Warbird wrote:
h2ofun wrote:
I guess because what I have seen is folks doing things be feel. But no data to support what they have done. If 150 was good for the person, why would 145 or 140 not be better? Without tests to produce the numbers, IMO, it is just guessing, as I did forever.
I have data on various crank lengths, both longer and shorter than what I currently use. No significant differences in power and heart rate across the range. So the only reason for me to choose a particular crank length is for fit. Longer than current doesn't allow me to ride as low as my current position, which I have tested to be faster than more upright with the longer cranks. I could go lower with shorter cranks than current (which might potentially be faster), but I have a few physical limitations that make this impractical. So there is no good reason go shorter than my current 165s.
Thanks. Looking at data, for me, with 185 and 200 cranks, I was slower on my test course, compared to 175 and 150.
I could not get in aero on the 200's on the PC's, but can do at 175 and lower.
So yes, crank length and fit relate big time, which is why fitter basically ignoring cranks from the folks I have talked to that have paid for fits is interesting.
The other parameter that no one seems to have tested is efficiency with HR relating to RPM's. Was really interesting to see how when I get over 70 rpm, my HR really takes jumps up. This data has allowed me to now try to focus on pushing 70 rpm as my target for the flats.
So far I do not seem to have any limits on how short the cranks get. Just starting to have bike hardware limitations.
Thanks for you story.
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