and the Crankarm Length Saga continues- Food for Thought

[emorydptt]

Please click picture for details:



thoughts?

[AJS914]

I'm not sure I get the point of the video. If you move the disc only 2.5mm in either direction there would hardly be a noticeable difference in speed. Our typical choices are 170, 172.5, & 175. Of course, if you look harder you can find 165mm to 180mm cranks. It's still only a 15mm difference between the largest and smallest.

[Lewn777]

The video doesn't really explain anything. All I know is that I use a 172.5 cranks becuase I've used 170 and 175 and they didn't feel quite right. Also pros (with fitters and experts that know far more about it than I do) that are a similar size to me like Froome also use the same length cranks so have hace stopped really caring about this question as I feel I'm already in the goldilocks zone.

[mattr]

I'm not sure I get the point of the video.

There isn't one.

[otoman]

I guess the point was to demonstrate that at the same cadence, longer crank arms will require the feet to move more quickly than short crank arms will. But we already knew that…

[TheKaiser]

Please click picture for details:



thoughts?

From the associated links, it seems that you (the OP) are also the creator of that vid/Youtube channel. While the title of your post calls it "Food for Thought", it offers nothing substantive. Since you asked, my thoughts are:

- I appreciate that building a following on Youtube is a challenging endeavor, and you want to direct a much traffic to your stuff as possible, but the WW forum has some pretty deep discourse and educated discussion on these topics, whereas that sort of thing is hard to come by on YT. If you want to try to get WW people to take an interest in your vids, you need to actually make them good, whereas this one is weak sauce click-bait. It would have been marginally better if you used a disc in your hand with some marking on it, rather than a clear one, so you could actually get a visual on the RPMs, but even still, it adds nothing to the conversation on crankarm length that isn't immediately obvious to anyone already familiar with the topic.

- Before making another video on a topic as nuanced as this, I suggest you go out and read everything you can on the topic (of which there is much), genuinly understand it, and then try add something truly new to the discussion. If it doesn't, then don't bother posting it here.

- Sharks, spiders, and scantily clad women apparently get the most Youtube clicks. If you want to promote your channel, especially without a lot of deep content, leverage those things, but not here. We already have enough spam to wade through.

I hope the above is genuinely helpful and doesn't sound unduly harsh. If it does, then don't bother with YT, as YT comments have some of the most vitriolic non-sequiters I've come across. If you can stomach YT though, then I'd think about what aspects of cycling you can really cover in a way that isn't already being done more thoroughly or engagingly elsewhere.

[emorydptt]

From the associated links, it seems that you (the OP) are also the creator of that vid/Youtube channel. While the title of your post calls it "Food for Thought", it offers nothing substantive. Since you asked, my thoughts are:

- I appreciate that building a following on Youtube is a challenging endeavor, and you want to direct a much traffic to your stuff as possible, but the WW forum has some pretty deep discourse and educated discussion on these topics, whereas that sort of thing is hard to come by on YT. If you want to try to get WW people to take an interest in your vids, you need to actually make them good, whereas this one is weak sauce click-bait. It would have been marginally better if you used a disc in your hand with some marking on it, rather than a clear one, so you could actually get a visual on the RPMs, but even still, it adds nothing to the conversation on crankarm length that isn't immediately obvious to anyone already familiar with the topic.

- Before making another video on a topic as nuanced as this, I suggest you go out and read everything you can on the topic (of which there is much), genuinly understand it, and then try add something truly new to the discussion. If it doesn't, then don't bother posting it here.

- Sharks, spiders, and scantily clad women apparently get the most Youtube clicks. If you want to promote your channel, especially without a lot of deep content, leverage those things, but not here. We already have enough spam to wade through.

I hope the above is genuinely helpful and doesn't sound unduly harsh. If it does, then don't bother with YT, as YT comments have some of the most vitriolic non-sequiters I've come across. If you can stomach YT though, then I'd think about what aspects of cycling you can really cover in a way that isn't already being done more thoroughly or engagingly elsewhere.

Thanks for taking the time for honest and constructive feedback. The idea just popped in the my head being out with the family at the science center. Agreed that the topic has been covered frequently and likely to exhaustion. It's frequently a question that I get asked often and the video was meant for discussion vs me implying anything.
Yes, youtube was the medium used to illustrate then describing with words. No doubt the YT can be a cruel world as really any social media can me.
No intent in creating issues with the community- the topic itself or the delivery, was just something to think about.
Thanks again.

[wingguy]

Please click picture for details:



thoughts?

I think it’s some kind of joke?

A) I don’t see what his point is. What does the speed of the disc have to do with crankarm length? Is faster better? Slower better? What does any of it say about the biomechanics of pedalling.

B) Even if there was a point, why illustrate it with a transparent disc? That big long close up of the disc moving in and out? We can’t see if it’s spinning faster or slower, it’s *f##k* see through! The video could have been 10 seconds long and had the exact same utility.

[TobinHatesYou]

Shorter cranks are a little bit lighter.
Shorter cranks are more aero. You can raise your saddle and flatten your back...they reduce your average frontal area / time.
Shorter cranks open up your hips at TDC because of the crank length itself AND the raised saddle position.
Shorter cranks will decrease your chance of a pedal strike...slightly, but it's a noticeable advantage in competition.

The leverage differences are pretty inconsequential when you consider the cadences involved.