For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[Alex Simmons/RST]

So, why does SRM put out a SpinScan type device now while talking about measuring 360º pedal torque?

SRM's torque analysis capability has been around for much longer than most other power meters have been on the market.

It just isn't a feature on standard powercontrols, you needed a hardware modification - in older powercontrols (PCIV and PCV) you would have two serial ports instead of just one, and in newer ones there is a component that goes between the PC and the computer - either of which you could specify and pay extra for (about $900).

I used to have a dual port PCV but I used it for on screen display of power output when riding on an ergo.

The software is/was-n't great, but the data stream has always been there for anyone willing to tap it and use it. Indeed I recall looking at real time dynamic polar torque charts many years ago that Mr Biomac2 shoes with the mid-foot cleat used to use when people were riding on the trainer with an SRM.

This feature from SRM is not a new thing for them at all. Quite the opposite, indeed perhaps SRM realised the limited use of the data and didn't bother putting resources into it, when R&D was better off going towards producing models that would work on a wider range of bikes, BBs and crank types, improving reliability and going wireless.

I note that the frequency of SRM's torque data sampling is double that of the Wattbike (and ~10 times that of Computrainer's spin scan).

Powertap (Tune/Saris) have never made such a capability available with their product.

 

[coapman]

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?

That's what it did, but I was led to believe it was going to explain in detail how powercranks trained a cyclist to get 40% more torque from each crank revolution.

 

[FrankDay]

SRM's torque analysis capability has been around for much longer than most other power meters have been on the market.

It just isn't a feature on standard powercontrols, you needed a hardware modification - in older powercontrols (PCIV and PCV) you would have two serial ports instead of just one, and in newer ones there is a component that goes between the PC and the computer - either of which you could specify and pay extra for (about $900).

I used to have a dual port PCV but I used it for on screen display of power output when riding on an ergo.

The software is/was-n't great, but the data stream has always been there for anyone willing to tap it and use it. Indeed I recall looking at real time dynamic polar torque charts many years ago that Mr Biomac2 shoes with the mid-foot cleat used to use when people were riding on the trainer with an SRM.

This feature from SRM is not a new thing for them at all. Quite the opposite, indeed perhaps SRM realised the limited use of the data and didn't bother putting resources into it, when R&D was better off going towards producing models that would work on a wider range of bikes, BBs and crank types, improving reliability and going wireless.

I note that the frequency of SRM's torque data sampling is double that of the Wattbike (and ~10 times that of Computrainer's spin scan).

Powertap (Tune/Saris) have never made such a capability available with their product.

That was my understanding regarding the SRM but Dr. Coggan, who is much more familiar with these products than I, said I was wrong. Anyhow, SRM is now touting the value of knowing 360º pedal torque on their web site even though their device doesn't directly collect or display that data. Apparently some here don't see any value in knowing that data, even if it were collected.

All I remembered getting from PT was a LR balance, not a spinscan type display. I was told I remembered wrong there also, which could be correct.

Regarding data sampling, SRM may lose it's edge there also. My guess is the Velotron sampling rate rivals or exceeds the SRM sampling rate but that is a different type of device. However, my understand is our iCrank will come in three different flavors. What I am getting next week for demo is an ANT+ model, which works with some available displays, but where the data transfer is too slow to do anything with it but get R/L and total power. But, there will be two other models, one with a Bluetooth transfer which is plenty fast to do this type of analysis and will work with BT devices including phone apps or computers, or a data collector in the crank arm itself for later transfer to the computer for those needing very high sampling rates. I am told that this system will or can exceed current SRM models in both accuracy and sampling rate.

 

[FrankDay]

That's what it did, but I was led to believe it was going to explain in detail how powercranks trained a cyclist to get 40% more torque from each crank revolution.

I thought I made mention of that. From the analysis one can see it would be pretty easy to see a 40% improvement in the rider analyzed by simply eliminating the negatives and a little broadening of the power application curve across the top. Anyone who has ever used these things understand that the major area of pedaling "difficulty" that the PC's "fix" is "across the top".

 

[coapman]

I thought I made mention of that. From the analysis one can see it would be pretty easy to see a 40% improvement in the rider analyzed by simply eliminating the negatives and a little broadening of the power application curve across the top. Anyone who has ever used these things understand that the major area of pedaling "difficulty" that the PC's "fix" is "across the top".

But this was all speculation. The only riders having difficulty across the top are those using PC's. Even that "little old lady" on her way to the local shop appears to have no difficulty. If PC users are having difficulty at the top, how can they be expected to apply 30 % extra torque there. What method do you visualize yourself using when generating this extra torque around 12 o'c.

 

[FrankDay]

But this was all speculation. The only riders having difficulty across the top are those using PC's. Even that "little old lady" on her way to the local shop appears to have no difficulty. If PC users are having difficulty at the top, how can they be expected to apply 30 % extra torque there. What method do you visualize yourself using when generating this extra torque around 12 o'c.

Ugh, the only reason "no one" has trouble coming over the top except the PC'ers is you can push the leg over the top on regular cranks. PC's require it to be done actively. If you will look at the analysis, the power improvement comes from increasing the forces across the top. The fact the leg is able to get over the top means nothing, it is how it gets over the top that is important to power production. You, of all people, should understand this since you describe your "linear technique" is to maximize the power at the top of the stroke compared to what ordinary people do.

 

[coapman]

The fact the leg is able to get over the top means nothing, it is how it gets over the top that is important to power production. You, of all people, should understand this since you describe your "linear technique" is to maximize the power at the top of the stroke compared to what ordinary people do.

That is why I was asking how you intend to generate this torque around the top because as I see it, if you are not capable of generating max torque (3 o'c equivalent) in this 12 o'c sector, you are better off forgetting about it as a source of extra pedal power.

 

[FrankDay]

That is why I was asking how you intend to generate this torque around the top because as I see it, if you are not capable of generating max torque (3 o'c equivalent) in this 12 o'c sector, you are better off forgetting about it as a source of extra pedal power.

So, let me get this straight. Because you think that I cannot generate max torque across the top that I should give up generating more torque across the top. Is that correct? To me extra torque means extra power. Why would I (or anyone else) want to "forget about it" just because it doesn't comply with your preferred technique.

 

[coapman]

So, let me get this straight. Because you think that I cannot generate max torque across the top that I should give up generating more torque across the top. Is that correct? To me extra torque means extra power. Why would I (or anyone else) want to "forget about it" just because it doesn't comply with your preferred technique.

Because if a serious effort is made to generate torque at 12, your brain will attempt to balance generated torque at 12 and 3, resulting in an overall loss of pedal power.

 

[FrankDay]

Because if a serious effort is made to generate torque at 12, your brain will attempt to balance generated torque at 12 and 3, resulting in an overall loss of pedal power.

If you say so, except I thought that was your goal, to maximize torque at 12. And, with PC's no one makes a serious effort to make this change, it just happens as they learn how to use the cranks. Anyhow, is there any scientific support for that statement?

 

[coapman]

If you say so, except I thought that was your goal, to maximize torque at 12. And, with PC's no one makes a serious effort to make this change, it just happens as they learn how to use the cranks. Anyhow, is there any scientific support for that statement?

In my semi circular technique the objective is constant maximal torque from 12 to after 3 o'c, not only does it apply max torque at 12, it also raises reduced torque between 1 and 2 to maximal torque. What percentage advantage that gives has yet to be worked out. How could there be any scientific evidence when scientists are not even aware that the dead spot sector is there to be used and not to be left lying idle. If with PC's a conscious effort is not made, the generated torque cannot be very effective.

 

[the big ring]

Because if a serious effort is made to generate torque at 12, your brain will attempt to balance generated torque at 12 and 3, resulting in an overall loss of pedal power.

How would you generate torque at 12 O'clock? I understand the concept of "scraping the pedal" at 6 O'clock - I have hamstrings that can do that. I also read the conclusion to the study where they showed stomping generated more power.

The torque profile through 1-5 O'Clock has its peak around 3 but is building from 12-1 yes? As opposed to being 0% at 2:55 and 100% at 3.

To generate any meaningful torque at 12, the power generation would have to happen before then yes? Or am I visualising wrong? Or is it 12:01 where torque starts to be measured?

I think what we need here are PC's with Osymmetric rings.

 

[FrankDay]

How would you generate torque at 12 O'clock? I understand the concept of "scraping the pedal" at 6 O'clock - I have hamstrings that can do that. I also read the conclusion to the study where they showed stomping generated more power.

The torque profile through 1-5 O'Clock has its peak around 3 but is building from 12-1 yes? As opposed to being 0% at 2:55 and 100% at 3.

To generate any meaningful torque at 12, the power generation would have to happen before then yes? Or am I visualising wrong? Or is it 12:01 where torque starts to be measured?

I think what we need here are PC's with Osymmetric rings.

It is easy to get torque at 12 o'clock, all it takes is firing of the quads, which extend the knee and would cause a forward pressure on the pedal when it is at 12 o'clock. To do this requires starting the contraction well before 12 o'clock but it is doable. When applying downward pressure at 3 o'clock requires contraction of both the glutes and the quads (but more glutes than quads).

The pressure you apply on the pedals is not so much a muscle thing as a timing of the muscles thing.

 

[coapman]

How would you generate torque at 12 O'clock? I understand the concept of "scraping the pedal" at 6 O'clock - I have hamstrings that can do that. I also read the conclusion to the study where they showed stomping generated more power.

The torque profile through 1-5 O'Clock has its peak around 3 but is building from 12-1 yes? As opposed to being 0% at 2:55 and 100% at 3.

To generate any meaningful torque at 12, the power generation would have to happen before then yes? Or am I visualising wrong? Or is it 12:01 where torque starts to be measured?

I think what we need here are PC's with Osymmetric rings.

The application of max torque at 12 is easier on the muscles than applying it at 3, you are visualizing right, power generation starts at 11.

 

[FrankDay]

The application of max torque at 12 is easier on the muscles than applying it at 3, you are visualizing right, power generation starts at 11.

The beg to differ. IMHO, the application of max torque is not "easier" at 12 than at 3 because the knee is bent more at 12 than at three. The more the knee is bent the less efficient the knee becomes at transmitting force. Now, that doesn't mean it is impossible to apply effective force here, but I don't think it is "easier" to apply maximum force here. When you prove you are able to do so, after you get your Brim Bros pedals, I will gladly take another look at my estimation of what is possible.

 

[JayKosta]

COAPMAN,

I can't visualize what the torque distribution is 'around the circle' with your pedaling technique.
Does your techique use a non-typical seat height and/or seat setback?
Also, when you use the term 'maximum torque', do you mean the maximum for 'that segment' of the pedal stroke, or the highest torque for any segment of the stroke.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[coapman]

COAPMAN,

I can't visualize what the torque distribution is 'around the circle' with your pedaling technique.
Does your techique use a non-typical seat height and/or seat setback?
Also, when you use the term 'maximum torque', do you mean the maximum for 'that segment' of the pedal stroke, or the highest torque for any segment of the stroke.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Normal bike set up and racing hoods or drops position is used, each leg concentrates on only half the circle 11-5 o'c. The power stroke starts with the equivalent of 2 o'c torque at 11, increasing to continuous maximal torque as crank moves through 12, 1 ,2 and 3 o'c, normal reducing torque is applied between 3-5 o'c. This means with both legs you are applying highly effective torque to the chain wheel /ring throughout its 360 deg revolution.

 

[FrankDay]

Normal bike set up and racing hoods or drops position is used, each leg concentrates on only half the circle 11-5 o'c. The power stroke starts with the equivalent of 2 o'c torque at 11, increasing to continuous maximal torque as crank moves through 12, 1 ,2 and 3 o'c, normal reducing torque is applied between 3-5 o'c. This means with both legs you are applying highly effective torque to the chain wheel /ring throughout its 360 deg revolution.

So, I have made this graph that is my interpretation of what you describe. I have scaled it to be similar to the graphs in my analysis.

You have ignored what is going on for half of the stroke but your ignoring this part of the stroke doesn't mean that it isn't there. And, since you ignore it I would assume that the forces during the undefined portion have a high chance of being negative, substracting from all the good you are trying to do during the part you describe.

Now, if you can keep the forces from going negative all you have done is broaden the force pattern as I have described in my analysis, which should offer an advantage. The problem is, you don't know if you are really doing what you say you are doing and you don't have a clue what is happening on the other half of the stroke

You have a real problem in presenting your idea. As I said, I thought my analysis tended to support your ideas but you simply cannot ignore half of the pedal stroke to make your case because it all adds together. As I said in the analysis, it is the average power for the entire stroke that determines the actual power the rider sees/experiences.

 

[coapman]

So, I have made this graph that is my interpretation of what you describe. I have scaled it to be similar to the graphs in my analysis.

You have ignored what is going on for half of the stroke but your ignoring this part of the stroke doesn't mean that it isn't there. And, since you ignore it I would assume that the forces during the undefined portion have a high chance of being negative, substracting from all the good you are trying to do during the part you describe.

Now, if you can keep the forces from going negative all you have done is broaden the force pattern as I have described in my analysis, which should offer an advantage. The problem is, you don't know if you are really doing what you say you are doing and you don't have a clue what is happening on the other half of the stroke

You have a real problem in presenting your idea. As I said, I thought my analysis tended to support your ideas but you simply cannot ignore half of the pedal stroke to make your case because it all adds together. As I said in the analysis, it is the average power for the entire stroke that determines the actual power the rider sees/experiences.

He asked for torque distribution. As for the remaining half of the circle, at 5 o'c instant unweighting and drawing back/up of idling foot takes place as it spring loads the muscles to produce that instant (2 o'c equivalent) torque at 11 o'c. In your graph that max torque should have run to after 90 deg.

 

[FrankDay]

He asked for torque distribution. As for the remaining half of the circle, at 5 o'c instant unweighting and drawing back/up of idling foot takes place as it spring loads the muscles to produce that instant (2 o'c equivalent) torque at 11 o'c. In your graph that max torque should have run to after 90 deg.

So, you are saying the rest of the graph should be zero?

And, your description was:

maximal torque as crank moves through 12, 1 ,2 and 3 o'c, normal reducing torque is applied between 3-5 o'c

3 o'clock is 90 degrees, after that you describe a "normal reducing torque". I believe the graph reflects your description.

Applying zero torque to the rest of the graph give one an average for the circle of 316.7, about the same as the average for the two legs (324, 296) in the example I started with. Based upon your description of your technique I can discern no improvement over "just pushing" and the only change you have made is to rotate the power circle counter clockwise such that the peak power occurs closer to TDC instead of just past 3 o'clock as seen by most people. At least that is what the math says.

My analysis says your technique has a lot of promise if you would only pay some attention to what is going on in the rest of the stroke also. But, since you don't, it doesn't appear to be any better. Now, if you actually get some data to show that you can do better than this, let us all know.

That having been said, I believe it is possible to emphasize the top and broaden the torque/power curve while not ignoring the rest of the stroke. I don't think it can be done through "concentration" though and I am designing an apparatus to help in this difficult training task. I would be working on it now and might have my first iteration ready this afternoon if I didn't have to stick around for a repairman. Stay tuned.

 

[coapman]

So, you are saying the rest of the graph should be zero?

And, your description was:
3 o'clock is 90 degrees, after that you describe a "normal reducing torque". I believe the graph reflects your description.

Applying zero torque to the rest of the graph give one an average for the circle of 316.7, about the same as the average for the two legs (324, 296) in the example I started with. Based upon your description of your technique I can discern no improvement over "just pushing" and the only change you have made is to rotate the power circle counter clockwise such that the peak power occurs closer to TDC instead of just past 3 o'clock as seen by most people. At least that is what the math says.

My analysis says your technique has a lot of promise if you would only pay some attention to what is going on in the rest of the stroke also. But, since you don't, it doesn't appear to be any better. Now, if you actually get some data to show that you can do better than this, let us all know.

That having been said, I believe it is possible to emphasize the top and broaden the torque/power curve while not ignoring the rest of the stroke. I don't think it can be done through "concentration" though and I am designing an apparatus to help in this difficult training task. I would be working on it now and might have my first iteration ready this afternoon if I didn't have to stick around for a repairman. Stay tuned.

The rest of the graph should be almost zero, some slight negative torque is possible between 9 and 11. My description read "continuous max torque as crank moved through 12, 1, 2 and 3 o'c" , meaning max torque was still being applied after 3 o'c. It ends where natural riders' peak torque occurs, from there to 5 o'c normal or natural crank torque is applied. I don't understand why you are so concerned with what occurs between 5 and 11 o'c. What I do there is most effective in preparing muscles for instant maximal force application around 11 o'c without interfering with the total concentration that is necessary between 11 and 5 o'c. You say you fail to see an advantage in this technique, to me that proves how useless your analysis can be in judging the effectiveness of a different technique.

 

[FrankDay]

The rest of the graph should be almost zero, some slight negative torque is possible between 9 and 11. My description read "continuous max torque as crank moved through 12, 1, 2 and 3 o'c" , meaning max torque was still being applied after 3 o'c. It ends where natural riders' peak torque occurs, from there to 5 o'c normal or natural crank torque is applied. I don't understand why you are so concerned with what occurs between 5 and 11 o'c. What I do there is most effective in preparing muscles for instant maximal force application around 11 o'c without interfering with the total concentration that is necessary between 11 and 5 o'c. You say you fail to see an advantage in this technique, to me that proves how useless your analysis can be in judging the effectiveness of a different technique.

My graph represents that view. Each point represents the average torque/power for a 30º segment. Therefore, the 90º point says this was the average power between 75º and 105º, 15º beyond 3 o'clock. It gives you credit for maintaining max torque to 105º. There is no advantage to what you have described compared to what ordinary people do as the math doesn't lie. I think it is clear that the most effective way of increasing the power of the pedal stroke is to broaden the area to which significant power is applied - which was the main thing to take away from my analysis, I thought.

And, I really really really look forward to seeing your actual torque/power application pattern because I'll bet it doesn't look anything like what you think it does. That will be the real power of the 2nd gen pm's, letting people see what they actually do rather than what they think they do.

 

[CoachFergie]

And, I really really really look forward to seeing your actual torque/power application pattern because I'll bet it doesn't look anything like what you think it does. That will be the real power of the 2nd gen pm's, letting people see what they actually do rather than what they think they do.

It's like watching two people argue over whose imaginary friend is better

Plenty of research done on power application around the pedal stroke and none has made a major impact on performance.

 

[coapman]

There is no advantage to what you have described compared to what ordinary people do as the math doesn't lie.

What mathematical system are you using to arrive at this conclusion.

 

[coapman]

Plenty of research done on power application around the pedal stroke and none has made a major impact on performance.

How could it when all that was involved in this research was repetitive analysis of variations of the same basic natural technique. Would research of all the old high jump techniques have led scientists to the "Fosbury Flop".