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

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?

Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this topic...

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=40

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

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

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

"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

"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

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

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