Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Form & Fitness > General

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #831  
Old 01-05-13, 10:59
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
I have never measured this but I suspect the HPV rider is substantially stronger "across the top" than an upright rider because they are using their anti-gravity muscles there.


What I meant was how does peak torque of a recumbent rider around 12 o'c compare with peak torque of an upright rider around 3 o'c. My technique enables a rider to combine both of these powerful forces for one extended upright power stroke. About that 40% Powercrank increase, you now have the ideal means of proving your claim is genuine, why not do it. All you have to do is pedal at max power output using independent crank setting and then repeat the exercise using the fixed setting on cranks and natural pedaling style, in both cases torque in the 2-4 sector must be almost equal. The sinusoidal graphs will supply the proof all are seeking.
  #832  
Old 01-05-13, 17:11
FrankDay FrankDay is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
No one has to know much about cycling, training, or anything else to figure out that your claims are not possible. You don't have to be Warren Buffet to realize that it cannot possibly be legit; it has to be a scam. Is your product so worthless that you need to tell the biggest lie possible to promote it?
With all this on your side just think how easy it would be to prove. Get to it. Then, if once you did that and I kept it up you could turn me into the authorities :-)
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer
  #833  
Old 01-05-13, 18:32
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
With all this on your side just think how easy it would be to prove. Get to it. Then, if once you did that and I kept it up you could turn me into the authorities :-)


You can always claim a 40% increase in average power outside the 1-5 o'c main power application sector.
  #834  
Old 01-05-13, 22:16
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
With all this on your side just think how easy it would be to prove. Get to it. Then, if once you did that and I kept it up you could turn me into the authorities :-)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You are the one making risible claims for your product. If the gains were only a fraction of your lies then they would still be easy to verify. Even with a simple experiment they would show up like turning on a light at the bottom of a coal mine.

I don't think the authorities have the resources to deal with a small fry swindler.
__________________
"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
  #835  
Old 01-05-13, 22:42
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,072
Default

Several well performed studies have disproved the Gimmickcrank marketing claims and several anecdotes have proven to be fraudulent. But hey it's fun watching Frank lie through his teeth.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

"I couldn't have won today without my power meter" Said no rider ever!!!
  #836  
Old 01-06-13, 15:40
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
Wow, have you really come around to finally believe that science doesn't prove things to be true but can only disprove things claimed to be true. "Truth" in science only occurs when the hypotheses sustain all attempts to disprove it.

As regards my product, as I have repeatedly stated, it is impossible for me to prove our claims and at least now you admit this to be true. So, now it is up to you and your cronies to disprove them. As you have repeatedly said this should be easy to do as the technology to do so has been available for years. However, let me remind you that the claim of a 40% power improvement involves "exclusive" use for 6-9 months of "normal" training effort by the average but serious cyclist. I would take that as about 6 days a week or 150-230 training sessions. Such claims are not debunked by negative results after 10 training sessions performed 2 days per week, as you seem to believe.

Anyhow, the "disproving" ball is in your court. Let's see what you can do with it.

If a masher trains exclusively with PC's for 9 months, how would you describe his technique at the end of 9 months. Would he still be capable of using his mashing style and if he would, does the power increase also apply with his mashing style.
  #837  
Old 01-06-13, 15:48
FrankDay FrankDay is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coapman View Post
If a masher trains exclusively with PC's for 9 months, how would you describe his technique at the end of 9 months.
"pedaling in circles" At the minimum he would be completely unweighting on the backstroke and doing more across the top and bottom than before.
Quote:
Would he still be capable of using his mashing style and if he would, does the power increase also apply with his mashing style.
Would he be capable of going back? Of course, (and if he stopped training with the PC's he would eventually return to that style although not to the same extent, perhaps) but why would he want to if he was more powerful/efficient using the new style? One style is going to be most powerful/efficient. Why would any rider want to ride a less powerful/efficient style if they had a choice?
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer
  #838  
Old 01-06-13, 15:52
FrankDay FrankDay is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Indeed. But, as we have been discussing it is impossible for science to "prove" any of this. All science can do is disprove a hypothesis. Hop to it, the world is waiting.
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer
  #839  
Old 01-06-13, 16:49
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
Indeed. But, as we have been discussing it is impossible for science to "prove" any of this. All science can do is disprove a hypothesis. Hop to it, the world is waiting.
No need, Bohm, Williams and Sperlich papers are all very well performed studies and clearly disprove your claims. Bohm and Fernandez-Pena show that pedalling technique changes using a Gimmickcrank and Fernandez-Pena shows that when one reverts back to a normal crank that power application reverts back to normal. But this is old news.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

"I couldn't have won today without my power meter" Said no rider ever!!!
  #840  
Old 01-06-13, 17:00
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
"pedaling in circles" At the minimum he would be completely unweighting on the backstroke and doing more across the top and bottom than before. Would he be capable of going back? Of course, (and if he stopped training with the PC's he would eventually return to that style although not to the same extent, perhaps) but why would he want to if he was more powerful/efficient using the new style? One style is going to be most powerful/efficient. Why would any rider want to ride a less powerful/efficient style if they had a choice?
I have perfected four techniques and can use all four inside a minute, there is no eventually going back to another style, the brain has the objectives of each technique and any of them can be turned on instantly. If I was to train my circular style exclusively with PC's for 9 months, I am certain my mashing would still give me greater explosive acceleration power, regardless of what training I did to improve my circular pedalling because it's all about the downstroke and how the power is applied there. Do PC's improve downstroke power.
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 16:20.


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.