Yesterday i was talking to a high ranking UCI rider who told me he had just been tested by one of the cycling testing gurus. He indicated this testing guru suggested his crank length was too long and through out this interesting fact to him: he said that their testing suggested that the optimum crank length for sustained power generation is 162.5 although he realized that this may not be optimum for the kind of racing this person does which requires a lot of pace changes.
Has anyone seen any data to support this short of a crank being "ideal"?
"Frank Day" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Yesterday i was talking to a high ranking UCI rider who told me he had just been tested by one of the cycling testing gurus. He indicated this testing guru suggested his crank length was too long and through out this interesting fact to him: he said that their testing suggested that the optimum crank length for sustained power generation is 162.5 although he realized that this may not be optimum for the kind of racing this person does which requires a lot of pace changes.
Has anyone seen any data to support this short of a crank being "ideal"?
Jim Martin's data indicate that differences in crank length within the usual range have essentially no affect on submaximal or maximal power (which if you think about it in terms of muscle physiology, is precisely what you would expect):
"Davey Crockett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:87llqddzuj.fsf@cpe0050da66e294-
Quoted message said:
I use shorter on on the track personally, down as short as 162.5 but that is more to compensate for the transition from banking to straight on an ultra short velodrome.
Wouldn't that be straight to banking, as going from the banking to the straight, the track surface is going away from you.
"Phil Holman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Jim Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in
Quoted message said:
Jim Martin's data indicate that differences in crank length within
the
Quoted message said:
usual
Quoted message said:
range have essentially no affect on submaximal or maximal power
Guy must be total lab geek with no understanding of REAL bicycle
racing!
Don't be bashful. What is your "on the bike" experience?
Jim is too modest to tout his own experience/accomplishments, so I'll do it for him:
Masters national champion, match sprint First director of the Alkek Velodrome, Houston, TX First coach of Team EDS (before the hiring of Skip Cutting as a full-time coach) Director of Sports Science for Team EDS Member of Project 96 (in charge of helmet and handlebar testing) Author of a regular column on training for either Road Bike Action or Bicycle Guide (I don't remember which) Presently advising at least one world-class athlete
And his most important accomplishment to date (drum roll, please).................
Was in the break at the Texas State Road Race in 1986! ;-)
"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Phil Holman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Jim Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in > Jim Martin's data indicate that differences in crank length
within
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
the
Quoted message said:
usual > range have essentially no affect on submaximal or maximal
power
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Guy must be total lab geek with no understanding of REAL bicycle
racing!
Don't be bashful. What is your "on the bike" experience?
Jim is too modest to tout his own experience/accomplishments, so
I'll do it
Quoted message said:
for him:
Masters national champion, match sprint First director of the Alkek Velodrome, Houston, TX First coach of Team EDS (before the hiring of Skip Cutting as a
full-time
Quoted message said:
coach) Director of Sports Science for Team EDS Member of Project 96 (in charge of helmet and handlebar testing) Author of a regular column on training for either Road Bike Action
or
Quoted message said:
Bicycle Guide (I don't remember which) Presently advising at least one world-class athlete
And his most important accomplishment to date (drum roll, please).................
Was in the break at the Texas State Road Race in 1986! ;-)
Wasn't that the race that big tri-geek was also in?
Jim is too modest to tout his own experience/accomplishments, so I'll do
it for him:
Gee I look good.... on paper.
Quoted message said:
the break at the Texas State Road Race in 1986! ;-)
1984, and yeah, that was real ground breaking research into dehydration, carbohydrate depletion, and whole body cramping. Thanks for reminding me. Do you happen to remember who won? ;-)
Cheers,
Jim
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗). Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 11/6/2003
"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
"Frank Day" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Yesterday i was talking to a high ranking UCI rider who told me he had just been tested by one of the cycling testing gurus. He indicated this testing guru suggested his crank length was too long and through out this interesting fact to him: he said that their testing suggested that the optimum crank length for sustained power generation is 162.5 although he realized that this may not be optimum for the kind of racing this person does which requires a lot of pace changes.
Has anyone seen any data to support this short of a crank being "ideal"?
Jim Martin's data indicate that differences in crank length within the usual range have essentially no affect on submaximal or maximal power (which if you think about it in terms of muscle physiology, is precisely what you would expect):
The technical expression "submaximal or maximal power" can be replaced by the simple term "power", since the values taken by any function are necessarily maximal or submaximal (assuming it has a maximum).
I use shorter on on the track personally, down as short as 162.5 but that is more to compensate for the transition from banking to straight on an ultra short velodrome.
Quoted message said:
Wouldn't that be straight to banking, as going from the banking to the straight, the track surface is going away from you.
That's the way folks normally ride around tracks isn't it?
Before my first crit ever this fall, I was a little apprehensive because when I saw the course (1 km tarmac, 1 km cobbles, 2 180 deg turns) I realised it was going to be clockwise. Somehow I thought I'd suck at doing righthand turns. After 2 rounds it was OK though.
"Ilan Vardi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
"Frank Day" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Yesterday i was talking to a high ranking UCI rider who told me he had just been tested by one of the cycling testing gurus. He indicated this testing guru suggested his crank length was too long and through out this interesting fact to him: he said that their testing suggested that the optimum crank length for sustained power generation is 162.5 although he realized that this may not be optimum for the kind of racing this person does which requires a lot of pace changes.
Has anyone seen any data to support this short of a crank being "ideal"?
Jim Martin's data indicate that differences in crank length within the
usual
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
range have essentially no affect on submaximal or maximal power (which
if
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
you think about it in terms of muscle physiology, is precisely what you would expect):
The technical expression "submaximal or maximal power" can be replaced by
the
Quoted message said:
simple term "power", since the values taken by any function are
necessarily
Quoted message said:
maximal or submaximal (assuming it has a maximum).
Submaximal = measured at an exercise intensity eliciting less than VO2max Maximal = maximal (not peak, not at 100% of VO2max, not at the end of an incremental or ramp exercise test to determine VO2max)
Thus, if I'd simply said "power" when describing Jim's data, you wouldn't know that he'd looked at the effect of crank length on the physiology/performance of both very short duration, very high intensity exercise and longer duration, lower intensity exercise. The addition of the adjectives "submaximal and maximal" makes this clear (at least if you are versed in the field, which obviously you are not).
