For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[coapman]

Hmmmmm Frank is not the only one with a vivid imagination

True, but success can only be found by turning what you had imagined into reality.

 

[coapman]

My analysis is simply a mathematical look at the potential of one particular change. It suggests that substantial improvements might be possible by concentrating on this element of pedaling technique. The only way to increase cycling power is to increase the average power put on the pedals around the entire circle. The question has to be asked what is the best way to do this.

[/QUOT

What your analysis suggests is wrong, the only way to increase TT cycling power is to increase the average torque applied to the chain wheel or ring over its revolution and this can only be done by each leg applying maximal force to the pedal over 180 degrees.

 

[CoachFergie]

Success "only" comes from imagination. My riders will be stoked to hear they can stop training

 

[acoggan]

The Power tap I owned many years ago did. It didn't try to do the spinscan thing but it certainly gave me a r/l balance thing.

Your memory is apparently playing tricks on you. No PowerTap has ever provided data for L/R balance.

 

[FrankDay]

Your memory is apparently playing tricks on you. No PowerTap has ever provided data for L/R balance.

I am pretty sure it did because it also gave cadence, even when there wasn't a magnet on the bike. The only way it could do that would be to see the peaks and the troughs, which makes it easy to separate right from left as long as it knows which is right and left, which requires a magnet on the bike. Anyhow, that is my memory, perhaps it is wrong.

Anyhow, back to the crux of this thread. So, you are going to recommend that nobody who listens to you buy a second gen PM simply because all the extra data they will give is totally useless? Is that correct? If not, what data do you think might be useful and why?

 

[CoachFergie]

Having owned Powertaps since 2005 you are quite incorrect abut LR measurement. They do measure cadence, badly.

I would suggest people use power alone to measure physical performance.

 

[FrankDay]

Dr. Coggan, Fergie: Dated April 2012, from the SRM website

SRM is proud to announce the immediate availability of a new torque analysing solution.


Measuring torque is one of the best methods to optimize bike fitting and rehabilitation, understand the distribution of power during all 360 degrees of the pedal revolution, and to analyze the strengths of different pedaling styles.

Of course, what they are offering is not much more than a "glorified" SpinScan and not true pedal torque analysis but, from this, it does seem like they are trying to not be left behind. Maybe you two should contact them and tell them not to worry since, if they would only go back to just measuring power and nothing else, you two will continue to recommend them as the PM of choice.

 

[CoachFergie]

Dr. Coggan, Fergie: Dated April 2012, from the SRM website
Of course, what they are offering is not much more than a "glorified" SpinScan and not true pedal torque analysis but, from this, it does seem like they are trying to not be left behind. Maybe you two should contact them and tell them not to worry since, if they would only go back to just measuring power and nothing else, you two will continue to recommend them as the PM of choice.

Yup, nothing more than spin scan or the data we get from Wattbikes. Not very useful at all.

I will always recommend SRM as they do the best job of measuring power. Helpful to test if the training and racing load is helping the rider progress and to test various equipment and techniques.

 

[FrankDay]

Yup, nothing more than spin scan or the data we get from Wattbikes. Not very useful at all.

I will always recommend SRM as they do the best job of measuring power. Helpful to test if the training and racing load is helping the rider progress and to test various equipment and techniques.

But SRM says: "Measuring torque is one of the best methods to optimize bike fitting and rehabilitation, understand the distribution of power during all 360 degrees of the pedal revolution, and to analyze the strengths of different pedaling styles" What do you have to say to that? Do you agree or disagree with their assessment? Wouldn't you agree that all my analysis tried to do was to try to "understand the distribution of power during all 360 degrees of the pedal revolution" and to comment on how that distribution might be enhanced?

 

[CoachFergie]

But SRM says: "Measuring torque is one of the best methods to optimize bike fitting and rehabilitation, understand the distribution of power during all 360 degrees of the pedal revolution, and to analyze the strengths of different pedaling styles" What do you have to say to that? Do you agree or disagree with their assessment? Wouldn't you agree that all my analysis tried to do was "understand the distribution of power during all 360 degrees of the pedal revolution" and how that distribution might be enhanced?

I think I have made my position clear about the lack of importance in measuring pedalling technique. None of the data presented has given me reason to change that position.

 

[sciguy]

But SRM says: "Measuring torque is one of the best methods to optimize bike fitting and rehabilitation, understand the distribution of power during all 360 degrees of the pedal revolution, and to analyze the strengths of different pedaling styles" What do you have to say to that? Do you agree or disagree with their assessment? Wouldn't you agree that all my analysis tried to do was to try to "understand the distribution of power during all 360 degrees of the pedal revolution" and to comment on how that distribution might be enhanced?

Frank,

As much as most of us like and respect SRM power meters the company is in the business, like you, of selling a product. Selling a product usually involves some amount of promotion like touting features or results whether it be right left power distribution or 40% improvement in power. When Quarq recently came out with a right left distribution feature, SRM was more or less forced to bring out a similar function to stay competitive feature wise. In my opinion adding this feature as well was the promoting it was done mainly to keep up with the Jones or Meyers as the case may be. If 10% of the buying public perceives that it might possibly be useful then that will increase sales. Since it's a software trick that allows the function there probably was minimal cost in adding it.



Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

I think I have made my position clear about the lack of importance in measuring pedalling technique. None of the data presented has given me reason to change that position.

We know what you think. I was asking what you think about the position of SRM? Do you think this is nothing more than a money grab to cash in on a new, but otherwise useless, fad? Or, do these people who invented the bicycle power meter have any possibility of actually speaking the truth?

 

[FrankDay]

Frank,

As much as most of us like and respect SRM power meters the company is in the business, like you, of selling a product. Selling a product usually involves some amount of promotion like touting features or results whether it be right left power distribution or 40% improvement in power. When Quarq recently came out with a right left distribution feature, SRM was more or less forced to bring out a similar function to stay competitive feature wise. In my opinion adding this feature as well was the promoting it was done mainly to keep up with the Jones or Meyers as the case may be. If 10% of the buying public perceives that it might possibly be useful then that will increase sales. Since it's a software trick that allows the function there probably was minimal cost in adding it.



Hugh

Why was SRM "forced" to do this by Quarq? Computrainer has had this for 20 years and they never forced SRM to do anything. My guess is SRM was "forced" to this position by Garmin, and what they saw coming from a company with high visibility with cyclists. Anyhow, they have said what they have said about measuring torque around 306º of the pedal circle. Do you have any scientific data to refute what they say?

 

[FrankDay]

Frank,

As much as most of us like and respect SRM power meters the company is in the business, like you, of selling a product. Selling a product usually involves some amount of promotion like touting features or results whether it be right left power distribution or 40% improvement in power. When Quarq recently came out with a right left distribution feature, SRM was more or less forced to bring out a similar function to stay competitive feature wise. In my opinion adding this feature as well was the promoting it was done mainly to keep up with the Jones or Meyers as the case may be. If 10% of the buying public perceives that it might possibly be useful then that will increase sales. Since it's a software trick that allows the function there probably was minimal cost in adding it.



Hugh

Why was SRM "forced" to do this by Quarq? Computrainer has had this for 20 years and they never forced SRM to do anything. My guess is SRM was "forced" to this position by Garmin (and by the excitement they saw in the cycling community from this possibility). Anyhow, they have said what they have said about measuring torque around 306º of the pedal circle. Do you have any scientific data to refute what they say?

 

[CoachFergie]

We know what you think. I was asking what you think about the position of SRM? Do you think this is nothing more than a money grab to cash in on a new, but otherwise useless, fad? Or, do these people who invented the bicycle power meter have any possibility of actually speaking the truth?

I don't care why they have added this feature to their indoor trainer (not the cranksets). As I said no data has been presented that would suggest it is of any importance to those looking to enhance performance.

 

[FrankDay]

I don't care why they have added this feature to their indoor trainer (not the cranksets). As I said no data has been presented that would suggest it is of any importance to those looking to enhance performance.

You don't care why… that seems to be your approach to a lot of things.

 

[sciguy]

Why was SRM "forced" to do this by Quarq? Computrainer has had this for 20 years and they never forced SRM to do anything. My guess is SRM was "forced" to this position by Garmin (and by the excitement they saw in the cycling community from this possibility). Anyhow, they have said what they have said about measuring torque around 306º of the pedal circle. Do you have any scientific data to refute what they say?

I say this because the Quarq Cinqo is in direct competition with the SRM and at a significantly lower price point for those in the USA. Most of us would not consider the Computrainer as a direct competitor to SRM as it sits at home rather than outside on your training rides or races. Spin scan has never been considered of significant value addition by any folks in the scientific community that I'm aware of. If anything "better" spin scan scores inversely correlate with actual performance.

Hugh

I'll be in Kona in 10 days raring to see that new power meter in action and actually do have an open mind in regards to what it may show if it really can be sorted out.

 

[CoachFergie]

You don't care why… that seems to be your approach to a lot of things.

And they all revolve around your claims about the importance without any supporting evidence.

 

[FrankDay]

And they all revolve around your claims about the importance without any supporting evidence.

No, not caring what others think means not having to think beyond your own bias. It is a form of intellectual laziness.

 

[FrankDay]

I say this because the Quarq Cinqo is in direct competition with the SRM and at a significantly lower price point for those in the USA. Most of us would not consider the Computrainer as a direct competitor to SRM as it sits at home rather than outside on your training rides or races. Spin scan has never been considered of significant value addition by any folks in the scientific community that I'm aware of. If anything "better" spin scan scores inversely correlate with actual performance.

Hugh

I'll be in Kona in 10 days raring to see that new power meter in action and actually do have an open mind in regards to what it may show if it really can be sorted out.

Ugh, this new SRM device is an "indoor only" device. It does not compete directly with Quarq. SRM has been sitting back watching the money roll in and not caring a wit about advancing the art. Now, I think they see things passing them by, especially with the advent of the 2nd gen PM's being able to measure pedal torque directly. So, why does SRM put out a SpinScan type device now while talking about measuring 360º pedal torque? If SRM doesn't get hot in 5 years they will be like the dodo bird, IMHO, and I think they see the same thing.

I agree, spinscan is pretty worthless. but, SRM is putting it out now and talking like it does what a 2nd gen PM does. IMHO it is whistling past the graveyard hoping their long-time customers don't notice the difference. Coggan and Fergie are two that probably won't.

It appears the cranks I will have in Kona are not going to be able to do anything more than give power and r/l balance. If I get them in time I may take them to interbike and show them to a few people there also, if you will be there let me know.

 

[CoachFergie]

No, not caring what others think means not having to think beyond your own bias. It is a form of intellectual laziness.

My bias

Laziness is making baseless marketing claims without providing any real data in support.

 

[CoachFergie]

SRM has been sitting back watching the money roll in and not caring a wit about advancing the art. Now, I think they see things passing them by, especially with the advent of the 2nd gen PM's being able to measure pedal torque directly. So, why does SRM put out a SpinScan type device now while talking about measuring 360º pedal torque? If SRM doesn't get hot in 5 years they will be like the dodo bird, IMHO, and I think they see the same thing.

Very amusing especially when none of these promised 2nd gen power meters have come close to market yet. None will measure performance, that is why we measure wattage. Plenty of research has been performed using force vector measuring pedals and none of this research has suggested one should alter the way we apply power around the pedal stroke.

SRM, apart from the odd time when the marketing dept take over from the R&D dept, will stay strong because they are still the best at producing a power meter that does what they claim it does, measures power.

 

[FrankDay]

None will measure performance,

??? Really? Are you saying these second generation power meters are not going to measure total power (isn't that how you measure performance?)? I wonder what that number was on my Garmin 500 when I was riding a set? And, none of them are close to the market? Didn't Rotorcrank announce the availability of a crank based system at Eurobike? And, I think the iCrank (our system) will be available before the end of the year, if not by then, soon thereafter.

 

[CoachFergie]

Force vectors and L R Balance will not give you any information about performance. No data has been presented that would suggest changing the application of power around the pedal will improve performance.

 

[CoachFergie]

Didn't Rotorcrank announce the availability of a crank based system at Eurobike?

All these will offer is an spin scan type estimation just like the Wattbike or SRM Erg. Not that this has facilitated performance enhancement over the last several years.