Log in:  

Register

The pedaling technique thread

Moderator: King Boonen

Re:

28 Sep 2018 01:30

JayKosta wrote:It appears that indoor t-o-w competitors can produce very high levels of 'forward horizontal foot force' (my terminology) - otherwise the lower leg bend at the knee could not be maintained during the 'moving pull step' (as opposed to the almost straight leg 'hold position'. But the relationship of that force to pedalling is unclear to me - primarily because t-o-w is a very short duration event with small actual movement, and appears to be highly anaerobic.
see -
http://www.headconf.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/7927.pdf
https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/viewFile/3821/3540

Jay


Strenuous is the word I would use, that small movement is due to the almost equal pulling power of the opposing teams. They are applying that force from shoe to a fixed mat, if instead of a mat that was a fast moving pedal you would get the necessary amount of leg movement for 180 deg. of maximal force for as long as required. I discovered the technique when I succeeded in combining arm and leg power when riding in the saddle, this is impossible with natural pedalling because you will only pull yourself out of the saddle. It so happens the technique is identical to what indoor t o'w teams use and that's what makes it so easy to explain.
backdoor
Member
 
Posts: 399
Joined: 04 Jun 2015 12:55

Re: Re:

28 Sep 2018 04:32

backdoor wrote:It so happens the technique is identical to what indoor t o'w teams use and that's what makes it so easy to explain.

Provide the data Noel.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,274
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

Re: Re:

28 Sep 2018 10:08

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
backdoor wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Noel, please provide some data. Those doing research provide data. You just make **** up.


Did you need data before you would believe using the downhill skiers upper body position would improve TT times ?

Data was available - speed data from empirical testing along with existing detailed knowledge of the aerodynamics of changing the shape of an object through fluid flow - this was well established science, with clearly understood outcomes and lots of data already. There was no need for "belief".

You have not provided any data to demonstrate changes in performance due to some mythical way of pedalling on a bicycle.

Even something as simple as power output resulting from changes to pedalling technique would suffice, let alone data on the actual application of torque to the bicycle cranks.

Not a single bit of data. Nil, nada, zip.


For how long has this data from well established science been available ?
backdoor
Member
 
Posts: 399
Joined: 04 Jun 2015 12:55

28 Sep 2018 11:21

Are you kidding me Noel?

Empirical understanding of such fluid dynamics goes back thousands of years. Any culture that made waterfaring craft or needed to better understand fluid flows understood such basic principals.

As far as specific data from measuring the impacts of air movement around objects of different shapes, the first fully enclosed wind tunnels with force measurement devices capable of measuring the specific drag coefficients of different shaped objects emerged in the latter part of the 19th Century.

Mathematical descriptions of such fluid flows were developed in the early part of the 19th Century, e.g. the development of the Navier-Stokes equations, which are still used in today's computational fluid dynamics.

Around the turn of the 20th century Osborne Reynolds worked out that scale models in such wind tunnels behaved in the same manner as full scale if adjusted based on a certain parameter, now known as the Reynold's number (for fluid velocities under approx Mach 0.3), which significantly opened up the field of research and collection of data as scale models could be successfully used, and they still are used throughout such research today. Wind tunnels and associated research collecting data was happening world wide in many facilities from the early 20th Century.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,274
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

Re:

30 Sep 2018 00:54

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Noel, please provide some data. Those doing research provide data. You just make **** up.


Can you say exactly what it is you can't believe without seeing data. CoachFergie and PhitBoy believe Anquetil's superiority in flat TT's was due to his VO2MAX, do you agree with that. They all took drugs in those days.
backdoor
Member
 
Posts: 399
Joined: 04 Jun 2015 12:55

Re: Re:

30 Sep 2018 03:08

backdoor wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Noel, please provide some data. Those doing research provide data. You just make **** up.


Can you say exactly what it is you can't believe without seeing data. CoachFergie and PhitBoy believe Anquetil's superiority in flat TT's was due to his VO2MAX, do you agree with that. They all took drugs in those days.

Drugs have been part of the sport since it was invented and still are part of the sport. So what?

I doubt Hamish or Jim ever said it was only due to his VO2max, but rather a very high VO2max is one of several attributes necessary to be a grand tour champion / excellent TT rider, let alone be an elite level pro rider. This is known not only from direct measurement of such riders's physiological attributes but also from physiological first principles.

TT speed is directly correlated with the ratio of a rider's sustainable aerobic power to coefficient of aerodynamic drag (CdA). Putting the aero part of the equation to one side, the power side can't be magically bought without having a high VO2max. It doesn't necessarily require one to have the highest VO2max, as sustainable aerobic power is a function of more than VO2max, but you should already know that since it's been repeated here so many times it ain't funny.

That you would dispute this is kind of strange.

But then given the nonsense you keep banging on with, I suppose you disputing such fundamentally basic notions of the factors involved with human athletic performance it perhaps isn't all that strange.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,274
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

30 Sep 2018 03:21

In any case, Anquetil is a red herring. What we want Noel is some actual data on your mythical pedalling technique improving cycling performance.

Until you provide some data showing the application of torque around the pedal stroke, please stop wasting everyone's time.

This is not difficult to obtain. The technology to do this at a net level for both legs has been available at consumer level for decades, e.g. the SRM torque analysis system, a Racermate Computrainer, a Wattbike, and more recently some other power meters can provide such data.

Even though they are not lab grade pedal force measurement systems, these home based systems are more than sufficient to demonstrate what you suggest will make such an improvement to performance.

That such data can be readily obtained with common consumer level devices and that you persistently have refused to do so tells us you are just dreaming.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,274
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

Re: Re:

30 Sep 2018 12:50

backdoor wrote:... Can you say exactly what it is you can't believe without seeing data. ...

---------------------------------------------------
The part that is not believed is that the pedalling technique that you describe can be maintained for a long duration at a higher power level than the 'conventional' technique.

Need for data to show:

1) The overall power generation.
The details of 'where' and 'how' the power is generated would verify that your technique is being used, and to show that the technique is actually different than the conventional.

2) The duration that the power level can be maintained.
This is very important because there is doubt that the muscles employed in the technique you describe can be sustained for a TT duration.

Jay
JayKosta
Member
 
Posts: 831
Joined: 25 Nov 2010 13:55

Re:

30 Sep 2018 13:43

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Are you kidding me Noel?

Empirical understanding of such fluid dynamics goes back thousands of years. Any culture that made waterfaring craft or needed to better understand fluid flows understood such basic principals.

As far as specific data from measuring the impacts of air movement around objects of different shapes, the first fully enclosed wind tunnels with force measurement devices capable of measuring the specific drag coefficients of different shaped objects emerged in the latter part of the 19th Century.

Mathematical descriptions of such fluid flows were developed in the early part of the 19th Century, e.g. the development of the Navier-Stokes equations, which are still used in today's computational fluid dynamics.

Around the turn of the 20th century Osborne Reynolds worked out that scale models in such wind tunnels behaved in the same manner as full scale if adjusted based on a certain parameter, now known as the Reynold's number (for fluid velocities under approx Mach 0.3), which significantly opened up the field of research and collection of data as scale models could be successfully used, and they still are used throughout such research today. Wind tunnels and associated research collecting data was happening world wide in many facilities from the early 20th Century.


That's my point, with so much of this information available for so long, why did pro cycling have to wait for those from another sport (only 10 years old) to discover that by adapting the downhill skiers' frontal body position TT times could be improved. The pro world laughed at the idea as they clung to their long standing belief that a very narrow hand/arm position would seriously restrict breathing. The same can be said now about adapting the simple maximal power generating technique of indoor tug o'war for use in cycling's dead spot sector, but coaches and scientists have another long standing belief that because the legs and feet are constrained to move in a circle, there's nothing that can be done to improve pedalling technique, and PhitBoy claims to have produced data to confirm this nonsense even though he also said it was not the job of scientists to search for new ways to improve technique. I have explained in detail how this adaptation can be done for anyone interested in experimenting. It would be interesting to know what and where muscles were maximized in PhitBoy's study but alas this information is only available to those willing to pay for it. Over 500 published studies on pedalling technique and not one improvement to the biomechanics of pedalling, looks like the only benefits that resulted from these studies were in the CV's of those doing the studies.
backdoor
Member
 
Posts: 399
Joined: 04 Jun 2015 12:55

Re: Re:

30 Sep 2018 21:08

backdoor wrote:... The pro world laughed at the idea as they clung to their long standing belief that a very narrow hand/arm position would seriously restrict breathing. ...

----------------------------------
I think that IS the basic reason the position wasn't adopted earlier - and especially because nobody was using the positon and being successful. In a similar vein, it would be interesting to know whether cyclists during JA time tried to emulate his technique, and what were the results. Perhaps others did try, but were not successful because they lacked some necessary physical aspects.

Jay
JayKosta
Member
 
Posts: 831
Joined: 25 Nov 2010 13:55

01 Oct 2018 00:59

Noel, you are making extraordinary claims. So provide the extraordinary proof. Why are you waiting? It's really quite a straightforward task. Imagine the vast fame and wealth you could acquire by unleashing these massive legal performance gains on the cycling world and dominating pro cycling in a fashion no one could possible have dreamed possible?

That pro cyclists took a while to adopt aerodynamic equipment is a function of history, rules and availability of equipment to use in such events.

Aerodynamic fairings were used on bikes back in the early part the 20th century (1910-20) and shown to be significantly faster, not because of superior power output but because of superior aerodynamics. But the UCI prohibited the use of such aero equipment and did not recognise them as bicycles for the purpose of races or for records sanctioned by the UCI.

That they eventually permitted some aero technology on a bike and refined and adjusted their rules in subsequent years has been the main drag on such things being adopted by the professional ranks.

Chester Kyle began a resurgence in aerodynamics for cyclists in the 1970s, targeting fully faired and recumbent designs but he also worked on the projects that would pass UCI regulations in the 1980s for the US Olympic teams, and aero development blossomed from there.

Again, the aero discussion is just a big fat red herring, as is bringing up Anquetil for 5 bazillionth time.

Just show us the data Noel.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,274
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

Re: Re:

01 Oct 2018 13:12

[quote="
----------------------------------
it would be interesting to know whether cyclists during JA time tried to emulate his technique, and what were the results. Perhaps others did try, but were not successful because they lacked some necessary physical aspects.

Jay[/quote]

They did but like Steve Hogg thought pedalling toes down was all that was involved. His power generating was undetectable, those looking at his TT pedalling footage these days don't even notice he has no dead spot sector.
J Bobet appears to have been the only cyclist who was aware of this.
http://www.cyclinglegends.co.uk/index.php/features/interviews/9-jean-bobet
backdoor
Member
 
Posts: 399
Joined: 04 Jun 2015 12:55

Re: Re:

01 Oct 2018 20:05

backdoor wrote:
JayKosta wrote: it would be interesting to know whether cyclists during JA time tried to emulate his technique, and what were the results. Perhaps others did try, but were not successful because they lacked some necessary physical aspects.

Jay


They did but like Steve Hogg thought pedalling toes down was all that was involved. His power generating was undetectable, those looking at his TT pedalling footage these days don't even notice he has no dead spot sector.
J Bobet appears to have been the only cyclist who was aware of this.
http://www.cyclinglegends.co.uk/index.php/features/interviews/9-jean-bobet

Power output is **not** undetectable. What a load of nonsense.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,274
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

Re: Re:

01 Oct 2018 20:23

backdoor wrote:...
They did but like Steve Hogg thought pedalling toes down was all that was involved. His power generating was undetectable, those looking at his TT pedalling footage these days don't even notice he has no dead spot sector.
J Bobet appears to have been the only cyclist who was aware of this.
http://www.cyclinglegends.co.uk/index.php/features/interviews/9-jean-bobet

-------------------------
I couldn't find anything in the Bobet article about specifics of JA's technique, other than the mention of it being very smooth, and JA's attention to an aerodynamic body position.

Power analysis data would help avoid problems such as you mentioned regarding Hogg.

Jay
JayKosta
Member
 
Posts: 831
Joined: 25 Nov 2010 13:55

Re: Re:

01 Oct 2018 20:40

JayKosta wrote:
backdoor wrote:...
They did but like Steve Hogg thought pedalling toes down was all that was involved. His power generating was undetectable, those looking at his TT pedalling footage these days don't even notice he has no dead spot sector.
J Bobet appears to have been the only cyclist who was aware of this.
http://www.cyclinglegends.co.uk/index.php/features/interviews/9-jean-bobet

-------------------------
I couldn't find anything in the Bobet article about specifics of JA's technique, other than the mention of it being very smooth, and JA's attention to an aerodynamic body position.

Power analysis data would help avoid problems such as you mentioned regarding Hogg.

Jay


"One particular reason I admired Anquetil was because, although I studied literature, I am fascinated by mathematics and physics. Anquetil was perfection at continuous motion. His system was totally adapted to it, so much that he could not support interruptions to his effort."
continuous motion (i.e.) non stop power application.
I will explain why I am not supplying data later.
backdoor
Member
 
Posts: 399
Joined: 04 Jun 2015 12:55

Re: Re:

01 Oct 2018 23:28

backdoor wrote:I will explain why I am not supplying data later.

This'll be good. :rolleyes:
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,274
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

01 Oct 2018 23:47

Goodness gracious I have really missed an erudite discussion! Why didn't anyone tell me?
I can't post the pdf of our recent paper because of copyright issues but I can send it to one person at a time. Send me your email address and I'll send you the reprint. It will be really good to hear about all the mistakes we made and the reviewers at JEB missed.
Alternatively Noel, does your town have a library? Any library can request a document via inter-library loan.
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/221/13/jeb180109
Cheers,
Jim
PhitBoy
Junior Member
 
Posts: 93
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 18:58

Re: Re:

02 Oct 2018 12:17

JayKosta wrote:
backdoor wrote:... Can you say exactly what it is you can't believe without seeing data. ...

---------------------------------------------------
The part that is not believed is that the pedalling technique that you describe can be maintained for a long duration at a higher power level than the 'conventional' technique.
Jay

You are only using this part of your 180 deg. power stroke for less than 90 deg.. In this sector you are using the glutes and quads in a different and more effective way in combination with the strongest and most fatigue resistant muscle in the lower body (soleus) and of course the plantar flexion force. You are also using arm resistance to counteract the instant application of maximal force at 11. This distribution of the workload means low stress on all muscles involved. You are also gaining an extra 120 deg of maximal force application time in each revolution of the chainring, over an hour this can result in several minutes of extra pedalling time which is something the inventors of the rotor crank were erroneously claiming. In addition to all of this you are getting a higher torque return from the force you are applying than what is got in natural pedalling and the lower your upper body position, the more powerful your pedalling. You could not get a more sustainable way of applying torque to your cranks.
My reason for not supplying data is I am unable to. I don't have the necessary equipment and even if I had it, I would not be able to use it because I hate all this technology including power meters and only use the computer for very limited internet use and I have no intention of learning about this at my age. Nobody around here is interested in pedalling technique because time saving equipment and clothing is available for instant use. But this equipment and clothing comes at a high price and as a result, the numbers taking part in tt's are reducing while road racing numbers are steadily increasing. While the T o' W technique could be adapted for use in pedalling in a day or two, as with Anquetil, it takes a couple of years to perfect a completely different technique for maximal effect, with the necessary changes to bike set-up etc.
Last edited by backdoor on 05 Oct 2018 18:04, edited 1 time in total.
backdoor
Member
 
Posts: 399
Joined: 04 Jun 2015 12:55

Re:

02 Oct 2018 14:22

PhitBoy wrote:Goodness gracious I have really missed an erudite discussion! Why didn't anyone tell me?
I can't post the pdf of our recent paper because of copyright issues but I can send it to one person at a time. Send me your email address and I'll send you the reprint. It will be really good to hear about all the mistakes we made and the reviewers at JEB missed.
Alternatively Noel, does your town have a library? Any library can request a document via inter-library loan.
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/221/13/jeb180109
Cheers,
Jim


There are no errors in the study (abstract). But only existing pedalling techniques were used. What muscles were maximized between 11 - 1 o'c ?
It's in these conclusions the errors arise. If ye were only aware of power application in existing styles, how could ye know what another technique would be capable of ?

Hi Jay:
We maximized the power that every muscle produced throughout the pedal cycle and came up with patterns that look almost identical to what cyclists do. That means there is nothing else the muscles can do to produce power in some other technique. Any other technique will be less powerful, not more. The differences we saw at the ankle occur during the middle of the recovery portion of the cycle where an active ankle extension would be counter productive. That is, even though soleus could produce more power during that portion of the cycle, doing so would produce negative power on the crank.
backdoor
Member
 
Posts: 399
Joined: 04 Jun 2015 12:55

Re: Re:

02 Oct 2018 17:41

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at: Different techniques might produce different kineamtics which would change muscle length trajectories thereby facilitating a different approach to power production. Is that it?
While the theory is plausible, the actual possible changes are quite small. Even with the large scale changes in movement patterns of maximal sprinting vs endurance riding the knee and hip joint actions are very similar. Larger changes can be make in ankle motion but muscles that span the ankle contribute only a small portion of the overall power.
So yes, we constrained our muscle trajectories to match what cyclists actually did but then we maximized the power they could produce independent of any notion of how that power ought to look. As it turned out, it looked very much like what people do. Any theory of subtle changes in ankling making large changes in muscle trajectories are not supported.
Cheers,
Jim

backdoor wrote:There are no errors in the study (abstract). But only existing pedalling techniques were used. What muscles were maximized between 11 - 1 o'c ?
It's in these conclusions the errors arise. If ye were only aware of power application in existing styles, how could ye know what another technique would be capable of ?
PhitBoy
Junior Member
 
Posts: 93
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 18:58

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

Back to top