that conclusion. But a real benefit is when a rider has a really s**ty day to be able to show them that the power was there and it was the conditions that made the difference.

We had one of those road races on the weekend. Freezing cold, driving wind and heavy rain. No one finished happy but at least the power analysis allowed me to point out that everyone had performed well (those with power meters at least).

So when testing anything the real key is valid measures of performance. Hard data! Seen enough claimed improvements that are not supported by performance measures to know that numerous bias's exist.

WRT tyres, yeah sure a comparable clincher and tube may have a lower rolling resistance in a rollers based power test but odds are on the road the clincher wheels will be heavier and either have a alloy braking surface or if a full carbon clincher then you are limited to 120 psi swinging the odds back in favour of the tubs.

 

[CoachFergie]

Drew Peterson just finished the Furnace Creek 508 (508 miles, 30k ft climbing) in 34h20m13s on his 110mm PowerCranks, which puts him 5th overall I believe. It would appear that the Everest Challenge 2 weeks earlier took something out of him as he was tied for 1st at the first time check at 85 miles but then lost more and more time as the race went on finishing about 4 hours behind the overall winner.

Case in point.

Nothing in this post adds to the original topic which is the importance of crank length. 10,000 variables determining this performance and crank length is only one.

 

[CoachFergie]

Drew Peterson just finished the Furnace Creek 508 (508 miles, 30k ft climbing) in 34h20m13s on his 110mm PowerCranks, which puts him 5th overall I believe. It would appear that the Everest Challenge 2 weeks earlier took something out of him as he was tied for 1st at the first time check at 85 miles but then lost more and more time as the race went on finishing about 4 hours behind the overall winner.

Case in point.

Nothing in this post adds to the original topic which is the importance of crank length. 10,000 variables determining this performance and crank length is only one.

 

[Martin318is]

Drew Peterson just finished the Furnace Creek 508 (508 miles, 30k ft climbing) in 34h20m13s on his 110mm PowerCranks, which puts him 5th overall I believe. It would appear that the Everest Challenge 2 weeks earlier took something out of him as he was tied for 1st at the first time check at 85 miles but then lost more and more time as the race went on finishing about 4 hours behind the overall winner.

Just a quick observation in passing - where were the hills in this course? in particular, what was the profile like up to the first check when compared to the rest of the couse?

And a second observation - how do you know that the winner and other riders hadn't ridden within themselves and conserved energy in the first section before opening up for the remainder of the course?

 

[FrankDay]

Just a quick observation in passing - where were the hills in this course? in particular, what was the profile like up to the first check when compared to the rest of the couse?

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/95376223
edit: all the stages available here: http://www.the508.com/route/index.html

And a second observation - how do you know that the winner and other riders hadn't ridden within themselves and conserved energy in the first section before opening up for the remainder of the course?

who knows? Drew was a virgin in the race and most of the others were veterans. How many of the others did Everest two weeks earlier is also unknown. Here is the results page with splits.

http://dbase.adventurecorps.com/results508.php?fc_eid=54&fcr=Go

 

[Martin318is]

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/95376223

an average speeed of 50.5 MILES per hour including pauses and a maximum of over 73 mph on a course with 6,000 feet of climbing?

Time..........Dist....elevation Gain...Avg Speed..Max Spd...Calories
1:39:29.6 ..83.68m..6,204ft..........50.5mph......73.3mph...3,792

Where can I get some short cranks?

 

[FrankDay]

an average speeed of 50.5 MILES per hour including pauses and a maximum of over 73 mph on a course with 6,000 feet of climbing?

Time..........Dist....elevation Gain...Avg Speed..Max Spd...Calories
1:39:29.6 ..83.68m..6,204ft..........50.5mph......73.3mph...3,792

Where can I get some short cranks?

If you want speeds like that I think you need a car. Now if you could burn those calories while doing that in a car our obesity epidemic would be over. I can come close to eating 3,000 calories in Dorito's in 1.5 hours but, I would still lose weight. I need a car like that.

 

[Martin318is]

Mate - those numbers came straight out of the race file that you posted.

 

[Tapeworm]

I think someone had their Garmin hanging out of a car... or hanging onto one.

 

[FrankDay]

Mate - those numbers came straight out of the race file that you posted.

That wasn't a race file, that was the posted course profile. I edited the post to give the source where you can get the profile of the entire course or of each stage. The hills seem to be pretty well spread out over the course.

 

[Martin318is]

ahhhh.... devil is in the detail!

 

[blutto]

ahhhh.... devil is in the detail!

....and that in a nutshell is why it is foolish to apply science in the dogmatic way our resident science fundamentalist, CoachWhatEver, does...

....the problem is that life is complex and math, which is the key tool in the operation of science, has a problem with complexity....sure science produces wonderful internally coherent proofs but because those proofs never encompass the totality of the the problem they are, by definition. all doomed to failure...to paraphrase the famed astrophysicist Meredith R. McKay, the only thing that is consistent about science is that in the long run it is always wrong...and the thing that usually is the catalyst for that failure is inability of science to incorporate within its structure absolutely all of those damn details...

..now while those niggly details are the death of dogmatic science they are also the the seed that allows science to renew itself and grow...

...so here we have in these forums, several threads that are attempting to discuss how some details can or can't be applied to the function of cycling...the problem is that these details are not from established scientifically defined discourse, but rather are either anecdotal or very interesting fabulalations...unfortunately they are being, in every case being shouted down by an especially obnoxious and persistent fundamentalist...he seems to think he is doing science a favour by fighting the good fight and smiting the unbelievers but in fact he is doing science the ultimate disservice and not engaging in the attempt to deal creatively with some details that just don't fit the established mold....those details that devil leaves around to show what a sham science ultimately is....

...a friend of mine once said that science, in the hands of the right people was a fine way to explore the universe, in the hands of the wrong people it was the ultimate hub intellectual conceit...

...so, yeah, absolutely, the devil is in the details....and we should engage them....because if we don't they will blindside us...

Cheers

blutto

 

[FrankDay]

....and that in a nutshell is why it is foolish to apply science in the dogmatic way our resident science fundamentalist, CoachWhatEver, does...

....the problem is that life is complex and math, which is the key tool in the operation of science, has a problem with complexity....sure science produces wonderful internally coherent proofs but because those proofs never encompass the totality of the the problem they are, by definition. all doomed to failure...to paraphrase the famed astrophysicist Meredith R. McKay, the only thing that is consistent about science is that in the long run it is always wrong...and the thing that usually is the catalyst for that failure is inability of science to incorporate within its structure absolutely all of those damn details...

..now while those niggly details are the death of dogmatic science they are also the the seed that allows science to renew itself and grow...

...so here we have in these forums, several threads that are attempting to discuss how some details can or can't be applied to the function of cycling...the problem is that these details are not from established scientifically defined discourse, but rather are either anecdotal or very interesting fabulalations...unfortunately they are being, in every case being shouted down by an especially obnoxious and persistent fundamentalist...he seems to think he is doing science a favour by fighting the good fight and smiting the unbelievers but in fact he is doing science the ultimate disservice and not engaging in the attempt to deal creatively with some details that just don't fit the established mold....those details that devil leaves around to show what a sham science ultimately is....

...a friend of mine once said that science, in the hands of the right people was a fine way to explore the universe, in the hands of the wrong people it was the ultimate hub intellectual conceit...

...so, yeah, absolutely, the devil is in the details....and we should engage them....because if we don't they will blindside us...

Cheers

blutto

Nice summary of what science can and cannot do. My only difference is I would use the phrase "they are all doomed to revision", not failure. As I was taught in medical school, "in 10 years about half of what we are teaching you will be "wrong", we just don't know which half"

Science seems move forward towards the truth in fits and starts. Tomorrow we will be closer to "the truth" than we are today but one thing for certain, we will never understand things totally.

 

[180mmCrank]

Nice summary of what science can and cannot do. My only difference is I would use the phrase "they are all doomed to revision", not failure. As I was taught in medical school, "in 10 years about half of what we are teaching you will be "wrong", we just don't know which half"

Science seems move forward towards the truth in fits and starts. Tomorrow we will be closer to "the truth" than we are today but one thing for certain, we will never understand things totally.

Wow - the meaning of TRUTH!

All I would ever say is that people's perception is their reality and hence their TRUTH. The first thing any of should be trying to do is to understand the others perspective. Most poor communication is predicated on a failure to do this with sufficient rigour. There is far too much adversarial communication on this forum and not enough curiosity. IMHO

 

[CoachFergie]

A lot of claims in this threads and most are from a individual with a commercial interest in short cranks. I am curious about anything that will improve performance in the cyclists who work with me. Before I take action there has to be a certain level of evidence or benefit before I will ask my riders to invest their time in any training, dietary or equipment experiment. A maximum of .5% for the tallest and shortest of riders using a 170mm crank does not come close to that threshold. So far no real evidence of the "importance" of crank length has been presented.

 

[180mmCrank]

A lot of claims in this threads and most are from a individual with a commercial interest in short cranks. I am curious about anything that will improve performance in the cyclists who work with me. Before I take action there has to be a certain level of evidence or benefit before I will ask my riders to invest their time in any training, dietary or equipment experiment. A maximum of .5% for the tallest and shortest of riders using a 170mm crank does not come close to that threshold. So far no real evidence of the "importance" of crank length has been presented.

I suspect that is an important distinction.

AND in general terms it's tough to know what is being proposed about performance with out listening first. I guess most of us come to a forum like this because we are curious. It's tough when we come against folk who are not and are more intereted in just pushing their perspective. There are a few people on the boards like that but they generally geta hard time from others

T

 

[CoachFergie]

I suspect that is an important distinction.

AND in general terms it's tough to know what is being proposed about performance with out listening first. I guess most of us come to a forum like this because we are curious. It's tough when we come against folk who are not and are more intereted in just pushing their perspective. There are a few people on the boards like that but they generally geta hard time from others

T

A lot of claims of improved performance but no evidence that either performance improved or that one can single out what actually did make the difference.

 

[oldborn]

....and that in a nutshell is why it is foolish to apply science in the dogmatic way our resident science fundamentalist, CoachWhatEver, does...

....the problem is that life is complex and math, which is the key tool in the operation of science, has a problem with complexity....sure science produces wonderful internally coherent proofs but because those proofs never encompass the totality of the the problem they are, by definition. all doomed to failure...to paraphrase the famed astrophysicist Meredith R. McKay, the only thing that is consistent about science is that in the long run it is always wrong...and the thing that usually is the catalyst for that failure is inability of science to incorporate within its structure absolutely all of those damn details...

..now while those niggly details are the death of dogmatic science they are also the the seed that allows science to renew itself and grow...

...so here we have in these forums, several threads that are attempting to discuss how some details can or can't be applied to the function of cycling...the problem is that these details are not from established scientifically defined discourse, but rather are either anecdotal or very interesting fabulalations...unfortunately they are being, in every case being shouted down by an especially obnoxious and persistent fundamentalist...he seems to think he is doing science a favour by fighting the good fight and smiting the unbelievers but in fact he is doing science the ultimate disservice and not engaging in the attempt to deal creatively with some details that just don't fit the established mold....those details that devil leaves around to show what a sham science ultimately is....

...a friend of mine once said that science, in the hands of the right people was a fine way to explore the universe, in the hands of the wrong people it was the ultimate hub intellectual conceit...

...so, yeah, absolutely, the devil is in the details....and we should engage them....because if we don't they will blindside us...

Cheers

blutto

Nice work dude

 

[oldborn]

A lot of claims of improved performance but no evidence that either performance improved or that one can single out what actually did make the difference.

I also beleive that you are stuck somewhere in development phase to become world leading cycling coach, but do not have evidence

P.S. Is this trial court?
On how many forums you are?

 

[FrankDay]

Wow - the meaning of TRUTH!

All I would ever say is that people's perception is their reality and hence their TRUTH. The first thing any of should be trying to do is to understand the others perspective. Most poor communication is predicated on a failure to do this with sufficient rigour. There is far too much adversarial communication on this forum and not enough curiosity. IMHO

Well, I am trying hard to understand your perspective. If that was directed towards me, could you rephrase what you were trying to say so I could better understand it.

 

[Martin318is]

....and that in a nutshell is why it is foolish to apply science in the dogmatic way our resident science fundamentalist, CoachWhatEver, does...

....the problem is that life is complex and math, which is the key tool in the operation of science, has a problem with complexity....sure science produces wonderful internally coherent proofs but because those proofs never encompass the totality of the the problem they are, by definition. all doomed to failure...to paraphrase the famed astrophysicist Meredith R. McKay, the only thing that is consistent about science is that in the long run it is always wrong...and the thing that usually is the catalyst for that failure is inability of science to incorporate within its structure absolutely all of those damn details...

..now while those niggly details are the death of dogmatic science they are also the the seed that allows science to renew itself and grow...

...so here we have in these forums, several threads that are attempting to discuss how some details can or can't be applied to the function of cycling...the problem is that these details are not from established scientifically defined discourse, but rather are either anecdotal or very interesting fabulalations...unfortunately they are being, in every case being shouted down by an especially obnoxious and persistent fundamentalist...he seems to think he is doing science a favour by fighting the good fight and smiting the unbelievers but in fact he is doing science the ultimate disservice and not engaging in the attempt to deal creatively with some details that just don't fit the established mold....those details that devil leaves around to show what a sham science ultimately is....

...a friend of mine once said that science, in the hands of the right people was a fine way to explore the universe, in the hands of the wrong people it was the ultimate hub intellectual conceit...

...so, yeah, absolutely, the devil is in the details....and we should engage them....because if we don't they will blindside us...

Cheers

blutto

wow - you got all that from me pointing out that the missing detail was that the file was faked when I thought it was the actual ride file?

do me a favour and dont quote a post of mine when you are planning to vomit a diatribe about someone that isn't me.