Over a short pure time trial power output advantage outweighs aero to some extent depending on the rider... Shorter cranks you can get more aero at lower power outputs and helps your run in triathlon.

He's world champion so he is right and slowtwitch is wrong?

That would be Rohan Dennis.

He was so fast his first name had to settle for 2nd place.... (I'll show myself out....) :)

---

Shane Miller - GPLama
YouTube | Web | Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | Strava

OK, he's around 6 ft tall....175's don't seem like they would be too bad. Normann Stadler had the Kona bike course record on 175 cranks and held that 4:18 split record until Wurf+Sanders+Kienle beat it on a perfect day (Normann had a perfect day in 2006 too). Also Kienle ride 175's and is around the same height as these guys.

Is it just me, or the camera angle, but does his femur look abnormally long? Not a fit expert, but I suppose I can see how 175 might work well for him.

I think abnormally short tibia is really what is needed to operate well with long cranks, in the sense that if you have a short tibia and a heal down pedaling style, it leaves an open hip angle at the top of the pedal stroke.

You can get away with a lot when you don't have to get off and run.

---

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)

I said the same thing when I read this..the guy destroyed the field today, has been consistent all year and this guy says that...I’m willing to bet his CdA numbers on the track and tunnel are spot on. his head position with the aerohead look great.

From the weak evidence of static visual inspection and watching some video, he looks comfortable, powerful, aero AF, and completely at ease with his position.

I don't know what, exactly, he's getting away with, except the gold medal.

My point was that the type of riding he's doing isn't really negatively impacted by longer cranks. And as has been pointed out, his morphology seems to allow him to preserve an open hip angle despite the crank length.

That doesn't diminish the reality that shortening cranks can provide significant benefits for triathletes (and others riding long distance at generally steady states) looking to open their hip angle, reduce knee flexion, and ride more comfortable.

This isn't a statement about the position or equipment of the rider in question: many championships have been won on inferior equipment and inferior positions. And that a rider has great success doesn't mean there aren't opportunities for additional improvement.

---

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)

https://www.instagram.com/...igshid=10wyy3ay5k6cm

Not an accurate representation, but I thought Tom Dumoulin looks better?.

I accept your points in general, though I'm somewhat skeptical of short cranks.

And you're right about the above, generally speaking. But as a student of pure TT, there are few who take the craft to the extreme of Dennis Rohan. He is not the genetic superstar who can just blow people away with sheer power on any old equipment. He is the marginally talented guy (for a World Tour cyclist) who scrapes every last inch of the barrel so out of 10 tries he can shock the world once or twice.

he's not into his aero position in that pic. notice how one hand is on the basebar? he's either sitting up for a corner or settling in after the start or a corner.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

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

What about the foot size? I'm pretty similar to these guys in that I have long legs and sz12-13 feet. You'd think that a larger foot can tolerate larger size cranks. Riders with short legs and small feet need to tighten up the space - re: kids bikes.

I prefer 172 or shorter (I guess, never tried) I know that 175 is too much.
Why is it not understood, in general on ST, that is there no "one" setup or position. eg I had a sprint bike, a "GT" bike and yet another setup for training/street. Low and slightly more compact vs raised up and a little more room.

---

Training Tweets: https://twitter.com/Jagersport_com
FM Sports: http://fluidmotionsports.com

I wouldn't say that...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/dumoulin-physically-im-a-broken-man/

Lol. The internet is a funny place.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

Hmm... I don't necessarily think that just because he had a dominant ride that there's no way that he couldn't have been even faster in another scenario, or that winning a world championship means he exercised INFALLIBLE judgement with his setup, but even if he did, speculating on position changes tends to be fun and interesting, so...

If he was a person who posted pictures of himself on slowtwitch and asked for help in eeking out another aero gain, I'd probably tell him to try to scoot his seat forward a little bit and then pull out a spacer or two to get a little bit lower. That certainly seems like it would make his position look a little bit more like Dumoulin's and Martin's old position (at his peak). If he asked you for hints on what you thought could get him a bit more aero, what would you tell him? I imagine that with all the data you've collected you have much better instincts and insights than I do.

Remember he is confined by UCI regulations and seat could well already be at it's forward limit for his fit regarding his extensions... I guess all the experts in the wind tunnels he tested at including Giro developing the Aerohead around him should have consulted slowtwitch...

Since he was working with all those experts, and all the other top time trialists in the world were working with their own experts, wouldn't you expect them to reach conclusions that were far more visibly similar to each other? If not, what do you think the major differences are in their morphology that lead them to have such different positions? I know Dumoulin is taller than Dennis, but I would have guessed that Martin was much closer to his height.

lol, come on Jim. Give us some internet commentary. That's what we're here for. Say Dennis wants to win by 2min next year. How can he improve position/setup?

---

https://www.strava.com/athletes/nbrowne1

Then you would have given him very poor advice.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

You see really closed hip angles in some of the women.




It's less common in the men, but this guy did pretty well today:



Dennis doesn't have a closed hip angle. His torso is angled up a bit, but he keeps his head tucked down most of the time.



Here is an older shot where his knee is as high as it goes. Not tight at all. He could run 190s and still be fine...;)

Have you been following @UKcyclingexpert on Twitter?!

No. Not at all.

Limb lengths, neck length, shoulder and hip width, flexibility, back arch... to name a few. Plus a couple hundred thousand miles of riding road bikes before they got serious about TT. Ingrained posture, pedal stroke, and power production.

Great head position, but torso angle is interesting. Wonder if going too flat reduces the amount of power you can put out?

Just quoted this to add that this guy (Victor Campenaerts) used to be a triathlete, and is a regular at the Belgian beermile championship each year due to this background. He's also part of a very local running club which includes the duathlon world champ of 2016 (Seppe Odeyn, also doing Ironman since a few years getting a few top-10s) and Pieter Heemeryck (who ended up 5th at 70.3 WC recently). I wanted to add it to the post about MTM but did not want to take away from the well deserved glory there.

Longer cranks provide the opportunity for more leverage = more power. My view on the shorter cranks phenomenon that has been embraced by our sport over the last 10 or so years is that it will die a quick death like Vibram footwear, racing in compression sleeves, extremely low positions on the bike, ceramic bearings ....... So much of what makes the Tri world an opportunity to make money off of people reaching for easy speed will be found out. The dude is the best TT-er in the world. Why not ask why he's the fastest ? Cheers from NZ, Scott

I guess Dumoulin and Martin need to listen to Dennis's experts or at least learn from his position not the other way around...

I love the internet for shits and giggles like this.

The world time trial champion Rohan Dennis destroys the field, rides brilliantly and looks amazingly comfortable and controlled doing so but screw that, his position is crap and he uses the wrong spec cranks...because we all know better!

I guess that one's obvious when you're Giro's test-bunny during the Aerohead's development

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

Shane... Shane...

Super glad to have you actively participating on these boards Jim! You really bring a ton of valuable information to discussions!

Would you say that in general the women are riding proportionally longer cranks for their height/inseam/torso lengths? 170 cranks on a 165cm body vs 175 cranks on a 180cm body? I don't really see 175 cm cranks being long on a 180 cm body. To me, being 168cm and able to ride all crank lengths from 165mm up to 175mm comfortably in the aero position, 175m on a 180 cm body looks "short enough'

On the one hand, women are generally using equipment (from helmets down) that was designed for a (larger) man. Not always, but generally.

On the other hand, women can usually adopt a much longer (almost mini-superman) position within the UCI rules because those rules, although strict, were again created with a larger person in mind.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

I just looked up some info about Emma Pooley. Simply because she's a recognizable face to me from GCN show, as it relates to the ladies photos above.

Most stuff online says she had a 10 mile TT of around 5.5w/kg output. She weighs about 105 lbs. So, let's call it 48 kg. 48 * 5.5 = 264 watts.

Even at 50 kg, that's 300 watts.

A lot less frontal area than a 70 kg dude, but still. I'd imagine that an entire 100 + watts over a TT would be a monstrous difference. I'm sure the world TT champion in men's can probably do 420's to 440 watts in a 10 miler or less.

That's a good reason to add some priority to power output.

Given the ladies are at that power level, I'd think the aero versus power output style to lean more towards the aero side of things.

Off topic as to Rohan Dennis - and also didn't want to ask in the MTM topic but several people riding a P5 which I thought was not UCI legal because of the 3:1 rule I thought. Is that rule gone? Just wondering if that makes my old P2 legal for time trials under USAC.

that's an extremely good joke.

What Cat are you in?

I'm a lowly Cat 5. I once emailed them about some equipment questions like wheels and bikes for lower level folks (does it have to have the UCI sticker, for example).

The short answer was that unless you've bought a modern tri-specific model with the obvious fairings, bento box fairings, seat storage fairings...... you're good.

Same on the "uci approved wheels". You're good with ebay wheels as long as you're not trying to run discs in a road race or something.

I got the impression from the answer that the scrutiny increases the higher you go.

In other words, don't show up on a P5X or Ventum, and you likely will be fine.

Cat 3

In the US, at nationals the last few years they don't jig and haven't called anyone riding a Shiv Tri or P5-6 (or Tri Speed Concept) So I wouldn't worry about road stuff. They usually send out an update before nats on what they're going to check each year. Anything below that is pretty much anything goes.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

surely you jest, and this really isn't that big of a shocker. Kiriyenka winning it at Richmond; that's a shocker (though that isn't even that big of a shocker); ditto for the guys finishing on the podium in that race (I forgot who they are); I think a FDJ rider and someone else)

Dennis does well in anything up to medium mountains and has been a top 5 time trialist for the past five years. He's 2 standard deviations right of marginally talented at the WT level

P5-3 was always legal. The old P2 is illegal because of the seatpost only.

But no one will check unless you are at nationals or going for a record, and if I was the official checking bikes, I'd still give you a pass.

Yes, because that's what they're used to. And I doubt it's hurting anything in most cases. Emma Pooley rode short cranks for awhile (~150mm?). She won the 2010 World's TT on them, spinning like crazy.

IMO the place where short cranks feel annoying is climbs. I don't mind them in TTs, but climbing they always felt like I wasn't using my leg muscles effectively. In TTs I wasn't able to increase power or improve aero with them, so I went back to normal length.

If you have some restrictions that make turning normal cranks in your optimal aero position uncomfortable (or have knee or hip issues), then trying shorter is a good idea. Otherwise there probably isn't much if anything to gain.

You should post more! Love your videos...

So what you're really saying, is that as a former triathlete, there's a chance (good chance?) that he's developed that position with the help of this forum? Maybe?

I bet he has done a lot of testing to arrive at that position...

He's provided plenty of valuable information. Maybe not in that single reply, but one does tend to get tired of typing the same thing over and over, only to have it ignored. You, on the other hand, are mainly a source of misinformation.

???

Category doesn't matter one bit. For non-UCI races, which is most everything up to Nationals and record attempts, you can ride bike you want. Including P5X and Ventums. Both of those were ridden (very slowly) at my state's TT championship. P2s abound at any TT. Fairings need to be removed.

Disc brakes are 100% allowed in any sort of road race.

Ahh... you're right again... sorry for all the misinformation... the key to getting more aerodynamic must be to do the opposite of what I said. So--according to you--a good place to start might be for him to scoot his seat back and sit higher up. That way, he'd look even less like other top time trialists.

Learning a lot from the two of you guys today! Can't thank you enough.

I ride 175 but then I'm 6'3" with 36" inseam. Was going to try 170 or maybe even 165 at the smallest, but then remembered I'd need to screw with my perfect fit and saddle position in particular. Doing nothing when the fit feels good seems like a good idea.

If still talking about Campenaerts, then yes. Supposedly they tested whether shaved arms are faster (for him), if his moustache would be slower (again for him), ... He sure does look aero, and says that's his strength because power wise he is not as strong as some of the other top TT guys. Not sure if he got any info from here, but since he knows a few top triathletes/duathletes I would guess that's a nice topic when they train together.

I'm probably a little prickly because this is the first time in 3 years one of my fit clients didn't win a Rainbow Jersey in any of the categories. Clearly, I'm all washed up now. I guess I still have a shot in the road races, but those are less satisfying personally. :-)

But, yeah, after awhile you get tired of seeing the same ol' crap spewed over and over again on these forums by people who really don't have enough information at their disposal to offer any sort of constructive observations, or any historical knowledge of these athletes. I can only slap my forehead so many times before I develop a hematoma.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

Don't give up yet! Maybe try one more solid shot for the sake of all the ignorant plebs on this thread who haven't been graced by your boundless wisdom quite yet?

So the guy who convincingly proved himself to be the fastest TTer in the world yesterday, needs advice on how to improve?

Rather he is at the top of the list of people who don't need to change a damn thing...

Granted he doesn't look optimally aero to my eye either, but considering reality I figure it's my eye that needs recalibrating;) There are other good pro riders who have a similar posture. Tony Martin is close, especially since he raised his hands. Dowsett, Cummings, Patrick Bevin, come to mind.

Hi Skid:
Could you provide any scientific support for this claim? If there is any, I've missed it and would like to know about it.
Thanks,
Jim

You might as well give up, Jim is not going to take your bait.

---

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099

26th in Mens race, former dual Olympic rowing gold medalist Hamish Bond: "438W for 30km to the bottom of climb 456W up the climb 433NP for the race @ 81kg "(5.3W/kg NP)

https://www.instagram.com/...b_button_share_sheet

---

https://www.strava.com/athletes/nbrowne1

So MOP on slowtwitch.

T-wrecks wrote:

So MOP on slowtwitch.

Definitely, we're all ex Olympians and compete at the world champs in our secondary sport... lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamish_Bond

---

https://www.strava.com/athletes/nbrowne1

That's a real shame. Here's hoping that someone can "bait" him into doing something other than sneering and bragging in a future thread.

No, longer cranks provide the opportunity for more torque (r x F) Torque does not equal more power.
How many times can you pick up a full can of beer? A 6 pack? A keg? A truck?

-SD

---

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era

If RPM is equal how can more torque NOT equal more power?

Because the force is largely linear and velocity is angular.

---

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era

420-440? Pros you've never heard of can do ~500w for 10mi.
https://www.strava.com/.../1576730635/analysis
-SD

---

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era

Now I don't particularly know who either of you are, but are you seriously surprised and upset that someone said you're full of crap for critiquing the aerodynamics of ANY TTer from a high budget WT team, let alone the world champion based on eyeballing some photos/footage? I don't even need to know cda stands for to think that's pretty silly. If that was enough to find a good position I'm sure everyone would save a hell of a lot of money and time in wind tunnels and tracks and just throw it out there to internet for feedback. I'm sure bike manufacturers would also all have equally quick frames infinite savings.

I've got no problems with people trying to work out why it's working for him, but obviously the testing has been done, and he tests fast. Trying to say everyone else is wrong is folly.

Why would rpm be equal?

Wow... you really turned me around... man oh man... all those indisputable facts of yours... And using a word like "folly"?!?! Jeez... you know an argument is killer when it's swinging around words that haven't really been prominent since the early 1800's... what's someone like me supposed to do? My very soul has been split into equal parts of pain and ... I dunno... more pain. If only I'd spent some time thinking about this stuff before I told everyone they were wrong and I had all the secrets to going fast?!!?

Let's make sure we get my moment of shame up there for posterity:


Look at the audacity there?!!? The confidence?!?! The refusal to listen to reason?!!? I need YOUR help kriss... how do I make amends for my horrible overreach here?

It's pretty easy.... stop posting

This is adding 0 value

I can't leave you with "0 value" after you've given me such a carefully considered kindness! I'll think it over and see if I can't come up with something that expresses the true extent of my profound sorrow.

Just try to pry a big, heavy rock off the ground with a 6-inch plank. Cavemen figured out how to produce more force by using a longer lever. What part of this is hard to understand? Try riding with 100mm cranks some time. Or 50mm cranks. There is probably an optimal crank length for each rider and my guess is the Rohan Dennis knows which crank length suits him best. Cheers from NZ, Scott

By that rationale we should be on 300mm cranks.

+1

---

"see the world as it is not as you want it to be"

Sure, you can write great Rick Sanchez style monologues and GIFs of chocolate fountains (what's up with that?) but if you want aero advice from the guy responsible for more rainbow jerseys on this forum than the rest of us combined, I suggest you head over to:

http://www.ero-sports.com/2018/index.php/book-an-appointment


And book yourself an appointment. $275 for the fit, with advice from the best in the business, seems like a steal. Or, you know, starting from $599 you can book some aero testing, which is what Rohan Dennis does multiple times a season. Do you recognise this team kit?






You game armchair fit advice to the newly-crowned World Champion in the discipline. An expert in aero testing told you the advice might be wrong. Now you're just trying to insult everyone into... what exactly? Free aero tips for Dennis' fit, who isn't reading this forum (and sure as hell won't change equipment without another tunnel/velodrome test)?

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

Can't believe so few got the joke.

I expect a lot from Rohan tbh, he is a guy with a plan and so far he can execute it to the point!

Torque is not power. Can you cite any science showing that longer cranks = more power?
Really want to know if its out there!

Shame a garbage poster has hijacked an interesting thread. But it does show why so many dumb ideas never seem to fully die.

This is actually a really good opportunity for me. I'm presenting at ISCO in Munster Germany next month on Crank Length and Aerodynamics. Normally I just present data showing that changing crank length doesn't influence efficiency or power. That's convincing to most people but some really cling to their beliefs in traditional crank lengths. In the past I have just let them believe what they want to believe but this time I want to explore all the simplistic rationales, like prying up a rock, and explain why that doesn't influence cycling efficiency or power. If Skid will share more of his thoughts, that will help me debunk them for the presentation.
Cheers,
Jim

Awesome! Have you done a new study (with WT and ergo testing) or is this more an analysis of testing that was previously presented? At any rate can you give us a teaser?

<opens popcorn>

I love these threads. Guy blows away the world in the TT and we all jump on him for using too long of cranks and not very aero looking position. He is a pro and I would guess he has been tunnel and power tested a couple more times than the average Slowtwitcher. Then Skid has some tongue in cheek remarks that get blasted.

Me thinks Skid has made a bike go pretty fast a couple of times. Last time I saw him in person was twenty something years ago. Listening to his tires going around the corner I was standing at, made way more strained sounds than mine ever did and did any other pro in the field that day. Made me think he may be going faster thru my corner than the others.He also rode about 2 min faster on the bike split.
Skid did have a point on the leverage thing. I am sure there is an optimal crank length for every one. I would bet the guy on the 40mm crank would have trouble putting out much power and the guy on the 500mm crank would have a hard time getting the pedals to go in circles. The total circle size difference between a 160mm and a 175mm crank is a whopping 1 1/4ish inches. That is not a large difference considering the average tri field has 4'10" to 6"6" body range in it.

I have never claimed to have much knowledge about anything, but I have seen a lot of folks run, swim, bike, paddle, row and climb like monkeys that seem to defy what seems to be a logical sense. My take on Mr. Rohan is that if you get to wear the stripes on your sleeve in the Worlds TT, you gots to be doing something more right than wrong with the power, aero equasion.

"Tongue-in-cheek"? More like promulgating the same old wive's tales.

Next he will be telling everyone that heart rate is a superior measure of exercise intensity than power output. Oh, wait...

I do get it that you have studied this concept to a degree that gives you great insight into how to set up a good TT position. I understand! What I'm saying about Rohan Dennis is that he's found the position and crank length that works best for him, or very, very close to it. A couple of things to keep in mind when looking at why he rides in the position he does and why he uses the crank length he does: 1) he's the best TT-er in the world, 2) a pro with great advice from professional advisors who help pro's become better, 3) has come from extensive track background including attempting the hour record, 4) rides his bike about 500-1,000km/week so is used to certain positions more than others, 4) had a bloody tough hill to go up in that world champs TT (so he was not stuck in one position like in the lab).

But my basic idea here is we all should give the guy credit for knowing how to go fast on a TT bike. I think we can agree on that? correct?

And to save me time typing further on here - if Andrew Coggan thinks I'm just furthering "old wives tales" my reply is that Dennis is the current world TT champ, not an "old wife". He's one if the fastest people to ever ride a TT bike. We should be asking what he's doing right!, not trying to figure out what he's doing wrong. I have read Coggan's books a few times, and loved it, but I don't have anything to sell. I do love this forum! And only hop on here when I feel the need to add some input to help all the people who come here looking for information and are in-undated with info/opinions that make them doubt everything about how they go about this sport and want to go out and change everything. Cheers, Scott

I was talking about your arguments, not anything about Dennis.

However, speaking of Dennis, he looks quite aero to me, even in the pictures from the race (vs. wind tunnel). In particular, despite the apparent height of his shoulders relative to his hips:

1) he is able to keep his head from sticking up higher than his back; and

2) the front of his chest is essentially parallel to the ground, avoiding the creation of a drag-inducing "cup".

(Hat tip to Jim Martin for the latter key checkpoint.)

I like the analogy of taking lug nuts off with a small wrench vs long wrench or (using a 'cheater' bar). OR putting the lug nuts back on for that matter. You have MORE control of the power if you will, with a longer wrench.

I understand power is the same as long as your not 'at maximinum power' etc, but they're are times where your vasilating in those high zones.

That’s quite a nice analogy,

My experience of using short cranks (155) I struggled to find the time to apply the power in aero, it was like the arc was too small. I was fine sat up or on the turbo sat up.
I found my quads fatigued very very fast.
I learned to use them and adapted over the year, but then tried 165s in aero on the road and it was incredible. They ‘felt’ so much better, power could be evenly applied unlike the 155.

I then went for aero testing. Here’s what I found.

Without changing the front end, lowering the saddle to compensate for the length.

155 CdA - 0.23
165 CdA - 0.21
170 CdA (felt hip pinch) 0.21

Pretty large drop.

Then we tried dropping the front end with the 155.
CdA went up to 0.24!

Moral of the story.
Short cranks ‘can’ be less aero, particularly someone like me who is thin and long legged and arms, the longer cranks clearly filled in the gaps better so to speak, my knee came up higher and and was still tolerable.
Also short cranks need a higher saddle, this increases the vertical component of the legs which the wind sees, it also turns the quad into a big flat cylinder, not aero!

Moral 2.
Looking at pictures is only ever half of the story without seeing wind you cannot see flow.
Best example of this is -
Of people I have tested with or been part of testing 8 out of 10 (all the skinny tall ones) became more aero with a camelbak on their front. Sometimes that beer gut is working for you in terms of flow!

Clearly I walk in to ST unprepared for the level of assumed snarkiness. I never said he would have gone faster with shorter cranks nor did I question his aero position.
All I asked was if you have evidence that longer cranks are more powerful. If you do, I'd like to know about it. If its something you believe without scientific evidence that's fine, you can believe what you want to believe. I'm just looking for studies I might have missed.
EDIT: Its also helpful if I understand why you and others believe longer cranks = more power so I can help dispel those beliefs when I present at ISCO. I presented on crank length to a group of USA Cycling coaches at TTown. Most were really receptive but a few clung to similar cultural beliefs. I am currently using the arguments they made to help refine my talk in Munster. The more of that kind of thing I can address up front the better.

Cheers,
Jim

Fixed.

1) Changing crank length and saddle height without moving the bars also changes your torso angle. IOW, you have too many things going on there for your results to be readily interpretible.

2) Shorter cranks do not increase the frontal area of the leg as you claim.

This is not a research study, but I've seen this page on the interwebs. Looking over the blog page might help you counter bike culture beliefs, at least those that are not supported by evidence. From the looks of it, it appears to be an interesting common-sense argument about crank length and power. That said, I am all for following the hard evidence (which is your dept), but I would be curious to know, do you see major oversights in the logic of any of the argument(s) on that web page?

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Thanks for that link. His logic is fine as far as it goes and would serve to establish testable hypotheses. He seems unaware that researchers have actually tested those hypotheses with experiments although in "narrower" ranges of only 120-220mm cranks. I'll read it over again carefully to see if I can use parts of it in my talk.
Cheers,
Jim
PS He mentions 300mm cranks. When I started my first study I had extensions drilled out to 245mm. With the 245mm cranks my thighs hit my chest so hard that I hurt my neck. Didn't have the test subjects try those.

can you expand on this?
Are you saying that moving the upper leg more/less towards the horizontal position at TDC has no effect on frontal area during the pedalstroke? Or just that crank length isn't the cause.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

^

what is going on in this thread.... first they throw grenades at Jim@ERO and now this.

Cylinders.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Any effect would be insignificant.

thanks

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

Some people have reported a pretty big difference from lowering the saddle. I tried it and the inconclusive amount of field testing I did was certainly in the right direction (lower CdA). Raising the saddle to accommodate short cranks should have a similar effect in the other direction. At the bottom of the stroke the frontal area will be the same, but elsewhere the short cranks would give you more frontal area as well as a more broadside angle between the aiflow and the quads.

On the other hand I know of a couple good TTers on here who use short cranks to good effect.

Lowering the saddle is not the same as using shorter cranks.

Right... raising the saddle is more like using shorter cranks... from the perspective of aero drag due to the quads.

This is great. We're arm chair quarterback critiquing the world champion time trialist's fit and aero-ness.

---

Don't drown. Don't crash. Don't walk.

This is great. We're arm chair quarterback critiquing the world champion time trialist's fit and aero-ness. //

Actually, except for a very few posts out of over a 100, most here are talking about the new paradigm shift from the old school longer cranks are more powerful(because of leverage you know), to shorter cranks that may be a faster and better option for triathletes, who have to run off the bike(same or slight better power, but with lower Cda/and or comfort to hold position). There are numerous threads on this going back many, many years, cannot recall at the moment when we started teaching this at the FIST workshops, a long time ago. But it has now been studied to some extent, and thus far it appears that all of us old timers were working under wrong assumptions as regards to crank length and triathlon positions(tt ones too).


Anyway, there are a lot of very knowledgeable folks chiming in here, instead of assuming they are saying something irrelevant, or to be ignored because of the title, slow it down, filter out the tiny bit of noise(theRohan position sucks stuff), and you just might learn something valuable...

Raising the saddle is not the same as using shorter cranks.

I think the real problem is that you’ve got some amazingly knowledgeable people that post here and you continue to allow idiots to troll them with no moderation. So guys like Jim get pushed away and we lose a valuable member of the community.

Exactly.
Coggan really has no idea.
Once again he thinks he’s an expert in the field

If I truly have "no idea", then why do my comments align with those of the two Jims?

Does distance affect crank length? Obviously in an Ironman you are looking at putting out relatively low power, whereas in a Pro Time Trial the power figures are amazing.

Also, even though he is the Time Trial World Champion, would his team still have his focus on road races. And therefore might it simply be a case of using the same size cranks as his road bike?

Well the obvious reasoning I was taught as a kid was that torque = radius (i.e. crank length) x force and that power = torque x velocity (~cadence). A longer crank would allow you to apply more torque for a given cadence.

I guess the doubt comes if one can truly keep the same cadence despite the increased circumference of the pedals and if maybe one offsets the other? Curious to understand.

I tend to lean more towards the idea that different people have different natural cadences and ability to apply torque and that eventually leads to an optimal crank length that needs to be somewhat empirically found. When I got my original TT bike fit by Jim@Ero a long time ago we tried different crank lengths too - I came in with 175mm and we concluded that was still the best based on power output and 'feel'. (I'm 6'1")

(I'm 6'1") //

Ok, but are you 6'1" with a 29 inch inseam or a 36" one(with according uppercut and lower legs lengths too) ? That is what is more important than overall height. And of course different people will self select within a range of cadence, and their morphology will add to a formula to select crank length. Only thing I'm(and many others)are saying is that in general we have been coached to ride cranks that were too long, and for a very long time now. IT became a standard even, and now like tires, tire pressure, and so many other things we were all taught in the old days, it has been challenged and proven to have been a false premise...

Well of course looks count. I sure wish someone who's tested him had posted on another thread about Mr. Dennis being slippery.

Cranks that were too long.... for what? For a triathlete of for a cyclist? Didn't this topic start with some saying his cranks were too long? And building on that - I suspect the majority of world tour cyclists ride with cranks slowtwitch would consider too long. If so, then based on what do we call them too long?

Some random cyclists I googled and their crank length:

Valverde 170
Sagan 172.5
Van Avermaet 172.5
Cancellara 175
Froome 175
Vanmarcke 175
Tom Boonen 177.5
Terpstra 177.5

Your house must be filled with massive doors otherwise you’d struggle to get your head through.
In regards to the Jim’s, I’m yet to see a study on crank length and power conducted outside in aero position. It’s all indoors sat up on turbos. Based on my own experience those conditions are poles apart and short cranks work fine on the later but may be problematic with the former.
Jim may own and run a successful aero company and his thoughts on what he has seen may be valid, but my comments come via a PhD in aerodynamics who now works with world class cyclists so I know who I’m gonna listen to.

That said I don’t think anything of what you’ve said truly aligns with jim from Ero, I may be wrong on that though

It would seem simple. Bike fitters should have the ability to test a range of crank lengths (130-200?) comparing a constant power (over power ranges) with heart rate and see what is the best result. The issue is the efficiency obtained at training at a certain cadence. So what is the best cadence for each individual guy to work toward

Cranks that were too long.... for what? For a triathlete of for a cyclist? //

For time trialers, but more specifically triathletes. And of course if you are a roadie who rides 95% of the time in a slack position on longer cranks for training and most racing, it may not be that beneficial to switch for one short race. That list you provided would look exactly like the pro triathlete list when I rode back in the 80's, but would look nothing like it now. But what is no surprise to me is that virtually every advancement in TT'ing, has come from the triathlete end, a few years later to trickle to the roadie tt'ers. I actually can only think of one thing roadies did first, that was the rubber suits they used in track events, which of course we could never use in the first place..


Things right now I can recall we did years before it became commonplace in cycling;


clipless pedals
aero bars
aero position
more forward positions
drinking systems
index shifting(and out on bars)
aero bikes
aero components
race wheels( I remember riding some deep dish wheels in a 1/2 pro race and being looked at like an alien)
Proper wind tunnel testing
Aero bars, pads, and general front end attention
Aero forks
Shorter cranks to open up hip angles and achieve better Cda's


And that is just off the top of my head. And I was in a unique position is that I raced pro in both sports all through the 80's and early 90's when all this stuff came about. And to be clear on all of this, I'm not advocating that Rohan use shorter cranks, he seems to be fine where he is. But no doubt that he and his team are constantly looking at different training and bike strategies to make those incremental improvements. Who knows where that will lead..

You can't keep the same cadence. One offsets the other. If your cranks are longer your natural cadence will decline, and the force will decrease and... you end up with the same power as before.

There is no free lunch here. You can pedal a bigger circle or a smaller one, but the power must still be produced by your body, and the things that limit your power output and eventual fatigue are pretty agnostic regarding the size of that circle... within reasonable bounds.

I don't recall if it was in Jim's tests or someone elses, but there wasn't even a correlation between a person's favored crank length and the length of their legs. Which indicates that whatever is governing the slight variation in a person's preferred crank length is complicated. Muscle details I'd suspect. Cadence vs force vs articulation.

Paging H2Ofun. H2Ofun, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

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

Skid and the rest of this thread....175mm does not seem to be 'long' on Dennis. His height is ~180cm. As I said, Sebi, and Normann used the same crank lengths at around the same height at Kona. Both have won Kona and both are in the top 4 all time Kona bike splits. I realize that Kona is not a wind tunnel, but 175 does not seem to be a mismatch in terms of crank length for professional athletes who are 6 feet tall. Most of these guys are more athletic than your average age grouper. These guys likely produce more power on 175's than 170's or 165's AND they are able to fold themselves in HALF and stay aero for 4.5 hours (Or in the case of Dennis at even higher power for longer time).

Now if Mirinda Carfrae comes here and says that she produces more power on 175's then we can ask her if she can fold herself in half and stay aero like Daniela for 5 hours. Like Mirinda, most people on this forum likely cannot do that with 175's even though they MAY produce more power sitting up or standing....I know I produce more power off the same force but higher torque at the same RPM on longer cranks, the problem is doing it from the aero position.

My gut feeling is that lower cadence long stride length runners will trend to liking longer cranks (relative to height) a bit more than higher cadence shorter stride length runners. You mention articulation and the way the brain is wired from running may have some impact on personal preferences. Running is a natural activity that we do from when we are babies, whereas biking is a learned motion. So my hypothesis would be that those who like longer cranks for their heigh are also lower cadence runners. I have no proof to support this other than some intuition from what I see from kids transfering from sport to sport to sport and observing how they move.

Why does Froome pedal the way he does? I would love to watch the guy play soccer and I am certain I'd understand once I see him moving in multi dimensions at different speeds, orientations and force outputs why he pedals how he does.

You seem to be wrong on many things, including my opinion on short cranks (which is based on both Dr. Martin's experiments as well as my own personal testing).

Not quite correct: in his original max power study, there was a weak but significant correlation between optimal crank length and lower leg length.

Running is a good analogy. People with long legs or long strides are not necessarily faster. There are different preferences for cadence and stride. Unlike cycling, a runner cannot just choose a different gear to optimize the cadence for themselves.

High cadence in cycling (not changing the crank length here) shifts the emphasis more towards the cardio system and away from higher-force muscle fatigue. I think Lance specifically trained to climb at high cadence because it was optimal given his boost from EPO. Not sure why Froome favors it.... ;)

Froome is mega good at breathing

Lower leg? Seems like the upper leg would be more important.

I actually think it was Zinn who did not find a correlation. And he really expected to find one! Not as good a test as Jim's though.

Thanks Benv. Those things you were taught as a kid are true but they're not the whole story. They don't include how muscles produce force or how muscular force is transferred across joints.
First, for any specific cadence, the pedal moves faster on a longer crank than a shorter crank. Those differences in pedal speed cause the muscle to shorten at different rates while producing force. In the muscle force-velocity figure below please note that concentric force (muscle shortening) decreases with increasing velocity. This means that the higher pedal speed produced by a longer crank reduces your muscles' ability to produce force compared to a shorter crank. So yes, a longer lever would produce more torque for the same force, but the force will not be the same. It will be reduced due to increased muscle shortening velocity. So far so good?
Second factor has to do with leg extension. You probably know that you can leg press more weight if you set up the machine so that you start with your leg nearly fully extended compared with highly flexed. You can do a partial squat with more weight than a deep squat. Agreed? This is because of what is called "biomechanical gear ratio"; the ratio of the movement of the end of the limb to movement of the muscle. Most people adjust their seat height so that they maintain the same leg extension at the bottom of the pedal stroke. This results in the leg being more extended throughout the rest of the cycle and thus your leg is "stronger".
To summarize, your muscles produce more force when shortening slower and your whole leg produces more force when its more extended. These increases in muscle force minimize or eliminate the differences in lever arm. Does this make sense? Thanks again for giving me this opportunity to test my ability to clarify.

Cheers,
Jim

I’m glad you used the word seem in there as you really have no idea if I am right or wrong as you haven’t been privy to my testing.

What you would have said was that my testing and conclusion based on that testing did not fit with what you found. It’s a shame you have to once again prove why most of slowtwitch thinks you’re a giant ass.

Wait, hang on, I thought the fastest way to swim the 200 fly was head down for the opening 50 meters and then breath as little as possible for the rest!!!! OK OK....Michael Gross in 1988 only breathed half as much as Phelps did in 2016:

Jim, can you help explain why I can happily ride 155 cranks on a turbo sat up but just cannot ride them in aero on the road?
My cadence goes up compared to the 165, but I feel like I can’t apply force in time.
My legs are long, 37inch inseam. I use cleats in a rearward position too.
I struggle to move my legs fast, so can’t really get a cadence of more than 110.

I spent a year on them but just get quad fatigue.

Why are you on 155's or 165's with a 37 inch inseam? That seems way short anyway.

There is no free lunch.

Torque = force x distance
Power = Torque x RPM

or power = Force x distance x RPM

If you reduce distance (length of crank) you have to up RPM or up force to sustain the same power. It's not magic, and generally comes with a combo of changes in force and changes in RPM (for example when someone runs faster both their foot force and cadence tends to go up).

It may just be that your brain is not wired to go any higher on RPM so you have to make things up with higher force given that your ovverall foot speed has declined (foot speed is RPM x 2 x pi x distance) on short cranks. If you can keep the same overall foot speed around the circle, then you don't have to change force. So your quads may just be dead because for whatever reason your foot speed is too low even with RPM going up on short cranks

Edit: It may just be that your brain is not liking turning all the mass of those massive 37 inch inseam legs around that many times per minute. I don't think people have explored the impact of all the angular momentum changes for the entire leg complex, so we're stuck self selecting. It seems like most of us are pretty good at self selecting cadences, foot speeds and foot forces across sports and can adapt to a wide enough range until you force us outside those ranges. You might just be outside your optimal "band"

I think that makes sense!
I tried short cranks because I have cam type FAI and severe OA at the front of the hips.
My legs and particularly lower legs are long for my body.
I’m happy on 165 but my PBs were on 175s. Destroyed my hips though!

OK lower legs long for the body will trend you towards shorter cranks for your height since a long lower leg means more compressed hip angle at top dead center all things being equal.

If 175's were your PB cranks but your destroyed your hips, could it be that your glutes and hamstrings just lack range of motions so the hip flexors are working against them instead of just being able to relax and let the downstroke leg lift the "relaxed" up stroke leg.

Destroyed my hips by reeming away the front of my joint.

Thanks,

I think this is very much the sticking point. Shortening velocity is usually mentioned on here, but rarely explained.

That was a very concise and descriptive summary for the laymen out here.

Hopefully this directs the conversation away from “you’re an idiot” “no you’re an idiot” that pretty much derails most of the good threads on ST.

On a side note I was I really did like the H2Ofun crank thread....you just had to wade through the mess a bit. There were some really great posts....if you were willing to hold your nose and skip the others.

Cheers,
Maurice

What testing have you done that demonstrates that increasing or decreasing the distance from the pedal to the hip joint at the top of the pedal stroke has a significant effect on aerodynamic drag *when all other factors are held constant*?

For those following along at home: an easy way to demonstrate that the above has only a very small impact on the angle-of-attack/aspect ratio/frontal area of the thigh is to simply hold the crank stationary at TDC and flex or straighten your ankle enough to move your knee up or down a centimeter. What you will find is that your thigh barely changes its position, because it is already much closer to horizontal than vertical.

If you really want to try to alter the drag of the legs by altering your position, then it is the shin and especially the foot that matters.

It could have to do with how pedaling interacts with bike handling. Each time you push down on a pedal, you perturb the bike; make it lean and want to fall over. It "rights" itself by turning into the lean. If you ever want to see this effect in action, tape a broom stick to your top tube so that it sticks out in from of your handlebars. I've done this and its VERY disconcerting. Anyway, steering geometry determines how the bike reacts to each pedal thrust. It could be that the feedback you get from your bike at slightly higher pedaling rate bugs you; possibly at a subconscious level.
We've all seen people who seem to be completely at odds with their bike and those who are truly one with their bike. My sense is that elegant bike riders match the pedal-induced perturbations to the steering characteristics of the bike. This is referred to as "two wheeled vehicle dynamics" and I am NOT an expert; Jim Papadopolis is The Man in this field.
It could also have to do with how fast you can activate and relax your muscles but that wouldn't change from trainer to road riding.
Sounds like you've found a sweet spot with the 165s so go with em.
Cheers,
Jim

How would you alter the shin?

Lowering the saddle while moving it forward will generally reduce the frontal area of the foot and lower leg.

Edit: Here is an extreme example (John Cobb's "low sit" position), with my saddle (and elbow pads) 10 cm lower than normal. Note the angle of the lower leg and of the foot in particular.

Against my better judgement I'll weigh in on this topic because I have recently had extended conversations with three wind tunnel experts on exactly this topic. I won't name them but they can out themselves if they choose.
Expert 1 has extensive practical experience in wind tunnel testing. He shared several anecdotes of reducing crank length to get a more horizontal torso angle resulting in reduced drag. He did not report any cases of drag going up when properly fitted with shorter cranks.
Expert 2 has engineering and practical expertise and has worked in elite sport and the cycling industry. He uses a simplified model with cylindrical leg segments and an ellipsoid or airfoil shape for the torso. He told me that this model is relatively insensitive to torso angle and highly sensitive to leg extension. It predicts that shorter cranks will increase drag. He did not share any supporting wind tunnel data with me but I didn't ask.
Expert 3 also has engineering and practical expertise and has worked in elite sport and the cycling industry. He also has published work in peer reviewed aerodynamics engineering journals. He uses a highly complex CFD model and this model predicts that drag reductions due to more horizontal torso angle outweigh increased drag due to increases in leg extension. His model has been confirmed with wind tunnel testing.
So it comes down to a trade off between drag reduction from more horizontal torso and drag increases due to increased leg extension. Most wind tunnel data seem to favor decreasing drag from the torso but there may be cases (as mentioned in this thread and predicted by Expert 2's model) where the extended leg increases drag. Massive legs maybe? I personally never tested this in a wind tunnel.
Cheers,
Jim

Point of clarification before otherwise responding: do you mean greater extension, or less flexion?

(Obviously if you maintain a constant pedal to saddle distance leg extension doesn't change, so I think you really mean the latter.)

Yes, I’ve seen that work.
The combination of the lower frontal area of shin/foot and the more horizontal position of the foot.
But not possible for many who have tight heel cords.

Does your knee not hit your torso in that position with that low saddle?

Yes, same extension at the bottom, less flexion throughout the rest of the cycle. To me that results in a more extended leg on average for the cycle but I see your point.
Cheers,
Jim

I guess my other question is why you are bringing torso angle into the discussion.

Obviously the point of shorter cranks is to allow you to adopt a lower position yet still maintain power, but the questions being debated are:

1) do shorter cranks alter drag?

and

2) if so, how?

*when all else is held constant*.

Mostly less flexion in the top half (especially the top quarter) of the pedal stroke, you mean.

I call "elegant" riders "quiet" riders, and find that has a direct correlation to the vertical and lateral movement of the hips. I often see shorter cranks reduce vertical hip movement for obvious reasons. Quieter riders seem to have less lean/steer and that would/should lead to reduced drag. Just my own theory; nothing other than my personal experience to back it up. I don't often find it necessary to shorten cranks to get riders in a good aero position. As you know, I tend to think of crank length as more of a knee flexion issue. Hip angle is effected, but not the main driver for me.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

Shorter cranks allow a rider to attain a lower torso while maintaining a reasonably open hip angle (do shorter cranks can alter drag?; yes they can). Changes in drag involve the trade-offs I described (if so how?; as a trade-off between torso and leg drag). I wasn't aware the discussion was constrained by the footnote.
Cheers,
Jim

Great observation Jim. Those movements certainly might contribute to the steering perturbation.
Cheers,
Jim

I think everyone is missing the biggest advantage I found with short cranks here or maybe I am just not seeing it in what you are all saying. My cadence dropped over time over an Ironman from at one point averaging 99 on 170 cranks to now I average around 83 on 160. My biggest finding was shorter cranks reduced the dead spots in my pedal stroke so I was able to apply force through a greater range (degrees) of my pedal stroke being in aggressive tt closed off position. I trialled in 5mm lengths 170 - 150 over several years each I lived with for close to a year but found below 160 my ability to apply power suffered as the pedal circle for me seemed too small I guess for my bio mechanics. So yes Torque = force x distance but if that same force is applied over a greater degree rotation of the pedal stroke at the same RPM you will produce more power. So maybe there is a free lunch after all? I am FOP cyclist in Ironman being 5' 11 1/2 with a long inseam and settled on 160 cranks.

So basically my power phase has increased using the link below.

https://www.physio-pedia.com/Cycling_Biomechanics

What can I say, I am a reductionist by nature, who then trained under this guy:

https://www.cell.com/....W46kcqU5ij4.twitter

*Of course* I am going to insist on considering all of the underlying details/components, and not just the overall effect.

No real issue with my thigh hitting my torso, but the lack of full leg extension was definitely more fatiguing. My *perception* was that my sustainable power was compromised as much as my measured drag was reduced, such my power:drag was essentially unchanged. I therefore did not pursue things any further.

Thanks Maurice, glad you found it helpful. Maybe Dan can make it a sticky.
Ha, I put a LOT of work into waterboy's thread. Saw it as a duty to refute each bit of nonsense and there was a LOT of nonsense. I should probably include that thread as community service for my next job evaluation!
Cheers,
Jim

I deal with electrical and mechanical systems at work if you need a larger output or torque then you simply attempt to install something larger.

Having said that we have a very well understood mechanical system (the bicycle drive train) but a metabolic input, this is (variable and unique) READ not a motor with predictable inputs, but also perhaps homogeneous a cross a large spectrum of user groups....world class tters, triathletes, hipsters, and people who have to use bikes to generate the basic needs of life.

Any ways, dan talks a lot about fit etc and puts out some great stuff.

A front pager about shortening velocity and why it may or may not matter to fit would be very interesting.

2c
Maurice

Thanks Jim, good info!

I would expect this to be highly variable, depending on the rider's starting posture. If the torso is already horizontal (with regular cranks) and the helmet no higher than than the back, then there is probably nothing to be gained, and a potential loss from the leg extension. Even then judging from Rohan Dennis's performance, an upward titled torso might be aerodynamically very good anyway.

It would be interesting to see what bodies and positions he has modeled and tested.

How about after a year of adaptation... ;)

I had a similar experience when I tried reducing saddle height, and I didn't pursue it either. But my starting point was already lower than most.

The key with this though is whether you would go the same speed but save more actual energy output in that position, making it more plausible for long course Tri.

I think that’s a mistake many make for a long course position, they focus on power when aero would mean greater energy savings even if speed was equal

Hello STers:
I just want to bump this up to solicit other comments about how well this helps explain why a shorter lever doesn't mean less power or even torque. Working on that talk now and would like to be as clear as possible. Feel free to PM me if you don't want to respond on the forum. Your comments will help me!
Cheers,
Jim

Just an FYI: the units on your axes are incorrect.

They sure are! That's what I get for linking to a figure on the internet. Will make my own figures for the slides.

"He was so fast his first name had to settle for 2nd place.... (I'll show myself out....) :)"

BEST.SLOWTWITCH.POST.EVER!!!!!!!


LOVE IT!!

hahah, no. I've read some treads on here that are truly life changing. Some not in a good way. ;)

---

Shane Miller - GPLama
YouTube | Web | Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | Strava

What a ride by Rohan! If you're keen to know who his Coach is, that would be Neal Henderson of APEX Coaching. He also happens to be the guy who designs The Sufferfest workouts and training plans and is behind our 4DP methodology. You can learn more about him here: https://thesufferfest.com/...behind-the-suffering

I'll have a chat with him and see if I can't get him to chime in on this thread.

---

David McQuillen
Founder & CEO of The Sufferfest

I was (am) thinking that helping Rohan to set the UCI Hour world record and winning world championships and other TTs and TTTs was the goal.

PS - You do know that he's spent a good deal of time in the wind tunnel as well as testing on the road and velodrome to come up with his current position, right? And do you know that Rohan's TT palmares prior to winning this year's world championships is also pretty solid?

PPS - How good is your eye at detecting CdA? We don't use our eyes - we make measurements. And we also look at power production in different positions. We also evaluate the sustainability of power output in given positions to some up with the fastest overall position.

---

Neal Henderson

Sport Science Coach Guy
Owner, APEX Coaching

No, he's not. 4DP is a straight rip-off of the power profiling approach I developed in the early 2000s.

Dr Coggan, please dont start up the whole "I invented the wheel and now everyone who makes a new car is stealing form me!"

No one is arguing that you were a pioneer in using power meters as a training tool.

However, the power profiling you describe your own book on how to train with power is different. Only slightly different, but different none the less.

What you 100% have not done is develop any sort of algorithm that utilizes someones power profile to generate specific workout targets. And NO, this is not what WKO4 does. WKO4 gives you suggestions, but it does not automatically alter workouts for you.

Let me ask you this: if it is all "your idea" and no one is able to improve upon it, please list the number of world championships you have coached people to. If you truly believe that innovation stopped the second your pen left the paper, then you have let your ego take over what was once a fantastic scientific mind.

I will not be responding to anything else in this thread, based on my past readings of forums, Dr Coggan NEVER concedes a point.

And I have made mine.

Although you were asking someone else, I recently asked this same question to Neal Henderson and thought you might be interested in the answer. Actually, when I asked, he wasn't exactly sure (he's quite a humble guy) and so he had to go and tally it up and get back to me with the number....

47 World Championships

---

David McQuillen
Founder & CEO of The Sufferfest

Neal, welcome to the bullring. (Or is it the circus?)

I for one would love to hear the development story of Rohan's setup, if that's something you're willing or able to divulge.

+1 ... anything you'd like to share regarding Rohan Dennis's journey to his current setup would be most welcome!

I'll admit that I wouldn't have thought his position was very aero either. But obviously it is. He isn't someone like an Indurain or Cancellara who can rely on raw power. There are a few others pros who look similar. Torso angled up a bit, but head down with a good shrug and turtle.

I know that Neal has just got on a plane for a well-deserved weekend of vacation, so not sure he'll reply soon. In the meantime, you guys might like this podcast interview with him in which he talks about some of the techniques he uses with his elite athletes (as well as the story of the most he ever suffered himself): https://soundcloud.com/...-ep-1-neal-henderson

---

David McQuillen
Founder & CEO of The Sufferfest

Yes he is.

---

David McQuillen
Founder & CEO of The Sufferfest

Maybe both sides can make a table with three columns showing similarities and differences between 4DP and the power profiling approach.

 

Hello

my grain of salt... sorry for english mistakes, I'm french

I'm not a coach, neither physiologist or biomechanics PHD. No financial interest in the discussion.
But some experience in innovation.

Innovation does not always (most time it doesn't) include conceptual advance or new technology.

Looking at 4DP, it is clearly, in my view, based on the conceptual work of Andrew Coggan, Hunter Allen work, i.e. all their work around power meter training, power profiles, ....

In France, Fred Grappe is buildng on this also.

This does not mean that 4DP and Sufferfest have no value. 4DP and Sufferfest can bring some innovation through apps, features, giving better access and more day to day usability to the conceptual value in power profiling conceptual basis.

You call this "Most sophisticated training app in the world". It might be. Because of your work, and also because it reuse solid initial work by Andrew Coggan, Hunter Allen, ...

The initial iPhone was great. But all the technology was existing before. Created by other peoples. All this technology was "simply" presented differently. Wich was true innovation.

As I pointed out before, there are significant no differences. All Neal/Sufferfest have done is taken my power profiling approach and repackage it as '4DP'.*

They (and apparently others) seem to think that approach is novel only because they mistakenly treated my original training levels as zones, i.e., as prescriptive, not descriptive. This, despite that admonished people since day 1 (i.e., 2001) not to do so.

*As I have always pointed out, power profiling was inspired by the numerous tables out there that attempt to equate running performance over various distances (e.g., Daniel's VDOT system). Aside from being based on power instead of pace, the primary difference here is that power profiling focuses specifically on performance across just four durations, reflective of the underlying physiology, versus simply attempting to equate or predict performance across all durations/distances. As well, power profiling is, as the name implies, a tool for describing or classifying an athlete (e.g., "sprinter")**, as well as a way of providing benchmarks that can be used to structure workouts.

**15 or so years after coming up with power profiling, it was pointed out to me that Ernie Maglishio (sp?) had proposed a similar approach around the same for "profiling" swimmers. As I understand it, however, he only divided athletes into two camps, i.e. sprint vs. endurance.

So it is, to some extent, prescriptive, isn't it?


Anyway, what exactly are you trying to achieve here? What's the end goal? We've had this argument on here before and I do believe 4DP is based on your work, I think most folks do. What then? Do you want them to mention you somewhere on their website and acknowledge your contribution to the project? Do you want share of their profits? Or are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

Maybe Andrew expect that instead of saying :
"we created 4DP method",

Sufferfet and Neil say :
"we created tools based on Coggan/Allen power profiling method"

But I leave in a less lawyer addict country...

You are confusing the FTP-anchored training levels that are descriptive with going out at and testing your power at specific durations to provide prescriptive training targets.

Quoting myself from the introduction of the training levels on the wattage list in 2001: "...the primary reference, therefore, is not to the system itself, but to the athlete's own unique (and current) ability."


Educate people on the ethical way to deal with intellectual property.

(Zoom in on the somewhat washed-out slide here and you'll see how it should be done: https://www.facebook.com/.../?type=3&theater)

Going to try and get this train back on track....

While this article is not on Rohan, it does go through some of the initial points of measuring and testing that Neal uses to help optimize a riders position.
http://apexcoachingco.com/blog/apex-coaching-may-blog-assessing-time-trial-posture-using-leomo-type-r/


A major factor with Rohans' position is how comfortable he is in it. When most people try to assume a more aerodynamic position they expend excess energy trying to hold a position their body does not want to be in. When Rohan gets on his TT bike and drops his head down he is not "fighting" to hold that position at all.
One component of this is years of Team Pursuit riding, meaning riding a more aggressive position, at higher power, with higher demand for smoothness and stability.
And lastly, pacing. Rohan is exceptionally good at pacing himself over distances from a few kilometers to 50+ like we saw at worlds. You can have the most aerodynamic position ever, and have the fitness to roll everyone over, but if you can't pace yourself properly for the full effort it doesn't matter.


Hope that was at least mildly insightful for those of you who are still here.

Good illustration of turtle and shrug, and how your "position" isn't dictated by your contact points.

#ShrugsNotDrugs

The abstract that you outlined earlier in the thread looks very interesting. I'd love to know some way of getting the paper when you're done, so thanks for that.

Secondly as you asked for a critique of your explanation can I ask...

When you say "Most people adjust their seat height so that they maintain the same leg extension at the bottom of the pedal stroke. This results in the leg being more extended throughout the rest of the cycle and thus your leg is "stronger".

Do you mean they adjust saddle height to give the same leg extension at the bottom of the pedal stoke for different crank lengths?

Cheers,
Mark

Yes, that's what I meant. My sense is that's common practice.
Cheers,
Jim

Hi everyone. David McQuillen, Founder of The Sufferfest here.

Almost exactly a year ago, I stopped responding to Andy Coggan due to this thread: https://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=6456277
We weren’t alone in our views of his behaviour there. Here is how TrainingPeaks felt about him at the time: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/...dologies-road-ahead/

I’m baffled that he - and behaviour like his - is allowed to remain part of the SlowTwitch community. Some of his posts have been deleted from this thread already, but I see absolutely no value at all in having such personalities remain part of what should be open, lively and positive discussions about topics. Arguments and heated discussions are fine — abuse and bullying is not, no matter how many letters you have after your name. I’ve chosen, thus far, to just ignore him.

And I’ll continue to do so. I wanted, however, to make sure that those of you who are exposed to posts about us are aware of how I think about this. You might not agree with my position, but at least you’ll know what it is.

The academic world has a rich history of attribution. Anyone who wants to build a credible research career there needs to make sure they have all their attributions in order. Andy - although he’s had some involvement with businesses - is part of this world.

The commercial world does not have a tradition of attribution. Rather, ideas are brought to market, improved by competitors and the most effective companies thrive.

For truly unique ideas, protection exists in the form of rights, trademarks and patents. If a company is able to take an idea and get a trademark for the name, great — if they can get a patent for the concept, even better. If they can’t, then the idea is not something that deserves legal protection. In those cases, you protect your idea by building the best product, service and marketing around it.

In this commercial environment, companies do not thank each other for bringing ideas to market. Apple didn’t thank Nokia for their pioneering work on mobile phones. Google didn’t thank Yahoo. We didn’t thank Spinervals for coming up with the idea to produce cycling training videos.

When Chris Carmichael at Carmichael Training Systems and the team at PainCave.com copied The Sufferfest concept of using race footage in cycling training videos and put their own spin on it, neither of them thanked me for coming up with the idea. And I didn’t expect them to. I accepted that as the nature of a commercial market. Bring it on. May the best concept win.

Since that time, the market has grown and new competitors have entered. Indoor training is completely different than it was when I started The Sufferfest. It’s exciting and I’m thrilled and energised by it — we’re working hard to keep reinventing ourselves and be the best training platform possible.

4DP-based training was - and continues to be - a major advantage for our customers. Does it have some basis on science that came before? Absolutely. Like all innovation, we’ve built on the work that came before us. We never claimed to have invented power profiling.

Is it simply a repackaging of something else? Hardly. We have examined the ideas in the market, saw how we could do better and created new, effective, practical concepts. Working with Coach Neal Henderson of APEX Coaching, we’ve made power profiling something that individuals can test in their own home in a single session, without a coach, and subsequently receive dynamically-created and personalised workouts that are tailored to their exact profile and rider type. Those workouts will control your smart trainer and provide a level of engagement that helps you get the best out of yourself. We use your 4DP results to create training plans that offer a degree of precision which off-the-shelf plans have never been able to offer before.

Unlike Andy, I don’t think you are too ‘dense’ to understand and apply the pre-existing science and we’re certainly not going to insult you for not doing so. Rather, I believe you have neither the time, interest nor energy to figure it all out. You want something that’s easy to understand, simple to use and which gives you the maximum return for your investment on that time and energy. This is why 4DP exists.

Andy seems to think that we’re just trying to ‘make a fast buck’ and ‘rip people off.’ Well, I can assure you of two things.

• Firstly, there are no fast bucks being made when it comes to app development. These are very much slow, hard bucks. 4DP took nearly 18 months of - and a significant financial investment - to bring to market. That doesn't even include the years and thousands of tests that Coach Neal spent refining his methodology. Ah -- and with a monthly subscription of $13 USD (as of 1 Nov) we’re hardly ripping people off — I feel very confident that we’re delivering far more value than the two-and-a-half cups of coffee you could buy with that money.
• Secondly, we’re a business. We’re not a public university or a charity. We try to create a product you’re willing to pay for and provide a level of service that keeps you around. In doing so, we’re trying to earn enough money to pay our hard-working employees, grow our business and give something back to a few causes that we believe in. If we can make a profit, then that’s a good thing.

Although some might prefer it were different, this is not an academic environment — a lengthy list of attributions at the end of every advertisement or product piece is not necessary. One might argue, however, that the cycling industry is a small one, and one in which it’s simply polite to thank those who came before and upon who’s ideas the latest product is based. I’d agree with that in principle, but how would you execute on that — where, how often, for how long and in what circumstances should such thanks or attribution be given? Do customers really want to see such things?

Such attribution is hardly practical and largely down to the personal discretion of a company’s management team. But sometimes there is someone who has made a contribution so significant, and who has conducted themselves so well, that you feel you need to thank them. So, to close, I’d like make a long-overdue expression of gratitude: Thank you Coach Troy Jacobson at Spinervals for creating the indoor cycling entertainment industry. Without you, we wouldn’t exist. You don’t get nearly the attention you deserve for your vision in this space.

---

David McQuillen
Founder & CEO of The Sufferfest

"Apple didn’t thank Nokia for their pioneering work on mobile phones."
They don't need to thanks, as they pay for the Nokia patents. And other patents.


Either an idea is protected, and you pay for.
Either it is not protected (free licence) and you do not need to pay. So it is easier to recognize origin, it is free of charge !


If not protected, and no need to pay, it is fair to recognize value of the original ideas and work. But I agree with you, the commercial companies not always do it.


In my work, I often hear peoples saying "I invented this, I created that, ..."


Best case it is real innovation based on something existing, and well understood. Ethic would recommend to recognize where we are coming from. Sometime, for marketing reason, or ego inflation, that is not the case.


Worst case it is mix up of half understood existing knowledge + local nevrose. In this case, generally it is claimed as a real breakthrough, coming from genial brain...ahem. Another case of Dunning-Kruger effect ?


Seems to me that 4DP and Sufferfest are based on other works. Of course. And it is not a problem. Your work can bring value. And be profitable.
But Andrew Coggan request fo you to recognize where some basis come from does not seems excessive to me.


What is the problem to recognize what is obvious to me (with no whatsoever financial or political, or relationship interest in this business) ? And probably obvious to many others. Not licence free ?

So your excuse for your unethical behavior is that you're in business to make money?


#whataboutism


No, you have just taken something that already existed and pinned a new name on it, while claiming that it is completely novel (to the point that "FTP is dead").

I think you might have answered this previously - and if so, I do apologise.
Another that I believe pre-dates your power profile is Kurt Jensen's testing series for rowing, which tests 1 stroke, 1 minute, 2000m (IRO 6 mins) 6000m (IRO 19 mins), 1 hour, and was used to indicate strength/weaknesses and to prescribe training.
Was this part of the thinking?

I was unaware of Jensen's approach when I proposed power profiling in 2003.

In fact, this is the first time anyone has shared any details...can you point me to the original source?

ETA: Could this be it?

https://indoorsportservices.co.uk/...ide_v2_chapter_4.pdf