Recently, in a past post I discussed testing out the use of shorter cranks in track cycling. Although the testing is far from complete, here is some interim information.
For those of you new to the discussion, much has been written on the advantages/disadvantages of shorter/longer cranks. Google it. I am not going to recapitulate all that has been written on the subject. Besides, in my self centered, narcissistic, "all about me" world (aka.Tommy World), I am not concerned with the anecdotal results others have reported. I want my own anecdotal results.
When I began this quest, my original goal was to alleviate, or maybe reduce pain in my right leg/knee. My thought was that by reducing the range of motion/stroke length my leg makes on each revolution, perhaps I might be able to reduce knee pain. Effectively my leg would be tracing out a smaller circle, or more specifically, a circle with a 25 mm smaller radius.
Of course with the shorter cranks, there is a shorter moment arm, making the leverage at the crank lower. To accomodate, a lower gear is required. At any given speed/power, higer rpms are required for the 140 mm crank arms as compared to the 165 mm arms.
Sounds reasonable, and it is what one might expect. In fact with the 140 mm cranks, it is unbelievable how easy it is to rev up, and how much higher, maximum rpm becomes. Kapowwww!!!
Okay, so I can rev. real high with the 140 mm cranks. Wow. That's grreat, but higher rev's with the same slighly shifted power curve is no advantage. So the real question remains: "Is there less pain with the shorter cranks?" In my case, the answer is no. I have noticed no significant reduction in knee pain at this point.
End of story? Not quite. It is only round one. I had been away from training seriously for about 2 years, and have only just gotten through the initial training phase of the plan. It is possible that as the intensity of the workouts increase, knee pain may not increase as much, over time, with the shorter cranks. Perhaps what I am experiencing at this point is what I will refer to as; "baseline pain". As things progress I will continue to update.
There is one other aspect to the short crank issue I would like to mention. Shorter cranks may enable one to get into a more extreme aero position, which is hopefully faster. The position shown in the picture is with 165 mm cranks and as you can see my elbows are about an inch higher than the top tube. Although the hip angle is tight, it is not a deal breaker. With shorter cranks the hip angle will definitely open up, and I would probably be able to lower the front end a little more, but I would also have to increase seat height. So as far as frontal area is concerned the front end may be lower, but the wind may "see" more of my backside. Zero sum?
Advantage? Disadvantage? I will test it....Stay tuned!
For those of you new to the discussion, much has been written on the advantages/disadvantages of shorter/longer cranks. Google it. I am not going to recapitulate all that has been written on the subject. Besides, in my self centered, narcissistic, "all about me" world (aka.Tommy World), I am not concerned with the anecdotal results others have reported. I want my own anecdotal results.
When I began this quest, my original goal was to alleviate, or maybe reduce pain in my right leg/knee. My thought was that by reducing the range of motion/stroke length my leg makes on each revolution, perhaps I might be able to reduce knee pain. Effectively my leg would be tracing out a smaller circle, or more specifically, a circle with a 25 mm smaller radius.
Of course with the shorter cranks, there is a shorter moment arm, making the leverage at the crank lower. To accomodate, a lower gear is required. At any given speed/power, higer rpms are required for the 140 mm crank arms as compared to the 165 mm arms.
Sounds reasonable, and it is what one might expect. In fact with the 140 mm cranks, it is unbelievable how easy it is to rev up, and how much higher, maximum rpm becomes. Kapowwww!!!
Okay, so I can rev. real high with the 140 mm cranks. Wow. That's grreat, but higher rev's with the same slighly shifted power curve is no advantage. So the real question remains: "Is there less pain with the shorter cranks?" In my case, the answer is no. I have noticed no significant reduction in knee pain at this point.
End of story? Not quite. It is only round one. I had been away from training seriously for about 2 years, and have only just gotten through the initial training phase of the plan. It is possible that as the intensity of the workouts increase, knee pain may not increase as much, over time, with the shorter cranks. Perhaps what I am experiencing at this point is what I will refer to as; "baseline pain". As things progress I will continue to update.
There is one other aspect to the short crank issue I would like to mention. Shorter cranks may enable one to get into a more extreme aero position, which is hopefully faster. The position shown in the picture is with 165 mm cranks and as you can see my elbows are about an inch higher than the top tube. Although the hip angle is tight, it is not a deal breaker. With shorter cranks the hip angle will definitely open up, and I would probably be able to lower the front end a little more, but I would also have to increase seat height. So as far as frontal area is concerned the front end may be lower, but the wind may "see" more of my backside. Zero sum?
Advantage? Disadvantage? I will test it....Stay tuned!
RSS Feed
