You seem to be seeing what you want to see. TLL posted above about that. Fitness and conditions change over time.warthog1 wrote:Nobody wrote:If I was racing, would it make my answer more valuable?
Well if you were tt ing over a set course a number of times and had a consistent trend in your times developing then yes, I think your results would be more valuable.
Haven't you been doing the long crank thing for about a year now? Surely the results should be well and truly in by now.warthog1 wrote:I will soon get an idea over time which length of crank is faster for me. I dont expect a big change btw.
I did. It was no change.warthog1 wrote:Nobody wrote:Average speed. Just as fallible as most other people's methodology.
Combine it with maximal effort and if your training load is relatively consistent you will establish a trend IMO
Maybe not, but it was funny and sad at the same time. I would dare to say that almost all would be taller than 173cm though.warthog1 wrote:I don't see how doping or not affects the results. Would not doping make the same athlete choose shorter cranks to maximise their speed?
Also here's a thought, maybe they all follow each other on what to get in the absence of any real data on the subject. Just like if you were to become a pro now. Then people would follow you and so on...
Do all the sprinters also use long cranks, even though the scientific evidence says that shorter cranks accelerate faster? If so, why?warthog1 wrote:Nobody wrote:And yes, a possible gain might be there (although the science says no so far) but there are plenty of known advantages of shorter cranks (also listed previously).
The studies I have seen relate to short term maximal anaerobic (sprinting) power.
There is significant incentive for competitive cyclists at the highest level to win, evidence the amount who have doped . They tend to use longer cranks. Why?
This post is a concise argument for shorter cranks with a TT bike.