Now, with a straight face, you can tell your partner, "shorter is better" and mean it.
- Thread starter Fday
- Start date
it seems to me that to maintain power, one would want to raise the saddle and move it aft to maintain extension at 3 and 6 o'clock. i guess that one could lower the saddle to maintain hip angle at 12 o clock, but that this would compromise power if the saddle height was proper prior to swapping cranks
Â
Â
Originally Posted by Fday .
Yes, one has to infer that they are related. One has to draw certain inferences to get to where I went. None of the inferences are unreasonable.
Â
BTW, found an article out of triathlete magazine that went to this issue. While I disagree with some of their conclusions and statements they did say this, that goes to the "are shorter cranks more aero issue", which I was able to infer without wind-tunnel data. (Isn't it just amazing how sometimes inferences can lead one to the right conclusion?)
BTW, I believe the author should have written that the seat would be higher with shorter cranks, not lower. 30% reduction in wind drag. Hey, almost 40%.
Hey, you can't post something with an invitation to discuss, and then complain when somebody discusses it. Again, I have no argument that you can create a more aero bike by lowering the front end, shortening cranks, using a 650 wheel, etc. There is nothing novel or new and that's what is discussed in the triathlon article. Frank has proposed that lowering cranks alone, without any change other than raising the seat, would make you more aero. Again, I am skeptical and I have not seen anything cited that suggests that is the case. As I have said repeatedly, teams and riders work in wind tunnels to improve position and aerodynamics. I believe that they make micro adjustments of everything, including cranks, to find the optimum combination. The fact that there has not been a universal adoption of sub 165 mm cranks by these elite racers who have done the wind tunnel work is more persuasive to me than the inferences and animation made by Frank which he is using to promote his product.
The citation of the Martin max power study rather than the subsequent studies done by Martin and others that failed to find a statistically significant difference in shorter or longer cranks beyond the 170 conventional size is, in my opinion, very misleading. I'm not saying that 170 is the magic number, but trading in a high quality shimano, campy, etc crank for his gizmo is not supported by the Martin study. If there are folks on this board that want to experiment with crank length as part of efforts to improve power or aero positioning, then knock yourself out. If you think power cranks offer other advantages, great. But I do take issue with a commercial poster coming on a forum and making scientific claims about a product. If he wants to start a forum to promote or support power cranks, that's great. If he wants to pay cycling forums a fee to advertise or market his product and the ad is clearly identified as an ad, that's great as well.
But he asked for discussion about his theory, and I discussed it. Whether I am a notable cycling historian, or swampy feels that I suitably qualified to discuss it might be beside the point. I did read the studies that he originally cited, read the other studies done by Martin, and discussed it. Isn't that what Frank asked us to do?
The citation of the Martin max power study rather than the subsequent studies done by Martin and others that failed to find a statistically significant difference in shorter or longer cranks beyond the 170 conventional size is, in my opinion, very misleading. I'm not saying that 170 is the magic number, but trading in a high quality shimano, campy, etc crank for his gizmo is not supported by the Martin study. If there are folks on this board that want to experiment with crank length as part of efforts to improve power or aero positioning, then knock yourself out. If you think power cranks offer other advantages, great. But I do take issue with a commercial poster coming on a forum and making scientific claims about a product. If he wants to start a forum to promote or support power cranks, that's great. If he wants to pay cycling forums a fee to advertise or market his product and the ad is clearly identified as an ad, that's great as well.
But he asked for discussion about his theory, and I discussed it. Whether I am a notable cycling historian, or swampy feels that I suitably qualified to discuss it might be beside the point. I did read the studies that he originally cited, read the other studies done by Martin, and discussed it. Isn't that what Frank asked us to do?
Similar threads
