ARTICLES

Articles written by Steve. Scroll down or click on the titles below.

Getting Faster Cycling | Part 1

Getting Faster Cycling | Part 2: You are the Engine

The Pedal Stroke | Part 1: Cyclings Ultimate Performance Tool

The Pedal Stroke | Part 2: Is a Efficient Pedal Stroke Faster when Climbing?

The Pedal Stroke | Part 3: Sprinting Efficiently?

Optimal Crank Length | Part 1

Optimal Crank Lenght | Part 2

Bike Fitting Fundamentals: The “Perfect” Saddle

GETTING FASTER CYCLING – PART I

By Steve Auchterlonie

Who doesn’t want to get faster? This does not apply to racers only. Just about everyone wants to raise their level of performance. From the charity rider who doesn’t want to finish last, to the weekend warrior tired of getting dropped by his/her buddies on that hill. And of course to the racer wanting to hang on a little longer at Tuesday Night Worlds…win that state championship jersey or stand on the podium at nationals. It’s human nature to want to improve.

OCA asked Jon Johnson and I to draft a series of articles on improving cycling performance. Why us? There are many riders faster than us. Simply, cycling performance is our obsession. We love to go fast, and we devote far too much time in pursuit of going faster. Just ask our wives. I’ve been riding and racing for years, and Jon, while a relative newbie to racing, has become fascinated by the strategy and tactics of the sport.

This is the first article of what we hope to be an informative and useful series of posts to help everyone improve his/her cycling performance. Why would we not keep these secrets to ourselves? First, this information is already out there if you have the time to find it—they’re not our secrets. More importantly to us, if your performance improves you are more likely to ride more. We want to see the NWA cycling community continue to grow and flourish.

Enough already…where is the good stuff…how do we get faster? Improving performance can be reduced to two main categories:  1) Rider and 2) Equipment.  Within each of these categories are several subcategories:

• Rider
  1. Motivation
  2. Riding/Racing Strategies
  3. Fitness/Training
  4. Bike skills (Road, MTB and Cyclocross)
  5. Pedaling Efficiency

• Equipment
  1. Aero
  2. Weight
  3. Handling

OCA asked the first article to focus on winter training for obvious reasons since it is February. Winter training requires serious motivation – it’s dark when we get off work, freezing temps in the morning, cold north winds, and the races and grand fondos are months away. Plenty of time, right?  Wrong. Now is the time to be training for performance. With that in mind, I offer the following 7 tips:

WINTER TRAINING:

1 – Just remind yourself that your competition is sitting on the couch watching TV and eating potato chips while you are training.

2 – Riding in groups (as small as two) helps tremendously…rotating on the front to block the cold wind… you can’t rollover in bed because they are waiting for you (accountability)…someone has fresh legs so the pace will be higher than by yourself…and so on.  If you don’t know of a group, then form one.

3 – Embrace the indoor trainer.  Seriously! Yes, it’s very boring.  It doesn’t feel like riding outside. Stop with the excuses. Fitness improves with hours in the saddle…QUALITY HOURS IN THE SADDLE. This is not spinning easily for an hour while watching TV.

4 – Create a workout plan for the indoor session. Include a warm up which gets the legs ready to do some work. Include intervals/sets which the mind can handle. 20 minute lactate threshold sets are impossible mentally. Replace with 4 x 5 minutes with 1 or 2 minute recoveries. Get 60 minutes of quality training time.

5 – Mix it up on the indoor trainer. For example, simulate hill climbing on Tuesday, VO2 max intervals on Thursday, get outside on Saturday and Sunday, change to high cadence lactate intervals and anaerobic efforts the next week. KEEP THE MIND INTERESTED AND THE BODY CHALLENGED.

6 – Work on improving your pedal stroke by doing single leg drills. Keep the cadence high, 90 rpm. Unweight the backstroke. Drive the knee toward the handlebar at the top of stroke.  “Scrape gum off the cleat” from 3 to 6 o’clock.  Start with 30 seconds for each leg and build to a full minute.  Do at least 5 efforts for both legs.

7- Finally environmental factors are very important on the trainer. Place a good fan on you, keep the temperature almost cold (ride in the garage) – it will not feel cold when you are working hard, get some good tunes playing, and keep a towel handy because you will be sweating.

I lied.  I have one more tip.  Ride indoors with others, if possible.  It’s just like riding outside…you will be more consistent and work harder.  Don’t know of a group indoor session?  Make it happen.

I have attached a sample indoor session.  90 minutes of training to get faster. If you have a question about the workout below feel free to email me (Steve) at auchterlonie@sbcglobal.net. Enjoy! See you on the roads or trails.

Climbing Speed Workout #12

Make sure your bike is secure on the trainer (comfortable climbing position on hoods or top of bars). Arms slightly bent, don’t lock them out! Head up, shoulders down, relax the hands. Keep a steady rhythm. Push yourself…no one is going to do it for you. “Today I will do what others won’t…so tomorrow I can do what others can’t.”

Warmup:

• 5 minutes just turning circles.
• 3×30 sec. w/ 30 easy recovery; spin at higher (100+rpm) than normal cadence, easy gear…fast and light.
• 4 min. straight going one or two gears harder each minute and standing the last minute, B23 at C100+, B21/19 at C90s, B19\15 at C80s, B12-15 standing.
• 30 sec. soft pedal.
• 6 minutes…one legged drills, alternate legs each minute…45 sec. with 15 sec. of soft pedal (put both feet back in the pedals). Easiest gear you can pedal smoothly around 90+ cadence. This is not a strength building drill but a technique drill. Go right into 5 min. build.
• 5 min. hard, building to 85-90% heart rate for the last minute to open the legs and get a good lactate flush.
• 2 min soft pedal.

NOW YOU ARE READY TO DO SOME WORK!

Main Set:

• 6 min. one legged drills, 50 seconds with 10 sec. soft pedal. Put both feet back in pedals during 10 sec. soft pedal. Switch legs…repeat for 6 min.  WORK ON PEDAL STROKE!
• 1 minute soft pedal.
• 2×1 min. build – ramp up to TIME TRIAL effort by 30 seconds and hold to the minute mark, with one min rest.
• 2 minute soft pedal.
• 2×8 min. under/over w/3min. rest: This is a hard set if done correctly!
• 8 min effort; 1 min. under time trial effort then 1 min. over…repeat for 8 minutes. Cadence 70-75 on the UNDER and 80-85 on the OVER. Keep the same gear just change your cadence to get to the OVER. Power will be 5-10 watts OVER and UNDER your time trial. If using speed 0.5 mph UNDER and OVER your time trial speed. Rest for 3 min. then repeat 8 min. effort again…I found I would increase my cadence around 5-7 rpm to get to the OVER. Cadence will depend on what gear you choose. If you find you can’t hold the lower cadence in this set then go to an easy gear and higher cadence.
• 3 min soft pedal.
• Get off the bike and do butt burners, 20 x single step left, then right while in squat position…STAY LOW!

Second Set:

• 2×8 min. descending power intervals w/3 min rest. You should be 1 or 2 gears harder than the previous set. This is your maximum REPEATABLE effort you can hold for each interval. Your pace for each set will be approx .5-1mph over your time trial speed. You should build on each rep…the first 15 seconds to get up to your desired speed then we’ll increase the cadence the last 15 seconds for a max effort! Remember you are doing this set twice so don’t blow your legs out on the first 2 min. effort! You’ll be able to go with a little more power/speed when we get down to the 1 min. effort.

• 8 min. set: First…2 min. repeatable max effort with 2 min. soft pedal for recovery; Second…1 min. 30 max (same speed/power as first 2 min. effort) with1 min. 30 sec soft pedal; Third…1 min. max effort, then…
• 3 min. soft pedal
• Do it again!
• 3 min. 100+ rpm, or 10 rpm higher than normal cadence. Light and fast. Flush those legs out.
• Now, do some stretches and get a recovery drink. WELL DONE!

Power to weight ratio is a key factor to climbing. The lighter you are the better you climb.  To break the 10 minute mark on the Joe Martin TT climb, one must average just above 5w/kg:  154lb rider must produce at least 350w average. 11 minutes = 4.6w/kg. 12 minutes = 4.15w/kg.  The Pro that wins at about 8 minutes flat averages 6w/kg.

Every pound of extra weight robs you of 1.5 watts on a 5% climb (typical big hill around here).  Every watt equals 0.5 sec. per half mile on that 5%. Do the math…10 extra lbs equals 10 x 1.5 x 0.5 = almost 8 seconds lost for a half mile climb. 8 seconds is huge! It’s the difference in staying with the group and getting dropped.

Weight is not the enemy…unproductive weight is…body fat. Typical Pro body fat composition is 4 to 7%…WOW! Skeleton-like! Very good body fat levels for men are 7-10% and 15% for women. Your minimum goal should be to achieve less than 20% for sure. My typical question is “what did you weigh in high school?” That is the goal, typically.

Don’t lose muscle! Lose at most 1-1.5 lbs per week, while training. This equates to about 500-750 calories per day drop. 1 hour of hard exercise is at least 500 calories, typically.  Don’t starve yourself! All this does is cause your body to go into protection mode and shut down your metabolism, and weaken your immune system. Eat a minimum of 1000 calories per day…plus the calories you burn doing exercise that day…1 hour workout burns 500 calories, so you need at least 1500 calories that day.

GETTING FASTER – PART 2:  YOU ARE THE ENGINE

By Steve Auchterlonie

You are the engine under the hood of your two-wheeled vehicle. Now, vehicles range from lightweight and aero sports cars, to off-road dual suspension rigs to luxury comfort machines to old jalopies. However, we all know what really matters is what’s under the hood. A jalopy frame with a well tuned, high revving V8 will outsprint that expensive sports car with the V6. What type of engine are you? There are high torque V8s (MTBers who can power out of mud), high powered V8s (big sprinters but can’t climb), turbo V6s (all-arounders), hybrids (run all day and love the last half of centuries), sputtering cast iron antiques (that’s me) and many more.

Cycling faster requires maximizing your performance. Maximizing your performance requires knowing your strengths and efficiently utilizing them. Why? Each of us starts a ride/race with a full tank. That tank has to get us to the finish line. Gunning the engine (hard efforts on the bike) drains the tank more quickly. Too many ineffective efforts risk not finishing the ride/race strongly.

Cycling results are not about who worked the hardest or who is most fit. There are many factors involved in producing cycling results. These are my top three.

MAXIMIZING PERFORMANCE

1) This is the most important one…GET YOUR FACE OUT OF THE WIND! Think about it. When is the last time a race/ride was won by someone just riding solo away from the peloton or group? If someone did, then you can call him/her a sandbagger without hesitation…”CAT UP” or they need to provide a urine sample to the local authority.

Learn how to draft efficiently in a group. Learn the rules of rotating. Learn how to cascade the peloton in a cross-wind. On average, drafting saves 30% of the work required to go a certain speed. 30%!!  Let’s do the math. In NWA May weather with no wind (yeah, when does that happen?), it takes about 200 watts to average 20 mph on a flat stretch of road for a 155 lb rider on a road bike. Subtracting 30% for a group rotating effectively equals a power average of 140 watts. 140 watts by a solo rider is equal to approximately 17 mph. In other words, the group is going 20 mph but only working at a 17 mph effort. Get off the front.

 2) A wonderful benefit from cycling is improved fitness. Rarely does fitness win a race. Cycling/racing results are based on decisive moments: attacks, climbs and final sprints. This same concept holds true for all levels of riding from recreational group rides to buddies mountain biking Mount Kessler and to amateur and professional racing.

TRAINING SPECIFICITY – train for those moments. Practice repeats on a steep hill…not steady pace…go hard. Practice 30 second sprints to develop the mental and physical abilities to bridge gaps or to create gaps or to win the final sprint. Practice alternating 15s sprints and 15s recoveries continuously for five minutes, to develop the “snap” required to jump on a wheel as it goes by or to simulate what a criterium requires. Use group rides to test yourself for those moments. Groups rides are not about whether you get dropped or not. Use them to push yourself harder than you can by riding by yourself…to find what works, and even more importantly, what does not work.

3) DEVELOP AN EFFICIENT AND POWERFUL PEDAL STROKE. I can’t over-emphasize this point. Yes, the pros are world class athletes, but they are also very effective at pedaling circles. Just like any sport…basketball jump shooting, baseball hitting, swimming, etc…there is technique to learn and practice to be your best. Until recently, pedaling circles was an art requiring description/coaching from “experts.” This has changed very recently and I will explain how in detail in my next article. For now, let me share a highlight summary: the average rider/racer is only 25 to 50% efficient pedaling. Pros are over 70%. Think about that for a moment: a 4.28 watt/kilogram racer (very good cat 2/3 level; 300 watts for 154 pound cyclist) wastes at least half of his/her work effort moving the bike forward. If this 300 watt cyclist improves 10%, then he/she will go 2 mph faster for the same work effort. 2 mph! Stay tuned…

Yeah, we all fall in love with our bikes. They are our sports cars. No matter how much they cost, they don’t come with an engine. That’s you. Work on the engine. Feed it properly. Keep it tuned. Add some horsepower. Practice using it most effectively. Your bike will thank you.

The Pedal Stroke Part 1

By Steve Auctherlonie

It’s time for me to get bold, “Improving your pedal stroke efficiency will make you faster than buying the most aero and lightest bike and equipment, combined.”

Yeah, I just upset a bunch of bike shop owners.  Let me be clear.   Aero and lighter bikes and equipment do make you faster, no matter your level of cycling.  Simply, I’m saying that time and effort invested in making you, the engine, stronger and more efficient has a greater effect for getting faster.  Buying speed is relatively easy and pain free if the wallet and spouse are on board.  Working on the engine is hard work…the hardest.

From personal experience, huge fitness and cycling strength gains are made in the first two years, then the dreaded plateau happens.  It becomes very hard to improve significantly. Options available to break the plateau:  coaches, power meters, weight room, weight loss, nutrition and buying speed through bike and equipment.  I have tried them all, with minimum success.  Frustration sets in.  Time to find a new hobby?  Then, I got lucky at the end of last summer…I learned that I may have the worst pedal stroke known to the sport.  Lucky?  I got excited about the potential improvement.  The purpose of this article is to share what I’ve learned and prove my bold opening statement.

In my younger days, I played many sports…all required perfecting some skill critical to success in the sport:  the swing in baseball and the curveball on the mound, the stroke in the jumpshot and swimming, the form in track hurdling and on and on.  Why would cycling be the one exception to this?  It’s not.  Improving the pedal stroke is “old school” cycling.  “Pedal circles”, “Scrape gum”, “unweight the backstroke”, single leg drills, rollers and fixed gear bikes are methods to focus on improving the pedal stroke.  However, just like other sports, learning to pedal correctly is an elusive concept, apparently reserved for the “gifted.”  This changed for me last summer.  A new tool came to the market and I purchased one.  This is the first on-bike tool that measures the efficiency of the pedal stroke.  It shows what is wrong with one’s pedal stroke and shows how to improve.  The purpose of this article is not to market that tool—the Pioneer Powermeter—but to share what it has taught me in the last nine months.

Some simple physics will help.  What is power?  Power is a physics concept to describe a force acting on a body which results in moving the body at some velocity, Power (P) = Force (F) x Velocity (V).  In cycling, power can be measured at several points on the bike, including the rear hub, the crank system and the pedals.  Historically, first generation power meters measured a cyclist’s total power generated to move the bike forward.  The measured power was not directional—just total power.  The newest generation of power meters (there is only one at this time) measures the direction of the power applied.  Rather than just total power, this tool measures tangential power and radial power.  What is that?  Look at your crank arm on your bike (refer to figure below).  Radial power is that directed parallel to the direction of the crank arm.  Tangential power is that directed perpendicular to the crank arm.  Try this test for yourself:  pull as hard as you can straight out with the crank arm…what happened?  Nothing.  You did a lot of work (applied power) but the crank arm did not rotate…the bike did not move forward.  Now, apply a finger of force to the side of the crank arm (tangentially)…the crank rotated and the bike moved forward.

Radial force is wasted energy; tangential force is 100 percent efficient in making the bike move.   I thought the tool must be broken when I first purchased it last August.  How could I only have 35-40% tangential power?  I’m a better rider than that! Reality set in and my ego was sent out with the weekly trash.  Data provided by the toolmaker documented that Cat 1/2’s are typically 50% efficient (tangential power/total power) and pros are 70+% efficient.

I am proud to say that I have raised my efficiency to 50% with a goal to get to 70%.  It would take a book to share the journey I’ve traveled to achieve 50%.  More importantly, I am much stronger/faster on the bike…ask those riding with me.

Here are the keys:

• The old school description for pedal stroke involved four zones: the downstroke (2-4 o’clock), bottom of stroke (5-7 o’clock), upstroke (8-10 o’clock) and top of stroke (11-1 o’clock).  Conventionally, triathletes aim for an even power distribution throughout the stroke to save the legs for the run.  Whereas bike racers should develop huge thrust through the downstroke because that is where 80% of the power is generated to go fast and accelerate.  I’m a bike racer so I followed the huge thrust method.  The huge thrust method produces the low efficiency value.  I was confused!  How could the pros be 70+% efficient with a huge downstroke thrust?  They don’t pedal that way!
• I had to investigate so I invited several local racers to my lab and measured their pedal efficiency. Two notable subjects (both regarded as top level local racers who are excellent climbers) measured 70+% efficient.  Their pedal strokes were much different.  They described their pedal stroke as three zones:  downstroke (1-3), bottom of stroke (3-9) and back/top stroke (9-1).  They do not thrust the leg in the downstroke; instead, they just let the leg naturally extend.  They emphasize pulling back and up from 3-9, and unweighting from 9-1.  The resulting efficiency gain is amazing.
• We always refer to burning our matches in cycling. There are only a limited number of matches for each cyclist and they must choose when to use them.  The more efficient pedal stroke “saves” those matches by not thrusting the downstroke until it is needed.  The quads muscles are fresher for the key moments in the race!!
• Here is the greatest benefit for the efficient stroke, in my opinion. A higher efficiency pedal stroke requires significantly less effort/work/force to generate the same power.   I could bury you with data I’ve gathered, but let me summarize for you:
  1. Rider A used 2800 Newtons (N) of force at 70 rpm to generate 300w of power, at 55% efficiency.
  2. Rider B used 2300 N at 70 rpm to generate 300w of power, at 72% efficiency.
  3. In my personal tests, I needed 2850 N at 70 rpm to generate 300w at 55%, but only needed 2250 N at 70 at 70%.

What does this mean?  Force is how hard we push on the pedals.  It is what eventually fatigues our muscles.  At 70% efficient, I require over 20% less force to produce 300w than at 55% efficient.  My legs are fresher for either a longer ride or for those critical moments in a race.  I have saved matches.

Finally, time to prove my opening statement.  At a 300w effort, a set of aero wheels saves maybe 15W, a aero frame another 15W, a time trial suit and helmet maybe 10-15W, totaling 40-45W of equipment speed:  40-45/300 = 13-15% improvement.  For me, I have improved my efficiency 20% in nine months and plan to improve another 15-20% in the future.

Don’t just pedal harder…pedal more efficiently.

The Pedal Stroke Part 2

By Steve Auchterlonie

The biggest challenge for me in writing these articles is how to condense them without losing valuable content.  I am unable do it with this one, so a compromise is needed.  The compromise will be two shorter articles:  the first exploring climbing and the second (to follow timely) investigating sprinting.  In the near future, a final article will explain how to pedal efficiently

The Pedal Stroke  Part 1, explained that measured power can be separated into Radial and Tangential directions, with radial power not moving the bike (wasted energy) and tangential power moving the bike (efficient).  Part 1 also documented that an efficient pedal stroke “saves” the cyclist’s legs for the key moments in a race/ride.  Heckler in bicycle kit yells from the peanut gallery, “Doesn’t Steve drive a Prius?!!  The Prius is very efficient but definitely not a performance machine.”  “Where is the proof that an efficient stroke improves performance?” Steve Replies, “Dude, wear normal clothes off the bike!!  However, you pose a fair question.  Here are both empirical and actual ride results:

1. Empirical – The following examples are clients of mine in the last six months:

a. Client A – solid racer at 2014 Joe Martin Master’s level. He came to me two weeks before 2015 JM race and said, “Let’s make the change because I’m lucky to make the top 20 right now.” Made position changes to enable an efficient pedal stroke two weeks before 2015 JM and finished on podium, plus 2^nd place at state road race in his division.

b. Client B – talented master’s racer with inconsistent results. Since making change in position to enhance an efficient pedal stroke one month ago, he has won state road race in his division and the masters road race at the Roger’s Festival.

c. Client C – back of the pack master’s road racer from Belize. Started change to pedal stroke in Spring while visiting his son at UofA, he went home this summer and has finished in top six in two major road races, and won time trial after finishing last place one year ago.

d. Client D – first year racer with talent. Made changes in position to enhance efficient pedal stroke two or three weeks ago.  In last week he has shared with me that he won a city limit sign against an elite group, set the KOM on the Devil’s Den to Winslow segment, and produced multiple PRs and trophies at Tuesday’s worlds.

I could provide more examples but will limit it to four for this article.  It’s important for me to note that each of these racers put in hard work on and off the bike to achieve these accomplishments, but each one will tell you that the key change is the pedal stroke.

2. Ride Data/Results – making the selection in races/rides comes down to climbing and sprinting. The following data/results are provided to demonstrate how an efficient pedal stroke improves performance when climbing.

a. Climbing – Within a narrow timeframe one day so weather conditions were constant, I conducted the following intervals up the hill on School St. from Martin Luther King to the 2^nd light at the top, next to the square. This is a 0.6 mile climb at a steady 5% grade.  The goal was not to PR the hill.  Instead, I ran it at two different solid efforts – alternating one stomping down and one pedaling efficiently.  Then, I made a good effort at the end while pedaling efficiently.  Here are the results:

ANALYSIS:

1. Time Gaps – critical in racing, right. If you are gapped off the back on a climb then the race is gone for you.  How much gap is too much?  In my experience, 50 yards (150 feet) off the back is too much.  At climbing speeds of 12-15mph, the velocity is approximately 20 feet/sec.  So, a 150 foot gap is 7.5 seconds.  The gap between intervals 1 and 2 is 7 seconds or 140 feet.  The gap between intervals 3 and 4 is 3 seconds or 60 feet.  The hard effort in interval 5 is 18 seconds ahead of interval 4, or 360 feet!!
2. Stomping vs Efficiency – the first comparison is between intervals 1 and 2. You will note that interval 2 averaged 18w more than interval 1.  This is not a fair comparison.  Is it?  I can share that it felt like the same effort but I had a hard time holding the power down while pedaling efficiently, eventually giving up and just going with “feel” during later part of the interval.  You should also note that the cadence is 10% different between the 2 intervals.  More on those points later.  Comparing intervals 3 and 4 shows that both averaged 306w, yet the time was 3 seconds (60 feet) faster for interval 4.  This is a significant gap and can only be explained by the efficient interval producing more tangent power than the stomping interval.
3. Pedal Force – what is that again? As explained in the part 1 pedal stroke  article, power is calculated by measuring the force (as measured by several methods:  pedal/crank arm/crank spyder/rear hub) and multiplying it by the acceleration of that component.  The intervals were run using a Pioneer powermeter which measures and reports the actual force produced, in newtons.  Force is produced by the legs and leads to fatigue.  Thus, measured force through the entire pedal stroke documents the level of effort to produce the power.  Comparing intervals 1 and 2, it appears that the stomping interval 1 required less total force.  This conclusion is not accurate.  Remember, interval 2 produced 18 watts (6%) more power and the cadence was 10% lower.  Force is directly proportional to power and inversely proportional to cadence.  Thus, if we adjusted to compare “apples to apples” then interval 1 = 2014 N x 1.06 x 1.1 = 2348 N, whereas the efficient interval 2 required 2088 N.  Simply, interval 2 was over 10% less demanding to produce the same power level.  This holds true comparing intervals 3 and 4, with the more efficient pedal stroke saving over 10% effort to produce equal power.
4. Subjectively, it was “easier” to produce the power level when pedaling efficiently. This explains why I could not “hold down” to 250w on interval 2, while pedaling efficiently.
5. What was the purpose for interval 5? Efficient intervals 2, 4 and 5 document a) a higher efficiency can be held at wide ranging power efforts, and b) the pedal force required to produce power is linearly related:  a 10% increase in efficient pedal force will produce a 10% greater power level.  Thus, reducing fatigue by pedaling efficiently “saves” the legs to produce race winning efforts when needed.
6. Finally, points 1 through 5 document that performance is increased using an efficient pedal stroke because it requires less force to produce a power level. When it is time in a race/ride to make that top effort, a cyclist will produce their maximum force whether pedaling efficiently or not.  A higher power level will be produced using the more efficient pedal method.

SUMMARY

Both empirical and field data/results have been provided to demonstrate that a race/ride performance is enhanced using an efficient pedal stroke, when climbing.  Are you ready for the surprise behind the efficient pedal stroke?  “Johnny, what’s behind door number 3?”  drum rolllllllllllll…”It’s called hard work.”  Ask my clients who have started the learning curve.  Your hamstrings and hip-flexors have been on vacation and they will be speaking to you…loudly.  Significant improvement can happen in a short timeframe but only with dedication.

To get faster, pedal harder and more efficiently.

The Pedal Stroke Part 3

By Steve Auchterlonie

Ok, this proves it…Steve needs a straight-jacket and to be locked-up in the looney bin. Sprinting efficiently…what? Also, how can he talk about sprinting when he has never won a race in the final 200 meters? Oww, these comments cut close to the bone. In response, I invite the viewers to read-on for what I dare say is really good content to improve performance.

The reality is sprinting is not relegated to the last 200 meters. Breakaways, bridging gaps, late race-winning moves all depend on sprinting. Simply, all racers/riders must develop their sprinting skills, even if you can’t win the final 200 meters.

Sprinting is a vicious attack on pedals using maximum, neuromuscular force. How can an efficient pedal stroke improve such an explosive power effort? Answering that question was the purpose behind several sprinting workouts by yours truly. Three sprint workouts were conducted on separate days with very similar weather, on the flats south of Greenland. The results were both interesting and surprising.

TABLE 1. STANDING AND SITTING SPRINT AVERAGES OF 3 WORKOUTS CONDUCTED

AUG. 6, 20 AND 27, 2015

**Important to note: sprints were equally divided on all three days – half standing and half sprinting. Also, all values in table are averages of 10 sprints standing and 8 sprints for sitting.

OBSERVATIONS:

1. Yea, I’m a 58 year old who cannot produce impressive sprint power anymore.
2. Let me describe both sprinting techniques. Standing involved getting off saddle but keeping head down as low as possible and, hopefully, good form with knees and elbows in. Sitting stayed on saddle with head as low as possible and knees and elbows in.
3. Clearly for me, seated sprinting is faster in terms of speed gained during both 15 and 30 second sprints, even though average power was higher while standing.
4. Pedal efficiency was 10% greater seated as expected, since standing involves a huge downward thrust which produces a greater percentage of radial power. The average pedal forces (in newtons) document this difference in the two sprint methods, with the standing sprint producing almost 30% more force per pedal stroke than the seated sprint. Interestingly, the standing sprint only produced 10 to 15% more power (watts) at a muscle crushing force 30% greater.
5. The seated sprint pulled away from the standing sprint beyond the 15 second mark, at almost the same power level.

DISCUSSION:

How can a greater power level of the standing sprint “lose” in speed to the seated sprint? The answer is aerodynamics. Again, for me, I am more aero sprinting seated than standing and it “over-powers” the greater force/power produced standing. We have all marveled at how aero Mark Cavendish positions his body in a sprint. That is also why he pursues aero bikes like his new Specialized Venge.

The other key difference is the high efficiency of seated sprinting…a 30% reduction in pedal/leg force required. Think of how important that is in a criterium with repeated accelerations out of every corner, or recovering from a brutal launch off the front.

So, the question becomes when is standing sprinting an advantage? Take a look at Table 2.

TABLE 2.  0 TO 10 SECOND STANDING AND SITTING SPRINT AVERAGES OF 3 WORKOUTS

CONDUCTED AUG. 6, 20 AND 27, 2015

**Important to note: sprints were equally divided on all three days – half standing and half sprinting. Also, all values in table are averages of 10 sprints for standing and 8 sprints for sitting.

In the initial 5 seconds of the sprint, the greater power produced standing accelerates the bike faster than seated by almost 1 mph. From 5 to 10 seconds, the aerodynamics and efficiency of the seated sprinting equals the standing acceleration. Then, as shown in Table 1, the aerodynamics of seated sprinting outpaces the standing method from 10 seconds through 30 seconds.

These results are for me, a 58 year old who has lost most of his fast-twitch, muscle fiber resulting in drastically reduced peak power. My max peak power is 1000-1100 watts at 150 pounds body weight. Younger amateur sprinters are capable of 1500+ watts peak. Professional sprinters reach 2000 peak watts. At those higher levels, I would expect the power advantage to last longer than my 10 second break-even point shown in tables 1 and 2. This is why you see pros sprint standing for 20 plus seconds. However, the importance of aerodynamics and efficiency remain valid at those power levels.

SUMMARY

There is no substitute for explosive power when sprinting. The key is to develop high cadence (up to 200 rpm) suddenly with massive force on the pedals. That ability is mostly natural talent but can be coached to a certain extent. Natural ability, injuries and age can limit what we can produce in a sprint. However, each of us can maximize our potential. For me, this brief study documents that aerodynamics is a major factor early in a sprint to reach maximum sprint speed. Cyclists with higher peak power may be able to sustain the standing sprint longer than my 10 seconds. However, seated sprinting is more aerodynamic than standing sprinting, and the aerodynamics take precedence when sprints last longer than 10 seconds for me and maybe up to 20 seconds for higher peak power sprinters. In addition, seated sprinting requires up to 30% less pedal/leg force due to a more efficient pedal stroke. This translates to producing a longer sprint (which may be strategically advantageous if your opponent is a better 10 second sprinter than you) and/or more frequent sprinting performance, such as in a criterium race.

Pedal harder and more efficiently.

OPTIMAL CRANK LENGTH | PART 1

By Steve Auchterlonie

Cycling Performance Lab

Matching the bike position to the rider and his/her talent(s) is my focus. Saddle height, setback, and tilt, and handlebar extension and drop are the main parameters to be adjusted to develop an optimal position unique to each cyclist. I will be writing a series of articles on various bike position parameters, for readers to consider. As with most aspects of life, this will not be a dialogue based on distinct right/wrong choices; instead, my goal is to invite a wide-open discussion and I invite your participation through the OCA website.

Part 1 – Optimal Crank Length

Oh no, another crank length article which regurgitates what’s already on the web and concludes with a wishy-washy recommendation to not change from the norm…wrong. I promise this will be fresh and progressive, with the goal to help everyone improve his/her performance and comfort on the bike. Finding the Optimal Crank Length (OCL) is a research interest of mine and will require at least two articles: Part 1 – a physics review and myth-busting adventure, and Part 2 – presentation of field results for performance and a proposal for determining OCL.

Why start the series of position articles with crank length? Simply, it is the center of the bike upon which everything depends. Change the crank length and one must change the seat height, setback, handlebar drop and extension. Consequently, changing the crank length has a dramatic affect on how the cyclist pedals and how the bike handles…dramatic.

Where to begin is easy. Historically, the cycling community (racers, bike shops, etc) has always maintained that longer cranks produce greater performance due to greater torque. Let’s explore if this myth is real or requires busting.

MYTH: GREATER CRANK LENGTH = GREATER TORQUE = GREATER PERFORMANCE

Investigating this myth reminds me of the old adage, “one must step back out of the trees to see the forest.” Physics defines torque = (lever length) x (force applied at end of lever). The crank is commonly thought of as the lever in cycling, so simple math indicates that greater torque is produced with a longer crank, at a given force.

No question whether this is true. The question for me is whether the crank is the true lever in the equation for cycling?

Why do we focus on the crank arm assembly only? Step back out of the “trees” and look at the “forest” which includes the cyclist and bicycle. The cyclist and bicycle combination (system) includes more than just the crank arm assembly when looking at levers:  a) femur length, b) tibia length, c) foot length, d) crankarm, e) chainring diameter from the center of the bottom bracket to the teeth of the chainring, f) chain length from the chainring to the cassette, g) diameter of the cassette (specific to the gear engaged) and h) wheel diameter from the rear hub center to the tire contact patch on the road. Whoa, that’s a lot of levers which, for simplicity sake, can be added to calculate a “system” lever length: 450mm (avg femur) + 400mm (avg tibia) + 150mm (avg foot length from ankle to metatarsals) + 170mm (crank) + 100mm (52 chainring diameter) + 500mm (avg chain length) + 40mm (16 cog diammeter) + 335 mm(wheel diameter to contact patch) = 2145 mm.  That’s the “forest.”  One “tree” is the cranklength. Now, let’s get radical and change the crank arm from a 170 to a 175mm.  This crank change is equal to a system change of 5mm / 2145mm = 0.23% increase.  Thus, the torque increased 0.23%.  Uh…seriously…0.23% performance gain….

For argument sake, there are those which would say all the levers up to the bottom bracket are primary (power producing) and downstream of the bottom bracket are secondary…power absorbing. I don’t agree but let’s do the math. The primary lever system = 450 + 400 + 150 + 170 + 100 = 1270mm.  Changing the crank to 175 produces a 5/1270 = 0.39% increase in torque. Either way, less than 0.5% is not an increase in performance affecting race/riding results.

There have been several quality studies which have validated the minimal influence of changing crank length by millimeters, even centimeters. Summaries:

1. Determinants of Maximal Cycling Power: Crank Length, Pedaling Rate and Pedal Speed, C. Martin and W.W. Spirduso, 2001 – Sixteen (16) trained cyclists performed maximal inertial load tests using crank lengths of 120, 145, 170, 195 and 220mm. Maximum power ranged from a low of 1149w for the 220 mm to a high of 1194w for the 145 mm. Power produced from the 145 and 170 cranks was significantly greater than that produced with the 120 and 220 cranks.
2. The Bio-mechanical Effects of Crank Arm Length on Cycling Mechanics, E. B. Sprules and D.J. Sanderson, 2000 – Sixteen (16) avid cyclists, spanning a wide range of heights and leg lengths, performed sub-maximal tests using crank lengths from 120 to 220 mm. At a fixed power level, heart rate was measured to determine pedal efficiency and corresponding optimal crank length. The results mirrored the Martin and Spirduso study in that longer cranks did not produce greater performance. In fact, shorter cranks produced lower heart rates.

In addition, here are highlights from several key industry players:

1. Simon Cycling wrote a crank length article in 2010 which cited that Andrew Coggan, well-known and respected cycling scientist, stated at a webinar that optimal crank length for most cyclists is probably under 170mm in length.
2. Cervelo article on crank length summarizes the Martin and Spirduso study and writes, “… The main thing is to realize that the choice of crank length doesn’t significantly affect power, so any length is now free to choose for any other reason.”
3. An article on FSA website reviews crank length, entitled “ Crank Length – Does it matter?” A couple excerpts are a) “If you’re under 6ft, 165 or 170mm cranks may improve both performance and comfort.”; b) “It may seem counter-intuitive; longer cranks mean more leverage and more power, right?  Not quite. In fact, longer cranks give you more torque. Torque and power are often confused, because the difference is subtle. Torque is a measurement of twisting force. Power is a rate of work – it’s the energy consumed during a unit of time.  The more energy you put in, the faster the work is done, and the more power you measurably have. Longer cranks can give you more leverage (torque), but they can’t give you more energy with which to pedal! Why not have the torque anyway? Because there are downsides. Longer cranks make it harder to sprint, as it’s harder to maintain leverage for as much of the each revolution as with shorter cranks.”
4. Uli Shoberer, the entrepreneur and engineer who created SRM, discussed crank length in an interview with Slowtwitch.com in 2012. Key excerpts: a) We tested crank lengths a lot in cycling with several teams. We could not find any increase in power with shorter or longer cranks…it doesn’t matter…in general, with a shorter crank you spin faster…with a shorter crank you choose a higher cadence, and a longer crank you go to a lower cadence, but the power to heart rate relationship is the same. b) Our last test with T-Mobile we did tests on L’Alp d’Huez, and some cyclists rode it 6 times with different crank lengths, ovalized and round chainrings…we measured lactate, heart rate, power…we found that only what counts is power to body mass.

Say it with me…MYTH-BUSTED.  Yes, longer cranks increase torque but not performance.

Where is the Torque podium? I have yet to attend a race where points were given to the racer producing the greatest measured torque. The winner is the person whose bike goes the fastest. In physics terms, the winner completes the work (race) in the shortest time = power = force x velocity (simplified).

Currently, the cycling industry provides a measure that is predictive of performance and race results through use of a power meter. The power meter format winning the retail game is typically measured at the crank but that is only due to marketing forces and convenience to the cyclist. Power can be measured in the pedals, in the chain and in the rear hub, just to name a few. The main point is that power is predictive of performance and it is determined by measuring the force and the velocity of the moving part.

When measuring power at the crank, the velocity of importance is the crank arm velocity or typically referred to as cadence…but not really…there is a difference between cadence and pedal velocity…and the difference is the crank length. At a given cadence (revolutions per min), the pedal moves further using a longer crank length. Ah hah!! The myth is true because the velocity is faster with a longer crank, right!!?? Here’s the rub. At a given force on the pedal, a longer crank will produce greater power if the cyclist can pedal it at the same velocity as a shorter crank. The reality is we cannot because our system of joints (ankle, knee and hip) have limited ranges of motion, and because each of us are “wired” with a unique combination of fast twitch and slow twitch muscles which control the firing of the muscles involved in cycling. Simply, we are each uniquely limited in how fast we can accelerate the pedals.

CONCLUSION

What does all this mean? Longer cranks would produce greater performance due to greater torque and greater crank velocity if we were machines unaffected by the resistance of our joints’ ranges of motion and our unique DNA. That’s not reality. Reality is when crank length increases then velocity (measured by cadence) decreases. This is exactly what was proved in the studies summarized earlier.

With the crank length/performance myth busted, the next step is best summarized by the previous citation by Cervelo, “The main thing is to realize that the choice of crank length doesn’t significantly affect power, so any length is now free to choose for any other reason.” What other reason? How about bio-mechanical for comfort and performance…how about performance depending on race type – sprinting vs climbing…how about bike handling?

These are the areas which I have been studying for the past several months.  Part 2 will present those results along with a protocol which can be used to determine your own unique optimum crank length. Stay tuned.

OPTIMAL CRANK LENGTH | PART 1

By Steve Auchterlonie

Cycling Performance Lab

Matching the bike position to the rider and his/her talent(s) is my focus. Saddle height, setback, and tilt, and handlebar extension and drop are the main parameters to be adjusted to develop an optimal position unique to each cyclist. I will be writing a series of articles on various bike position parameters, for readers to consider. As with most aspects of life, this will not be a dialogue based on distinct right/wrong choices; instead, my goal is to invite a wide-open discussion and I invite your participation through the OCA website.

Part 1 – Optimal Crank Length

Oh no, another crank length article which regurgitates what’s already on the web and concludes with a wishy-washy recommendation to not change from the norm…wrong. I promise this will be fresh and progressive, with the goal to help everyone improve his/her performance and comfort on the bike. Finding the Optimal Crank Length (OCL) is a research interest of mine and will require at least two articles: Part 1 – a physics review and myth-busting adventure, and Part 2 – presentation of field results for performance and a proposal for determining OCL.

Why start the series of position articles with crank length? Simply, it is the center of the bike upon which everything depends. Change the crank length and one must change the seat height, setback, handlebar drop and extension. Consequently, changing the crank length has a dramatic affect on how the cyclist pedals and how the bike handles…dramatic.

Where to begin is easy. Historically, the cycling community (racers, bike shops, etc) has always maintained that longer cranks produce greater performance due to greater torque. Let’s explore if this myth is real or requires busting.

MYTH: GREATER CRANK LENGTH = GREATER TORQUE = GREATER PERFORMANCE

Investigating this myth reminds me of the old adage, “one must step back out of the trees to see the forest.” Physics defines torque = (lever length) x (force applied at end of lever). The crank is commonly thought of as the lever in cycling, so simple math indicates that greater torque is produced with a longer crank, at a given force.

No question whether this is true. The question for me is whether the crank is the true lever in the equation for cycling?

Why do we focus on the crank arm assembly only? Step back out of the “trees” and look at the “forest” which includes the cyclist and bicycle. The cyclist and bicycle combination (system) includes more than just the crank arm assembly when looking at levers:  a) femur length, b) tibia length, c) foot length, d) crankarm, e) chainring diameter from the center of the bottom bracket to the teeth of the chainring, f) chain length from the chainring to the cassette, g) diameter of the cassette (specific to the gear engaged) and h) wheel diameter from the rear hub center to the tire contact patch on the road. Whoa, that’s a lot of levers which, for simplicity sake, can be added to calculate a “system” lever length: 450mm (avg femur) + 400mm (avg tibia) + 150mm (avg foot length from ankle to metatarsals) + 170mm (crank) + 100mm (52 chainring diameter) + 500mm (avg chain length) + 40mm (16 cog diammeter) + 335 mm(wheel diameter to contact patch) = 2145 mm.  That’s the “forest.”  One “tree” is the cranklength. Now, let’s get radical and change the crank arm from a 170 to a 175mm.  This crank change is equal to a system change of 5mm / 2145mm = 0.23% increase.  Thus, the torque increased 0.23%.  Uh…seriously…0.23% performance gain….

For argument sake, there are those which would say all the levers up to the bottom bracket are primary (power producing) and downstream of the bottom bracket are secondary…power absorbing. I don’t agree but let’s do the math. The primary lever system = 450 + 400 + 150 + 170 + 100 = 1270mm.  Changing the crank to 175 produces a 5/1270 = 0.39% increase in torque. Either way, less than 0.5% is not an increase in performance affecting race/riding results.

There have been several quality studies which have validated the minimal influence of changing crank length by millimeters, even centimeters. Summaries:

1. Determinants of Maximal Cycling Power: Crank Length, Pedaling Rate and Pedal Speed, C. Martin and W.W. Spirduso, 2001 – Sixteen (16) trained cyclists performed maximal inertial load tests using crank lengths of 120, 145, 170, 195 and 220mm. Maximum power ranged from a low of 1149w for the 220 mm to a high of 1194w for the 145 mm. Power produced from the 145 and 170 cranks was significantly greater than that produced with the 120 and 220 cranks.
2. The Bio-mechanical Effects of Crank Arm Length on Cycling Mechanics, E. B. Sprules and D.J. Sanderson, 2000 – Sixteen (16) avid cyclists, spanning a wide range of heights and leg lengths, performed sub-maximal tests using crank lengths from 120 to 220 mm. At a fixed power level, heart rate was measured to determine pedal efficiency and corresponding optimal crank length. The results mirrored the Martin and Spirduso study in that longer cranks did not produce greater performance. In fact, shorter cranks produced lower heart rates.

In addition, here are highlights from several key industry players:

1. Simon Cycling wrote a crank length article in 2010 which cited that Andrew Coggan, well-known and respected cycling scientist, stated at a webinar that optimal crank length for most cyclists is probably under 170mm in length.
2. Cervelo article on crank length summarizes the Martin and Spirduso study and writes, “… The main thing is to realize that the choice of crank length doesn’t significantly affect power, so any length is now free to choose for any other reason.”
3. An article on FSA website reviews crank length, entitled “ Crank Length – Does it matter?” A couple excerpts are a) “If you’re under 6ft, 165 or 170mm cranks may improve both performance and comfort.”; b) “It may seem counter-intuitive; longer cranks mean more leverage and more power, right?  Not quite. In fact, longer cranks give you more torque. Torque and power are often confused, because the difference is subtle. Torque is a measurement of twisting force. Power is a rate of work – it’s the energy consumed during a unit of time.  The more energy you put in, the faster the work is done, and the more power you measurably have. Longer cranks can give you more leverage (torque), but they can’t give you more energy with which to pedal! Why not have the torque anyway? Because there are downsides. Longer cranks make it harder to sprint, as it’s harder to maintain leverage for as much of the each revolution as with shorter cranks.”
4. Uli Shoberer, the entrepreneur and engineer who created SRM, discussed crank length in an interview with Slowtwitch.com in 2012. Key excerpts: a) We tested crank lengths a lot in cycling with several teams. We could not find any increase in power with shorter or longer cranks…it doesn’t matter…in general, with a shorter crank you spin faster…with a shorter crank you choose a higher cadence, and a longer crank you go to a lower cadence, but the power to heart rate relationship is the same. b) Our last test with T-Mobile we did tests on L’Alp d’Huez, and some cyclists rode it 6 times with different crank lengths, ovalized and round chainrings…we measured lactate, heart rate, power…we found that only what counts is power to body mass.

Say it with me…MYTH-BUSTED.  Yes, longer cranks increase torque but not performance.

Where is the Torque podium? I have yet to attend a race where points were given to the racer producing the greatest measured torque. The winner is the person whose bike goes the fastest. In physics terms, the winner completes the work (race) in the shortest time = power = force x velocity (simplified).

Currently, the cycling industry provides a measure that is predictive of performance and race results through use of a power meter. The power meter format winning the retail game is typically measured at the crank but that is only due to marketing forces and convenience to the cyclist. Power can be measured in the pedals, in the chain and in the rear hub, just to name a few. The main point is that power is predictive of performance and it is determined by measuring the force and the velocity of the moving part.

When measuring power at the crank, the velocity of importance is the crank arm velocity or typically referred to as cadence…but not really…there is a difference between cadence and pedal velocity…and the difference is the crank length. At a given cadence (revolutions per min), the pedal moves further using a longer crank length. Ah hah!! The myth is true because the velocity is faster with a longer crank, right!!?? Here’s the rub. At a given force on the pedal, a longer crank will produce greater power if the cyclist can pedal it at the same velocity as a shorter crank. The reality is we cannot because our system of joints (ankle, knee and hip) have limited ranges of motion, and because each of us are “wired” with a unique combination of fast twitch and slow twitch muscles which control the firing of the muscles involved in cycling. Simply, we are each uniquely limited in how fast we can accelerate the pedals.

CONCLUSION

What does all this mean? Longer cranks would produce greater performance due to greater torque and greater crank velocity if we were machines unaffected by the resistance of our joints’ ranges of motion and our unique DNA. That’s not reality. Reality is when crank length increases then velocity (measured by cadence) decreases. This is exactly what was proved in the studies summarized earlier.

With the crank length/performance myth busted, the next step is best summarized by the previous citation by Cervelo, “The main thing is to realize that the choice of crank length doesn’t significantly affect power, so any length is now free to choose for any other reason.” What other reason? How about bio-mechanical for comfort and performance…how about performance depending on race type – sprinting vs climbing…how about bike handling?

These are the areas which I have been studying for the past several months.  Part 2 will present those results along with a protocol which can be used to determine your own unique optimum crank length. Stay tuned.

OPTIMAL CRANK LENGTH | PART 1

By Steve Auchterlonie

Cycling Performance Lab

Matching the bike position to the rider and his/her talent(s) is my focus. Saddle height, setback, and tilt, and handlebar extension and drop are the main parameters to be adjusted to develop an optimal position unique to each cyclist. I will be writing a series of articles on various bike position parameters, for readers to consider. As with most aspects of life, this will not be a dialogue based on distinct right/wrong choices; instead, my goal is to invite a wide-open discussion and I invite your participation through the OCA website.

Part 1 – Optimal Crank Length

Oh no, another crank length article which regurgitates what’s already on the web and concludes with a wishy-washy recommendation to not change from the norm…wrong. I promise this will be fresh and progressive, with the goal to help everyone improve his/her performance and comfort on the bike. Finding the Optimal Crank Length (OCL) is a research interest of mine and will require at least two articles: Part 1 – a physics review and myth-busting adventure, and Part 2 – presentation of field results for performance and a proposal for determining OCL.

Why start the series of position articles with crank length? Simply, it is the center of the bike upon which everything depends. Change the crank length and one must change the seat height, setback, handlebar drop and extension. Consequently, changing the crank length has a dramatic affect on how the cyclist pedals and how the bike handles…dramatic.

Where to begin is easy. Historically, the cycling community (racers, bike shops, etc) has always maintained that longer cranks produce greater performance due to greater torque. Let’s explore if this myth is real or requires busting.

MYTH: GREATER CRANK LENGTH = GREATER TORQUE = GREATER PERFORMANCE

Investigating this myth reminds me of the old adage, “one must step back out of the trees to see the forest.” Physics defines torque = (lever length) x (force applied at end of lever). The crank is commonly thought of as the lever in cycling, so simple math indicates that greater torque is produced with a longer crank, at a given force.

No question whether this is true. The question for me is whether the crank is the true lever in the equation for cycling?

Why do we focus on the crank arm assembly only? Step back out of the “trees” and look at the “forest” which includes the cyclist and bicycle. The cyclist and bicycle combination (system) includes more than just the crank arm assembly when looking at levers:  a) femur length, b) tibia length, c) foot length, d) crankarm, e) chainring diameter from the center of the bottom bracket to the teeth of the chainring, f) chain length from the chainring to the cassette, g) diameter of the cassette (specific to the gear engaged) and h) wheel diameter from the rear hub center to the tire contact patch on the road. Whoa, that’s a lot of levers which, for simplicity sake, can be added to calculate a “system” lever length: 450mm (avg femur) + 400mm (avg tibia) + 150mm (avg foot length from ankle to metatarsals) + 170mm (crank) + 100mm (52 chainring diameter) + 500mm (avg chain length) + 40mm (16 cog diammeter) + 335 mm(wheel diameter to contact patch) = 2145 mm.  That’s the “forest.”  One “tree” is the cranklength. Now, let’s get radical and change the crank arm from a 170 to a 175mm.  This crank change is equal to a system change of 5mm / 2145mm = 0.23% increase.  Thus, the torque increased 0.23%.  Uh…seriously…0.23% performance gain….

For argument sake, there are those which would say all the levers up to the bottom bracket are primary (power producing) and downstream of the bottom bracket are secondary…power absorbing. I don’t agree but let’s do the math. The primary lever system = 450 + 400 + 150 + 170 + 100 = 1270mm.  Changing the crank to 175 produces a 5/1270 = 0.39% increase in torque. Either way, less than 0.5% is not an increase in performance affecting race/riding results.

There have been several quality studies which have validated the minimal influence of changing crank length by millimeters, even centimeters. Summaries:

1. Determinants of Maximal Cycling Power: Crank Length, Pedaling Rate and Pedal Speed, C. Martin and W.W. Spirduso, 2001 – Sixteen (16) trained cyclists performed maximal inertial load tests using crank lengths of 120, 145, 170, 195 and 220mm. Maximum power ranged from a low of 1149w for the 220 mm to a high of 1194w for the 145 mm. Power produced from the 145 and 170 cranks was significantly greater than that produced with the 120 and 220 cranks.
2. The Bio-mechanical Effects of Crank Arm Length on Cycling Mechanics, E. B. Sprules and D.J. Sanderson, 2000 – Sixteen (16) avid cyclists, spanning a wide range of heights and leg lengths, performed sub-maximal tests using crank lengths from 120 to 220 mm. At a fixed power level, heart rate was measured to determine pedal efficiency and corresponding optimal crank length. The results mirrored the Martin and Spirduso study in that longer cranks did not produce greater performance. In fact, shorter cranks produced lower heart rates.

In addition, here are highlights from several key industry players:

1. Simon Cycling wrote a crank length article in 2010 which cited that Andrew Coggan, well-known and respected cycling scientist, stated at a webinar that optimal crank length for most cyclists is probably under 170mm in length.
2. Cervelo article on crank length summarizes the Martin and Spirduso study and writes, “… The main thing is to realize that the choice of crank length doesn’t significantly affect power, so any length is now free to choose for any other reason.”
3. An article on FSA website reviews crank length, entitled “ Crank Length – Does it matter?” A couple excerpts are a) “If you’re under 6ft, 165 or 170mm cranks may improve both performance and comfort.”; b) “It may seem counter-intuitive; longer cranks mean more leverage and more power, right?  Not quite. In fact, longer cranks give you more torque. Torque and power are often confused, because the difference is subtle. Torque is a measurement of twisting force. Power is a rate of work – it’s the energy consumed during a unit of time.  The more energy you put in, the faster the work is done, and the more power you measurably have. Longer cranks can give you more leverage (torque), but they can’t give you more energy with which to pedal! Why not have the torque anyway? Because there are downsides. Longer cranks make it harder to sprint, as it’s harder to maintain leverage for as much of the each revolution as with shorter cranks.”
4. Uli Shoberer, the entrepreneur and engineer who created SRM, discussed crank length in an interview with Slowtwitch.com in 2012. Key excerpts: a) We tested crank lengths a lot in cycling with several teams. We could not find any increase in power with shorter or longer cranks…it doesn’t matter…in general, with a shorter crank you spin faster…with a shorter crank you choose a higher cadence, and a longer crank you go to a lower cadence, but the power to heart rate relationship is the same. b) Our last test with T-Mobile we did tests on L’Alp d’Huez, and some cyclists rode it 6 times with different crank lengths, ovalized and round chainrings…we measured lactate, heart rate, power…we found that only what counts is power to body mass.

Say it with me…MYTH-BUSTED.  Yes, longer cranks increase torque but not performance.

Where is the Torque podium? I have yet to attend a race where points were given to the racer producing the greatest measured torque. The winner is the person whose bike goes the fastest. In physics terms, the winner completes the work (race) in the shortest time = power = force x velocity (simplified).

Currently, the cycling industry provides a measure that is predictive of performance and race results through use of a power meter. The power meter format winning the retail game is typically measured at the crank but that is only due to marketing forces and convenience to the cyclist. Power can be measured in the pedals, in the chain and in the rear hub, just to name a few. The main point is that power is predictive of performance and it is determined by measuring the force and the velocity of the moving part.

When measuring power at the crank, the velocity of importance is the crank arm velocity or typically referred to as cadence…but not really…there is a difference between cadence and pedal velocity…and the difference is the crank length. At a given cadence (revolutions per min), the pedal moves further using a longer crank length. Ah hah!! The myth is true because the velocity is faster with a longer crank, right!!?? Here’s the rub. At a given force on the pedal, a longer crank will produce greater power if the cyclist can pedal it at the same velocity as a shorter crank. The reality is we cannot because our system of joints (ankle, knee and hip) have limited ranges of motion, and because each of us are “wired” with a unique combination of fast twitch and slow twitch muscles which control the firing of the muscles involved in cycling. Simply, we are each uniquely limited in how fast we can accelerate the pedals.

CONCLUSION

What does all this mean? Longer cranks would produce greater performance due to greater torque and greater crank velocity if we were machines unaffected by the resistance of our joints’ ranges of motion and our unique DNA. That’s not reality. Reality is when crank length increases then velocity (measured by cadence) decreases. This is exactly what was proved in the studies summarized earlier.

Optimal Crank Length, Part 2

“…For Any Other Reason.”

By Steve Auchterlonie

Cycling Performance Lab

Part 1 of this series busted the longer crank length = greater performance myth via a physics analysis and literature review. How useful is that? It’s easy to be a detractor; the challenge is to be a contributor. That is my primary goal in creating the LAB. I want to contribute through helping performance-oriented cyclists get faster. So, it’s time to contribute on the crank length topic.

DISCUSSION

The first article concluded with citing a Cervelo article, “The main thing is to realize that the choice of crank length doesn’t significantly affect power, so any length is now free to choose FOR ANY OTHER REASON.” What other reason? How about biomechanical for comfort (aka, joint health) and performance…how about performance depending on race type – sprinting vs climbing…how about bike handling?

a) Let us look at biomechanical first. The literature offers many theories on how to determine the optimal crank length (OCL) for a cyclist. Most are based upon leg length in some fashion…inseam…femur length…tibia length…or some combination. This logic passes the laugh test because the pedaling motion is a series of coupled levers including the femur/thigh, shin/tibia, foot, crankarm and so on. Efficient mechanical design would optimize the lengths of these levers, in relation to one another. The challenge is the wide ranging equations proposed to determine OCL, none of which are based on mechanical design. For yours truly, the various equations propose that my OCL should be anywhere from 120mm to 180mm…seriously. Who to believe and where to begin? In my opinion, the best sources are to know i) what crank lengths the pros are running, ii) personal experience, and iii) biomechanical testing:

i) Pros – A great measure because you know they have been fit by the best and are privy to the best research. Most pro men range in height from 5’6” to 6’3” (with exceptions outside that range) and the crank lengths used range from 170mm to 180mm, with a direct correlation between height and crank length. For pro women, the ranges are 5’3” to 6’ and 165mm to 175mm. Taller cyclists have longer leg lengths requiring longer crank arms, at first glance. What is not apparent is that pros are elite athletes for several reasons, including longer than normal ratio of femur length to tibia length. No, this is not true for 100% of the pros, but it is a common characteristic of the elite cyclists, same as high VO2 max values are common. From a bike fit view, this femur to tibia ratio expresses itself in saddles set back further in relation to the bottom bracket and the need for either setback seatposts and/or saddles pushed back on their rails. My experience with many amateur racers is a normal to below normal femur to tibia ratio, resulting in zero setback posts and/or saddles pushed forward on the rails.

There are many pros with similar stature to my own but I will simplify and focus on Alberto Contador (AC) mainly because there is a wealth of bike fit info on him available and he is one of the most consistent top pros for the last 10 years. It’s easy to find bike measurements on the web and to analyze photos to determine key measurements such as saddle setback and handlebar drop. AC has used a 172.5mm crank for many years. Without boring you (or scaring you with my obsessive quality) with the details, let me simply summarize my studies on AC vs Yours Truly (YT):  1) very similar total height and leg lengths based on saddle heights, and 2) very different leg geometries with AC’s femurs 2.5 cm longer than mine and my Tibias 2.5cm longer than his (as documented in saddle setback measurements). Longer femur to tibia ratio is ideal for cycling performance…dang it. It also impacts the ideal length of crank because longer tibias compress the knee angle and hip angle at the top of the pedal stroke. So, the question becomes should I use a 172.5 like AC since we are almost equal height and total leg length, or should I use a shorter crank since my femurs are shorter and tibias longer than his?

ii) Personal Experience – I have fairly long legs for my height (34 inch = 86 cm inseam for 5’9”) so my first professional bike fit (by a national renown fitter) recommended I run 175mm cranks. My first couple years racing produced decent results but inconsistent. I struggled maintaining 90+rpm on long TT efforts and long climbs typically broke down to 70 rpm despite trying to keep 80 rpm. Sprinting was always disappointing but I concluded that was due to my age (near 50 when I started), although that was inconsistent with my athletic background outside cycling. I always felt like I was fighting the bike and chronic lower back tightness. A new bike purchase came with a “shorter” 172.5mm crank and no change in performance. It wasn’t until one year ago when I purchased an adjustable crank for winter training that I could test various lengths…the result was stunning. I experimented with the entire range from 125 to 180 over a couple months during the winter. I could hang with the fast group rides regardless, but found it difficult to “jump” with cranks 175mm+ and to produce sustained power on long climbs with the cranks less than 155mm. Going into the 2015 race season, I “risked” the season by installing 165mm cranks and had the best season ever with excellent overall power – sprinting and climbing – and almost no lumbar tightness.

iii) Retul Measurements – The LAB owns a Retul system which measures many body position parameters dynamically. Two key parameters for performance directly impacted by crank length are closed hip angle and knee flexion angle. Both of these angles are measured at the top of the pedal stroke (TOS), so crank length directly impacts these measurements by moving the thigh at TOS for hip angle and by moving the foot at TOS for the knee angle. Retul offers normative ranges for these measurements but, through experience working/measuring over 50 racers, I have found that most top local amateur racers are performing best when the hip angle is not closed beyond 45 degrees at TOS when in the drops, and, more importantly, the knee extension angle (leg extended at bottom of stroke, BOS)) is 37-40 degrees with the knee flexion angle (TOS) is less than 110 degrees. For you without a Retul system, these angles are difficult to measure accurately statically with a goniometer, but you would use values 5 degrees lower due to the measurement technique. Greater performance is achieved with more knee flex at BOS but only if the crank does not push the knee flexion angle above 110 degrees. Many cyclists ride in the 110 to 115 degree range and I have done that personally. It is not going to injure the joint but pulling the pedal up the backstroke and over the top is more difficult. A knee flexion angle greater than 115 is not healthy or optimized for performance.

With 175mm cranks, my knee flexion angle was greater than 115 degrees, even with a higher saddle height (less optimal for performance). A 165mm crank achieves a knee flexion angle of 110 degrees for me with a knee extension angle in the performance range of 37-40 degrees. Performance has jumped significantly, both sprinting and climbing.

b) What about race type? Many examples found on the web are consistent with my own experience, in that if one uses a crank different than their OCL, then shorter cranks improve sprinting and longer cranks improve TT efforts involving long, extended climbing. Again, this makes sense because shorter cranks are easier to accelerate and sprinting is dependent upon pedal velocity. Yes, they are shorter and so they travel less distance per revolution resulting in a faster cadence, but, far more importantly, the shorter cranks open the hip angle and knee flexion angle (top of pedal stroke) which allow the cyclist to pull through the backstroke and over the top of the pedal stroke with much less joint restriction. Longer cranks for TT, sustained power efforts make sense…as long as the cyclist can maintain the same pedal velocity…there is a limit to what is acceptably “long” for each cyclist.

How is bike handling impacted by crank length? This was a surprise to me but should not have been. Bike position includes setting the saddle setback, which is the fore-aft position of the saddle and cyclist.  As cranks get longer, the saddle position moves forward relative to the bottom bracket in order to  maintain the knee over pedal spindle position (a completely different topic and not addressed in this article). Conversely, shorter cranks position the cyclist further back on the bike. Handling of the bike is affected by the center of gravity which is directly affected by the saddle setback. Handling is typically sacrificed as the position is moved further forward, especially in high speed cornering and descending due to additional weight on the front wheel.

From personal experience, I can share two examples of the impact on handling. First, I have never been able to balance myself on the bike without my hands on the handlebar and just thought it meant I had poor balance…again this is inconsistent with other activities off the bike. Moving to the 165mm crank has positioned me such that I can ride “no-handed” all day long. Secondly, the local Devil’s Den climb used in the Joe Martin time trial race is a two miler at 6.5% with several rounded 90 degree turns and one sharp switchback turn. Historically, I always had to brake in the switchback when descending at speeds above 30mph. With the 165mm, I can take that turn with complete confidence without braking.

SUMMARY

The crank length dictates the optimum performance for a cyclist both biomechanically (pedaling) and mechanically (handling). There exists an Optimum Crank Length (OCL) for a cyclist for “all around” riding, which is determined by their unique leg lengths for the femur and tibia. Cycling performance can be enhanced for sprinting/handling by reducing the crank length and for extended climbing/TT efforts with a longer crank length. This “range” of crank lengths is limited due to biomechanical restrictions caused by the femur/tibia ratio.

Simply, if you feel like you are fighting the bike, battling chronic lumbar back pain, struggle to keep a higher cadence when climbing or long TT efforts, then your crank length is most likely too long. The crank length could be too short if you feel like you spin out frequently or struggle climbing with other cyclists that you easily ride beside on the flats. Two other indicators of incorrect crank length are a) poor high speed handling when descending and/or b) a saddle position which requires an unusual saddle setback including zero setback seatposts with saddle slammed forward on rail or the opposite with a huge saddle setback.

Alright, enough discussion…where’s the proof with some power data? Part three of the crank length series will provide power and biomechanical data to document performance improvement when using the OCL. In addition, I will provide a simple equation to calculate your own OCL. I hope to be timelier in writing Part Three, within the next few weeks.

BIKE FITTING FUNDAMENTALS: THE “PERFECT” SADDLE
BY
STEVE AUCHTERLONIE WITH CYCLING PERFORMANCE LAB LLC

The perfect saddle, does it exist? OCA asked me to address this subject for some time because of the importance to the cycling experience. If we are not comfortable on the saddle then it’s impossible to enjoy cycling. Saddles are not cheap so trial and error is expensive. My goal for this article is to provide an easy to follow guidance on how to find your “perfect” saddle.

HA!! This is an impossible task that the cycling industry has struggled to solve. Go to the website for each major saddle manufacturer and survey their “sizing” methods… each one is different. One company’s approach is based on pant size, another’s based on flexibility, and a popular fitter’s approach is to match the saddle width with a client’s measured sit bone width. To add to the confusion, these well-intentioned companies confuse us with many design variations including short vs long lengths, widths from 110mm to 180+mm, cutouts vs channels vs non-cutouts, multiple padding levels, rounded vs flat lateral shapes, flat vs slightly curved vs very curved longitudinal shapes, leather vs synthetic covers, plastic vs carbon frames, metal vs carbon rails, and noses which are narrow vs wide vs non-existent. You get the idea.

Where does one begin if the current saddle is uncomfortable? The poor bike shop salesperson’s worst nightmare is when a customer asks him/her to recommend a saddle. Why? No training coupled with limited options available in the store leads to frustration for everyone. I know. I worked in a bike shop. So then, repeat the first sentence of this paragraph.

Here is my non-guaranteed saddle guidance, based on working with a couple hundred clients on their bike positions and based on my personal experience of riding/racing bikes for 40 years:

STEP 1 – Be realistic and understand what saddle comfort means. The bike saddle will never be your recliner chair, but how fast can you peddle a recliner anyway? The bike saddle is part of a performance machine that requires you to be athletic. Under the best circumstances, long rides in the saddle will not be all smiles and joy while skipping down the flowering meadow. Think about it. Sitting 2+ hours in one position on the recliner isn’t great either. YOU SHOULD NEVER BE IN ACUTE PAIN. However, very low grade, manageable discomfort is typical. Also, like everything else about humans, there is a wide range of saddle pressure sensitivity in the private region. The majority of my clients find the stock saddle that came on their bike acceptable. Of the remaining clients, most find a replacement saddle that improves their comfort experience compared to the stock saddle. There will always be a small percentage of cyclists who make me wonder why they ride a bike due to their heightened sensitivity in their private region… no saddle design improves their comfort.

STEP 2 – Verify your saddle position is correct. What does that mean? Saddle position includes a) seat height, b) saddle setback and c) saddle tilt. A poorly positioned saddle may cause saddle discomfort. The most common problem is a seat height that is too high which causes much greater saddle pressure at the bottom of the pedal stroke. A common symptom is saddle sores. Saddle tilt is the angle of the saddle, either nose up or down or level. Extreme nose up or down positions are problematic.

STEP 3 – Verify your handlebar position is not fighting you. Each of us has a unique and natural athletic position on the bike, whereby the pelvis rotates forward on the saddle allowing the spine to elongate. The variation among us is great and is reflected in our posture on the bike. Some of us sit upright while others are long and low. The handlebar position is measured by a) reach from saddle, b) height relative to saddle (called drop), and c) width of bar. The bar position facilitates our posture on the bike. When the bar position does not match our natural position then there is a “fight” between the bar and the cyclist. This can cause saddle discomfort due to our compensating for an un-relaxed upper body.

STEP 4 – Eliminate saddle designs that don’t match your cycling discipline. Here are a couple examples: a) MTB requires flat saddles to allow movement = eliminate curved saddles; and b) triathlon requires noseless saddles due to the extreme pelvic rotation position = eliminate hard nosed and long nosed saddles.

STEP 5 – Eliminate saddle designs that don’t match your pelvic rotation. Specifically, do you need a cutout or not? It’s hard to argue against a cutout due to the mountain of evidence documenting the improved blood flow in the private region. So, why are there so many non-cutout saddles available and why do the majority of bikes come with non-cutout saddles? I hate to say it but it’s tradition and cycling is stooped in tradition. Main decision points: a) health!! If you rotate your pelvis forward significantly then a cutout design is far, far healthier. Main symptom is numbness in the private zone while riding; b) a very small percentage of you are more uncomfortable on cutout saddles because the narrow rails are “cutting” into your private region; and c) cutout designs provide minimal to no improved blood flow for cyclists who sit very upright with minimal to no pelvic rotation.

STEP 6 – Eliminate saddle designs that are too wide or too narrow. How do you know? Accurately measure your sit bone width. How? The best tool is the Retul pressure map, sit bone measurement device but there are gel devices by Trek and Specialized or, for you DIYers, Google how to use cardboard or flour in a Ziplock bag. The result will be your sit bone width in millimeters. The value ranges from very narrow in the 90s to very wide in the 180s. My experience is that there is NO correlation between your frame type or body size to your sit bone width. Do not make an assumption for sit bone width based on your size. Now, add 30 to your sit bone width to get your “ideal” saddle width. For example, 100 + 30 = 130. Saddles come in standard widths: 110-120 is the narrowest. 130, 143 and 155 are the most common. 168 and greater are the wider options.

Why did I put quotes around “ideal?” Simply, it depends on how forward you rotate your pelvis on the saddle. The sit bone width is the widest, rear section of a bone structure in the private region called the ischium. The relationship of sit bone width to saddle width only makes sense if the cyclist is sitting upright (without their pelvis rotated forward). If the cyclist rotates their pelvis forward then he/she is sitting on a narrower section of the bone structure. Thus, a narrower saddle could be more supportive and comfortable in this lower/longer position. This is all great in theory but here’s my experience working with clients: comfort is subjective. I have wide sit bone clients who are more comfortable on narrow saddles and vice versa. Hey, I never said this was going to make sense.

STEP 7 – Do not make a saddle decision to save weight!!!!! Enough said.

STEP 8 – Eliminate soft saddles if you ride greater than 30 minutes. Just like the bed mattress industry, soft “pillow top” saddles feel great in the store and on the 5 minute test ride. They are miserable to sit on for rides longer than 30 minutes. Why? Just like your back on the mattress, your private zone is composed of bones, muscles and ligaments that need a firm foundation upon which to rest. The soft saddle is squishy and provides no foundation. On a soft saddle, you will find yourself constantly searching for that “spot” to sit upon.

STEP 9 – What’s left? At this point, you should have several saddles to consider and, ideally, you can test ride them. Bike shops have loaner saddles for this purpose. At the Lab, loaner saddles of various designs and sizes are available to fit clients. In addition, the Lab has a fitbike that copies your bike position and allows quick changes of saddles. The client climbs aboard to test ride multiple saddles in a short time frame. In this manner, the client gets a first impression of which saddle feels best. However, a true test ride should be conducted on a typical course and for a typical ride time.

One more key point needs to be made. As stated earlier, our private region is composed of bones, muscles and ligaments. They have adapted to your current saddle and position. Changing the saddle and/or position requires a new adaptation that can take a ride or two to several weeks. So, a true test ride needs to last that period of time. Again, YOU SHOULD NEVER BE IN ACUTE PAIN. However, very low grade, manageable discomfort is typical.

STEP 10 – Buy several when you find the perfect saddle.