First of all, Herbert, forgive me for indirectly promoting the competition, but as a cycling fan I thought I need to do this :-). It is rare that anyone locally gets to see the steed ridden to a World’s TT victory.
I was at Cyclelogik in Ottawa, which is one of the top triathlon and road bike stores locally. Phil White was in there on Friday to do a seminar on Cervelo bikes and technology. Anyway, he left behind Cancellara’s P3C from the Worlds ITT that he used to win the gold medal. Here is what I say: Stock P3C, 54 cm, 700’s Front wheel Zipp 808 rear wheel Zipp Disk Vittoria Corsa EVOs (no lame Tufos…) Relatively a “heavy set up” which we measured at 19 lbs with: Visiontech Aluminium bars Aluminium FSA 175 cranks with 54/44 Cut off nose saddle Selle Italia Trans Am with Mag Rails A huge drop from nose of saddle to top of pads…looked like 20 cm or so Seat mounted forward on front hole as far forward as he could mount it
Anyway, if you are local, swing down over and have a look at the machine. It sure is sweat (although not as nice as my QR Lucero…I just need an engine like Cancellara).
I was on my way out to the airport to catch a flt to Austin, but if I had time, I would have taken a picture with my camera phone and downloaded.
Perhaps an STer from Ottawa can swing over to Cyclelogik, take pics and post!
Sizing is interesting. Cancellara is supposed to be 6’2" or so. At that height, most would ride a 58. The aggressive types would ride a 56. A 54! Wow, the drop would be spectacular.
If you look at his picture in the banner ad, now knowing that he was riding a 54, the drop is indeed quite spectacular…quite Bjorn like (there we go again…comparing pro cyclists to Bjorn…). What amazed me was the relatively ‘age grouper’ componentry selected. Nothing special. Just stock aluminium parts off the rack. There were likely ~300 bikes in Kona or Placid spec’d out with hotter componentry.
The other point that aparently Bjarne Riis told his team at a CSC Camp according to Phil White, “you guys will all ride those bikes (referring to the P3C’s) with the seat post on the front hole as far forward as the rules will allow. You will learn to ride steep”. This is a reasonably big step for a Euro Div 1 Directeur sportif. Its almost like telling the NY Yankees lineup that they will learn to switch hit! Given the traditionalists involved in pro cycling Riis dictating forward positioning for TT’s is quite amazing…and of course, you can’t argue with the results.
So if Slowman does not invent the QR superform in 88 does any of this ever happen?
I hope gerard does not come on hear saying that nobody knows how to measure the P3C’s, because EVERY bike shop I know that sells them tells me they run large in sizing. Based on the measurements I know from bike shops, I’d ride a 54 as well at 6’3" (I do have a short torso).
What I find more interesting is that Cancerella rides 175 cranks. I’ve always said were I a short course racer or strict TT’er, I’d go back to 175’s to get higher cadence for higher power riding. But again, interesting that he rides the same length cranks as, for example, Lance, despite being markedly taller. Not sure if he is perhaps long-of-torso.
I will disagree with your analogy of it being like telling the Yanks they’ll switch hit. Riding steep is easier. It’d be like telling all the Yanks that while they formerly had to switch hit, now they can bat however feels comfortable!
Hey Rappstar, on your note it was interesting that back in the mid 90’s Chris Boardman used 170 mm cranks for his World Hour Record, while Indurain who won the TdF on 180’s jumped up to 190’s…of course Indurain was taller, but not much taller than you or Fabian, yet he was on 190’s!
When you try PC’s maybe you should get Frank to send you the adjustable cranks so that you can find your sweet spot. Realistically though, when first getting on PC’s, the smaller cranks will be easier to turn. I was almost toying with riding 175’s on rollers for the bulk of the winter at high RPM and then swapping down to 172.5 in April. Whenever I do this, revving it up on 172.5 seems very easy.
Haha you must have not been on a p3c before. at 6’2" 56 would be most likely the normal size and 54 if you are more agressive.
I’m 6’0" and there is no way if i had to apply to UCI rules could have got a 58 into spec i was allll the way forward on the rails and was still stretched.
When you try PC’s maybe you should get Frank to send you the adjustable cranks so that you can find your sweet spot.
He actually offered, but that would be a huge temptation to test something I have no faith in – the concept of a “cadence” sweet spot. The sweet spot will be whatever you train with. And of course, I also believe, were there to be a sweet spot, it would vary substantially based on desired power output. And, since I don’t have my SRM, I couldn’t test it reliably. I have both 175 and 180 cranks for my SRM, and I routinely have to suppress the desire to carry out some inane N=1 experiment on myself to try to determine which one is “better.” I also must suppress the urge to buy 177.5’s in an effort to perform more “testing.”
If I was in town I would go over and take pictures!
I love Cyclelogik, I go there for everything. I am totally bike retarded and the guys there are so great, they explain everything without making you feel like an idiot.
I’m going to be especially intersted to see that saddle. If anyone takes pics, please get some closeups of the saddle and seatpost. I race a P3sl with a Tri Aspide saddle. For USCF time trials, I have to have the seat post “head” in the slack geometry position and the saddle pushed as far back as it’ll go to even come close to compliance with the “5 cm rule” (and I still come up a bit shy of reaching 5 cms). I don’t see how it can possibly be true that Cancellara’s bike was set up as steep as described unless the saddle were cut damned near in half. And if that was the case, then it would have violated the UCI rule for overall saddle length (minimum).
Unless the UCI has decided to look the other way on the “5 cm rule” in which case I say, “it’s about friggin’ time!”
Psycholist. I’m actually out of Ottawa on a business trip in Austin (just checking in to see if Lance wants to head out to do some 6:50 miles…) :-). I will send an email to the owner of the shop and see if he can send me some pics and try and post them tomorrow.
Maggie Backstedt and George Hincappie are both about 6’4". If memory serves, they both ride 177.5’s. The more I read about cranks, the more I feel like I don’t know. I think it makes logical sense to have cranks be proportional to leg length, if for no other reason than to get the ‘correct’ muscle recruitment. If someone 5’5" and someone 6’5" ride the same length cranks, the taller person will obviously be spinning proportionately smaller circles. I would think that this would recruit less hip flexor and glute muscle, thus reducing power output. However, despite the logic of this argument, there appears to be no concrete evidence that this improves performance. Look at Zinn’s stuff- all makes sense, and there are a bunch of testimonials about how great it feels to have ‘proper’ length cranks. I always looked at crank length as being very market driven. It is much easier to offer only three lengths. I went for 180’s, since it was the longest I could get and still have a few choices (Campy, Shimano, SRM, more mountain cranks) and also work within the confines of a standard frame (in terms of bottom bracket height).
What I think it really comes down to is what we define as best for ourselves. What we think is fastest. In the end, whatever we choose will be fine. Fabian is taller than me but rides shorter cranks… and won the world TT. Zinn did a study where a woman (can’t remember the name) who was 5’2" won an Ironman on 175’s. I think the one inrefutable fact is that shorter cranks will spin faster, longer cranks spin slower. I have to wonder what kind of cadence Zinn pedals with his 205mm cranks! This is the one thing that has me thinking about 175’s again. Not that my cadence has dropped dramatically since going to 180’s, but there is a difference. Ehh… I don’t know. I think we need to take a page from Kraig Willit here… “Fast is fast”.
However, despite the logic of this argument, there appears to be no concrete evidence that this improves performance.
greg, you are correct, but there is a very good reason that there is little evidence that the right crank length improves performance, but it is *not *that it has no effect.
it is because no adequate scientific, correctly set-up studies have yet been done to examine the effects of crank length and submaximal efficiency and/or power over extended time periods in detail. i have looked, and have found nothing.
and this makes sense, because to do such a study correctly, it would be challenging on a number of fronts. first, of course, you would a good number of untrained cyclists of with a big range of leg lengths (you cannot use any subjects who have already adapted to 170s or other cranks); you would need to provide cycling shoes and gear to all of these non-cyclists; then you would need to have a wide range of custom cranks available (150s, 155s, 160s, 165s, 170s, 175s, 180s, 185s 190s, 195s, 200s, 205s, and so on); you would have to have an extended protocol to allow the subjects to adapt to various crank lengths; and then you need to have all the equipement, ergomenters, powermeters, and gas analyzers to tease out power and efficiency numbers over long periods of time at submaximal workloads.
such a project would be expensive, and no one seems willing to pay for such a study.
Have you had the chance to see Cancellara’s Worlds TT on cycling.tv? If not, it’s worth the price of the premium pay (UCI channel on cycling.tv) just to watch it. I think two of the greatest performances I’ve seen in the 2006 pro cycling season have been Cancellara’s storming win and Paris Roubaix and his storming win at the the Worlds TT. And the thing you might notice from the first moment you see Cancellara in that TT is that he appears to be turning the pedals at a MUCH higher cadence than almost anybody else. Compared to him, it’s like everyone else is grinding too large a gear (or are they spinning crank arms that are too long?).
My consistent argument has been that there is a range of appropriate cranks (I think in my case, I’d be fine on 175, 177.5, or 180, or longer if you want to get away from mass-produced cranks). I think that the closer your power requirements to your FTP, the better off you are with shorter cranks (were I riding the Kilo or 4K Pursuit, I’d probably even go 172.5). As your power needs are reduced (usually as a function of event duration), I think that you really have to factor in the metabolic cost of cadence. If you are on the bike for 5 hours, and you are pedalling at 90rpm instead of 80, that is an 3000 times you have to lift each leg over the course of a race. I, personally, think this is a major factor when you consider you have to run afterwards.
“The issue of cycling efficiency has recently been revisited by Sidossis et al (1992). They found that gross efficiency was similar at cadences of 60, 80, and 100 rpm during cycling at power outputs corresponding to 80% (280 W) and 90% (300 W) of an individual’s maximal aerobic power (Figure 1). However, at 50% and 60% of 9&emdash;2 max’ the efficiency of 100 rpm was significantly lower than either 60 or 80 rpm.”
With Ironman power falling into the 70-80% FTP range , and 1/2IM falling in the 80-90% FTP range, it is not clear that higher cadence is beneficial.
So, I think you pick a crank length based on the type of racing you will be doing from within a range that is proportional to leg length. At least, that’s the justification that I tell myself…
Because I think that there is a more appropriate cadence for a given crank length. With shorter cranks, you are better off spinning a higher cadence. With longer cranks, you tend to spin slower. Gearing selection should be used to pick gears that allow the appropriate range in cadence for normal racing situations.
So if you ride 180’s, and that means a comfortable racing cadence is 85, then pick gears that will allow you to be close to that cadence at normal speeds and power for race situations.
I.e., if you ride 172.5’s, you are probably not ever going to want to ride at 80rpm, so something like a compact, which would allow to spin in the 90-100 range would be ideal.
Cranks + gearing should be paired for appropriate cadence during racing. One does not take the place of the other. Or, crank length determines optimal cadence range, and gearing should be selected accordingly.
EDIT: the idea is that you want to keep something called “GAIN RATIO” the same. Basically, the amount your foot moves relative to the amount the wheel moves. Sheldon Brown goes over this. It’s why 180’s with a 54 front ring is an appropriate pairing as compared with 175’s with a 53.
