170 mm cranks are typical for most off the shelf bikes. 175 for big bikes.
Pffft. Next you’ll tell me that you’re running 50/34 up front and 11-28 in the back
I still have a bike that I ride occassionally that runs an 11 speed Dura Ace 11-21 cluster mated with a 53/39 and 175 crank arms. To think that I used to ride that gear arrangment all of the time, even on training rides, is pretty crazy. It didn't matter if I was riding mountain passes in the Rockies or the flats of the Plains, that is what I rode. My knees paid the price and it's not a lot of fun grining out a slow cadence up a big hill or mountain pass. I just pretended that I was Jan Ullrich. The gears that he would turn in the Alps or Pyrenees was nothing short of amazing.
I now prefer to mostly ride a 34/50 mated to an 11-32 or 34. That 1:1 or nearly 1:1 ratio makes mountains into molehills.
It has been 1 year since Eliud Kipchoge in Vienna succeeded in his mission to break the 2 hour barrier for the marathon. Athletics enthusiasts from all over the world were glued to the tube on October 12, 2019 to breathlessly...
Check this out. It's for Breaking2, but gives some insight.
The research of the Nike ‘Breaking2’ marathon team has provided interesting insights into the physiological data of Eliud Kipchoge and his pacers. The most important findings are: VO2 max of 84, this is high but not exceptional (the corresponding power is 6.84 Watt/kg) Endurance is exceptionally high, 88% of VO2 max during 2 hours! The result is that Eliud ran the marathon with a power of 337 Watt. Running efficiency is very high, oxygen consumption 191 ml/kg/km and energy consumption (ECOR) 0.93 kJ/kg/km Air resistance is 33% lower due to pacers, the energy consumption for air resistance is only 0.06 kJ/kg/km We have entered this data (and the other data such as temperature, air pressure, altitude and wind speed) into our running model. The result is that the model calculates a speed of 21.2 km/h, so very close to the speed of 21.1 km/h Eliud reached.
6.84 watt/kg is HUGE!!! For me, at 85kg, I'd have to push 581 watts for two hours. Insane!
Pffft. Next you’ll tell me that you’re running 50/34 up front and 11-28 in the back
I still have a bike that I ride occassionally that runs an 11 speed Dura Ace 11-21 cluster mated with a 53/39 and 175 crank arms. To think that I used to ride that gear arrangment all of the time, even on training rides, is pretty crazy. It didn't matter if I was riding mountain passes in the Rockies or the flats of the Plains, that is what I rode. My knees paid the price and it's not a lot of fun grining out a slow cadence up a big hill or mountain pass. I just pretended that I was Jan Ullrich. The gears that he would turn in the Alps or Pyrenees was nothing short of amazing.
I now prefer to mostly ride a 34/50 mated to an 11-32 or 34. That 1:1 or nearly 1:1 ratio makes mountains into molehills.
I pretty much have the same story on one bike, except the 28 is plenty for anything near me. I distinctly remember breaking a chain on one hill on some type of 10 speed. I’m guess that was the 21 lol
Check this out. It's for Breaking2, but gives some insight.
The research of the Nike ‘Breaking2’ marathon team has provided interesting insights into the physiological data of Eliud Kipchoge and his pacers. The most important findings are: VO2 max of 84, this is high but not exceptional (the corresponding power is 6.84 Watt/kg) Endurance is exceptionally high, 88% of VO2 max during 2 hours! The result is that Eliud ran the marathon with a power of 337 Watt. Running efficiency is very high, oxygen consumption 191 ml/kg/km and energy consumption (ECOR) 0.93 kJ/kg/km Air resistance is 33% lower due to pacers, the energy consumption for air resistance is only 0.06 kJ/kg/km We have entered this data (and the other data such as temperature, air pressure, altitude and wind speed) into our running model. The result is that the model calculates a speed of 21.2 km/h, so very close to the speed of 21.1 km/h Eliud reached.
6.84 watt/kg is HUGE!!! For me, at 85kg, I'd have to push 581 watts for two hours. Insane!
No, his VO2 max isn't 84. Nowhere near. The author is clueless. His VO2 at 21kmh in the first test was 65 ml/kg/min.
170 mm cranks are typical for most off the shelf bikes. 175 for big bikes. Cyclists are starting to gravitate towards shorter cranks for several reasons. Cycling is about a combination of power and aerodynamics (one will typically lose some power getting into a good aerodynamic position). Shorter cranks means the thigh doesn't come up as much so they lose less power when they try to get aero. Whereas, running is mostly about foot speed and running economy. One other difference is the foot speed of the cyclist is constant whereas it is always changing in the runner. Pedaling losses in cycling increase with the cube of the cadence. Once one is over a cadence of 220 or so the power losses from just making the pedals go around are so great it is essentially impossible to put any power to the wheel. I know of an elite sprinter who uses a special bicycle to train foot speed, not on the ground as much as in recovery to get the foot forward quickly.
Crankset length has long been a debated topic in cycling (it has been for the two decades I’ve been interested in the sport for sure). When I was first getting into cycling the big push was for longer cranks. My 54cm bike came with 175s. I eventually settled on 172.5 because, while I liked the torque offered by the longer cranks, the extra knee extension required to pedal them gave me issues.
You mention the knee/hip motion but you ignore the fact that a shorter crank has drawbacks, too, namely lower max torque and shorter length of power stroke. Those aren’t minor concerns either. So it’s obviously not just shorter is better. There’s a balance and it will depend on the discipline with track cycling, triathlon, time trialing, criteriums, and hill climbing all being different.
Super high cadence is really only relevant for track cycling (single speed bikes). Extreme aero positioning and the bike fit changes to accommodate it are irrelevant for hill climbing. And what pros can benefit from and what the rest of us can live with are often worlds apart.
Actually, I have done a lot of work examining crank length and cycling power. Crank length on modern bicycles have zero effect on torque, at least to the wheel which is what counts as there are many other levers between the foot and the wheel, the gears being the major one. While shorter cranks at some point will make things work (can't generate any power at a zero crank length) most cyclists aren't anywhere near optimum for them. The major factor that affects cycling efficiency is pedal speed, there being an optimum speed for any given power. Most people ride at a pedal speed way above optimum for them. One reason for this is they tend to emulate the pros. Of course, they don't train like the pros nor come anywhere near the power of the pros. The thing that pedal speed controls that affects efficiency is muscle contraction speed. For any given power the muscle will have an optimum contraction speed. Shorter cranks at the same cadence will slow pedal speed and muscle speed, allowing better efficiency. Most can gain about 10% (20 to 22% say) by doing this work. This would give them a 10% increase in power for the same oxygen consumption.
Track cyclists have a more difficult problem to figure out.
No, his VO2 max isn't 84. Nowhere near. The author is clueless. His VO2 at 21kmh in the first test was 65 ml/kg/min.
The author stated he was assuming the VO2max, he didn't know. What was more impressive to me was this group was averaging 88% of their VO2max, which means that half were even more efficient. This is the real key to becoming elite, running efficiency. We can keep running faster as long as all the muscles we are using are staying aerobic. As soon as the first one goes anaerobic the end is near. The key to getting better isn't making the best muscles better but making the weakest muscles better.
No, his VO2 max isn't 84. Nowhere near. The author is clueless. His VO2 at 21kmh in the first test was 65 ml/kg/min.
The author stated he was assuming the VO2max, he didn't know. What was more impressive to me was this group was averaging 88% of their VO2max, which means that half were even more efficient. This is the real key to becoming elite, running efficiency. We can keep running faster as long as all the muscles we are using are staying aerobic. As soon as the first one goes anaerobic the end is near. The key to getting better isn't making the best muscles better but making the weakest muscles better.
The author obviously can't read a simple graph.
As for your biochemistry, that's not much better. In running there is always an anaerobic contribution. In a 2 hour marathon it's about 7 or 8% of the energy requirement.
Crankset length has long been a debated topic in cycling (it has been for the two decades I’ve been interested in the sport for sure). When I was first getting into cycling the big push was for longer cranks. My 54cm bike came with 175s. I eventually settled on 172.5 because, while I liked the torque offered by the longer cranks, the extra knee extension required to pedal them gave me issues.
You mention the knee/hip motion but you ignore the fact that a shorter crank has drawbacks, too, namely lower max torque and shorter length of power stroke. Those aren’t minor concerns either. So it’s obviously not just shorter is better. There’s a balance and it will depend on the discipline with track cycling, triathlon, time trialing, criteriums, and hill climbing all being different.
Super high cadence is really only relevant for track cycling (single speed bikes). Extreme aero positioning and the bike fit changes to accommodate it are irrelevant for hill climbing. And what pros can benefit from and what the rest of us can live with are often worlds apart.
Actually, I have done a lot of work examining crank length and cycling power. Crank length on modern bicycles have zero effect on torque, at least to the wheel which is what counts as there are many other levers between the foot and the wheel, the gears being the major one. While shorter cranks at some point will make things work (can't generate any power at a zero crank length) most cyclists aren't anywhere near optimum for them. The major factor that affects cycling efficiency is pedal speed, there being an optimum speed for any given power. Most people ride at a pedal speed way above optimum for them. One reason for this is they tend to emulate the pros. Of course, they don't train like the pros nor come anywhere near the power of the pros. The thing that pedal speed controls that affects efficiency is muscle contraction speed. For any given power the muscle will have an optimum contraction speed. Shorter cranks at the same cadence will slow pedal speed and muscle speed, allowing better efficiency. Most can gain about 10% (20 to 22% say) by doing this work. This would give them a 10% increase in power for the same oxygen consumption.
Track cyclists have a more difficult problem to figure out.
Your claims are absurd. If you were correct about such massive changes in efficiency, then changing up or down a gear on a steep climb would have a very noticeable effect, whereas in reality the effect is quite small.
I was playing around trying to put how hard this would be in cycling terms.
The foot is moving as fast as the runner and a two hour marathon the foot is moving about 5.88 m/sec. To get that foot speed on a bicycle with 170 mm cranks (typical) would require a cadence of over 300. It is hard to get over 200 and then it can only be sustained a short time. Someone check my calculations.
Running and cycling mechanics and losses are different but I think that puts it into some perspective for those who ride bicycles also.
Crankset length has long been a debated topic in cycling (it has been for the two decades I’ve been interested in the sport for sure). When I was first getting into cycling the big push was for longer cranks. My 54cm bike came with 175s. I eventually settled on 172.5 because, while I liked the torque offered by the longer cranks, the extra knee extension required to pedal them gave me issues.
You mention the knee/hip motion but you ignore the fact that a shorter crank has drawbacks, too, namely lower max torque and shorter length of power stroke. Those aren’t minor concerns either. So it’s obviously not just shorter is better. There’s a balance and it will depend on the discipline with track cycling, triathlon, time trialing, criteriums, and hill climbing all being different.
Super high cadence is really only relevant for track cycling (single speed bikes). Extreme aero positioning and the bike fit changes to accommodate it are irrelevant for hill climbing. And what pros can benefit from and what the rest of us can live with are often worlds apart.
Actually, I have done a lot of work examining crank length and cycling power. Crank length on modern bicycles have zero effect on torque, at least to the wheel which is what counts as there are many other levers between the foot and the wheel, the gears being the major one. While shorter cranks at some point will make things work (can't generate any power at a zero crank length) most cyclists aren't anywhere near optimum for them. The major factor that affects cycling efficiency is pedal speed, there being an optimum speed for any given power. Most people ride at a pedal speed way above optimum for them. One reason for this is they tend to emulate the pros. Of course, they don't train like the pros nor come anywhere near the power of the pros. The thing that pedal speed controls that affects efficiency is muscle contraction speed. For any given power the muscle will have an optimum contraction speed. Shorter cranks at the same cadence will slow pedal speed and muscle speed, allowing better efficiency. Most can gain about 10% (20 to 22% say) by doing this work. This would give them a 10% increase in power for the same oxygen consumption.
Track cyclists have a more difficult problem to figure out.
I'd love to see the work you've done, honestly. I disagree with just about everything you've said above but perhaps your data would sway me.
Explain the difference between ordinary runners who run at about 70-75% VO2max, The very good who run in the low 80's, and these people some of whom had to be at 90% or above. How do you explain that difference without invoking anaerobic metabolism. Anyhow, the issue with anaerobic metabolism is getting rid of the excess CO2 that comes from the buffering of the lactic acid. That is a lot of CO2 per ATP. I look forward to you schooling me on this physiology associated with any exercise.
Actually, I have done a lot of work examining crank length and cycling power. Crank length on modern bicycles have zero effect on torque, at least to the wheel which is what counts as there are many other levers between the foot and the wheel, the gears being the major one. While shorter cranks at some point will make things work (can't generate any power at a zero crank length) most cyclists aren't anywhere near optimum for them. The major factor that affects cycling efficiency is pedal speed, there being an optimum speed for any given power. Most people ride at a pedal speed way above optimum for them. One reason for this is they tend to emulate the pros. Of course, they don't train like the pros nor come anywhere near the power of the pros. The thing that pedal speed controls that affects efficiency is muscle contraction speed. For any given power the muscle will have an optimum contraction speed. Shorter cranks at the same cadence will slow pedal speed and muscle speed, allowing better efficiency. Most can gain about 10% (20 to 22% say) by doing this work. This would give them a 10% increase in power for the same oxygen consumption.
Track cyclists have a more difficult problem to figure out.
I'd love to see the work you've done, honestly. I disagree with just about everything you've said above but perhaps your data would sway me.
First, there is the science. I am aware of only pedal speed having been shown to affect pedaling economy/efficiency. Here is an article that discusses the issue. high cadence decreases efficiency In addition, I did a test on a world champion masters triathlete one off season to prove the case (I had ben pushing him to do this for years but he resisted but finally relented). We took three weeks and put him on an ergometer at just under his racing power (so fatigue didn't affect the results too much) then monitored his heart rate as we changed pedal speed (we did that by changing cadence and crank length) e could get 5-6 good data a day. Before he raced at a pedal speed of about 1.7 m/sec. He tested best at about 1.1 m/sec. He then road a course he had done many times over many years using this new pedal speed (we shortened his crank length so he could keep his cadence up where he liked it) and he saw a 10% increase in power (that included an 18% grade climb). I would include the graph of the data but I don't see a way to include images.
Actually, I have done a lot of work examining crank length and cycling power. Crank length on modern bicycles have zero effect on torque, at least to the wheel which is what counts as there are many other levers between the foot and the wheel, the gears being the major one. While shorter cranks at some point will make things work (can't generate any power at a zero crank length) most cyclists aren't anywhere near optimum for them. The major factor that affects cycling efficiency is pedal speed, there being an optimum speed for any given power. Most people ride at a pedal speed way above optimum for them. One reason for this is they tend to emulate the pros. Of course, they don't train like the pros nor come anywhere near the power of the pros. The thing that pedal speed controls that affects efficiency is muscle contraction speed. For any given power the muscle will have an optimum contraction speed. Shorter cranks at the same cadence will slow pedal speed and muscle speed, allowing better efficiency. Most can gain about 10% (20 to 22% say) by doing this work. This would give them a 10% increase in power for the same oxygen consumption.
Track cyclists have a more difficult problem to figure out.
Your claims are absurd. If you were correct about such massive changes in efficiency, then changing up or down a gear on a steep climb would have a very noticeable effect, whereas in reality the effect is quite small.
Actually, that isn't true. These changes in efficiency are aerobic changes, not when one is struggling over a hill. They are seen by a couple of beats lower in HR at the same sustained power. Or, higher power at the same The differences are seen over time, not immediately.
I’m sorry, but that article/study is junk. All it basically says is that people who don’t ride bikes regularly (amateur-level triathlete just screams ‘someone who rode a bike for a single sprint tri they did) don’t do it efficiently due to lack of coordination. Shocking.
As for your anecdote, good for him. I remain unconvinced.
I think you folks missed the point. I was comparing what it would take to get the same foot speed on a bicycle. Not whether 40 km in 2 hours is possible on a bicycle.
Huh? Foot speed is zero mph. Your foot is on the ground for 0.2 seconds at 13 mph. Your body is being propelled over your foot.
Just reminding you that your original post was nonsense.
The question doesn't even make a lot of sense, but given that the highest ftp's recorded (to my knowledge) are just sub 6 w/kg, its probably equivalent to a 6.15 w/kg ftp and holding a VI of 1.00 for 2 hours. There isn't as much of a performance (speed) correlation, because CdA or has so much of an impact in cycling (assuming we are talking about a flat course).
The question doesn't even make a lot of sense, but given that the highest ftp's recorded (to my knowledge) are just sub 6 w/kg, its probably equivalent to a 6.15 w/kg ftp and holding a VI of 1.00 for 2 hours. There isn't as much of a performance (speed) correlation, because CdA or has so much of an impact in cycling (assuming we are talking about a flat course).
Kipchoge's RER would be less than 1.0
He's probably around 90% VO2max for 2 hours, but the so is a well trained Average Joe running 20 miles in 2 hours.
Kipchoge's economy is super high, but his Oxygen consumption is pretty much the same as Average Joe. So his superior economy is a combination of his superior basic speed and training and pacing and footwear.
In other words, everything that has been tested by the Sub 2 project people.
