Because he can't take advantage of the falling mass of his pushing leg raising his recovery leg due to just being a balanced system...duh.

"The performance artist known as h2ofun" is on fire...although, I have to say that I had a feeling he ran the 808 with a training wheel in the rear when I first read what he wrote, so maybe he's getting a bit predictable - LOL.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Haha...I know everyone else gets it, but apparently he doesn’t. His seat is comfy (as he says earlier in the thread) but apparently not when he is actually riding a bike.

You’ve been on here longer and posted in more threads more times than 99.999 percent of the people on here, and you just now learned that? That’s pretty hard to believe.

So, are you calling me a liar?

I have never ever heard that one should not use a wider rim up front that back. Not one person at worlds made a comment on my bike. Not one person or bike mechanic at the bike transport company made a comment. I have never ever seen a post on ST that ever made this comment. So, is it true, or is my leg being pulled? If it true, I will take the 808 wheel off today before my next race in 2 weeks.

---

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

Yep. I thought the same thing. This thread is like the twilight zone.

---

2019 T-Rex Tri Series

I have to ask. Why are so many reading, let alone posting, on a thread they have no interest in? I know I sure do not waste my time doing this on ST threads.

---

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

I think most people likely want to see if this will be as ridiculous as they expect. So far, it is going above and beyond expectations. You’re snowflake approach to life is funny in a really sad sort of way.

Nope just that you do what you normally do just read and remember what conforms to your bias.

I can 100 percent guarantee that this post is truthful. I’m sure no one has ever told or have you read you shouldn’t use a wider rim in front than in back. 100% sure.

Can confirm. I clicked on this just to see if my expectations of what's in this thread were correct.

The goal is to improve his bike split through the medium of interpretive dance

Performance art success!

It was RChung who first pointed out that it helped when dealing with Frank Day to think of him as a "performance artist".

It's no coincidence that h2ofun's "technical advisor" in this whole thing is Mr. Day. Birds of a feather...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Dude get it right he doesn’t care about splits. Just the total race.

Now if he just listened to everyone on here and got in a better position he could save a ton of watts on the bike and run faster so his overall time is better but hey what do we know? Not like there are some of us on this thread that can avg 25mph on less than 230 watts or anything. Probabaly just pure dumb luck, no knowledge at all.

I don't believe that. The goal is views and responses. He's acknowledged that himself when pointing out how many have read and responded as a point of pride. It's basically trolling...but at a higher (and possibly somewhat unintentional) level.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

It also seems to fuel his drive to be different and go the opposite direction of anyone sensible. He needs to be a victim to feel righteous in his decision. I’m convinced he is only trying 175mm cranks because people think he won’t change.

Trolling is by definition intentional though.

He means well. He just lacks self awareness and probably lacks theory of mind (seeing other's point of view). He's got no idea how absurd most of what he has to say truly is to the rest of us. No idea.... This usually self corrects in socially stunted kids by late 20s maybe 30. No idea what's up with him though. Something awful happens to older people who never figured it out earlier. They can no longer be told they are wrong. They refuse to believe it. They are baked-in for good.

I am pretty sure that both wilful ignorance and lack of self awareness are a function of how bright one is.

Some of the fastest athletes and "best" coaches in the business frequent this site. Many offer consistent advice.

So when someone announces that of all thr available expertise they could listen to they have chosen frank day as their own personal north star, surely people that see that immediately think that mother fucker lives under a bridge in scandanvia and eats fucking goats.......

You are correct Dave. In that case, you might want to re-state the goal of your test.

Based on your tilte: "My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron"

I assumed you mean "best" crank length for overall speed in a triathlon position.This is based on your recent posts around your bike fit exercise.

However, it sound like you mean either:

1. "Best" = "Max" power generated in a relaxed (road-bike) like position
2. "Best" = "Shortest" crank length that you can pedal in a relaxed (road-bike) like position before losing power
3. "Best" = Other ???

I just read through all 12-ish pages of the post, and I have no clarity on what you are trying to achieve. I understand that in the end you want to be in a better triathlon position (or maybe I am wrong in that, too). I understand that many people have been telling you to shorten your crank and you are giving it a try. However, I don't think this test is well defined yet.

FYI, it's my understanding that "Knee Over Spindle" is not a rule that you have to follow for TT bike fit.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/..._pedal_axle_P443401/

Yep, my first goal is to find the best crank length for me. This means trying to find a balance, hopefully with some data, for various thinks.
HR. Bike fit. Comfort. Max power but has no impact on my running.

I have zero idea where you are getting stuff to talk about a road bike stuff. I have never talked about wanting a road bike anything.

I just keep smiling with the attack comments from the ST bullies. Oh well, who knows what I will end up with. BUT, at least I have will data to back up
what I am doing, rather than just folks personal opinions.

So far in my month of testing, and a bike fit, I have learned that 200's are probably too long for me. Pushing high RPM's gives me higher heart rates.
Using 175 cranks, with having my seat no 90mm behind the BB, and pushing like 70 rpm, has me feeling that I am atleast pushing the pedals.

Who knows but off season is the time to work on things.

---

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

I do smile about all the negative comments. My bike really is not that bad. I am usually about 20%, which means 80% of the folks would love to have my time. And if I compare it to folks in my Age Group, .....

---

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

When I say road bike position. I mean how you are testing sitting up (as opposed to aero). Sorry if i am not clear, it's how I think of it. When I say "Road Bike", just replace the words with sitting up.

It appears to me that you don't think you need to test in aero, because you don't think that's what you are testing. I am referring to your comment below.

By the way, I also think that testing crank length's impact on power (without changing position) is valid. I am not saying your methodology is wrong. However, I don't think it's structured well and that makes it harder for others to provide you with constructive feedback.

I think your "goal" is your end goal. This test will not accomplish your end goal, but it will hopefully solve one piece of the puzzle. and I don't think that "piece" is not defined.

Here's what I think:

1. How do you define the balance? What test result will show you the balance? Results of a race? There will be a point you lose power but gain speed as you get more aero. How are you testing it?
2. How does a velotron test give you clarity on whether switching from 180mm to 175mm cranks will impact your running? Wouldn't it makes sense to have a specific test where you do a running block after a biking block and test your running time?
3. How are you capturing data around comfort? How long you can stay in aero would make sense to me. But you are not collecting that data.

What I see is a test that's not doesn't cover your stated goal. As a result, everyone is trying to interpret the purpose of the test, put their own spin on it, and pulling you in different directions. I think you should device a sequence of smaller tests such as.

1. What's the shortest crank length you can go to before losing power?
2. Does a shorter crank impact your run?
3. Does a shorter crank allow you to stay in aero longer? if so, by how much?

Sorry if I come across as negative. Not my intention. I am just getting confused trying to follow the thread. I am a strong believer of having clear up front alignment on desired outcome (minimum x% power rather than a subjectively defined "better") and having a structured process. In my opinion, they could help keep the thread on track.

I have no idea what threads you do or don't read on ST, so here's a link to a thread that you may never have seen. Fairly unequivocal.

If you search ST for "wheel depth" or "deeper front wheel" you will get all the discussion you've appeared to have overlooked, including links back to manufacturers' websites where they discuss the issue of stability vs. front/rear wheel depth. While they may not explicitly say "don't go deeper on the front than you do on the rear" you could take some guidance from the way that none of the manufacturers suggest a deep front / shallow rear combination. As you may notice I'm using the term "depth" rather than "width" because that is the conventional way to talk about that aspect of wheel design.

By the way, none of those people you mention (people at worlds, bike mechanics at a transport company) are likely to comment on any particular thing on your bike unless it's a really obvious safety issue. Or, unless you were to ask them point-blank "do you think xxx is the right way to set up my bike?".

---

Less is more.