Optimum crank length

[Ilan Vardi]

"Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Now you're starting to annoy me.

Well, atleast I'm doing something right. Thanks for the support.

-ilan

 

[Jim Martin]

"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote
> He competed in the 1985 National Sports Festival.

Actually, I was only there as Sue Kidwell's coach.

Jim (not a pretender) Martin

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Andy wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>> Andy wrote:
>>> Jim wrote:
>>>> Andy wrote:
>>>>> Jim wrote:
>>>>>> Andy wrote:
>>>>>>> Jim wrote:

You know, I'd be willing to bet that neither of you guys has gotten laid in a while.

Bob Schwartz [email protected]

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Andy wrote:
> > Jim wrote:
> >> Andy wrote:
> >>> Jim wrote:
> >>>> Andy wrote:
> >>>>> Jim wrote:
> >>>>>> Andy wrote:
> >>>>>>> Jim wrote:
>
> You know, I'd be willing to bet that neither of you guys has gotten laid in a while.

I dare you to try that line on two old buddies having a conversation in a bar.

Andy Coggan

 

[Donald Munro]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> Andy wrote:
>> Jim wrote:
>>> Andy wrote:
>>>> Jim wrote:
>>>>> Andy wrote:
>>>>>> Jim wrote:
>>>>>>> Andy wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jim wrote:
>
> You know, I'd be willing to bet that neither of you guys has gotten laid in a while.

Perhaps they should take up rowing in pursuit of a fit female rower (ask Ewoud for a detailed
explanation).

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Jim Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote
> > He competed in the 1985 National Sports Festival.
>
> Actually, I was only there as Sue Kidwell's coach.
>
> Jim (not a pretender) Martin
>

You mean I've been disillusioned about you for the past 18 years? I thought you did some other
things while you were there.

Wasn't the beer barrel with appendages, AKA Jeff Fields, was Sue's coach?

 

[Velocat]

Ilan Vardi wrote:

> 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).
>
> -ilan

The sentence above can be omitted entirely because it is pedantic and fails to take note of the fact
that this phrase came from rbr where it has been shown that the more words you write, the more you
must know.

Dave

 

[Bvm]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:51:35 -0700, "Jim Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> Jim Martin's data indicate that differences in crank length within the
>usual
>> range have essentially no affect on submaximal or maximal power
>
>Guy must be total lab geek with no understanding of REAL bicycle racing!

I was always used to 175mm for any kind of bike. If I experimented with anything shorter (170,
172.5), I really missed 175's. Even on long flat rides, I personally could not feel the benefit of
spinning smaller circles. I developed some kind of rhythm on 175s and the shorter cranks feel like
they rob me of power.

 

[Jim Martin]

"BVM" <[email protected]> wrote
> I was always used to 175mm for any kind of bike. If I experimented with anything shorter (170,
> 172.5), I really missed 175's. Even on long flat rides, I personally could not feel the benefit of
> spinning smaller circles. I developed some kind of rhythm on 175s and the shorter cranks feel like
> they rob me of power.

Then by all means stay with the 175's. These tiny differences in length will have no physiological
effect. However, if you *believe* that they alter your power then they will indeed influence your
performance.

One way to think of it is this: The bad news is that no crank length will be particularly
benificial, the good news is that you can use any length you want to with no ill effects.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Dan Connelly]

Jim Martin wrote:
> "BVM" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>I was always used to 175mm for any kind of bike. If I experimented with anything shorter (170,
>>172.5), I really missed 175's. Even on long flat rides, I personally could not feel the benefit of
>>spinning smaller circles. I developed some kind of rhythm on 175s and the shorter cranks feel like
>>they rob me of power.
>
>
> Then by all means stay with the 175's. These tiny differences in length will have no physiological
> effect. However, if you *believe* that they alter your power then they will indeed influence your
> performance.

This is a bit unfair, as it implies a strictly placebo effect. The effect of comfort is potentially
real. Would you wear poorly-fitting shoes? Yet I suspect if you did an erg test, whether the shoe
fit well or not wouldn't make much difference. The rider would just be more miserable.

But in the real "uncontrolled" world, where motivation is so dependent on how one feels, comfort may
be more of a factor.

Dan

 

[Jim Martin]

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote
> But in the real "uncontrolled" world, where motivation is so dependent on
how one feels,
> comfort may be more of a factor.

I agree and that's what I intended to communicate. Differences that we think of as huge, such as
5mm, are essentially trivial in any bomechanical or physiological way. On the other hand, you
certainly can feel the difference and that feeling may be important to how you perform.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> This is a bit unfair, as it implies a strictly placebo effect. The
effect
> of comfort is potentially real. Would you wear poorly-fitting
shoes?
> Yet I suspect if you did an erg test, whether the shoe fit well or
not
> wouldn't make much difference. The rider would just be more
miserable.

Crank length is very close to the length of your foot. Do you think that toes a centimeter long
would increase your power?

> But in the real "uncontrolled" world, where motivation is so
dependent on how one feels,
> comfort may be more of a factor.

Sure, but isn't "comfort" one of those things you can get from whatever crank length you
get used to?

 

[Greg Hall]

"Jim Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I agree and that's what I intended to communicate. Differences that we think of as huge, such as
> 5mm, are essentially trivial in any bomechanical or physiological way. On the other hand, you
> certainly can feel the difference and that feeling may be important to how you perform.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jim

So much for my buyer's remorse in moving up from 167.5mm to 170mm track cranks. Whew! Thanks you
guys, I needed that. Now can you help me out with handlebar widths?

Greg Hall

 

[Amit]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<7bTyb.24094

> Crank length is very close to the length of your foot. Do you think that toes a centimeter long
> would increase your power?
>

It would make peeling bananas easier.