For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd" - Page 75 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Form & Fitness > General

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #741  
Old 12-31-12, 18:17
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,937
Default

Ladies and gentlemen, gather round. Let me introduce you to a revolutionary product that gives you free power. That's right, free power. Even if you are at your maximum oxygen consumption, producing as much power as you are physically capable, our product will give you more power. "How much more," you ask. Could be 10%. Could be 30%. Some users have even testified to 40%. No one really knows, and we are too busy promoting the benefits of this new revolution to do scientifically valid testings, but rest assured, this gimick works.
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
  #742  
Old 12-31-12, 19:05
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
From the study that started this thread, what you describe should be very powerful. But you take their finding to the very extreme and insist it is the ONLY way. Only when you show everyone that you can actually do what you think you do then, perhaps, you might be taken more seriously. Until then I will continue to believe that just increasing the torque across the top is an enviable goal for most cyclists.


It is the only perfect pedaling technique, but the fact still remains as I have explained many times, no one technique is ideal for all the situations that arise in competitive cycling. This perfect technique because of its higher gear effect is made for non technical TT courses where interrupted constant high gear max power output can be used and that is why Anquetil excelled in non climbing TT's and was reduced to little more than a normal rider at other times, eg climbing, one day races. Mashing is a necessity for explosive acceleration purposes and for technical sections of TT courses, circular is ideal for warming up, recovery rides or sheltered group riding and there is nothing to prevent any rider from perfecting all three techniques. Applying less than equal max torque across the top will result in a weaker downstroke and overall loss of torque.
  #743  
Old 12-31-12, 19:10
sciguy sciguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
[URL="http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/2011/04000/Pedaling_Technique_and_Energy_Cost_in_Cycling.20.a spx"]

I don't agree with everything they say in their analsis but their data is their data.

From the abstract (DC is essentially the size of the force at top and bottom dead center): "Results: Mean work rate was 279 W, mean FCC was 93.1 rpm, and mean GE was 21.7%. FE was 0.47 and 0.79 after correction for inertial forces; DC was 27.3% and 25.7%, respectively. DC size correlated better with GE (r = 0.75) than with the FE ratio (r = 0.50). Multiple regressions revealed that DC size was the only significant (P = 0.001) predictor for GE. Interestingly, DC size and FE ratio did not correlate with each other.
Frank,

I've read the abstract that started this thread several times and have yet to fish out any sort of explanation of "DC". Did you access the whole study in order to come up with "DC is essentially the size of the force at top and bottom dead center". I'd actually prefer the read exactly how DC was defined by those who conducted the study. If you have that available would you be so kind as to paraphrase it way more closely....perhaps give the equation the researchers used. For the time being the abstract leaves me completely in the dark.

Thanks,

Hugh
  #744  
Old 12-31-12, 19:36
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
Ladies and gentlemen, gather round. Let me introduce you to a revolutionary product that gives you free power. That's right, free power. Even if you are at your maximum oxygen consumption, producing as much power as you are physically capable, our product will give you more power. "How much more," you ask. Could be 10%. Could be 30%. Some users have even testified to 40%. No one really knows, and we are too busy promoting the benefits of this new revolution to do scientifically valid testings, but rest assured, this gimick works.


There is no free power in cycling but what you do have is wasted power which could be recovered with the correct technique. What percentage of that power you apply between 1 and 3 o'c is converted into crank torque, with the correct technique it could be a 100 %. Riders like Bradley Wiggins are using awkward Osymetric rings as they attempt to compensate for the fact that crank torque can't be applied at 12 o'c by trying to apply extra torque in an area where max torque is already being applied. By switching to another technique with a standard chainring he could apply max torque between 11 and 1 o'c where all other riders' legs are effectively idling, gaining many minutes of extra pedaling time in TT's.
  #745  
Old 12-31-12, 21:17
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,300
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coapman View Post
gaining many minutes of extra pedaling time in TT's.
Most of us train to spend less time pedalling but hey, it's your delusion.

The equipment to test all this has been around for 30 plus years and it's not like Wiggins and the BCF are not constantly pushing the envelope of training and equipment even if they follow a few dead ends like Osymetric chainrings where there is no encouraging data either.

One also needs to look at the magnitude of any potential gains. Just because Frank markets an adjustable length crank he jumps all over a very minimal gain which in reality is 7sec at best in a 40km TT for the very tallest or the very shortest of rider from moving from a 170mm length crank. Much ado over nothing.

One only needs to look at all the well performed studies on independent cranks that force a change of force application around the pedal stroke to see that it's a pointless exercise compared to manipulating numerous training, recovery, nutritional, psychological, equipment, aerodynamic and riding technique variables.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

Power Meters like Powercranks don't improve performance one bit. But at least with a Power Meter you can see yourself not improving because of it
  #746  
Old 12-31-12, 21:24
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,300
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sciguy View Post
Frank,

I've read the abstract that started this thread several times and have yet to fish out any sort of explanation of "DC". Did you access the whole study in order to come up with "DC is essentially the size of the force at top and bottom dead center". I'd actually prefer the read exactly how DC was defined by those who conducted the study. If you have that available would you be so kind as to paraphrase it way more closely....perhaps give the equation the researchers used. For the time being the abstract leaves me completely in the dark.
Or the follow up paper by the same authors where they published data that contradicted the findings of the paper that Frank linked.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

Power Meters like Powercranks don't improve performance one bit. But at least with a Power Meter you can see yourself not improving because of it
  #747  
Old 12-31-12, 21:29
M Sport's Avatar
M Sport M Sport is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sciguy View Post
Frank,

I've read the abstract that started this thread several times and have yet to fish out any sort of explanation of "DC". Did you access the whole study in order to come up with "DC is essentially the size of the force at top and bottom dead center". I'd actually prefer the read exactly how DC was defined by those who conducted the study. If you have that available would you be so kind as to paraphrase it way more closely....perhaps give the equation the researchers used. For the time being the abstract leaves me completely in the dark.

Thanks,

Hugh
Quote:
Recently, Leirdal and Ettema (2010) introduced a new pedalling technique parameter, which described the dead centre (DC) and was deffined as the minimum power divided by the average power during the pedal stroke. It had a stronger relationship with GE than FE and it was, unlike FE, not affected by inertial forces that increase with cadence. Thus, it could be hypothesised that DC is not affected by cadence in the way that FE and GE are.
http://sportsexerciseengineering.com...cy-in-cycling/

I think that is what you're after.
__________________
Lo Sceriffo - To call him the Fabian Cancellara of his day would be more accurate when Fabian wins yet another Paris-Roubaix, a few more classics, the World Championship road race, a Grand Tour and continues to kick @rse for another five years. - Velominati

Last edited by M Sport; 12-31-12 at 21:30. Reason: Added quote
  #748  
Old 12-31-12, 21:42
sciguy sciguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Sport View Post
Thanks so much. It's just what I was looking for.

Hugh
  #749  
Old 12-31-12, 22:31
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
Most of us train to spend less time pedalling but hey, it's your delusion.
.

Believe it or not, actually that is the objective of engineers who invented rotorcranks and all types of non circular rings, to reduce idling time spent in dead spot sector and slow down the crank in the power sector for increased power sector pedalling time in each crank revolution. What a waste of engineering time. Why does everybody accept without question, that the dead spot sector has to be a permanent fixture in the pedalling circle.
  #750  
Old 12-31-12, 22:48
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
Ladies and gentlemen, gather round. Let me introduce you to a revolutionary product that gives you free power. That's right, free power. Even if you are at your maximum oxygen consumption, producing as much power as you are physically capable, our product will give you more power. "How much more," you ask. Could be 10%. Could be 30%. Some users have even testified to 40%. No one really knows, and we are too busy promoting the benefits of this new revolution to do scientifically valid testings, but rest assured, this gimick works.
You don't have a clue regarding the benefits of technique nor the ability of the CV system to adapt to new stress.

First, the benefit of improved technique. Contracting muscles demand oxygen whether they are doing work or not. If the muscles are contracting in a coordination that causes the resultant force to be "non-tantential" to the pedaling circle then a lot of that effort is wasted, as is a lot of that oxygen consumption. If one can simply change the timing of the contractions of the various muscle contractions the direction of the applied force can be made much more effective (more powerful) because it is now more tangential without requiring a single atom of oxygen more. The amount of improvement depends upon how "awful" the prior technique was from a mechanical efficiency point of view.

Second, oxygen demand goes up as "pushing force" goes up in a non-linear fashion since higher forces involve more fast twitch fibers. Since cycling is mostly an aerobic sport there is an advantage to being able to spread the work out over more of the circle by incorporating more slowtwitch fibers and avoiding use of fast twitch fibers as much as possible. This change also can squeeze more power out of the same oxygen consumption.

Third, the CV system (heart) can adapt to sustained aerobic exercise with increased output over time. It has nothing to do with effort. It is why aerobic athletes have higher VO2 max than 100m sprinters. It is why aerobic athletes that use more muscles (rowers, XC skiers) eventually adapt to have higher VO2 max than those who use less (cyclists). Cyclists who can train themselves to use more of their muscles aerobically will eventually increase their VO2 max and their anerobic threshold (as demonstrated by Dixon, et. al.).

But, if you insist that attempts to achieve these changes always fail then I can see why you might think this BS. But, of course, you have no evidence to back up your belief. Or, perhaps you think some improvement might be possible from these changes but don't believe a number like 40% possible. Then, why on earth you you eschew even trying to achieve these benefits, even though you think they might be smaller than I suggest they are for many? Too much work for you?
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer

Last edited by FrankDay; 12-31-12 at 22:56.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:41.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.