Dr. Martin,
Regarding your paper looking at crank length and maximum power (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11417428)I see one great weakness as it relates to triathletes. This study was not done with the athletes in an aerodynamic position. My guess is there would be a more dramatic effect. Is there any possibility this study could be repeated looking at the effects of crank length when in the aerodynamic position?
Dr. Martin,
Regarding your paper looking at crank length and maximum power (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11417428)I see one great weakness as it relates to triathletes. This study was not done with the athletes in an aerodynamic position.
What makes you believe that the subjects were any less “bent over” than any racing cyclist attempting to generate maximal power??
Dr. Martin,
Regarding your paper looking at crank length and maximum power (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11417428)I see one great weakness as it relates to triathletes. This study was not done with the athletes in an aerodynamic position.
What makes you believe that the subjects were any less “bent over” than any racing cyclist attempting to generate maximal power??
Well, the methods don’t specify the position of the riders. Second, if I watch the climbers at the TDF (I presume they are trying to maximize power while racing without regard to “bending over” to improve aerodynamics so much) I see most of them open up the hip angle rather than closing it down. And, even if they were bent over as you suggest, I have never seen any study that suggests this is the same as being in a sustainable aerodynamic position.
Anyhow, it would be nice to have a study that specifically addressed this issue rather than assuming there is no effect. You seem to do that a lot. As was posted in another thread, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (in this case, the absence of a relationship of position and crank length on power)
Dr. Martin,
Regarding your paper looking at crank length and maximum power (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11417428)I see one great weakness as it relates to triathletes. This study was not done with the athletes in an aerodynamic position.
What makes you believe that the subjects were any less “bent over” than any racing cyclist attempting to generate maximal power??
Well, the methods don’t specify the position of the riders. Second, if I watch the climbers at the TDF
So you think that the optimal position for extended climbs is the same as it is for sprinting?
Anyhow, it would be nice to have a study that specifically addressed this issue
Why would a triathlete care about the effect of crank length on their maximal neuromuscular power?
Dr. Martin,
Regarding your paper looking at crank length and maximum power (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11417428)I see one great weakness as it relates to triathletes. This study was not done with the athletes in an aerodynamic position.
What makes you believe that the subjects were any less “bent over” than any racing cyclist attempting to generate maximal power??
Well, the methods don’t specify the position of the riders. Second, if I watch the climbers at the TDF
So you think that the optimal position for extended climbs is the same as it is for sprinting?
What on earth are you talking about?
Anyhow, it would be nice to have a study that specifically addressed this issue
Why would a triathlete care about the effect of crank length on their maximal neuromuscular power?
You didn’t really ask this question did you? Let me ask you? Why does a cyclist care about it? Why did Martin do that study and why did you reference it here if no one cares? Anyhow, to answer your question, a study has to look at something and maximal power is a good, fairly reliable, end point. And, the results could be better compared to the previous work. And, from this data one can make inferences regarding sustainable power. Don’t you talk about this in your book? But, if a researcher wanted to look at another aspect of power and how it relates to position and crank length, that is fine with me. I would simply like to see some work done on the subject, wouldn’t you?
Well, the methods don’t specify the position of the riders. Second, if I watch the climbers at the TDF (I presume they are trying to maximize power while racing without regard to “bending over” to improve aerodynamics so much)
You presume wrong. The only people in the TdF who are trying to maximize power are the sprinters, and they aren’t bending over to improve aerodynamics.
Second, if I watch the climbers at the TDF (I presume they are trying to maximize power while racing without regard to “bending over” to improve aerodynamics so much) I see most of them open up the hip angle rather than closing it down.
Watch more closely next time. They all choose to close their hip angle (by bending their arms) more than they “need” to.
http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2007/07/23/Evans%20Contador%20Rasmussen-798-75.jpg
Well, the methods don’t specify the position of the riders. Second, if I watch the climbers at the TDF (I presume they are trying to maximize power while racing without regard to “bending over” to improve aerodynamics so much)
You presume wrong. The only people in the TdF who are trying to maximize power are the sprinters, and they aren’t bending over to improve aerodynamics.
If you say so. Not that I don’t believe you or anything but, could you show me a study that relates position to maximal power, even if it is without regard to crank length.
Dr. Martin,
Regarding your paper looking at crank length and maximum power (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11417428)I see one great weakness as it relates to triathletes. This study was not done with the athletes in an aerodynamic position.
What makes you believe that the subjects were any less “bent over” than any racing cyclist attempting to generate maximal power??
Well, the methods don’t specify the position of the riders. Second, if I watch the climbers at the TDF
So you think that the optimal position for extended climbs is the same as it is for sprinting?
What on earth are you talking about?
I’m talking about the fact that the study you cited measured maximal neuromuscular power during a test that last only a handful of seconds.
Anyhow, it would be nice to have a study that specifically addressed this issue
Why would a triathlete care about the effect of crank length on their maximal neuromuscular power?
You didn’t really ask this question did you?
Indeed, I did.
Let me ask you? Why does a cyclist care about it?
Um, because breaking away from a pack usually requires a rapid accleration, and many bike races end in bunch sprints?
Why did Martin do that study
You do know that Jim was a national champion match sprinter, don’t you?
and why did you reference it here if no one cares?
I didn’t reference it: you did.
Anyhow, to answer your question, a study has to look at something and maximal power is a good, fairly reliable, end point.
True, but if you are interested in sustainable power, there are better things to measure (and have been measured. That’s why your criticism/questions are so far off-base.
if a researcher wanted to look at another aspect of power and how it relates to position and crank length, that is fine with me. I would simply like to see some work done on the subject, wouldn’t you?
Sure, and in fact when Jim’s student John McDaniel was planning his dissertation I lobbied for measuring submaximal performance as well as efficiency. I am at a loss to explain, however, why you think that another study focussed on a different question suffers from a “great weakness” simply because it addressed an entirely different question than you thought it should.
Second, if I watch the climbers at the TDF (I presume they are trying to maximize power while racing without regard to “bending over” to improve aerodynamics so much) I see most of them open up the hip angle rather than closing it down.
Watch more closely next time. They all choose to close their hip angle (by bending their arms) more than they “need” to.
If they wanted to close their hip angles to maximize their power I think they would be in the drops, don’t you think? I wonder when it is during a TT that the riders tend to get out of the saddle, coming out of the TT position. Last time I looked it was while they were, generally, climbing. Wonder why?
Second, if I watch the climbers at the TDF (I presume they are trying to maximize power while racing without regard to “bending over” to improve aerodynamics so much) I see most of them open up the hip angle rather than closing it down.
Watch more closely next time. They all choose to close their hip angle (by bending their arms) more than they “need” to.
If they wanted to close their hip angles to maximize their power I think they would be in the drops, don’t you think?
Nope. They are sitting further back on the saddle, which closes their hip angle, so they need to put their hands on the tops to preserve the hip angle they would ride with if they were - for example - sitting on the NOSE of the saddle with the hands in the drops. The hip angle is preserved. Back of the saddle + hands on tops & nose of the saddle + hands in the drops.
The OPTIMAL hip angle creates the most power. That means not too closed. But also not too open. So the hip angle is the same across all positions, irrespective of aerodynamic concerns.
I wonder when it is during a TT that the riders tend to get out of the saddle, coming out of the TT position. Last time I looked it was while they were, generally, climbing. Wonder why?
Ever watch Cancellara climb? He does it in the aerobars (though not always). The main reason they may sit up is that they are sitting with the tip of the saddle jammed up their ass. That becomes especially even more uncomfortable as the road pitches up. And again, if you look - even on the TT bike - they choose to be more closed than they COULD be. Here is Cancellara - notice the bend in the arms and the fact that he is sitting further back than he is when he is in the TT position.
http://www.bicycle.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/corvos_fabian_cancellara_olympic_tt.jpg
He is - roughly - preserving his hip angle.
There is very little difference between the hip angle in the above photo and this one, where he is actually in his aerobars.
http://www.roadbikeaction.com/contentimages/2009/cancellaraTT_tdf09stage18_RB_roadbikeaction.jpg
Dr. Martin,
Regarding your paper looking at crank length and maximum power (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11417428)I see one great weakness as it relates to triathletes. This study was not done with the athletes in an aerodynamic position.
What makes you believe that the subjects were any less “bent over” than any racing cyclist attempting to generate maximal power??
Well, the methods don’t specify the position of the riders. Second, if I watch the climbers at the TDF
So you think that the optimal position for extended climbs is the same as it is for sprinting?
What on earth are you talking about?
I’m talking about the fact that the study you cited measured maximal neuromuscular power during a test that last only a handful of seconds.
Anyhow, it would be nice to have a study that specifically addressed this issue
Why would a triathlete care about the effect of crank length on their maximal neuromuscular power?
You didn’t really ask this question did you?
Indeed, I did.
Let me ask you? Why does a cyclist care about it?
Um, because breaking away from a pack usually requires a rapid accleration, and many bike races end in bunch sprints?
Yes, but even breaking away doesn’t require maximal neuromuscular power (it simply requires a sustainable increase in power) and only a few are going at maximum neurological power at the end of a bunch sprint. That study only has usefulness to most athletes from what can be inferred from it about other types of riding/racing.
Why did Martin do that study
You do know that Jim was a national champion match sprinter, don’t you?
So, why did he do the study?
and why did you reference it here if no one cares?
I didn’t reference it: you did.
No, you first referenced it here, many moons ago. Why reference it at a triathlon forum if you believe it has no applicability to triathletes?
Anyhow, to answer your question, a study has to look at something and maximal power is a good, fairly reliable, end point.
True, but if you are interested in sustainable power, there are better things to measure (and have been measured. That’s why your criticism/questions are so far off-base.
But, he didn’t measure those other things. We have to work with what we have. One can make reasonable inferences from this data. So, give us a reference to a better study if it is out there that relates to this issue.
if a researcher wanted to look at another aspect of power and how it relates to position and crank length, that is fine with me. I would simply like to see some work done on the subject, wouldn’t you?
Sure, and in fact when Jim’s student John McDaniel was planning his dissertation I lobbied for measuring submaximal performance as well as efficiency. I am at a loss to explain, however, why you think that another study focussed on a different question suffers from a “great weakness” simply because it addressed an entirely different question than you thought it should.
Well, I think position affects this stuff. A study that doesn’t control for position has a weakness in my opinion. I simply think that a study or two that looks at how position and crank length affects sustainable power would be a wonderful thing for the bike fitter (trying to fit a triathlete and the cyclists who care about this stuff) or athlete who “fits” themselves. If one can’t study sustainable power and efficiency and all those good things then a “simpler study” looking at the effects on maximal power would be a good start, imho.
Second, if I watch the climbers at the TDF (I presume they are trying to maximize power while racing without regard to “bending over” to improve aerodynamics so much) I see most of them open up the hip angle rather than closing it down.
Watch more closely next time. They all choose to close their hip angle (by bending their arms) more than they “need” to.
If they wanted to close their hip angles to maximize their power I think they would be in the drops, don’t you think?
Nope. They are sitting further back on the saddle, which closes their hip angle, so they need to put their hands on the tops to preserve the hip angle they would ride with if they were - for example - sitting on the NOSE of the saddle with the hands in the drops. The hip angle is preserved. Back of the saddle + hands on tops & nose of the saddle + hands in the drops.
The OPTIMAL hip angle creates the most power. That means not too closed. But also not too open. So the hip angle is the same across all positions, irrespective of aerodynamic concerns.
I wonder when it is during a TT that the riders tend to get out of the saddle, coming out of the TT position. Last time I looked it was while they were, generally, climbing. Wonder why?
Ever watch Cancellara climb? He does it in the aerobars (though not always). The main reason they may sit up is that they are sitting with the tip of the saddle jammed up their ass. That becomes especially even more uncomfortable as the road pitches up. And again, if you look - even on the TT bike - they choose to be more closed than they COULD be. Here is Cancellara - notice the bend in the arms and the fact that he is sitting further back than he is when he is in the TT position.
He is - roughly - preserving his hip angle.
There is very little difference between the hip angle in the above photo and this one, where he is actually in his aerobars.
Little difference is not zero difference (and it doesn’t look that “little” to me since the hip looks more open in the upper picture even though the crank is near TDC compared to the lower picture where the crank is near 90º). I simply don’t understand what all of you people have against a study specifically looking at this. Do you really think maximal or sustainable or any other type of power is not related to position? Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
Frank, if people come out of aero position to sprint, why would the study be done in the aero position?
It might be an interesting finding, but what relavence would it have…especially to a triathlete who a) would come out of aero to sprint and b) wouldn’t sprint in the first place?
Frank, if people come out of aero position to sprint, why would the study be done in the aero position?
It might be an interesting finding, but what relavence would it have…especially to a triathlete who a) would come out of aero to sprint and b) wouldn’t sprint in the first place?
Well, I wasn’t looking for information regarding sprinting position - that red herring was brought up by others. I would like to see the study being done in the aero position as that is where most triathletes should (not all do) be spending 90+% of their time. As it stands now as I see it, everyone is guessing as regards optimum crank size for optimum bike fit, and optimum cadence to optimize sustainable power with that optimum crank length and fit. A first study looking at this would be a start, perhaps even a good start. How good a start would depend on the study.
as that is where most triathletes should (not all do) be spending 90+% of their time.
But not at maximal power.
It’s like you are asking for a study of the effects of peeing while sitting in the baseball stands because that’s where most of your time is spent while watching a baseball game…even though people usually pee in the bathroom.
as that is where most triathletes should (not all do) be spending 90+% of their time.
But not at maximal power.
It’s like you are asking for a study of the effects of peeing while sitting in the baseball stands because that’s where most of your time is spent while watching a baseball game…even though people usually pee in the bathroom.
I look forward to seeing the study where they test the subjects for 5-6 hours to look at the effect of positioning and crank length on their maximum sustainable power. Most of the time you have to infer what you want to know from studies that are less than perfect. The relationship of maximum power to FTP or any other sustainable power is reasonably predictable in most people. I thought we covered that earlier.
The relationship of maximum power to FTP or any other sustainable power is reasonably predictable in most people
huh?
The relationship of maximum power to FTP or any other sustainable power is reasonably predictable in most people. I thought we covered that earlier.
REALLY? Please tell me where I can find this conclusion? I missed something HUGE somewhere.
I hope frank is right, it would imply that the reason my FTP is relatively low is due to illness or something instead of lack of aerobic talent (or work ethic)
Because I can sprint with anybody
The relationship of maximum power to FTP or any other sustainable power is reasonably predictable in most people
huh?
.