The pedaling technique thread

[backdoor]

Nothing new in this abstract

Yeah, just add it to the list of all the other studies that have used work loop modeling to predict whole limb maximal potential. Oh wait... there aren't any others.

Like Jay , I only saw the abstract. How can this time consuming complicated work lead to the perfect pedalling technique, which I believe is simply about giving your brain the correct objectives and it will soon figure out not only the combination of your most powerful muscles needed for that purpose but also where to use them. Or is this more of a physiological rather than a pedalling study.

[JayKosta]

Simulation of muscle usage and its effect on power and endurance could result in tremendous changes in many sports. It could be a predictor of whether a change in technique has a high probability of giving better performance - and thereby lessen the reluctance of athletes to devote training time on a 'maybe'.

If there is any follow-on analysis of pedalling technique that does include high use of the muscles to move the ankle/foot before and thru TDC it might validate your ideas. A complication is whether the simulation tool can also include the torso and arm muscle usage that is involved with pedalling.

Jay

[PhitBoy]

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.
I hope this clarifies.
Cheers,
Jim

Simulation of muscle usage and its effect on power and endurance could result in tremendous changes in many sports. It could be a predictor of whether a change in technique has a high probability of giving better performance - and thereby lessen the reluctance of athletes to devote training time on a 'maybe'.

If there is any follow-on analysis of pedalling technique that does include high use of the muscles to move the ankle/foot before and thru TDC it might validate your ideas. A complication is whether the simulation tool can also include the torso and arm muscle usage that is involved with pedalling.

Jay

[backdoor]

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.
I hope this clarifies.
Cheers,
Jim

[

That study and your conclusions are even more ridiculous than what I had first imagined. As I said nothing new, just more of the same repetitive tinkering with existing pedalling styles and then searching for a different result in keeping with the definition of insanity. How can work loop modeling predict the maximal potential of the soleus muscle used in the pedalling power stroke when all existing pedalling styles leave it lying idle during this sector of the pedalling circle. The recovery stroke is for recovery, not for trying to generate torque. From the short explanation that I read, work loop modeling is for individual muscles, not for a combination of the three most powerful muscles (glutes quads and soleus) working as a unit that can generate maximal torque around TDC and beyond, as is the case with the perfect pedalling technique.

[PhitBoy]

That study and your conclusions are even more ridiculous than what I had first imagined.

Tom Petty said it best: You believe what you want to believe. Keep on peddling your pedaling Noel.
Cheers,
Jim

[Alex Simmons/RST]

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.
I hope this clarifies.
Cheers,
Jim

[

That study and your conclusions are even more ridiculous than what I had first imagined. As I said nothing new, just more of the same repetitive tinkering with existing pedalling styles and then searching for a different result in keeping with the definition of insanity. How can work loop modeling predict the maximal potential of the soleus muscle used in the pedalling power stroke when all existing pedalling styles leave it lying idle during this sector of the pedalling circle. The recovery stroke is for recovery, not for trying to generate torque. From the short explanation that I read, work loop modeling is for individual muscles, not for a combination of the three most powerful muscles (glutes quads and soleus) working as a unit that can generate maximal torque around TDC and beyond, as is the case with the perfect pedalling technique.

Noel, please stop. You really haven't a clue what you are crapping on about.

[backdoor]

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.
I hope this clarifies.
Cheers,
Jim

[

That study and your conclusions are even more ridiculous than what I had first imagined. As I said nothing new, just more of the same repetitive tinkering with existing pedalling styles and then searching for a different result in keeping with the definition of insanity. How can work loop modeling predict the maximal potential of the soleus muscle used in the pedalling power stroke when all existing pedalling styles leave it lying idle during this sector of the pedalling circle. The recovery stroke is for recovery, not for trying to generate torque. From the short explanation that I read, work loop modeling is for individual muscles, not for a combination of the three most powerful muscles (glutes quads and soleus) working as a unit that can generate maximal torque around TDC and beyond, as is the case with the perfect pedalling technique.

Noel, please stop. You really haven't a clue what you are crapping on about.

I would if someone would tell me where I am wrong in my explanation of the perfect technique, which in brief simply involves joining the maximal forward power producing technique from another powerful sport for the first half of your power stroke (11-2)with the maximal downward power producing technique of mashing for the second half (2-5), together they give 180 deg of highly effective torque from each pedal stroke with no dead spot sector. I hate seeing the misinformation being spread by these studies which (except for Anquetil) has kept pedalling unchanged since the invention of the bicycle.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

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.
I hope this clarifies.
Cheers,
Jim

[

That study and your conclusions are even more ridiculous than what I had first imagined. As I said nothing new, just more of the same repetitive tinkering with existing pedalling styles and then searching for a different result in keeping with the definition of insanity. How can work loop modeling predict the maximal potential of the soleus muscle used in the pedalling power stroke when all existing pedalling styles leave it lying idle during this sector of the pedalling circle. The recovery stroke is for recovery, not for trying to generate torque. From the short explanation that I read, work loop modeling is for individual muscles, not for a combination of the three most powerful muscles (glutes quads and soleus) working as a unit that can generate maximal torque around TDC and beyond, as is the case with the perfect pedalling technique.

Noel, please stop. You really haven't a clue what you are crapping on about.

I would if someone would tell me where I am wrong in my explanation of the perfect technique, which in brief simply involves joining the maximal forward power producing technique from another powerful sport for the first half of your power stroke (11-2)with the maximal downward power producing technique of mashing for the second half (2-5), together they give 180 deg of highly effective torque from each pedal stroke with no dead spot sector. I hate seeing the misinformation being spread by these studies which (except for Anquetil) has kept pedalling unchanged since the invention of the bicycle.

It's not possible to turn around the beliefs of the self deluded.

The onus is on you to demonstrate your assertions have a basis is reality by providing some actual data. You have failed to do so for as long as I can recall, nearly a couple of decades.

You have been provided the opportunity to do so at biomechanical research facility, and many have explained how this can be done without a lot of effort or cost (via a basic intervention protocol and power measurement). Yet you persist with your delusion and refuse to test it with the simplest of measures currently available to the cycling public.

That you dismiss those with actual data so casually is simply hand waving on your part.

[backdoor]

I would if someone would tell me where I am wrong in my explanation of the perfect technique, which in brief simply involves joining the maximal forward power producing technique from another powerful sport for the first half of your power stroke (11-2)with the maximal downward power producing technique of mashing for the second half (2-5), together they give 180 deg of highly effective torque from each pedal stroke with no dead spot sector. I hate seeing the misinformation being spread by these studies which (except for Anquetil) has kept pedalling unchanged since the invention of the bicycle.

It's not possible to turn around the beliefs of the self deluded.

The onus is on you to demonstrate your assertions have a basis is reality by providing some actual data. You have failed to do so for as long as I can recall, nearly a couple of decades.

You have been provided the opportunity to do so at biomechanical research facility, and many have explained how this can be done without a lot of effort or cost (via a basic intervention protocol and power measurement). Yet you persist with your delusion and refuse to test it with the simplest of measures currently available to the cycling public.

That you dismiss those with actual data so casually is simply hand waving on your part.

There is no self delusion about the elimination of cycling's worst lower back pain when you yourself are a victim. Lower back pain is the most common medical problem in cycling and medical experts after over a century of research have failed to find a solution or even relieve this pain. The explanation for their failure lies in the fact that natural pedalling is the root cause of this torture that has forced many out of the sport. Change peak torque application from 3 o'c to the 1.30 position and the problem is solved because greatest pedalling resistance is now being supplied by the powerful hips instead of a defective lower back and all upper body weight is supported by the working arms without any stressing of the arms.
What effect would the application of additional maximal torque at 12 and 1 o'c have on the power from your pedalling stroke, according to PhitBoy's results from his latest study it would reduce it. His conclusion from that study should have read, 'when using natural pedalling any attempt to change muscle usage will result in less power than that of the mashing technique'. How would you answer that question ?

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Where's the data Noel?

[PhitBoy]

It's not possible to turn around the beliefs of the self deluded.

This reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from Lonesome Dove: Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

[backdoor]

It's not possible to turn around the beliefs of the self deluded.

This reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from Lonesome Dove: Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

As A. Coggan wrote on the ST forum, "The real question is therefore not whether the data are accurate and precise, but what can you do with it."
Maybe you could explain why adding hand cranks to a bike will never improve performance.
http://road.cc/content/news/87308-dutch-inventor-announces-dual-drive-bike-powered-hand-crank-pedals

[backdoor]

[quote="backdoor

Maybe you could explain why adding hand cranks to a bike will never improve performance.

http://road.cc/content/news/87308-dutch-inventor-announces-dual-drive-bike-powered-hand-crank-pedals[/quote]

For exactly the same reason that pulling up with your rising leg will not add to your pedalling power. Instead of "neural juice" I would put 'concentration on the interaction between brain and muscles'. The assistance of the arm can only add to leg power output if it is used in a combined action with the leg which can be given total concentration (e.g. out of the saddle accelerating from a standing start). Anquetil replicated this combined action while in a seated position by inventing a maximal forward torque generating technique for use around 12 and 1 o'c.
https://www.bikejames.com/strength/why-pulling-up-doesnt-add-to-your-pedal-stroke-powe

[backdoor]

I did try measuring the chainring on my bike, but results were inconclusive. The 3/8inch bit wouldn't fit in any of the valleys, and the 23/64 fit in all - but it seems like some were 'looser' than others. This was done on the large chainring, I changed the inner ring several years ago and do not recall if I changed the orientation of the outer ring at that time ???

I also inspected the old inner ring and it is also difficult to measure. But there seems to be a noticeable visual difference in the 'shark tooth' wear pattern around the ring - And I don't know what the orientation of that ring was on the crank.

Perhaps with an 'inspection magnifier' and a measuring grid, a more exact determination of the wear could be established. I am confident that the teeth around the ring do NOT wear evenly, so the amount of wear could be a meaningful indicator of what sections of the ring contribute most to the crank torque.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Also note that on a 10 tooth ring, 5 teeth are always engaged. On a 50 tooth ring, 25. You cannot wear just one tooth.

Looks like only one tooth on the large ring will be transferring all the force from the crank, which means an extended smoother application of maximal tangential force could reduce wear on these teeth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9gQ1KRhesM&feature=youtu.be

[JayKosta]

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9gQ1KRhesM&feature=youtu.be

-------------
The Ceramic Speed 'variable pinion' drive train that you mentioned is quite interesting. But I think the major trouble spot is dirt contamination of the exposed rolled bearings. This is basically a 'mechanical engineering' problem regarding how bearings work in adverse environments.

In addition to watching that specific youtube, I also watched several others that discussed oval chainrings.

Regarding your (Noel / Backdoor) theory about applying high torque during the 11-1 o'clock portion of crank rotation, It occured to me that an OVAL chainring that was oriented so that the high-tooth portion occured DURING that 11-1 o'clock position would FORCE the rider to exert MORE effort in that sector in order to maintain what seemed to be a constant crank rotation speed - and that would do 2 things.
1) It would TRAIN the muscles to produce enough power/pedal speed to keep the cadence 'steady' during the deadspots. (and this is what I understand as the basis of your technique). And the 'training' might force the rider to apply power to the pedals as your theory suggstest.
2) By keeping the instantaneous speed more 'steady' it MIGHT be more effective (physiological efficiency is not known) than the SMALL cyclical changes in power application that occur during the 'deadspots' at 12 & 6 o'clock.
note: the amount of 'ovalness' would probably need to be quite small to avoid the need for excessive pedal effort variation during the deadspots.

Current theory about OVAL chainrings seems to be about reducing the TIME spend in the deadspot, and not about having smooth instanteous power producution DURING the deadspots.

Jay

[backdoor]

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9gQ1KRhesM&feature=youtu.be

-------------
The Ceramic Speed 'variable pinion' drive train that you mentioned is quite interesting. But I think the major trouble spot is dirt contamination of the exposed rolled bearings. This is basically a 'mechanical engineering' problem regarding how bearings work in adverse environments.

In addition to watching that specific youtube, I also watched several others that discussed oval chainrings.

Regarding your (Noel / Backdoor) theory about applying high torque during the 11-1 o'clock portion of crank rotation, It occured to me that an OVAL chainring that was oriented so that the high-tooth portion occured DURING that 11-1 o'clock position would FORCE the rider to exert MORE effort in that sector in order to maintain what seemed to be a constant crank rotation speed - and that would do 2 things.
1) It would TRAIN the muscles to produce enough power/pedal speed to keep the cadence 'steady' during the deadspots. (and this is what I understand as the basis of your technique). And the 'training' might force the rider to apply power to the pedals as your theory suggstest.
2) By keeping the instantaneous speed more 'steady' it MIGHT be more effective (physiological efficiency is not known) than the SMALL cyclical changes in power application that occur during the 'deadspots' at 12 & 6 o'clock.
note: the amount of 'ovalness' would probably need to be quite small to avoid the need for excessive pedal effort variation during the deadspots.

Current theory about OVAL chainrings seems to be about reducing the TIME spend in the deadspot, and not about having smooth instanteous power producution DURING the deadspots.

Jay

The oval rings change gearing effect or crank speed 4 times around pedalling circle, giving highest gear effect between 2-4, but as Leong said, if you are not prepared to increase crank speed here by applying more power where you are already applying close to maximal power, you will gain nothing, you can do that with round rings. Anquetil's pedalling also increases gearing effect but does it in such a way that you increase total power from each power stroke without having to change crank speed or power application because it does it by applying maximal tangential force where all other cyclists' legs are effectively idling or applying force less tangentially. The ROTOR CRANK idea which changes crank speed only twice around the circle and brings the upper crank forward before TDC would make for an easier simultaneous switch over of maximal force application between legs but this advantage would be more than eliminated by its disadvantages.

[backdoor]

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9gQ1KRhesM&feature=youtu.be

-------------

Regarding your (Noel / Backdoor) theory about applying high torque during the 11-1 o'clock portion of crank rotation, It occured to me that an OVAL chainring that was oriented so that the high-tooth portion occured DURING that 11-1 o'clock position would FORCE the rider to exert MORE effort in that sector in order to maintain what seemed to be a constant crank rotation speed - and that would do 2 things.

Jay

Unlike POWERCRANKS oval chainrings will not force you to do anything, that's why they do not improve performance. It's only the objectives you give to your brain that can make changes. Using the oval ring higher gearing effect around TDC would only upset the constant pedal/crank speed and smooth application of maximal force through the 180 deg. power stroke. As I said above, Anquetil's pedalling increases gearing effect, any further increase would probably overdo it.

[backdoor]

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.
I hope this clarifies.
Cheers,
Jim

Maybe Alex could explain what effect his prosthesis has when he is walking. I have a reason for asking this question which will be explained in my next reply.

[backdoor]

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.
I hope this clarifies.
Cheers,
Jim

Maybe Alex could explain what effect his prosthesis has when he is walking. I have a reason for asking this question which will be explained in my next reply.

My reason for asking was to know which was the most effective muscle used in walking that was lost. I am not surprised trying to use the soleus around 9 o'c resulted in negative torque because for torque production purposes it cannot be activated until 11 o'c, and for this activation to take place you need a very important yet undetectable adjustment in the use of glutes and quads at the start of the power stroke around 11 o'c.

[JayKosta]

... I am not surprised trying to use the soleus around 9 o'c resulted in negative torque because for torque production purposes it cannot be activated until 11 o'c, and for this activation to take place you need a very important yet undetectable adjustment in the use of glutes and quads at the start of the power stroke around 11 o'c.

-----------------------------------
What is the 'undetectable adjustment' for glutes and quads? If you want people to understand your ideas, please tell the 'whole story'.

Jay