Effects of crank length on bike fit

2

Comments

  • markhewitt1978
    markhewitt1978 Posts: 7,614
    philthy3 wrote:
    Make sure you've adjusted the saddle accordingly rather than just leave it as was. With the smaller turning circle, your cadence should speed up slightly with less distance to travel for the full rotation.

    It's difficult to say as the frame was stripped down and rebuilt, so the saddle wasn't at the exact same height (I don't think). I feel that perhaps it could do with going back a touch (maybe 5mm?!)
    Don't take average cadence as the figure either. We all have times during a ride when we are below our targeted cadence and the more times you dip, the lower the average is compared to the target. What cadence were you doing with your old cranks on a flat road with no head or tail wind? Compare that with what you can do with the shorter cranks bearing in mind the winter weather will have an effect.

    I was just looking at the cadence I was doing when actually pedaling along the flat, varied between 85-95rpm. To add to the complication it was my first ride with a cadence sensor anyway, (I can't see it on the bike only after the ride). Although I've done the time 15 seconds and count the pedaling before and that came out at near 90rpm.
  • markhewitt1978
    markhewitt1978 Posts: 7,614
    philthy3 wrote:
    Make sure you've adjusted the saddle accordingly rather than just leave it as was. With the smaller turning circle, your cadence should speed up slightly with less distance to travel for the full rotation.

    It's difficult to say as the frame was stripped down and rebuilt, so the saddle wasn't at the exact same height (I don't think). But it felt about right, knee still slightly bent and no rocking. I feel that perhaps it could do with going back a touch (maybe 5mm?!)
    Don't take average cadence as the figure either. We all have times during a ride when we are below our targeted cadence and the more times you dip, the lower the average is compared to the target. What cadence were you doing with your old cranks on a flat road with no head or tail wind? Compare that with what you can do with the shorter cranks bearing in mind the winter weather will have an effect.

    I was just looking at the cadence I was doing when actually pedaling along the flat, varied between 85-95rpm. To add to the complication it was my first ride with a cadence sensor anyway, (I can't see it on the bike only after the ride). Although I've done the time 15 seconds and count the pedaling before and that came out at near 90rpm.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    philthy3 wrote:
    Make sure you've adjusted the saddle accordingly rather than just leave it as was. With the smaller turning circle, your cadence should speed up slightly with less distance to travel for the full rotation. Don't take average cadence as the figure either. We all have times during a ride when we are below our targeted cadence and the more times you dip, the lower the average is compared to the target. What cadence were you doing with your old cranks on a flat road with no head or tail wind? Compare that with what you can do with the shorter cranks bearing in mind the winter weather will have an effect.

    Cadence will be more influenced by gear selection - much less by knocking 5mm off the crank length. The wheel still has to roll the same distance for a single rotation of the crank. And one rotation of the crank is still one rotation, regardless of the length of the arms.
  • StillGoing
    StillGoing Posts: 5,211
    I agree, but the end of a crank arm of 165mm takes less distance to travel through 360' than a crank arm of 170mm simply because the diameter is smaller. If the rider is applying the same levels of power, would that not result in a higher cadence? The longer crank arm surely is acting like a breaker bar when used by a mechanic in providing additional torque for less effort. I know we're only talking 10mm diameter difference so for 170mm cranks 1067.6mm and 165mm cranks 1036.2mm travelled in one rotation, but if you were to keep repeating that distance for an hour at a constant 17mph, you'd cover the 165mm length more times than the 170mm length.

    I was never any good at physics, all I know is my cadence improved by about 10rpm by moving to shorter crank arms and the bonus of that, was improved average speed and less fatigue.
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    philthy3 wrote:
    I agree, but the end of a crank arm of 165mm takes less distance to travel through 360' than a crank arm of 170mm simply because the diameter is smaller. If the rider is applying the same levels of power, would that not result in a higher cadence? The longer crank arm surely is acting like a breaker bar when used by a mechanic in providing additional torque for less effort. I know we're only talking 10mm diameter difference so for 170mm cranks 1067.6mm and 165mm cranks 1036.2mm travelled in one rotation, but if you were to keep repeating that distance for an hour at a constant 17mph, you'd cover the 165mm length more times than the 170mm length.

    I was never any good at physics, all I know is my cadence improved by about 10rpm by moving to shorter crank arms and the bonus of that, was improved average speed and less fatigue.

    No I don't think so. Cadence is constant if you are in the same gear at the same speed, regardless of crank length. The chainring still rotates for one revolution, regardless of how long the lever is - and the whole assembly still completes one turn at the same time, no matter if the crank arms are 165mm or 180mm. For a given cadence, foot speed would be lower if the cranks were shorter (higher if the cranks were longer) but cadence (ie the rotation time) is the same no matter how long the crank is, because the crank arm obviously still completes one revolution at the same speed as the chainring.

    In other words, I think the notion that shorter cranks promote higher cadence is flawed. Lower gearing for a given road speed promotes higher cadence, but not crank length, IMO.
  • markhewitt1978
    markhewitt1978 Posts: 7,614
    Shorter cranks have the same effect as slightly higher gearing doesn't it?
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    markhewitt1978 wrote:
    Shorter cranks have the same effect as slightly higher gearing doesn't it?

    Shorter cranks have no effect on gearing. Can you explain?
  • desweller
    desweller Posts: 5,175
    Imposter wrote:
    markhewitt1978 wrote:
    Shorter cranks have the same effect as slightly higher gearing doesn't it?

    Shorter cranks have no effect on gearing. Can you explain?

    I think Mark is referring to mechanical advantage, which will decrease with decreasing crank length.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    On Strava.{/url}
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    ok - but if mechanical advantage was such a major consideration, we would all be riding the longest cranks possible. Which we don't. Crank length is more a component of bike fit & physiology, rather than leverage and it's very rare to need maximum leverage in any case.
  • desweller
    desweller Posts: 5,175
    Imposter wrote:
    ok - but if mechanical advantage was such a major consideration, we would all be riding the longest cranks possible. Which we don't. Crank length is more a component of bike fit & physiology, rather than leverage and it's very rare to need maximum leverage in any case.

    We just run a different gear to generate the same net mechanical advantage. I think that's what Mark means.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    On Strava.{/url}
  • markhewitt1978
    markhewitt1978 Posts: 7,614
    Yes, that's what I mean that for any given gear you'll effectively be turning a higher gear with shorter cranks, most of the time that's of no importance as we can shift into another gear, but if you're already in your lowest gear...
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    Even though one rev of the cranks is one rev, whatever crank length, smaller cranks promote higher cadence because your leg has less angle to bend through.

    This is why switching to smaller cranks will tend to increase average cadence, simply because it is an easier circle to pedal physiologically. (Especially if your legs are smaller than average).

    Not to say you will necessarily ride any faster, as your power output does not change, but it could be that you are more efficient at higher cadences (I tend to think most cyclists pedal too slowly) and therefore faster.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    bernithebiker wrote:
    Even though one rev of the cranks is one rev, whatever crank length, smaller cranks promote higher cadence because your leg has less angle to bend through.

    So you are saying that shorter cranks cause you to use smaller gears. Is there any science behind that? Having less angle to 'bend through' is not necessarily a good thing either - efficient 'leg stroke' (as opposed to simply 'shorter cranks') is an important component in producing power.
    bernithebiker wrote:
    Not to say you will necessarily ride any faster, as your power output does not change, but it could be that you are more efficient at higher cadences (I tend to think most cyclists pedal too slowly) and therefore faster.

    Most people are actually more 'efficient' at lower cadences. Higher cadence does necessarily equate to higher power output, so I don't think that argument is particularly valid.

    Here's a clip of a NZ trackie setting a record flying lap. Note the cadence is not particularly high as he is pushing a biiiig gear. Still flying though, despite the 'low' cadence. I don't know what crank length Eddie uses, but on a 250m indoor it's probably unlikely to be anything over 165/170..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=472KioY35pM
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    Imposter wrote:
    bernithebiker wrote:
    Even though one rev of the cranks is one rev, whatever crank length, smaller cranks promote higher cadence because your leg has less angle to bend through.

    So you are saying that shorter cranks cause you to use smaller gears. Is there any science behind that? Having less angle to 'bend through' is not necessarily a good thing either - efficient 'leg stroke' (as opposed to simply 'shorter cranks') is an important component in producing power.
    bernithebiker wrote:
    Not to say you will necessarily ride any faster, as your power output does not change, but it could be that you are more efficient at higher cadences (I tend to think most cyclists pedal too slowly) and therefore faster.

    Most people are actually more 'efficient' at lower cadences. Higher cadence does necessarily equate to higher power output, so I don't think that argument is particularly valid.

    Here's a clip of a NZ trackie setting a record flying lap. Note the cadence is not particularly high as he is pushing a biiiig gear. Still flying though, despite the 'low' cadence. I don't know what crank length Eddie uses, but on a 250m indoor it's probably unlikely to be anything over 165/170..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=472KioY35pM

    Everyone is different - some riders are grinders, others are spinners. You need to find what works for you.

    I know after lots of testing, that spinning shorter cranks works for me. Many pro riders have high cadence; Lance Armstrong was a big fan, (100+rpm for the whole climb). It is unusual to see a pro 'grinding' if the race is hotting up.

    You say 'most people are actually more efficient at lower cadences'. Really? I disagree. I have 'coached' several newbie friends into upping their cadence, and they have significantly improved overall performance.

    Power = Torque x speed. So to increase power you can either increase torque or speed. More torque = longer cranks, more speed = shorter cranks, eg. use 200mm cranks for max. torque, but I'd be surprised in you can spin them at 120rpm. You need to strike the balance that's right for you; I prefer less torque, higher speed. Sometimes, I'll want to stand and pedal and increase torque - that I can do by choosing a harder gear. However, the inverse is not true; if I had long cranks and wanted to ease torque and pedal faster, I can change to an easier gear, but I may be limited in high cadence due to the crank length.

    In addition, shorter cranks will tend to cause less knee/joint problems.

    The 'science' behind it is quite simple - the shorter the crank, the easier it is for your leg to define one revolution. Imagine a super long 300mm crank. It would be difficult to complete even 30rpm. Imagine a super short crank, 100mm. Easy peasy, no problem doing whatever rpm you like.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    bernithebiker wrote:
    I know after lots of testing, that spinning shorter cranks works for me. Many pro riders have high cadence; Lance Armstrong was a big fan, (100+rpm for the whole climb). It is unusual to see a pro 'grinding' if the race is hotting up.

    Ah, the 'Armstrong/cadence' myth. I thought people had stopped citing Lance as an example, after it became apparent that there was nothing particularly unusual about his cadence, when compared to others he was racing against.
    bernithebiker wrote:
    You say 'most people are actually more efficient at lower cadences'. Really? I disagree. I have 'coached' several newbie friends into upping their cadence, and they have significantly improved overall performance.

    Science doesn't really support that notion, unfortunately. If your friends were newbies, then they would probably have improved exponentially in any case, along with their cadence, as they got fitter. I've copied below a post from Alex, where he discussed this very topic in a thread in the training forum recently:
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    Here's a summary of the relationship as reported in the literature:

    http://www.ismj.com/pages/311417173/ISM ... ycling.asp
    Efficiency and economy

    Numerous studies have examined the influence of pedalling frequency on the efficiency and economy of cycling 6, 27, 44, 46, 48, 71, 72. Generally, when cycling at constant power outputs, lower cadences have been found to result in reduced oxygen cost (i.e. improved gross efficiency) compared with higher cadences 6, 15, 27. Improved efficiency of cycling observed at lower pedalling rates is likely to be dictated by the relationship between muscle shortening velocity and the efficiency of muscle contractions (percent Type I and Type II active fibres). For instance, under in vitro conditions, it has been observed that the efficiency of skeletal muscle contractions is augmented with increasing speed of contraction, until a maximum is reached (i.e. an economically optimal shortening velocity) 35. The most economical cadence appears to be extremely low (~50-60rpm) when cycling at low power outputs (?W), but increases to approximately 80-100rpm with increasing workloads (~350W) 26, 44, 58

    Here are a range of studies one can quickly review via a pubmed search on cycling efficiency and cadence.

    Grouped:

    Lower cadences more efficient (GE) than higher cadences:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22648142
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21437606
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20386335
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19430807
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10541922

    No difference in gross efficiency as function of cadence:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16672850
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10994916
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1521959

    there were no studies I could see that reported a measured increase in GE with cadence.
    bernithebiker wrote:
    Power = Torque x speed. So to increase power you can either increase torque or speed.

    Indeed, but simply altering one or more of those variables does not guarantee that power will increase and stay increased - you still have to train for it.

    Also, I don't think there's any evidence that shorter cranks promote less joint/knee problems. Again, can you show me the evidence?
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    Imposter wrote:
    bernithebiker wrote:
    I know after lots of testing, that spinning shorter cranks works for me. Many pro riders have high cadence; Lance Armstrong was a big fan, (100+rpm for the whole climb). It is unusual to see a pro 'grinding' if the race is hotting up.

    Ah, the 'Armstrong/cadence' myth. I thought people had stopped citing Lance as an example, after it became apparent that there was nothing particularly unusual about his cadence, when compared to others he was racing against.
    bernithebiker wrote:
    You say 'most people are actually more efficient at lower cadences'. Really? I disagree. I have 'coached' several newbie friends into upping their cadence, and they have significantly improved overall performance.

    Science doesn't really support that notion, unfortunately. If your friends were newbies, then they would probably have improved exponentially in any case, along with their cadence, as they got fitter. I've copied below a post from Alex, where he discussed this very topic in a thread in the training forum recently:
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    Here's a summary of the relationship as reported in the literature:

    http://www.ismj.com/pages/311417173/ISM ... ycling.asp
    Efficiency and economy

    Numerous studies have examined the influence of pedalling frequency on the efficiency and economy of cycling 6, 27, 44, 46, 48, 71, 72. Generally, when cycling at constant power outputs, lower cadences have been found to result in reduced oxygen cost (i.e. improved gross efficiency) compared with higher cadences 6, 15, 27. Improved efficiency of cycling observed at lower pedalling rates is likely to be dictated by the relationship between muscle shortening velocity and the efficiency of muscle contractions (percent Type I and Type II active fibres). For instance, under in vitro conditions, it has been observed that the efficiency of skeletal muscle contractions is augmented with increasing speed of contraction, until a maximum is reached (i.e. an economically optimal shortening velocity) 35. The most economical cadence appears to be extremely low (~50-60rpm) when cycling at low power outputs (?W), but increases to approximately 80-100rpm with increasing workloads (~350W) 26, 44, 58

    Here are a range of studies one can quickly review via a pubmed search on cycling efficiency and cadence.

    Grouped:

    Lower cadences more efficient (GE) than higher cadences:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22648142
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21437606
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20386335
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19430807
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10541922

    No difference in gross efficiency as function of cadence:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16672850
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10994916
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1521959

    there were no studies I could see that reported a measured increase in GE with cadence.
    bernithebiker wrote:
    Power = Torque x speed. So to increase power you can either increase torque or speed.

    Indeed, but simply altering one or more of those variables does not guarantee that power will increase and stay increased - you still have to train for it.

    Also, I don't think there's any evidence that shorter cranks promote less joint/knee problems. Again, can you show me the evidence?

    Imposter, discussing stuff with you is like nailing jelly to the wall, kind of exasperating.

    1st. Armstrong / cadence. It is indisputable that Armstrong's cadence was high. (100+). Higher than rider A, B, or C? Who cares? It's high, and most likely higher than the average amateur.

    2nd. You seem to think science is always on your side. Not sure why. You seem to know more about my friends and their training than I do, which is kind of odd, dontcha think? They quoted almost IMMEDIATE, i.e. same day , or next few days, improvement after making an effort to increase cadence. TYpical quotes were; 'Hills seem easier, legs less tired, etc.' These improvements are too rapid to put down to improved fitness. (N.B. Not total newbies, but <25km/h type newbies).

    3rd. I disagree completely here. If you increase speed (cadence), you increase power. Everybody has a 'sweet spot' where they produce the best power for the best economy. If you're aiming to hold say 300W for an hour, then you need to be at the right cadence. For me at least, I could only achieve this at a high cadence, and I could only hold that high cadence for an hour if the cranks are small enough to do so. (Which for me is 170, but I will soon be trying 167.5). I am 5'7 or 8, weigh 62kg, but have a shorter than average inseam for my height.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Seems like a case of anecdote versus science. That's a lot of pertinent data that I've linked there, so it's heartwarming to see that you are still arguing against it with anecdotes. Anyway, carry on...
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,701
    bernithebiker wrote:
    Imposter, discussing stuff with you is like nailing jelly to the wall, kind of exasperating.

    :lol::lol::lol:

    To sum up OP - it will have little effect on your power output but as the cranks wil be more suited to your body dimensions they will be more comfortable. I'm a short arse as well and am always much more comfy on bikes with 170mm cranks

    Shame both my MTB's have 175mm cranks... :evil:
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • markhewitt1978
    markhewitt1978 Posts: 7,614
    haha thanks. I have no expectations of power or cadence changes anyway. I went for shorter purely as a fit issue.
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    Imposter wrote:
    Seems like a case of anecdote versus science. That's a lot of pertinent data that I've linked there, so it's heartwarming to see that you are still arguing against it with anecdotes. Anyway, carry on...

    I know you have this infatuation with ignoring anything that doesn't come triple signed by Alex or various Nobel Prize winners. Your loss.

    I am simply quoting my experiences. I do have a degree in mechanical engineering, so hopefully I have a vague idea of mechanics, etc.

    My observations do not come backed by the UCI. If someone finds them useful, great, if not, no biggy.

    By the way, as for the strain/injury thing, isn't it common sense that if the leg has less extreme flexion, it is less likely to sustain injury?
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    edited January 2015
    I tend to ignore acecdote in these situations, if that's what you mean. Nobody is questioning the mechanics. But it sounds like you think I should pay more time listening to your anecdotes, and less time considering the findings of sports scientists who have spent decades researching these very topics..?

    All I did was simply counter your argument by linking to some relevant scientific studies - if you can't handle that, then try to do the same.

    Great that you rely on your mechanical engineering degree, but are so quick to dismiss the work of other professionals who actually work in this field. Like I said, carry on - it makes for a great forum...

    Another interesting study here: http://myworldfromabicycle.blogspot.co. ... -just.html - but you should obviously ignore it, 'cos the bloke has a PhD...
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    The papers cited seem to be looking at cycling durations of a few minutes (i didnt look at them all) is there stufies on durations of several hours? a
    nd as anyone knows, you cannot react to changes of pace very well if you are stuck in too higher gear.

    surely this subject has been done to death before, do we realy need another 10 pages on it? LOL!
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    mamba80 wrote:
    The papers cited seem to be looking at cycling durations of a few minutes (i didnt look at them all) is there stufies on durations of several hours? and as anyone knows, you cannot react to changes of pace very well if you are stuck in too higher gear.

    You think the test data would lean towards favouring higher cadences for more extended periods, when current data shows that lower cadences are already more efficient for shorter, high intensity tests? I can't see how it would...
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    Imposter wrote:
    I tend to ignore acecdote in these situations, if that's what you mean. Nobody is questioning the mechanics. But it sounds like you think I should pay more time listening to your anecdotes, and less time considering the findings of sports scientists who have spent decades researching these very topics..?

    All I did was simply counter your argument by linking to some relevant scientific studies - if you can't handle that, then try to do the same.

    Great that you rely on your mechanical engineering degree, but are so quick to dismiss the work of other professionals who actually work in this field. Like I said, carry on - it makes for a great forum...

    Another interesting study here: http://myworldfromabicycle.blogspot.co. ... -just.html - but you should obviously ignore it, 'cos the bloke has a PhD...

    The problem with the various scientific studies is that they are not necessarily relevant to you or me.

    Cycling is a hugely varied sport, and riders are also very different, both in size and shape and physiology. What may work for an experienced neo-pro putting out 400W may not work at all for an amateur at 200W. What may work for a 60kg pro, may be detrimental to a 90kg amateur. Some riders grind, others spin. Some are flexible, others aren't. Some ride out of the saddle, some in. It's very hard to pigeonhole riders into one study and say "look what will work for you'.

    And what's more, many studies and experts contradict each other.

    So I prefer to gather my information and tips from a wide variety of sources, and yes, some of that is anecdotal, which does not make it wrong.

    I occasionally ride with pros and I far more value their advice than some study in a lab in Florida or wherever.

    Some studies are interesting and provide useful insight, but to quote them as a mantra whilst ignoring everything else seems flawed to me.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    bernithebiker wrote:
    The problem with the various scientific studies is that they are not necessarily relevant to you or me.

    But they are relevant to the topic and the course of the discussion. Clearly they are not relevant to you, because you have chosen to ignore science whenever it departs from your own understanding. I think that's called 'cognitive dissonance'. Anyway, I'm out.. :lol:
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    Imposter wrote:
    bernithebiker wrote:
    The problem with the various scientific studies is that they are not necessarily relevant to you or me.

    But they are relevant to the topic and the course of the discussion. Clearly they are not relevant to you, because you have chosen to ignore science whenever it departs from your own understanding. I think that's called 'cognitive dissonance'. Anyway, I'm out.. :lol:

    Don't be ridiculous.

    I'm not ignoring science. I just choose to be sceptical of certain scientific studies if they do not pertain to me and my type of riding.

    YOU are the one that chooses to ignore what suits you, as when forum users ask "Why does Friel, my coach, etc. etc. contradict your opinion / study?", your reply is "Why don't you ask them"?

    In any case, what type of cadence / crank length are you actually advocating, or are you just here to disagree by default?
  • keezx
    keezx Posts: 1,322
    Time for round 2:
    Cadence is only one of the involved parameters and focussing on 1 part of the chain makes no sense.
    Far more important is muscle contraction speed which determines physiological efficiency.
  • xavierdisley
    xavierdisley Posts: 159
    bernithebiker wrote:
    I occasionally ride with pros and I far more value their advice than some study in a lab in Florida or wherever.

    Pro cyclists don't have all the answers unfortunately.
    twitter@xavierdisley
    http://www.rstsport.com
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    xavierdisley wrote:
    bernithebiker wrote:
    I occasionally ride with pros and I far more value their advice than some study in a lab in Florida or wherever.

    Pro cyclists don't have all the answers unfortunately.

    No, they haven't got a clue what they're doing.
  • xavierdisley
    xavierdisley Posts: 159
    bernithebiker wrote:
    xavierdisley wrote:
    bernithebiker wrote:
    I occasionally ride with pros and I far more value their advice than some study in a lab in Florida or wherever.

    Pro cyclists don't have all the answers unfortunately.

    No, they haven't got a clue what they're doing.

    Nowadays when pro cyclists need answers for something, who do they ask?
    twitter@xavierdisley
    http://www.rstsport.com

Categories