Longer crankarms

Jiyang Chen said:

Are there any evidence that longer crankarms are more efficient? It seems like it would produce
more torque since there's more leverage.

Jiyang

No. We go through this exercise once a year or so. It should be in the FAQ now. Actually, regardimg
the FAQ, it was last updated last April. Surely we have generated some new FAQs since then?

Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this topic...

53x12.comshowOpen ↗

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:50:33 GMT, warren <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this
topic... 53x12.comshowOpen ↗

That site requires a login. What conclusions does that
article draw?

I've recently went to shorter cranks, figuring I may be able
to increase my top cadence, or at least pedal fast cadences
more smoothly.
--
Rick Onanian

In article <[email hidden]>, Rick Onanian

Quoted message said:

warren said:

Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this
topic... 53x12.comshowOpen ↗

That site requires a login.

Only if you care to read the whole article.

Quoted message said:

What conclusions does that article draw?

...That lab tests on crank lengths should (but usually
don't) consider the value of longer cranks during times when
you're out of the saddle at lower than average rpm's.

Ferrari offers some other reasons and then concludes with
this little needle, "Only when physiologists get out of
their laboratories and dedicate themselves to the study of
top-level cyclists, will information be applicable to
athletes..."

Quoted message said:

I've recently went to shorter cranks, figuring I may be
able to increase my top cadence, or at least pedal fast
cadences more smoothly.

I suggest you read some of the other articles at that site
about increasing pedal cadence. Your objective may be better
achieved with training. Try slightly rolling terrain in the
same gear. Allow your cadence to flucuate from an average of
about 90-95 up to 120 for short periods. At the high rpm's
it may help you to think about lifting your knees. You can
also do intervals 1-10 minutes long at 110+ rpm's. Then in a
few weeks you can try 120+ rpm's. Try maintaining 90+ rpm's
while riding uphill. BTW, uphill at high cadences provides
some good cardiovascular training while putting less strain
on the muscles (less accumulated fatigue?).

It's not easy to learn but then you can use the longer
cranks for more leverage when you accelerate out of
the saddle and you'll still have the high cadence when
you need it.

-WG

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rick Onanian said:

warren said:

Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this
topic...
53x12.comshowOpen ↗

That site requires a login.

Only if you care to read the whole article.

Quoted message said:

What conclusions does that article draw?

...That lab tests on crank lengths should (but usually
don't) consider the value of longer cranks during times
when you're out of the saddle at lower than average rpm's.

Ferrari offers some other reasons and then concludes with
this little needle, "Only when physiologists get out of
their laboratories and dedicate themselves to the study of
top-level cyclists, will information be applicable to
athletes..."

Quoted message said:

I've recently went to shorter cranks, figuring I may be
able to increase my top cadence, or at least pedal fast
cadences more smoothly.

I suggest you read some of the other articles at that site
about increasing pedal cadence. Your objective may be
better achieved with training. Try slightly rolling
terrain in the same gear. Allow your cadence to flucuate
from an average of about 90-95 up to 120 for short
periods. At the high rpm's it may help you to think about
lifting your knees. You can also do intervals 1-10 minutes
long at 110+ rpm's. Then in a few weeks you can try 120+
rpm's. Try maintaining 90+ rpm's while riding uphill. BTW,
uphill at high cadences provides some good cardiovascular
training while putting less strain on the muscles (less
accumulated fatigue?).

It's not easy to learn but then you can use the longer
cranks for more leverage when you accelerate out of the
saddle and you'll still have the high cadence when you
need it.

-WG

I think its been studied enough to say it doesn't matter. I
actually went to shorter cranks on my TT bike and found it
far easier to turn over the pedals in an aerob position. I
think the affect of length is overestimated.

I caught Ferrari's comment and I wrote him (haven't heard
from him, though, and don't expect to). I both agree and
challenge his comments. He clearly has spent little time
researching anything. Itherwise he would realize what I made
note of to him. Its easy for people to criticize the lack of
real world research, but few realize the logistics of such
research. Take it from someone who has spent the last 3
years trying to get 2 studies funded with the help of a
collegue. It sucks. If anyone out there want to make a
donation to the cause, let me know!

CH

warren <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rick Onanian said:

warren said:

Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this
topic...
53x12.comshowOpen ↗

That site requires a login.

Only if you care to read the whole article.

Quoted message said:

What conclusions does that article draw?

...That lab tests on crank lengths should (but usually
don't) consider the value of longer cranks during times
when you're out of the saddle at lower than average rpm's.

Ferrari offers some other reasons and then concludes with
this little needle, "Only when physiologists get out of
their laboratories and dedicate themselves to the study of
top-level cyclists, will information be applicable to
athletes..."

Quoted message said:

I've recently went to shorter cranks, figuring I may be
able to increase my top cadence, or at least pedal fast
cadences more smoothly.

I suggest you read some of the other articles at that site
about increasing pedal cadence. Your objective may be
better achieved with training. Try slightly rolling
terrain in the same gear. Allow your cadence to flucuate
from an average of about 90-95 up to 120 for short
periods. At the high rpm's it may help you to think about
lifting your knees. You can also do intervals 1-10 minutes
long at 110+ rpm's. Then in a few weeks you can try 120+
rpm's. Try maintaining 90+ rpm's while riding uphill. BTW,
uphill at high cadences provides some good cardiovascular
training while putting less strain on the muscles (less
accumulated fatigue?).

It's not easy to learn but then you can use the longer
cranks for more leverage when you accelerate out of the
saddle and you'll still have the high cadence when you
need it.

-WG

In article <[email hidden]>, chris

Quoted message said:

I caught Ferrari's comment and I wrote him (haven't heard
from him, though, and don't expect to). I both agree and
challenge his comments. He clearly has spent little time
researching anything. Itherwise he would realize what I
made note of to him. Its easy for people to criticize the
lack of real world research, but few realize the logistics
of such research.

What makes you think he hasn't done some research with the
riders he has worked with?

-WG

warren said:

Ferrari offers some other reasons and then concludes with
this little needle, "Only when physiologists get out of
their laboratories and dedicate themselves to the study of
top-level cyclists, will information be applicable to
athletes..."

What an odd and revealing thing to say.

"Jiyang Chen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Are there any evidence that longer crankarms are more
efficient? It seems like it would produce more torque
since there's more leverage.

More torque, yes. More power, not necessarily. Just looking
at the basic physics and ignoring the relative complexity of
the physiological considerations, keep in mind that to
increase speed on a bicycle, *power* (i.e. rpm x torque)
must be increased. And to increase power you can increase
either torque or rpm. Formula 1 race cars (and some guy
named Lance) generate large amounts of power with engines
that turn at very high rpm. Diesel trucks and
diesel/electric locomotives get their power mostly from high
torque at low rpms.

And then, of course, you have to define what you mean by
"more efficient."

DR

DirtRoadie said:

Formula 1 race cars (and some guy named Lance) generate
large amounts of power with engines that turn at very
high rpm.

I'm not so sure that's a fair characterization of Armstrong.
During his climb of Alpe d'Huez a couple of years ago I
estimated he was averaging in the ballpark of 425W at
perhaps 100-105rpm or so. That means his rpm's were slightly
higher than most of us but he was producing *lots* more
power, i.e., his torque was pretty high.

His comments make me believe that; unless of course he has funded all
his research from his own stash of cash. He clearly doesn't get it,
though. If he did, he would understand how hard it is to get anything
funded, let alone the logistics of field testing. Case in point:

I'll leave out much of detail here, and just touch on
the cost and logistics of looking at data collection for
an 8 day stage race. Nor will I include payment for
services rendered.

Pre and post (simple) lactate testing (5 riders) - $300
power meters for all (assuming they'll all ride a power tap
& you get a deal on them) - $2500 Hct samples (~80 samples)
- $30 Airfare to get your personnel there - $600
Accommodations (with luck)- $900 Plus a bunch of stuff I
missed and a boat load of time plus finding riders to do
this...THEN ALL THE DATA ANALYSIS.

~$4500.00

Please remit payment to me or forward bill to Ferrari and
I'll get started!

CH

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>, chris

Quoted message said:

I caught Ferrari's comment and I wrote him (haven't
heard from him, though, and don't expect to). I both
agree and challenge his comments. He clearly has spent
little time researching anything. Itherwise he would
realize what I made note of to him. Its easy for people
to criticize the lack of real world research, but few
realize the logistics of such research.

What makes you think he hasn't done some research with the
riders he has worked with?

-WG

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:23:16 +0100, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

DirtRoadie said:

Formula 1 race cars (and some guy named Lance) generate
large amounts of power with engines that turn at very
high rpm.

I'm not so sure that's a fair characterization of
Armstrong. During his climb of Alpe d'Huez a couple of
years ago I estimated he was averaging in the ballpark of
425W at perhaps 100-105rpm or so. That means his rpm's were
slightly higher than most of us but he was producing *lots*
more power, i.e., his torque was pretty high.

F1 race cars generate much more HP than Torque, especially
at the high RPM's. If LANCE is in F1 race car mode, he's
generating more LANCEpower at the high RPM's going up the
hills, not utilizing torque. Jan would be utilizing more
torque at his lower RPM attack on the mountains.

As was pointed out, the crank is just a lever. Sure, you can
lift more weight with a longer lever, but you need to push
it through a longer distance, so it's a tradeoff.

In any case, crank arm length is just part of the story. The
mechanical system extends up through at least your hip. The
trajectory of the knee isn't necessarily strongly affected
by crank arm length. So longer cranks only clearly reduce
the force load though a part of the system.

Dan

In article <[email hidden]>, chris

Quoted message said:

His comments make me believe that; unless of course he has
funded all his research from his own stash of cash. He
clearly doesn't get it, though. If he did, he would
understand how hard it is to get anything funded, let
alone the logistics of field testing. Case in point:

I'll leave out much of detail here, and just touch on the
cost and logistics of looking at data collection for an 8
day stage race. Nor will I include payment for services
rendered.

Pre and post (simple) lactate testing (5 riders) - $300
power meters for all (assuming they'll all ride a power
tap & you get a deal on them) - $2500 Hct samples (~80
samples) - $30 Airfare to get your personnel there - $600
Accommodations (with luck)- $900 Plus a bunch of stuff I
missed and a boat load of time plus finding riders to do
this...THEN ALL THE DATA ANALYSIS.

~$4500.00

That's a small amount of money for a star rider or a rider
on a big team. Not an obstacle. The actual testing would
likely be done for an individual rider or just a few from
the team, and a team like Mapei was doing frequent testing
with most of their riders already. Adding in the question of
whether or not Bartoli needed 175's or 172.5's wouldn't be
much of a burden or obstacle.

-WG

chris said:

I'll leave out much of detail here, and just touch on the
cost and logistics of looking at data collection for an 8
day stage race. Nor will I include payment for services
rendered.

Quoted message said:

Pre and post (simple) lactate testing (5 riders) - $300
power meters for all (assuming they'll all ride a power
tap & you get a deal on them) - $2500 Hct samples (~80
samples) - $30 Airfare to get your personnel there - $600
Accommodations (with luck)- $900 Plus a bunch of stuff I
missed and a boat load of time plus finding riders to do
this...THEN ALL THE DATA ANALYSIS.

Quoted message said:

~$4500.00

Quoted message said:

Please remit payment to me or forward bill to Ferrari and
I'll get started!

Rominger was handing over 10% of his salary at a time when
he was the world's #1 ranked rider. Other clients are
probably paying something similar. I don't believe cost is
the barrier you think it is.

Bob Schwartz [email hidden]

Bob, have you done any human performance research? I can
tell you that you haven't any idea how little money there
is, because nobody give a hoot (at least in the U.S.). Do
you honestly think we just sit around in our labs coming up
with the least applicable studies because its fun? Besides,
I didn't say it was a problem for them, its a problem for us
scientists; you know, the guys Ferrari is criticizing. I
should also add that Dr. Ferrari has no human subjects
restraints placed on him either. Anything the scientific
community does must pass some Board's approval. A pro team
has none of these constraints. Regarding Warren's Mapei
comment, I can say (from second hand knowledge) that what
they were doing was either not well controlled, or the
sample size was far to small to make actual statistical
assessments.

I would, however, contend that most riders would be
reluctant to make major changes.

CH

Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

chris said:

I'll leave out much of detail here, and just touch on
the cost and logistics of looking at data collection for
an 8 day stage race. Nor will I include payment for
services rendered.

Quoted message said:

Pre and post (simple) lactate testing (5 riders) - $300
power meters for all (assuming they'll all ride a power
tap & you get a deal on them) - $2500 Hct samples (~80
samples) - $30 Airfare to get your personnel there -
$600 Accommodations (with luck)- $900 Plus a bunch of
stuff I missed and a boat load of time plus finding
riders to do this...THEN ALL THE DATA ANALYSIS.

Quoted message said:

~$4500.00

Quoted message said:

Please remit payment to me or forward bill to Ferrari
and I'll get started!

Rominger was handing over 10% of his salary at a time when
he was the world's #1 ranked rider. Other clients are
probably paying something similar. I don't believe cost is
the barrier you think it is.

Bob Schwartz [email hidden]

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

DirtRoadie said:

Formula 1 race cars (and some guy named Lance) generate
large amounts of power with engines that turn at very
high rpm.

I'm not so sure that's a fair characterization of
Armstrong. During his climb of Alpe d'Huez a couple of
years ago I estimated he was averaging in the ballpark of
425W at perhaps 100-105rpm or so. That means his rpm's
were slightly higher than most of us but he was producing
*lots* more power, i.e., his torque was pretty high.

I didn't intend to suggest that he doesn't produce any
torque or that he revs like a F1 car (but he certainly does
turn those cranks over compared to most cyclists). My only
point was that the post-cancer Lance discovered that his
best power was at higher rpm than what he had commonly used
earlier and he has used his high rpm style quite well, i.e.
generates lots of power. The basic point is that power can
be increased by using higher rpm at the same torque. For
that matter power can be increased even with lower torque
*IF* the rpm is increased enough.

DR

In article <[email hidden]>, chris

Quoted message said:

Bob, have you done any human performance research? I can
tell you that you haven't any idea how little money there
is, because nobody give a hoot (at least in the U.S.). Do
you honestly think we just sit around in our labs coming
up with the least applicable studies because its fun?
Besides, I didn't say it was a problem for them, its a
problem for us scientists; you know, the guys Ferrari is
criticizing.

Ferarri's point was that guys like him learn more (or learn
things with more relevance) because they don't have the
constraints that you've mentioned, and they get to work with
actual athletes for all of their testing.

Quoted message said:

I should also add that Dr. Ferrari has no human subjects
restraints placed on him either. Anything the scientific
community does must pass some Board's approval. A pro team
has none of these constraints. Regarding Warren's Mapei
comment, I can say (from second hand knowledge) that what
they were doing was either not well controlled, or the
sample size was far to small to make actual statistical
assessments.

Ferrari and Mapei, et al, don't need to worry about
statistical assessments, large sample sizes, etc. because
they're only concerned with what works or doesn't work for
the people they are working with, and among those few people
there will be various responses that can be relevant for
their needs. Just as you, a coach, offer an educated guess
or suggestion for your athletes and then you "test" to see
how well it works for that person.

-WG

warren said:

Ferrari and Mapei, et al, don't need to worry about
statistical assessments, large sample sizes, etc. because
they're only concerned with what works or doesn't work for
the people they are working with,

Sort of like the guy who came up with the idea of gastric-
freezing was only concerned with what worked or didn't for
the patients he was working with.