Okay, so we should crank it up the hills and relax a bit going down. Well, that makes sense to me, but unfortunately for Craig and I, going fast downhill is where we catch everyone. I suppose we can rely on our remarkable gravitational gifts and just lay low as we coast up on all the lightweights coming down the hills, then blow them away with all our spare energy and massive quads on the way up. That might actually work as long as the hills take less than one minute to climb for me. If I get a 5 minute long uphill, I am gonna have trouble maintaining my sunny outlook trying to keep up the 10% extra output. But those studies are interesting to see. I know I like to have moments of recovery every so often, so this is what I will be doing.
And Jim, I didn't see a single study on PubMed about crank length (of course that was the extent of my 10 minute lit review), so I think it's time for us to become the global experts on the topic. There are all sorts of dependent variables if that's our independent. Can we start next semester?
I would love to look at that!!! All things held constant, ... a longer lever seems good (so I'm told :)). There are some neat studies on frontal plane surface area and biking speed ( benefits me and not you), but I'm sure your massive quads more than make up for the differences!
How about a study on a forward positioned bike ( the opposite of a recumbent)? Seems scary, but I bet we could all fly if there was a decent design that was comfortable. It certainly has great aerodynamic and drag benefits.
I am all ready to go on the prone bike. I designed it years ago thinking the same thing. Not only does it reduce your frontal plane, but it positions your legs for maximum cranking power (more like a squat), especially if you have something to press your shoulders against, which you do in my design. If you know a good frame builder, I would love to take the design to him or her and see if it works. I bet Thad would let us use it in the Tango, if nowhere else. I'm sure it would be illegal (or immediately made illegal) in the pro biking arena. (As soon as I build a bike that favors my massive quads, they make it illegal. See how it works?)
But back to this crank study...how can I make that fit in education? Ah heck, I don't care. I am a scientist! Pavlov wasn't a psychologist. I simply want to know stuff.
4 comments:
Okay, so we should crank it up the hills and relax a bit going down. Well, that makes sense to me, but unfortunately for Craig and I, going fast downhill is where we catch everyone. I suppose we can rely on our remarkable gravitational gifts and just lay low as we coast up on all the lightweights coming down the hills, then blow them away with all our spare energy and massive quads on the way up. That might actually work as long as the hills take less than one minute to climb for me. If I get a 5 minute long uphill, I am gonna have trouble maintaining my sunny outlook trying to keep up the 10% extra output. But those studies are interesting to see. I know I like to have moments of recovery every so often, so this is what I will be doing.
And Jim, I didn't see a single study on PubMed about crank length (of course that was the extent of my 10 minute lit review), so I think it's time for us to become the global experts on the topic. There are all sorts of dependent variables if that's our independent. Can we start next semester?
I would love to look at that!!! All things held constant, ... a longer lever seems good (so I'm told :)). There are some neat studies on frontal plane surface area and biking speed ( benefits me and not you), but I'm sure your massive quads more than make up for the differences!
How about a study on a forward positioned bike ( the opposite of a recumbent)? Seems scary, but I bet we could all fly if there was a decent design that was comfortable. It certainly has great aerodynamic and drag benefits.
I am all ready to go on the prone bike. I designed it years ago thinking the same thing. Not only does it reduce your frontal plane, but it positions your legs for maximum cranking power (more like a squat), especially if you have something to press your shoulders against, which you do in my design. If you know a good frame builder, I would love to take the design to him or her and see if it works. I bet Thad would let us use it in the Tango, if nowhere else. I'm sure it would be illegal (or immediately made illegal) in the pro biking arena. (As soon as I build a bike that favors my massive quads, they make it illegal. See how it works?)
But back to this crank study...how can I make that fit in education? Ah heck, I don't care. I am a scientist! Pavlov wasn't a psychologist. I simply want to know stuff.
Post a Comment