So, what were Lionel's numbers for the cranks he was on. What were the numbers on 165's? And what were the numbers on even shorter? Meaning, at what length did he get the best numbers? Not how he felt, but the numbers were the best?

I just did 145's today and collected numbers. I might even try shorter. At the end of the day, when I race in two months with a crank length and bike fit, it will be because I have data which at that moment what my best numbers are. Then we will put it to the test. Will it work? What do I have to lose. ST already knows it is impossible there could be a better way to come up with the best bike fit.

It will not be by feel. Or someones opinion. It will be because there will be data to support what I try. And yep, the process takes repeating tests with changes over and over again. Most just want an instant answer. Some of us are willing to put in the work to see if we can have a reason behind what I am doing rather than just a guess.

---

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

Great point. I just love the folks reading, and responding to a thread they do not care about. Who cares, really? :)

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

I care. These threads are hilarious.

And you, if you are having fun, you should not let you cycling results disappoint you. Keep doing what makes you happy.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Why would I care about my cycling results. I care about my Triathlon results. Which is why so many seem to only be able to talk about
their cycling results. :)

---

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

To improve your weakness? Isn't that why you've been talking about so many things cycling here for so many years?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Hey dumbass, why do you talk about running results so much? You get beat by people who bike faster than you. Hence this stupid thread about a bogus ‘bike fit’ with a nutty snake oil salesman.

First priority in a triathlon is to find the best balance of each sport which gives one the fastest total time.
I spent years initially trying to improve my swimming since that was my weakest part. I did better after like 5 years of Masters and then have had to back it way back.

I then put focus on my running since it was weak. I really went for it starting last year when I signed up for the ST 100/100 done by Dev. I have been happy with the results and it is now my strongest leg.

So yep, after tying a number of changes on the bike over the years, I again am looking at it. But this time, with the offer of help from Frank Day, I finally decided to just try and drop all of my assumptions, and being told from the "experts" on what to do, and basically start with a blank piece of paper. I am now about 2 months into the testing. And I have found a bunch of stuff that I wish I had seen sooner, but oh well, that is water under the bridge.

I am taking all the inputs from everyone, including the ST "experts', and trying stuff. I have raised my seat a lot. I have pushed my seat back a lot. And yes, I have shortened by bike cranks. But rather than just do this based on an "experts" opinion, I am using the tools, and expertise from Frank, to actually try and collect data with my Velotrons so that when I do end up with a bike fit to try at my first race in Jan, there is data as to why. That why as I continue to gather data, I can make changes not by guessing, but by making the change, and doing the testing again, and prove whether it has helped me or not.

I am far from done with the testing. Why some are not interested in see what happens is interesting. What is the worst that can happen? It was a waste of time. But I expect it will be pretty good. Meaning, I assume most folks would love to have the setups I have where one can make a change, redue the testing, quickly, with 100% control of the environment, and get data without guessing. Is this not what folks do in wind tunnel testing?

So in a year from now, we shall see. I just love when some bring up the past, as if it were bad. I have made changes, tried, and wrote what I felt at the time.
I am now making changes again, and writing about it. The difference this time is I am testing, and can collect data, which proves whether I am improving or not.
Not subjective data, but 100% repeatable data. And I can do it day in and day out in the safety of my man cave.

So, I just wonder why you are not just interested to see how this experiment goes. I love to follow folks trying new stuff.

I already have one data point from a race a month ago. Was on shorter, 175mm cranks, higher bike seat and pushed back, and tryimg to spin lower RPM. I actually for me felt I had a decent bike time since I beat a friend on mine on the bike who always has beat me on the bike leg. Only one data point, but sure felt I was heading in the right direction.

---

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

He posted power numbers. Numbers he was not able to hit previously.
A person with knowledge in fit, aero, physiology and equipment choices know when things are a waste of time.

Hahahahaha.

There could not be more perfect response........

H2O fun: "who cares about how fast I cycle in a triathlon? Oh by the way, did you see how fast I ran in a triathlon?"

Please keep this thread going. Hours of entertainment. This is almost as good as the other front page thread where someone (to paraphrase) told Dan Empfield that he must not know much about bike fitting.......

---

----------------------------
Jason
None of the secrets of success will work unless you do.

Which part of FASTER do you consider to be not data?

Did you know that your kidney is smarter than the smartest person who ever lived? The human body consists of an intellect and intelligence far greater than any supercomputer. Our data crunching capabilities are truly unparalleled (at this point). If you disregard that this enormous data crunching is harvested through simple "That's better" or "That's worse" responses during a bike fit, you will never achieve a proper bike fit. You're going to be looking for the right crank length for another 11 years, while a fitter could narrow it down to a roughly 1cm ideal range in about 11 minutes.

Nobody is saying not to try new things. This sport is all about new things. This forum is the pinnacle of people trying new things. You are not trying new things. You can keep on saying that and keep on claiming you are being attacked, but that doesn't make it so. We have a process for what you are trying to do. It works well and we have data to back it up. That data is "faster triathletes". You can choose to pretend that data doesn't exist, or that nobody will show you, but that doesn't mean the data isn't there. You're pretty hopeless, so please understand that this isn't really directed at you.

For sure!

What is also really sad is that Dave would love nothing more than to engage in a ‘debate’ With Dan about bike fit. Sounds like he is incredibly hurt that Dan refuses to engage. I’m sure Frank Day would also love the chance to upstage Dan on his own thread, through his water boy/puppet.

And how many folks beat me in the tri that are my age? Not many, slow bike or not.

---

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

Again, show me the test data that they are faster, in conditions that can be repeated, reproduced, and modified. You say it is there, then show it.

---

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

Nah, I like watching you make a fool of yourself.

For my own 2 cents:

Two years ago I switched from 172.5 to 150 cranks. I did it because John Cobb (at one of the ST roadshows) set me up an a fit bike with 155 cranks. Plus a set of 150 cranks was available for cheap and I had not been that comfortable on my tri bike for long periods in aero.

My data would be that my power numbers didn't drop at all with the change. Sadly they didn't go up either. Also I was able to stay in aero longer and be dramatically more comfortable than I was in my prior position. I recently used my old tri bike with 172.5 cranks for a few days while my bike was in the shop and I can tell you that I am never going back to the longer cranks.

So, same power, better aerodynamics (by widely accepted standards), more comfort. Win all the way around. I felt no obligation to reinvent the wheel. I am only sad that I didn't make the change to shorter cranks sooner.

---

----------------------------
Jason
None of the secrets of success will work unless you do.

...Since Dave thinks he knows all the reasons, and they are all just straw men, and I know they are wrong, it would take the fun out of it to show Dave the data. The data is just so so simple, that no way will I say since it just shows Dave’s lack of knowledge...

Data is not useful if you don't know what to do with it.
Sometimes, when you really don't understand the mechanisms, it makes sense to gather a whole load of data and then start looking for trends. But that is relatively unusual. Typically, we have a suspicion or want to dispel a claim. We know what we're trying to find and we design our testing, and analysis, to isolate the specific variables in question.
However, large sets of data without appropriate analysis, is for the most part, utterly useless. It's just a bunch of anecdotes and you can convince yourself of just about anything if you're not careful and scrupulously objective. I've studied and worked in science and engineering most of my life as have many others on this site. I like data, or at least I like good data, that serves a purpose. But "data" is massively abused, as it always has been. Data is essential but in the wrong hands, it can be dangerous.

1. If data is being used to sell something - beware.
2. If you want the data to say something specific - beware.
3. If you're basing your analysis on a theory that others consider deeply flawed - beware.
4. If you want to be different and are thus inclined to ignore convention and look, with bias, for merit elsewhere - beware.
5. If you have variables you don't clearly understand and they are not the object of your study - beware, a lot.
6. If you haven't tried to honestly challenge the data and the analysis yourself - it is worthless.

Most of the above do not necessarilly mean the data or it's analysis IS flawed. But they are all strong indicators that it may be and that extra rigor is warranted. The last two points above are damning if/when true.

Look at any conspiracy theory and note some of the traits. Data both valid and questionable is selectively arranged, often using massively flawed logic to try and make it fit a preconceived idea. Confirmation bias taken to an insane extreme. The theorists take pride in their exceptionality and pour scorn on the "sheep" who can't see the truth. All the while refusing to examine their own motives, or to rationally answer logical criticism of their position without getting into posturing, name calling, and circular arguments.

Have you ever seen the arguments put forth by flat-earthers, gravity deniers, spaceflight deniers, alien overlord believers and the like? They typically love data, they think it supports them. They typically come up on the wrong side of all 6 of the danger signs listed above.

Just saying ;)

I keep thinking of this article from The Guardian:
The David Brent syndrome
If you're incompetent, you'll probably never know. Marc Abrahams has the evidence
Everyone is incompetent, in one way or another. Psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger supplied scientific evidence that incompetence is bliss, at least for the incompetent person.
Dunning and Kruger wanted to explore human incompetence. They staged a series of experiments at Cornell University. Beforehand, they made some predictions, most notably that:
1 Incompetent people dramatically overestimate their ability; and
2 Incompetent people are not good at recognising incompetence - their own or anyone else's.
In one experiment, Dunning and Kruger asked 65 test subjects to rate the funniness of certain jokes. They then compared each test subject's ratings with ratings done by eight professional comedians. Some people had a very poor sense of what others find funny - but most of those same individuals believed themselves to be very good at it, rather like the character David Brent in The Office.
Another experiment involved logic questions from law school entrance exams. The logic questions produced much the same results as jokes. Those with poor reasoning skills tended to believe they were Bertrand Russell or Mr Spock.
Overall, the results showed that incompetence is even worse than it appears to be, and forms a sort of unholy trinity of cluelessness. The incompetent don't perform up to speed; don't recognise their lack of competence; and don't even recognise the competence of other people.
David Dunning explained why he took up this kind of research: "I am interested in why people tend to have overly favourable and objectively indefensible views of their own abilities, talents and moral character. For example, a full 94% of college professors state that they do 'above average' work, although it is statistically impossible for virtually everybody to be above average."
Dunning and Kruger are themselves college professors (though at the time they did the experiment, Kruger was still Dunning's student). When they published their report, the concluding words showed a degree of modesty: "To the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we have committed knowingly."
David Dunning and Justin Kruger won the 2000 Ig Nobel Prize in the field of psychology. Their entire report is on the web here, kindly put there, as a public service, by the journal that originally published it.
If you have colleagues who are incompetent and unaware of it, this research is a useful tool. I recommend that you make photocopies of the report, and send them - anonymously, if need be - to each of those individuals. Repeat as necessary.
A copy of "Incompetent and Unaware" might, too, be a helpful gift for any national or other leader to whom it may pertain.

Thanks.

I am collecting data with crank length, and therefore bike fit from a couple of different angles. With different lengths and RPM's, what is my HR. One way I am using this now is taking a totally different approach to the RPM's I use in a race. In the past, it was basically as fast as I could spin, not knowing it was really increasing my HR. Done enough testing now that 70 rpm seems to be the best focus.

I then am testing on a very tough course I have ridden on the trainer for years, and have the data from all the efforts. I can clearly see that the long cranks were killing me. Looks like I can put out the same power with probably 175's vs 150's. So trying to collect data to see how short the cranks can go and still be out the same, or more power. And as you say the shorter, the more time you can spend in aero. I have found the same thing on the trainer.

So tried the 145's this morning. I guess we might test all the way down to 135's, collect data, and see what it tells us.

Hindsight is easy. Clearly, I wish I had done this testing years ago, but oh well, doing it now.

---

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

Not sure we needed 17 pages to draw those conclusions

I guess because what I have seen is folks doing things be feel. But no data to support what they have done. If 150 was good for the person, why would 145 or 140 not be better? Without tests to produce the numbers, IMO, it is just guessing, as I did forever.

---

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

Crank length is about bike fit. 5mm doesn’t make a difference and nothing you are collecting is sensitive enough to detect a difference.

What shifted in your ‘great engineer’ mind that after 10yrs of yelling at people about tall riders needing long cranks, you’ve now shifted your approach to consider ‘data’? Previously you supported a genetic assumption based on height and a bogus reference to your race times as a defence. (FYI race times are data. Training and power data is data...lots of people collect much more data than you and actually know what to do with it.)

Is the answer to that question that you are truely closed minded and only change when you think you can carve your own path and prove someone wrong? You have decided that frank is the man and his approach is the only way, so you have shut your mind to any other opinions about your process.

I have data on various crank lengths, both longer and shorter than what I currently use. No significant differences in power and heart rate across the range. So the only reason for me to choose a particular crank length is for fit. Longer than current doesn't allow me to ride as low as my current position, which I have tested to be faster than more upright with the longer cranks. I could go lower with shorter cranks than current (which might potentially be faster), but I have a few physical limitations that make this impractical. So there is no good reason go shorter than my current 165s.

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

That might have been interesting if in readable format, i.e. posted by someone competent in posting.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Everyone is well aware that you are almost a winner in your age group.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev