Going to bed at 7:30 is a luxury?? LMAO
Sounds like a pretty boring life to me !
Sounds like a pretty boring life to me !
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Who has data on crank length that they found where too short was bad? [JasoninHalifax]
[ In reply to ]
Re: Who has data on crank length that they found where too short was bad? [JasoninHalifax]
[ In reply to ]
He has no power meter. That's why there is no f$$king data on the rides. That village thats missing an idiot........they could find him right here
Re: Who has data on crank length that they found where too short was bad? [Donzo98]
[ In reply to ]
Donzo98 wrote:
Going to bed at 7:30 is a luxury?? LMAO Sounds like a pretty boring life to me !
Well, it's a luxury to be able to set your own hours, not be interrupted in the middle of the night, etc. My toddler goes to bed (lights out) at 7:30. Then I still have stuff to do...
Swimming Workout of the Day:
Favourite Swim Sets:
2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Re: Who has data on crank length that they found where too short was bad? [JasoninHalifax]
[ In reply to ]
JasoninHalifax wrote:
Donzo98 wrote:
Going to bed at 7:30 is a luxury?? LMAO Sounds like a pretty boring life to me !
Well, it's a luxury to be able to set your own hours, not be interrupted in the middle of the night, etc. My toddler goes to bed (lights out) at 7:30. Then I still have stuff to do...
Yup... I get it. Just joking around a bit :)
Re: Who has data on crank length that they found where too short was bad? [G-man]
[ In reply to ]
Are you adjusting your gearing to accommodate the change in crankarm length? Crank arms affect gear ratio so you are failing to isolate an important variable if not.
Re: Who has data on crank length that they found where too short was bad? [trifit]
[ In reply to ]
trifit wrote:
Hopefully this looks better. I wouldn't say it was a waste of time. I was glad to find my limit. In 2010 (I think) I went from 172.5 to 165. Really liked it.
2014 I went from 165 to 155. Liked it again. Climbing felt a little weird and gear jumps felt much bigger. I was able to achieve better position, get faster bike splits on less power and run well.
February I tried 145 for about a month. Lower power levels (160w) felt good. 250 however felt awful. As well as anything above that but than really doesn't matter since I would race at that power. I gave 145 a try for a month then switched back. Might give them a try to get more data since back in February I had a lot on my plate with a new born and last semester of my masters. Might even try the 165 again for data but I can say now that I don't care for 165 on the TT bike. I do like 165 on my road and MTB and have had my highest Pmax and 5 sec max powers with 165. Sorry to ramble on
ignore the dots
Crank: 155 .. 145 .... 155.. 145
Watts . L/R. .. L/R .... GPA .. GPA
160 . . 47/53 . 47/53 . 6\0 . 29\22
200 . . 47/53 . 47/53 . 6\1 . 28\20
250 . . 48/52 . 48/52 . 3\0 . 23\17
300 .. 49/51 . 48/52 . 3\1 . 21\14
400 .. 51/49 . 50/50 . 1\0 . 14\11
600 . . 50/50 . 52/48 . 0\1 . 5\4
L/R is left right balance
Great data.
Question for you, what is your RPM focus? Do you have data on RPM vs crank length?
Meaning, as I have changed my crank length, I have kept a focus on collecting data at a range of RPM's, from 50 to 90. It has been
real interesting to see how my HR, leg issues, fatigue, really seem to hit at 80 and above RPM. This is why when I am now riding my testing hilly loop, I keep my focus to make sure that as I change the crank length, I adjust the gearing to try to keep around 70 to 75 on the flats. If not, I could easily spin at a much higher rate which seems to wear me down on the bike more. But, still collecting data
Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net
Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist
Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep
Re: Who has data on crank length that they found where too short was bad? [1poseur1]
[ In reply to ]
1poseur1 wrote:
Are you adjusting your gearing to accommodate the change in crankarm length? Crank arms affect gear ratio so you are failing to isolate an important variable if not.I have learned this, even though for most obvious.
Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net
Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist
Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep
Re: Who has data on crank length that they found where too short was bad? [h2ofun]
[ In reply to ]
For my RPM's I decided to go at whatever I self selected figuring this is what would test most efficient for GPA. I was on a computrainer to keep power more constant. Data was from pedals of course.
I just pulled up the data and here is what I had.
Watts 155 145
160. . .94. . .96
200 . . 95. . 97
250. . .97. . 99
300. . .101. 103
400. . 108. . 109
600 . . 110. . 114
Your making me want to come back and try everything again in the summer when I have time. I'm 5'8 if you are wanting a little more info on me.
Side note- cracked my lock ring on the 155 in May and went back to the 145 for about 10 days. Almost raced on them but was happy to have the 155 back on.
Side note 2- When my bike was sent to Kona on TBB (legacy athlete so nothing to really brag about) I got my old TT bike that had the 165 on it (I let someone barrow it for several years). I had the position the same but felt terrible with 165. I had ordered another 155 and had it put on the next day and all way better. No data with that but figured I would throw that in.
I just pulled up the data and here is what I had.
Watts 155 145
160. . .94. . .96
200 . . 95. . 97
250. . .97. . 99
300. . .101. 103
400. . 108. . 109
600 . . 110. . 114
Your making me want to come back and try everything again in the summer when I have time. I'm 5'8 if you are wanting a little more info on me.
Side note- cracked my lock ring on the 155 in May and went back to the 145 for about 10 days. Almost raced on them but was happy to have the 155 back on.
Side note 2- When my bike was sent to Kona on TBB (legacy athlete so nothing to really brag about) I got my old TT bike that had the 165 on it (I let someone barrow it for several years). I had the position the same but felt terrible with 165. I had ordered another 155 and had it put on the next day and all way better. No data with that but figured I would throw that in.
Re: Who has data on crank length that they found where too short was bad? [trifit]
[ In reply to ]
trifit wrote:
For my RPM's I decided to go at whatever I self selected figuring this is what would test most efficient for GPA. I was on a computrainer to keep power more constant. Data was from pedals of course. I just pulled up the data and here is what I had.
Watts 155 145
160. . .94. . .96
200 . . 95. . 97
250. . .97. . 99
300. . .101. 103
400. . 108. . 109
600 . . 110. . 114
Your making me want to come back and try everything again in the summer when I have time. I'm 5'8 if you are wanting a little more info on me.
Side note- cracked my lock ring on the 155 in May and went back to the 145 for about 10 days. Almost raced on them but was happy to have the 155 back on.
Side note 2- When my bike was sent to Kona on TBB (legacy athlete so nothing to really brag about) I got my old TT bike that had the 165 on it (I let someone barrow it for several years). I had the position the same but felt terrible with 165. I had ordered another 155 and had it put on the next day and all way better. No data with that but figured I would throw that in.
I love seeing a person do some testing. And I love the sharing of inputs.
I have to say again, the biggest take away for me so far is racing, and training at slower RPM's. I have always shown it keeps my HR down. I can already feel how much stronger my legs feel at the slower RPM's. I have raced twice with a lower RPM focus and it felt so much better. And since in the first race I ran a 18 something off the bike for 3 miles, it, as one data point, did not seem to hurt my speed.
Your RPM stuff is way higher that I can hold. I started my testing with a 70 to 115 rpm. I could just hold the higher RPM without dying. Now, I was also in powercrank PC mode but still. And since I am doing so much testing now at 50 to 90 RPM, the 70 ish rpm just seems to be giving me the best "feelings", and a HR before it starts to jump up.
I still have no idea where this will end up, but I sure am going to have tons of data to try and see if I can find some cause and effect stuff.
Would love to see how your testing would go if you gathered data with a focus on finding the most effective RPM rate for you. I always assumed you had to have longer cranks for leverage, but with my testing, I sure can prove the gearing can be used to deal with hills, so far, need more data points. And I always had thought you had to spin high RPM's to be able to run off the bike well. So far, I again with my testing am finding this is not the case.
Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net
Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist
Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep
Re: Who has data on crank length that they found where too short was bad? [Andrewmc]
[ In reply to ]
Andrewmc wrote:
He has no power meter. That's why there is no f$$king data on the rides. That village thats missing an idiot........they could find him right hereI am still not clear if these tests are done on a velotron or out on the road. I think they are all on the velotron, so this whole thread is just madness.
Re: Who has data on crank length that they found where too short was bad? [chaparral]
[ In reply to ]
chaparral wrote:
Andrewmc wrote:
He has no power meter. That's why there is no f$$king data on the rides. That village thats missing an idiot........they could find him right hereI am still not clear if these tests are done on a velotron or out on the road. I think they are all on the velotron, so this whole thread is just madness.
Are you saying “trainer” or “velotron”
When someone builds a shitty house you donÂ’t blame the hammer.
Re: Who has data on crank length that they found where too short was bad? [chaparral]
[ In reply to ]
chaparral wrote:
Andrewmc wrote:
He has no power meter. That's why there is no f$$king data on the rides. That village thats missing an idiot........they could find him right hereI am still not clear if these tests are done on a velotron or out on the road. I think they are all on the velotron, so this whole thread is just madness.
Since I do 99.9% of my bike riding on my indoor trainer, all these tests are done on the Velotron. And this means the tests are in a 100% repeatable environment.
Yep, the village found me :)
Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net
Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist
Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep
Re: Who has data on crank length that they found where too short was bad? [h2ofun]
[ In reply to ]
Why do you ignore sciguy's questions about your average power and normalized power?!?!
For an engineer speaking of good data, why do you avoid using metrics that allow for Apple to Apple comparison in the dialogue which you started?
I think that you could present more reliable data simply comparing an FTP test on 200 mm cranks to an FTP test done on 175 mm cranks.
Out of curiosity, what is your current FTP?
For an engineer speaking of good data, why do you avoid using metrics that allow for Apple to Apple comparison in the dialogue which you started?
I think that you could present more reliable data simply comparing an FTP test on 200 mm cranks to an FTP test done on 175 mm cranks.
Out of curiosity, what is your current FTP?
Re: Who has data on crank length that they found where too short was bad? [h2ofun]
[ In reply to ]
h2ofun wrote:
trifit wrote:
For my RPM's I decided to go at whatever I self selected figuring this is what would test most efficient for GPA. I was on a computrainer to keep power more constant. Data was from pedals of course. I just pulled up the data and here is what I had.
Watts 155 145
160. . .94. . .96
200 . . 95. . 97
250. . .97. . 99
300. . .101. 103
400. . 108. . 109
600 . . 110. . 114
Your making me want to come back and try everything again in the summer when I have time. I'm 5'8 if you are wanting a little more info on me.
Side note- cracked my lock ring on the 155 in May and went back to the 145 for about 10 days. Almost raced on them but was happy to have the 155 back on.
Side note 2- When my bike was sent to Kona on TBB (legacy athlete so nothing to really brag about) I got my old TT bike that had the 165 on it (I let someone barrow it for several years). I had the position the same but felt terrible with 165. I had ordered another 155 and had it put on the next day and all way better. No data with that but figured I would throw that in.
I love seeing a person do some testing. And I love the sharing of inputs.
I have to say again, the biggest take away for me so far is racing, and training at slower RPM's. I have always shown it keeps my HR down. I can already feel how much stronger my legs feel at the slower RPM's. I have raced twice with a lower RPM focus and it felt so much better. And since in the first race I ran a 18 something off the bike for 3 miles, it, as one data point, did not seem to hurt my speed.
Your RPM stuff is way higher that I can hold. I started my testing with a 70 to 115 rpm. I could just hold the higher RPM without dying. Now, I was also in powercrank PC mode but still. And since I am doing so much testing now at 50 to 90 RPM, the 70 ish rpm just seems to be giving me the best "feelings", and a HR before it starts to jump up.
I still have no idea where this will end up, but I sure am going to have tons of data to try and see if I can find some cause and effect stuff.
Would love to see how your testing would go if you gathered data with a focus on finding the most effective RPM rate for you. I always assumed you had to have longer cranks for leverage, but with my testing, I sure can prove the gearing can be used to deal with hills, so far, need more data points. And I always had thought you had to spin high RPM's to be able to run off the bike well. So far, I again with my testing am finding this is not the case.
Eureka !!
Re: Who has data on crank length that they found where too short was bad? [h2ofun]
[ In reply to ]
Apologize in advance if somebody else has sad the same thing. Just anecdotal-I race 155mm on my tt bike and have a 83cm saddle height. On my road bike I ride 170's and I have a gravel bike I ride a lot with 175's and a beater on the trainer with 160's. Highly doubt there is a perceptible difference in power and once I am riding I do not notice crank length.
The 155s for sure are enhance aerodynamics because the saddle is higher. I "think" they allow me to run better off the bike. PM me if you want details, don't want to get into the ST humblebragging crosshairs.
The 155s for sure are enhance aerodynamics because the saddle is higher. I "think" they allow me to run better off the bike. PM me if you want details, don't want to get into the ST humblebragging crosshairs.
Re: Who has data on crank length that they found where too short was bad? [DBF]
[ In reply to ]
DBF wrote:
Apologize in advance if somebody else has sad the same thing. Just anecdotal-I race 155mm on my tt bike and have a 83cm saddle height. On my road bike I ride 170's and I have a gravel bike I ride a lot with 175's and a beater on the trainer with 160's. Highly doubt there is a perceptible difference in power and once I am riding I do not notice crank length. The 155s for sure are enhance aerodynamics because the saddle is higher. I "think" they allow me to run better off the bike. PM me if you want details, don't want to get into the ST humblebragging crosshairs.
Would love to see your data
Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net
Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist
Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep