Longer crankarms

[Jiyang Chen]

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

Jiyang

[Stewart Fleming]

Jiyang Chen wrote:
> 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?

[Warren]

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

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=40

[Rick Onanian]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:50:33 GMT, warren <warren@usvhremove.com>
wrote:
>Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this
>topic... http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=40

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

[Warren]

In article <6bmj40h9jdkgh8visgpp8gjrli8gjpfe2l@4ax.com>, Rick Onanian
<spamsink@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:50:33 GMT, warren
> <warren@usvhremove.com> wrote:
> >Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this
> >topic... http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=40
>
> That site requires a login.

Only if you care to read the whole article.

> 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..."

> 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

[Gocycle]

"warren" <warren@usvhremove.com> wrote in message
news:060320042036503442%warren@usvhremove.com...
> In article <6bmj40h9jdkgh8visgpp8gjrli8gjpfe2l@4ax.com>,
> Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:50:33 GMT, warren
> > <warren@usvhremove.com> wrote:
> > >Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this
> > >topic...
> > >http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=40
> >
> > That site requires a login.
>
> Only if you care to read the whole article.
>
> > 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..."
>
> > 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

[Chris]

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 <warren@usvhremove.com> wrote in message
news:<060320042036503442%warren@usvhremove.com>...
> In article <6bmj40h9jdkgh8visgpp8gjrli8gjpfe2l@4ax.com>,
> Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:50:33 GMT, warren
> > <warren@usvhremove.com> wrote:
> > >Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this
> > >topic...
> > >http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=40
> >
> > That site requires a login.
>
> Only if you care to read the whole article.
>
> > 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..."
>
> > 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]

In article <a7157f5e.0403081220.10ace30b@posting.google.com>, chris
<excel_sports@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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

[Robert Chung]

warren wrote:
> 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.

[Dirtroadie]

"Jiyang Chen" <no@no.no> wrote in message news:<c2b78l$7q9@dispatch.concentric.net>...
> 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

[Robert Chung]

DirtRoadie wrote:
> 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.

[Chris]

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:<080320041514128753%warren@usvhremove.com>...
> In article
> <a7157f5e.0403081220.10ace30b@posting.google.com>, chris
> <excel_sports@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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

[Lindsay]

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:23:16 +0100, "Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net>
wrote:

>DirtRoadie wrote:
>> 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.

[Dan Connelly]

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

[Warren]

In article <a7157f5e.0403090607.1341551a@posting.google.com>, chris
<excel_sports@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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

[Bob Schwartz]

chris <excel_sports@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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!

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 cvcc@execpc.com

[Chris]

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 <cvcc@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:<104s6f3jjn4le0f@corp.supernews.com>...
> chris <excel_sports@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 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!
>
> 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 cvcc@execpc.com

[Dirtroadie]

"Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<c2kk0u$1uedu8$1@ID-226327.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> DirtRoadie wrote:
> > 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

[Warren]

In article <a7157f5e.0403091758.59c75d6e@posting.google.com>, chris
<excel_sports@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

> 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

[Robert Chung]

warren wrote:
>
> 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.