Re: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]

Nov 27, 17 10:52

Post #501 of 1333 (8848 views)

JasoninHalifax wrote:

Wait a sec. I thought you and Frank were doing all of the analysis on tons and tons of data. How are you doing that analysis if you haven't compiled it into a format that can be analyzed? If this is for you, that's your job, not ours...

I get that you don't owe anybody anything, but you volunteered your experience, and in doing so, this is what is frustrating. Since I asked you what the protocol was, and you pointed to the first post on the thread as being the best summary of the testing protocol, the story has changed a number of times. And now there is lots of data, but we can't see it...

If you are hoping for anyone else to learn from your experience (and I hope that is your intent, otherwise what is the point) then do whomever wants to learn here a favour and say "this is what we are testing for, these are the variables we are controlling, these are the variables that we have assumed are insignificant, this is the metric we are using to determine whether it is more or less efficient.

No idea what you are talking about. I have all the data I am needing as I do this testing. When needed, as I have added some, I can compared some of the stuff, like my Martis loops, and times, watts, RPM, etc from years back. I do not need years and years of the same stuff.

So far the biggest take away in my testing may be that by lowering my RPM focus, I am putting out equal if not more watts, keeping the HR down, and feeling less fatigue.

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: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]

Nov 27, 17 10:56

Post #502 of 1333 (8841 views)

JasoninHalifax wrote:

h2ofun wrote:

Here is a response from Frank Day

1. There actually is enough data from his test loop to say something. Your problem is you dont have access to all the previous data. As I stated earlier I compared 8 tests he did on the same course a year ago to the 4 tests he just did. A year ago he averaged 187 watts at an average HR of 129 for the course. His last 4 results averaged 214 watts at an average HR of 126. I think anyone would take that change and there are enough tests this is probably not a one off but probably represents real improvement.

*I* was ignoring it since the data was not in the spreadsheet. I cannot do an analysis on data that isn't presented. what was the crank length on the test a year ago, was it locked or unlocked?

2. Cranks locked and unlocked is a red herring. Dave pedals the bicycle no differently in either configuration. But, he notes the difference so those of you not familiar with the cranks are confused by this.

I'm actually not confused by this. It's just that "claiming" that Dave pedals no differently in either configuration doesn't mean that he actually does pedal no differently. We don't "know" until we look at the data and find out.

3. Indeed Daves lowest HR occurred on 170 cranks. He has 1 or 2 tests that one might consider outliers. The best of these had a pulse power of 1.626. The vast majority of his best pulse power results are 1.56 or less. Even if you include the outliers" we have enough data that they do not affect the analysis. He has 1.56 results on cranks ranging from 150 to 175. But, you miss the whole point of the effort, I am not focused on crank length but rather on pedal speed because that is what the science says can be best manipulated to affect efficiency and I am going for maximum efficiency. Crank length only comes into play because pedal speed is determined by the combination of crank length and cadence. This most efficient pedaling has been seen in Dave over a fairly wide range from 70 to 128 cm/sec and all of those outliers occurred in the range of 103 to 123. It is why I settled on his most efficient pedal speed being 110 cm/sec. This is his data when upright. We are now trying to figure out how going aero affects his results and here I expect crank length to have an independent affect. I would be surprised if he is as efficient on 175 cranks as 150 when aero even though it makes no difference when upright, or so it seems.

What is "pulse power"? Is it watts per beat? If so, that's a number that is only relevant at a specific wattage, in this case at 200 watts.

Why say that his most efficient pedal speed is 110cm/s when you say right above it that he is efficient in a wide range, from 70-128cm/s? Doesn't that mean that pedal speed isn't all that important?

4. While you analyze HR vs RPM I am pretty much ignoring that because, as I said, I am focusing on pedal speed. Once I figure out best pedal speed I will then try to see if there is a best RPM. My initial stab was 110 cm/sec was his best pedal speed at his race power so he should be on 150 cranks at an RPM of 70, on average. He has had one race at this effort that he felt went well. Further, he has done that course testing on the VT. Of his 3 efforts all were on 150 cranks compared to last years all on 175 cranks. The cadences werent all that different between these tests, averaging 72.5 on the 150s and 77.3 on the 175s but the pedal speed change was pretty dramatic 114 to 141. Remember we saw a 13% power increase despite a lower HR (is that because he is older or was that a lesser effort? Does it matter?)

OK, fine....

5. The protocol is designed to reduce the risk of being fooled by cardiac drift. The power chosen is close to his race effort but something he can ride comfortably for an hour without getting too tired. Plus, we have reversed the cadence progression on different days. Because, HR lags somewhat changes in effort I wanted each cadence to be long enough for his HR to stabilize but not so long that we could get in lots of tests in without fatigue interfering. If we did one test a day we would never finish this effort. Nothing is perfect. One makes choices then tries to get the most out of the choices they make.

Which days was the cadence progression reversed? That was never spelled out in the original document, and isn't documented in the spreadsheet.

6. Because there is a standard deviation in all data in all testing that is why lots of data is required to draw valid conclusions. My guess is we have enough here that a statistician could take this data and get a best fit curve for the data that is reasonably reliable. I dont have the knowledge or skill to do that but I know what passes the eyeball test and to my eye this is good data. A statistician is welcome to analyze and comment. I would be interested in hearing their comments.

If you use a less randomly variable output than HR (like power, for instance), then you could dramatically improve the signal to noise ratio and draw conclusions much quicker.

7. And, exactly, how would you tighten up the protocol? Remember, this is one person testing himself in his basement. Luckily, he does have a research caliber ergometer available to him. I am not doing university research here but trying to help an individual find what is best for him. How would you do it differently?

I've made suggestions in this thread, as have others far more versed in this than I am.

Is clearly shown on the spreadsheet which testing I did with the RPM rate was form high to low, then I changed and it is now low to high.

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: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]

Nov 27, 17 11:31

Post #503 of 1333 (8812 views)

OK, that wasn't clear before. now I see it.

As an illustration of the lack of controls, you have 13 runs with 150mm unlocked cranks increasing rpms, and none decreasing rpms. none of the runs with decreasing rpms were done in aerobars at all. why?

I'm not really trying to bash you in this thread. not my intent. I'm just trying to figure out what you are doing.

Why are you using HR as the dependent variable? Various people have commented on that, but have yet to get a good answer. Given the variation in HR that is in the data, how many runs are you going to need to determine if the differences are significant?

If you are dead set on using HR as a proxy for VO2 consumption, as an example of how to improve the protocol, why not run tests with a given crank length at a fixed rpm (pick one in the middle, say 70 or 80), then do 2 more runs at that crank length. one increasing rpms, one decreasing rpms. compare the HR changes from each 10 minute block to the next to remove most of the day-to-day variablity in HR, and you'll have a reasonably complete data set for each crank length in 3 rides. 15 rides you'll have 5 crank lengths done, and then you can fine tune from there....

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Re: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]

Nov 27, 17 12:34

Post #504 of 1333 (8768 views)

It isnât clear in the spreadsheet since there are 3 different âprotocolsâ combined together (descending, ascending and hilly course). The descending rpm was also looking at bike fit changes, so best to exclude that entire section. The ascending rpm section is all over the map with different crank setups (length, multiple diff PC modes) and that combined with racing, poor recovery, sickness and natural HR variability, renders the data mostly useless.

Your suggestion for testing looks much more concise and likely to produce meaningful results.

Re: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [gregf83] [ In reply to ]

Nov 27, 17 13:41

Post #505 of 1333 (8723 views)

gregf83 wrote:

h2ofun wrote:

gregf83 wrote:

JasoninHalifax wrote:

The data looks to be pretty noisy, which means that IMO you are going to really have to tighten up your protocol.

The noise will never go away as long as he continues to use HR as a proxy for VO2 consumption. Using HR to measure efficiency will never be accurate or "100%" repeatable.

Here is a response from Frank Day

How would you propose someome try to measure efficiency in their basement? HR is the best proxy I know of. I realize it is not 100% repeatable which explains the data spread. But, with enough trials the variances tend to average out so reasonable conclusions can be drawn. That is what I have tried to do, get enough data that the conclusions we draw are reasonably valid. How would you do it differently.

I wouldn't. I would trust the research that had been done(see below) and not worry about it. If you're concerned about your efficiency for a couple hundred dollars you could go to a lab and measure it from 50 to 110rpm.

If you're using HR to measure efficiency the error bars on your data will be much larger and will it difficult to draw any conclusions. Have you learned something that wasn't previously known?

Different Effect of Cadence on Cycling Efficiency between Young and Older Cyclists, Massimo Sacchetti et al.

Sigh. Yes we have learned something that we didnât know before. We have learned the range of PEDAL SPEED to optimize Daveâs efficiency (pedal speed is the metric best associated with efficiency in each individual). It appears Dave has seen a substantial power improvement as a result of this work.

All your referenced study showed is how efficiency varies with cadence without telling us the crank length nor the power the subjects were at. Daveâs data looks like that shown except IT IS SPECIFIC TO HIM and not a one-size fits all approach. If that gives you all the information you need for your racing then go for it. Beyond this, we expect to be able to optimize his efficiency in the aero position, something not addressed in your study. In fact, I have yet to see a study looking at efficiency and crank length in the aero position, can you point me to one?

Further, it isnât clear that Daveâs standard deviation would be any greater than seen by using actual oxygen consumption because it is clear that performance varies from day to day. These kind of deviations are rather easily compensated for by running lots of tests over multiple days (or by having lots of subjects in the case of a research study). Few are willing to do the kind of testing that Dave is doing right now.

Frank Day

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: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]

Nov 27, 17 13:42

Post #506 of 1333 (8719 views)

JasoninHalifax wrote:

Wait a sec. I thought you and Frank were doing all of the analysis on tons and tons of data. How are you doing that analysis if you haven't compiled it into a format that can be analyzed? If this is for you, that's your job, not ours...

I get that you don't owe anybody anything, but you volunteered your experience, and in doing so, this is what is frustrating. Since I asked you what the protocol was, and you pointed to the first post on the thread as being the best summary of the testing protocol, the story has changed a number of times. And now there is lots of data, but we can't see it...

If you are hoping for anyone else to learn from your experience (and I hope that is your intent, otherwise what is the point) then do whomever wants to learn here a favour and say "this is what we are testing for, these are the variables we are controlling, these are the variables that we have assumed are insignificant, this is the metric we are using to determine whether it is more or less efficient.

: Really??? It isnât obvious what we were testing for and what we controlled for after all of my previous responses? I will say again. We were testing to try to find Daveâs most efficient pedal speed at a power near his race power. It might have been confusing because Dave titled the thread finding his optimum crank length but finding his optimum crank length is just a secondary benefit to finding his optimum pedal speed and that will depend upon what cadence he prefers, something we are still playing with. All the tests were run on a Velotron in ergometer mode so power is tightly controlled. Bike fit also was controlled, we tried to keep it the same although he ran out of seat post so it is a little off. We also looked at various crank lengths to see if there might be an independent issue regarding crank length but we didnât see that (suggesting Martinâs data is correct) at least in the upright riding position. I expect to see that when we test aero. We will see.

Frank Day

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: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]

Nov 27, 17 13:43

Post #507 of 1333 (8716 views)

JasoninHalifax wrote:

OK, that wasn't clear before. now I see it.

As an illustration of the lack of controls, you have 13 runs with 150mm unlocked cranks increasing rpms, and none decreasing rpms. none of the runs with decreasing rpms were done in aerobars at all. why?

I'm not really trying to bash you in this thread. not my intent. I'm just trying to figure out what you are doing.

Why are you using HR as the dependent variable? Various people have commented on that, but have yet to get a good answer. Given the variation in HR that is in the data, how many runs are you going to need to determine if the differences are significant?

If you are dead set on using HR as a proxy for VO2 consumption, as an example of how to improve the protocol, why not run tests with a given crank length at a fixed rpm (pick one in the middle, say 70 or 80), then do 2 more runs at that crank length. one increasing rpms, one decreasing rpms. compare the HR changes from each 10 minute block to the next to remove most of the day-to-day variablity in HR, and you'll have a reasonably complete data set for each crank length in 3 rides. 15 rides you'll have 5 crank lengths done, and then you can fine tune from there....

Because I am looking for maximum efficiency using HR as the proxy for oxygen consumption. I am holding power constant and varying pedal speed (and, crank length) and watching the result. It could also be done holding HR constant and watching effect on power with varying pedal speed. In my opinion that would be much more difficult for the rider to achieve since in ergometer mode power is held constant by the machine. You are welcome to run this experiment on a subject of your choice your way and report on the results. Let us know how it goes.

"If you are dead set on using HR as a proxy for VO2 consumption, as an example of how to improve the protocol, why not run tests with a given crank length at a fixed rpm (pick one in the middle, say 70 or 80), then do 2 more runs at that crank length. one increasing rpms, one decreasing rpms. compare the HR changes from each 10 minute block to the next to remove most of the day-to-day variablity in HR, and you'll have a reasonably complete data set for each crank length in 3 rides. 15 rides you'll have 5 crank lengths done, and then you can fine tune from there.... â

Yes, I am dead set on using HR as a proxy for O2 consumption since I donât have the ability to measure oxygen consumption directly and there is no other proxy and determining efficiency requires âknowingâ oxygen consuption. In my experience and training HR is a good proxy for relative oxygen consumption in any individual, especially on any given day. I donât like your protocol because 3 runs isnât enough to reliably see trends unless the cadence variation is very large and fatigue is still a consideration. Further, my experience here (and with another elite) is this protocol is pretty reliable and gives the same result whether increasing or decreasing. In my experience with the other rider I would consider decreasing to be slightly better than increasing because high cadences is usually harder than lower cadences and if the rider is fatigued they will have trouble maintaining cadence. The other issue is choosing the right power to test. The other rider started at 300 watts, think he could do this, but found that too hard so dropped to 270. Even then, when fatigued he has had trouble when we pushed the cadence. Better yet would be random but that might be hard for the rider to go from 110 to 40. Anyhow, any protocol can be criticized. You are welcome to design your own, do it, then report back. If there is a better way of doing this I am all ears. But, until someone has actually done this testing I am not going to listen as to what would be a better way. This is a tough test and it takes a lot of time to get useful results.

Frank Day (

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: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]

Nov 27, 17 13:46

Post #508 of 1333 (8710 views)

From Frank day

Because people asked for more data I put all the Martis testing in one spreadsheet. I am attaching it in two forms (excel and pdf) for you to post on ST for those who want to do their own analysis. HR and crank length are left blank where we didnât know them. At the bottom I put the average for each year (2016 includes 2 tests from Jan 2017 because there were no more tests in 2017 until you did the 150 tests recently).

In included cadence because people are focused on it although, to my way of thinking it is pretty worthless without also knowing crank length but they can see what they can make of it if they want.

I find it interesting that the average power from 2014 to 2016 was slowly dropping suggesting this might be age related. I explain 2013 by it being a partial year so their is probably not enough data (or something else going on). Once you started monitoring HR we find your average pulse power essentially unchanged between 2015 and 2016 but substantially increased in 2017 after we started this exercise trying to increase your efficiency which also correlates with a large decrease in pedal speed.

Anyhow, here is all the data. Big pain in the behind to get all this together, almost 200 tests.

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: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]

Nov 27, 17 13:54

Post #509 of 1333 (8711 views)

Maybe I'm still hung up on ~70 rpm being your optimal bike cadence, so I have some questions that look beyond exactly what you may be testing here.

You indicated that HR climbs (assumed at same power or RPE??) when your cadence goes above 70. Is the tested RPE similar to what you would do during a race?

What is your running cadence? Do you experience similar high HR values when you approach higher cadence?

Same question as above, but swap out running cadence for swim stroke.

Re: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [ctflower] [ In reply to ]

Nov 27, 17 14:12

Post #510 of 1333 (8689 views)

ctflower wrote:

Maybe I'm still hung up on ~70 rpm being your optimal bike cadence, so I have some questions that look beyond exactly what you may be testing here.

You indicated that HR climbs (assumed at same power or RPE??) when your cadence goes above 70. Is the tested RPE similar to what you would do during a race?

What is your running cadence? Do you experience similar high HR values when you approach higher cadence?

Same question as above, but swap out running cadence for swim stroke.

I sure have no data to say optimal, just test data having me think it is better than the super high RPM I used to spin. All I know is not giving focus on my Martis test route and trying to keep the flats around 70 rpm, I am putting out better times. Now, it looks like I was close years ago on 175 cranks with higher RPM's. So just recording data, and will try stuff when the season starts up. I just know I can hold spinning 70 rpm much easier, and less tired, than spinning 90 rpm. And I just feel I can push at 70 compared to 90 I spin more.

When I say my HR goes up, it is just what is being read on the HR strap. So, I have no idea why, other than my HR seems pretty flat from 40 to 70. And then you can see on efforts doing erg mode at 200 watts over 70 it goes up. Another thing I see, for me, is when getting into aero, I see my HR go up also compared to sitting up, RPM independent. Again, no idea what this means.

I believe my running cadence is around 180. Compared to a lot of folks , especially tall, I have a very fast turn over. I guess one reason is all the hill running I do.

Swimming, I have never given stroke per distance, etc any thought or effort. I am a terrible swimmer.

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: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]

Nov 27, 17 14:18

Post #511 of 1333 (8681 views)

From Frank Day

It is so refreshing now that this thread has gotten away from bashing Dave (who should be congratulated for having the ability to always try something new and report to you guys) and discussing the technical aspects of what is being done. Too bad I cant contribute directly but you know how much a troublemaker I am.

Frank Day

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: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]

Nov 27, 17 17:41

Post #512 of 1333 (8620 views)

https://isbweb.org/...F/0800_0899/0870.pdf

Maybe you read this one already. My experience is the same, crank length from 175 to 155 had no measurable impact on power output. Thousands of miles on each.

Re: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [DBF] [ In reply to ]

Nov 27, 17 17:57

Post #513 of 1333 (8606 views)

DBF wrote:

https://isbweb.org/images/conf/2001/Longabstracts/PDF/0800_0899/0870.pdf

Maybe you read this one already. My experience is the same, crank length from 175 to 155 had no measurable impact on power output. Thousands of miles on each.

You are missing the point. I did not post trying to find best power via crank length. It said best crank length which is one part, and seems an important part, for bike fit, etc.
Gearing, RPM rate, etc

Again, I will keep posting, and giving what data I am getting. Folks can do with it what they want.

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: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]

Nov 27, 17 19:33

Post #514 of 1333 (8575 views)

h2ofun wrote:

From Frank Day

It is so refreshing now that this thread has gotten away from bashing Dave (who should be congratulated for having the ability to always try something new and report to you guys) and discussing the technical aspects of what is being done. Too bad I cant contribute directly but you know how much a troublemaker I am.

Frank Day

I think this is bullshit to be a proxy for a banned forum member. He was banned for a reason. He was banned from cyclingnews for a reason.

Re: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [Jctriguy] [ In reply to ]

Nov 27, 17 22:59

Post #515 of 1333 (8533 views)

The FD force is deep within Dave

I agree its complete horseshit that someone is being a proxy for a bloke who was banned. More so when the proxy is almost as bad

Re: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]

Nov 28, 17 3:46

Post #516 of 1333 (8496 views)

Andrewmc wrote:

The FD force is deep within Dave

I agree its complete horseshit that someone is being a proxy for a bloke who was banned. More so when the proxy is almost as bad

This thread sure has taken a different turn. I've been on a lot of cycling forums and this is the first time I have seen a banned person start speaking more and more through someone else.
Loop Hole for the banned?

I'm not sure if there are any Walking Dead fans here, but it makes me think of the Negan followers all saying, "I am Negan."
If Dave says, "I am Frank Day" than season 12 of Crank Length (because the plot continues to build page after page) of this ongoing saga takes a new twist.

Re: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [DBF] [ In reply to ]

Nov 28, 17 3:56

Post #517 of 1333 (8485 views)

DBF wrote:

https://isbweb.org/images/conf/2001/Longabstracts/PDF/0800_0899/0870.pdf

Maybe you read this one already. My experience is the same, crank length from 175 to 155 had no measurable impact on power output. Thousands of miles on each.

From Frank Day

First, I believe they made an error in choosing their subjects. "participants were chosen on the basis of their height in order to ensure that a wide range of sizes was obtained. The problem with this is for short riders short cranks could be just right while not for taller riders. and vice-versa. This would tend to dull any crank length effect in the data as changing size could improve the situation for some and worsen it for others. Apparently lengthening worsened it for everyone. Instead they should have chosen riders of the same size which would have been more sensitive to any effect.

Second, no significant difference is not the same as no difference. While it may mean that there is no difference it may just be that the study wasnt powerful enough to reach statistical significance. The graphs suggest a clear effect so they should have concluded that their might be an effect but the study should be repeated with more participants (the same error Martin made). If they had used riders of the same stature they may have reached statistical significance.

Third, they evaluated criterium riding so it is clear they were not evaluating time trial position where one can easily theorize that crank length would be more important.

Regarding your own experience you dont mention your riding position or if you changed cadence as a result to compensate for the shorter crank. Crank length is not the important variable, pedal speed is. Could you comment on that.

Frank Day (

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: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]

Nov 28, 17 4:31

Post #518 of 1333 (8466 views)

Why does this all just feel like a seance of ignorance/hucksterism?

Re: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]

Nov 28, 17 4:35

Post #519 of 1333 (8478 views)

Basically my experience is that aside from aerodynamics( which is huge obviously) crank length is a non-factor.
As far as cadence goes I have a bias towards oversimplifying things, however I wants asked Jordan Rapp about cadence because he and I have pretty much the same fit coordinates. During the LA years When they constantly talked about high cadence I thought maybe my natural cadence of around 80 to 82 was too slow. JR Was of the opinion that self-selected cadence, as long as its in the normal range of high 70s to mid 90s, is usually the best and changing it is difficult and likely fruitless. I still fuck around with cadence on the trainer all the time, but in a race I would never even think about it.

from my iPhone while on the crapper, please excuse typos

Re: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [Felt_Rider] [ In reply to ]

Nov 28, 17 10:49

Post #520 of 1333 (8401 views)

Felt_Rider wrote:

Andrewmc wrote:

The FD force is deep within Dave

I agree its complete horseshit that someone is being a proxy for a bloke who was banned. More so when the proxy is almost as bad

This thread sure has taken a different turn. I've been on a lot of cycling forums and this is the first time I have seen a banned person start speaking more and more through someone else.
Loop Hole for the banned?

I'm not sure if there are any Walking Dead fans here, but it makes me think of the Negan followers all saying, "I am Negan."
If Dave says, "I am Frank Day" than season 12 of Crank Length (because the plot continues to build page after page) of this ongoing saga takes a new twist.

Frank Day's response

To those who don’t like the fact that a “banned” person is posting via another: First, let me say I was banned for vigorously defending my reputation and my product (that won’t be named) and generally being a pain in the behind to those with clout at this site for thinking differently than they do and being vocal about it. Second, this thread is about a protocol I am developing to help riders improve performance through equipment (crank) optimization. I did not ask Dave to start this thread and nothing is being sold by me here other than an idea. Dave posted what I was doing with him and questions arose. When I became aware of the thread it was clear to me that Dave didn’t fully understand the rational behind what we were doing and I offered to try to clarify. This has raised further questions and comments. Since my remarks have been entirely confined to this topic related to the protocol I developed it seems I am the best one to answer those questions but my only option to do so is through Dave. If Dan thinks this is so terrible I am sure he has a mechanism to stop it and you can all wonder and speculate what I am doing and why it seems to be working.

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: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [DBF] [ In reply to ]

Nov 28, 17 10:53

Post #521 of 1333 (8393 views)

DBF wrote:

Basically my experience is that aside from aerodynamics( which is huge obviously) crank length is a non-factor.
As far as cadence goes I have a bias towards oversimplifying things, however I wants asked Jordan Rapp about cadence because he and I have pretty much the same fit coordinates. During the LA years When they constantly talked about high cadence I thought maybe my natural cadence of around 80 to 82 was too slow. JR Was of the opinion that self-selected cadence, as long as its in the normal range of high 70s to mid 90s, is usually the best and changing it is difficult and likely fruitless. I still fuck around with cadence on the trainer all the time, but in a race I would never even think about it.

from my iPhone while on the crapper, please excuse typos

From Frank Day

aside from aerodynamics (which is huge obviously) crank length is a non-factor.” Doesn’t that seem a bit funny to say on a triathlon site? While I agree crank length is probably unimportant (within a reasonable range) when riding “upright” if one chooses ones cadence carefully. I think it is a huge deal when trying to optimize power and aerodynamics together.

So, you don’t know. All you know is you didn’t see a change but you don’t have any data to refute my premise that pedal speed is important. I think the opinion regarding cadence that "changing it is difficult and likely fruitless” because that is what Dave thought when he was on 200’s in that 80-90 cadence range and I had him on 150-175’s at a cadence 15-20 rpm less in a short while and he adapted quickly and saw big improvements as a result. The problem is statements like that are based on guesses and not hard fac
Frank Day

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: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]

Nov 28, 17 10:56

Post #522 of 1333 (8386 views)

"no puppet"

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

Re: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [fredly] [ In reply to ]

Nov 28, 17 11:26

Post #523 of 1333 (8365 views)

fredly wrote:

"no puppet"

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

Re: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]

Nov 28, 17 11:32

Post #524 of 1333 (8958 views)

How is it ok to post HUGE chunks of text from a banned ST member? Frank Day is essentially part of this discussion even though he isn't allowed to type his own words here. Anyone reported this to Dan?

I can't even with this Dave guy. Makes my head hurt. Classic definition of a narcissist.

Re: My testing to try and find best crank length with my Velotron [uptown423] [ In reply to ]

Nov 28, 17 13:26

Post #525 of 1333 (8887 views)

uptown423 wrote:

How is it ok to post HUGE chunks of text from a banned ST member? Frank Day is essentially part of this discussion even though he isn't allowed to type his own words here. Anyone reported this to Dan?

I can't even with this Dave guy. Makes my head hurt. Classic definition of a narcissist.

Thank you for caring about 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

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.