#1
|
|||
|
|||
Longer crankarms
Are there any evidence that longer crankarms are more efficient? It
seems like it would produce more torque since there's more leverage. Jiyang |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Longer crankarms
Jiyang Chen wrote: Are there any evidence that longer crankarms are more efficient? It seems like it would produce more torque since there's more leverage. Jiyang No. We go through this exercise once a year or so. It should be in the FAQ now. Actually, regardimg the FAQ, it was last updated last April. Surely we have generated some new FAQs since then? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Longer crankarms
Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this topic... http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=40 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Longer crankarms
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:50:33 GMT, warren
wrote: Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this topic... http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=40 That site requires a login. What conclusions does that article draw? I've recently went to shorter cranks, figuring I may be able to increase my top cadence, or at least pedal fast cadences more smoothly. -- Rick Onanian |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Longer crankarms
In article , Rick Onanian
wrote: On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:50:33 GMT, warren wrote: Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this topic... http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=40 That site requires a login. Only if you care to read the whole article. What conclusions does that article draw? ....That lab tests on crank lengths should (but usually don't) consider the value of longer cranks during times when you're out of the saddle at lower than average rpm's. Ferrari offers some other reasons and then concludes with this little needle, "Only when physiologists get out of their laboratories and dedicate themselves to the study of top-level cyclists, will information be applicable to athletes..." I've recently went to shorter cranks, figuring I may be able to increase my top cadence, or at least pedal fast cadences more smoothly. I suggest you read some of the other articles at that site about increasing pedal cadence. Your objective may be better achieved with training. Try slightly rolling terrain in the same gear. Allow your cadence to flucuate from an average of about 90-95 up to 120 for short periods. At the high rpm's it may help you to think about lifting your knees. You can also do intervals 1-10 minutes long at 110+ rpm's. Then in a few weeks you can try 120+ rpm's. Try maintaining 90+ rpm's while riding uphill. BTW, uphill at high cadences provides some good cardiovascular training while putting less strain on the muscles (less accumulated fatigue?). It's not easy to learn but then you can use the longer cranks for more leverage when you accelerate out of the saddle and you'll still have the high cadence when you need it. -WG |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Longer crankarms
In article , Rick Onanian
wrote: On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:50:33 GMT, warren wrote: Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this topic... http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=40 That site requires a login. Only if you care to read the whole article. What conclusions does that article draw? ....That lab tests on crank lengths should (but usually don't) consider the value of longer cranks during times when you're out of the saddle at lower than average rpm's. Ferrari offers some other reasons and then concludes with this little needle, "Only when physiologists get out of their laboratories and dedicate themselves to the study of top-level cyclists, will information be applicable to athletes..." I've recently went to shorter cranks, figuring I may be able to increase my top cadence, or at least pedal fast cadences more smoothly. I suggest you read some of the other articles at that site about increasing pedal cadence. Your objective may be better achieved with training. Try slightly rolling terrain in the same gear. Allow your cadence to flucuate from an average of about 90-95 up to 120 for short periods. At the high rpm's it may help you to think about lifting your knees. You can also do intervals 1-10 minutes long at 110+ rpm's. Then in a few weeks you can try 120+ rpm's. Try maintaining 90+ rpm's while riding uphill. BTW, uphill at high cadences provides some good cardiovascular training while putting less strain on the muscles (less accumulated fatigue?). It's not easy to learn but then you can use the longer cranks for more leverage when you accelerate out of the saddle and you'll still have the high cadence when you need it. -WG |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Longer crankarms
"warren" wrote in message ... In article , Rick Onanian wrote: On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:50:33 GMT, warren wrote: Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this topic... http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=40 That site requires a login. Only if you care to read the whole article. What conclusions does that article draw? ...That lab tests on crank lengths should (but usually don't) consider the value of longer cranks during times when you're out of the saddle at lower than average rpm's. Ferrari offers some other reasons and then concludes with this little needle, "Only when physiologists get out of their laboratories and dedicate themselves to the study of top-level cyclists, will information be applicable to athletes..." I've recently went to shorter cranks, figuring I may be able to increase my top cadence, or at least pedal fast cadences more smoothly. I suggest you read some of the other articles at that site about increasing pedal cadence. Your objective may be better achieved with training. Try slightly rolling terrain in the same gear. Allow your cadence to flucuate from an average of about 90-95 up to 120 for short periods. At the high rpm's it may help you to think about lifting your knees. You can also do intervals 1-10 minutes long at 110+ rpm's. Then in a few weeks you can try 120+ rpm's. Try maintaining 90+ rpm's while riding uphill. BTW, uphill at high cadences provides some good cardiovascular training while putting less strain on the muscles (less accumulated fatigue?). It's not easy to learn but then you can use the longer cranks for more leverage when you accelerate out of the saddle and you'll still have the high cadence when you need it. -WG |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Longer crankarms
"warren" wrote in message ... In article , Rick Onanian wrote: On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:50:33 GMT, warren wrote: Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this topic... http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=40 That site requires a login. Only if you care to read the whole article. What conclusions does that article draw? ...That lab tests on crank lengths should (but usually don't) consider the value of longer cranks during times when you're out of the saddle at lower than average rpm's. Ferrari offers some other reasons and then concludes with this little needle, "Only when physiologists get out of their laboratories and dedicate themselves to the study of top-level cyclists, will information be applicable to athletes..." I've recently went to shorter cranks, figuring I may be able to increase my top cadence, or at least pedal fast cadences more smoothly. I suggest you read some of the other articles at that site about increasing pedal cadence. Your objective may be better achieved with training. Try slightly rolling terrain in the same gear. Allow your cadence to flucuate from an average of about 90-95 up to 120 for short periods. At the high rpm's it may help you to think about lifting your knees. You can also do intervals 1-10 minutes long at 110+ rpm's. Then in a few weeks you can try 120+ rpm's. Try maintaining 90+ rpm's while riding uphill. BTW, uphill at high cadences provides some good cardiovascular training while putting less strain on the muscles (less accumulated fatigue?). It's not easy to learn but then you can use the longer cranks for more leverage when you accelerate out of the saddle and you'll still have the high cadence when you need it. -WG |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Longer crankarms
I think its been studied enough to say it doesn't matter. I actually
went to shorter cranks on my TT bike and found it far easier to turn over the pedals in an aerob position. I think the affect of length is overestimated. I caught Ferrari's comment and I wrote him (haven't heard from him, though, and don't expect to). I both agree and challenge his comments. He clearly has spent little time researching anything. Itherwise he would realize what I made note of to him. Its easy for people to criticize the lack of real world research, but few realize the logistics of such research. Take it from someone who has spent the last 3 years trying to get 2 studies funded with the help of a collegue. It sucks. If anyone out there want to make a donation to the cause, let me know! CH warren wrote in message ... In article , Rick Onanian wrote: On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:50:33 GMT, warren wrote: Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this topic... http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=40 That site requires a login. Only if you care to read the whole article. What conclusions does that article draw? ...That lab tests on crank lengths should (but usually don't) consider the value of longer cranks during times when you're out of the saddle at lower than average rpm's. Ferrari offers some other reasons and then concludes with this little needle, "Only when physiologists get out of their laboratories and dedicate themselves to the study of top-level cyclists, will information be applicable to athletes..." I've recently went to shorter cranks, figuring I may be able to increase my top cadence, or at least pedal fast cadences more smoothly. I suggest you read some of the other articles at that site about increasing pedal cadence. Your objective may be better achieved with training. Try slightly rolling terrain in the same gear. Allow your cadence to flucuate from an average of about 90-95 up to 120 for short periods. At the high rpm's it may help you to think about lifting your knees. You can also do intervals 1-10 minutes long at 110+ rpm's. Then in a few weeks you can try 120+ rpm's. Try maintaining 90+ rpm's while riding uphill. BTW, uphill at high cadences provides some good cardiovascular training while putting less strain on the muscles (less accumulated fatigue?). It's not easy to learn but then you can use the longer cranks for more leverage when you accelerate out of the saddle and you'll still have the high cadence when you need it. -WG |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Longer crankarms
I think its been studied enough to say it doesn't matter. I actually
went to shorter cranks on my TT bike and found it far easier to turn over the pedals in an aerob position. I think the affect of length is overestimated. I caught Ferrari's comment and I wrote him (haven't heard from him, though, and don't expect to). I both agree and challenge his comments. He clearly has spent little time researching anything. Itherwise he would realize what I made note of to him. Its easy for people to criticize the lack of real world research, but few realize the logistics of such research. Take it from someone who has spent the last 3 years trying to get 2 studies funded with the help of a collegue. It sucks. If anyone out there want to make a donation to the cause, let me know! CH warren wrote in message ... In article , Rick Onanian wrote: On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:50:33 GMT, warren wrote: Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this topic... http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=40 That site requires a login. Only if you care to read the whole article. What conclusions does that article draw? ...That lab tests on crank lengths should (but usually don't) consider the value of longer cranks during times when you're out of the saddle at lower than average rpm's. Ferrari offers some other reasons and then concludes with this little needle, "Only when physiologists get out of their laboratories and dedicate themselves to the study of top-level cyclists, will information be applicable to athletes..." I've recently went to shorter cranks, figuring I may be able to increase my top cadence, or at least pedal fast cadences more smoothly. I suggest you read some of the other articles at that site about increasing pedal cadence. Your objective may be better achieved with training. Try slightly rolling terrain in the same gear. Allow your cadence to flucuate from an average of about 90-95 up to 120 for short periods. At the high rpm's it may help you to think about lifting your knees. You can also do intervals 1-10 minutes long at 110+ rpm's. Then in a few weeks you can try 120+ rpm's. Try maintaining 90+ rpm's while riding uphill. BTW, uphill at high cadences provides some good cardiovascular training while putting less strain on the muscles (less accumulated fatigue?). It's not easy to learn but then you can use the longer cranks for more leverage when you accelerate out of the saddle and you'll still have the high cadence when you need it. -WG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Longer rides not with husband? | Claire Petersky | General | 20 | July 10th 04 05:48 AM |
Not Just a MTBer Any Longer | andrew smith | General | 4 | May 8th 04 12:56 AM |
Harder, stronger, longer | mojo deluxe | Mountain Biking | 23 | April 23rd 04 04:02 AM |
Finally bought a bike - not a Monocog - but I am no longer a depressed sack | Lobo Tommy | Mountain Biking | 4 | April 12th 04 02:08 AM |
Longer Parcours=Lower UCI Rating | B. Lafferty | Racing | 6 | August 26th 03 05:50 PM |