For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[coapman]

Well, that is the question we will be able to answer once these second generation PM's are available. Until then everyone (including you and me and Fergie) is just guessing as to what is going on and what they think they will be able to do.

You should be able to answer that question now, using standard or PC cranks and without the added bungie cord resistance, are you able to apply much more effective torque across the top than that applied by a circular pedaler? If not, you will not be able to convert this additional bungie force into crank torque. I am not guessing what I am able to do, I can demonstrate to anyone who is interested how to apply continuous max torque from 12 to after 3 o'c. If you tried that bungie cord experiment with standard cranks you might be more successful because you are probably having greatest difficulty getting those PC's from 10 to 11 o'c, a sector where only unweighting is required or after your mishap have you packed in the whole idea.

 

[FrankDay]

That's because you said it was the PowerTap, not the SRM, that previously provided such data.

What I wrote in post 505 of this thread

Oh, and lots of current PM's "pretend" to do r/l power balance. SRM, powertap, Computrainer are three popular ones. Why do you single out Quarq when the most expensive one of all (SRM) does the same thing.

And, this was your response in post 517 of this thread

No, only the Quarq.

Not only are you unable to contribute anything positive to these discussions it seems your negative comments are often wrong or misleading.

 

[rickshaw]

My God!!

You're still at it What could anyone possible say about pedaling technique that drags out to 600+ posts?

Go chill

really, you'll feel better

 

[acoggan]

What I wrote in post 505 of this threadAnd, this was your response in post 517 of this thread
Not only are you unable to contribute anything positive to these discussions it seems your negative comments are often wrong or misleading.

And just when I was starting to like you thanks to that Rube Goldberg bungy-cord contraption you built for your bike...

I was referring to your claim that the PowerTap provided R/L power balance:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1024655&postcount=521

 

[hiero2]

You're still at it What could anyone possible say about pedaling technique that drags out to 600+ posts?

Go chill

really, you'll feel better

+1

Anything I might find useful or interesting - and I think that possibility exists - got drowned out a LONG time ago!

 

[CoachFergie]

I guess people wouldn't send spam emails if they didn't know that for every million they send they will sucker in one person.

 

[function]

Force vectors and L R Balance will not give you any information about performance.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/quadrant-analysis.aspx

QA utilizes AEPF in the absence of directly sampled pedal force data, don't you use that for analyzing performance ?

 

[acoggan]

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/quadrant-analysis.aspx

QA utilizes AEPF in the absence of directly sampled pedal force data, don't you use that for analyzing performance ?

AEPF and directly-sampled force data ("force vectors") are not the same thing.

 

[FrankDay]

AEPF and directly-sampled force data ("force vectors") are not the same thing.

I agree. Just as spin scan bears little relationship to actual pedal forces. These algorithms are nothing more than a mathematical attempt to tease useful information out of inadequate data. At least Dr. Coggan admits that gathering real pedal force data would be superior when he writes: "Unfortunately, at present no powermeter directly measures the force(s) applied to the pedal." This unfortunate dearth is soon to end however as there should be two products on the market by the end of the year, our pm and the Rotorcranks pm. I will be especially interested in seeing what Dr. Coggan does with this data, when it becomes widely available.

 

[acoggan]

there should be two products on the market by the end of the year, our pm and the Rotorcranks pm.

Doesn't the Rotor crank still use ANT+?

EDIT1: There's also this either now available or (reportedly) coming soon:

http://www.gizmag.com/pioneer-cycling-computer-and-pedaling-monitors/24292/

EDIT2:

I interpret this comment to mean that ANT+ is unable to provide sufficient temporal resolution to quantify the pattern of force application when pedaling:

"As the sensors broadcast standard ANT+ data, riders can use other compatible bike computers but Pioneer says that using the SGX-CA900 will ensure "they receive the maximum benefit from our customized graphics and data capture."

 

[FrankDay]

Doesn't the Rotor crank still use ANT+?

EDIT1: There's also this either now available or (reportedly) coming soon:

http://www.gizmag.com/pioneer-cycling-computer-and-pedaling-monitors/24292/

EDIT2:

I interpret this comment to mean that ANT+ is unable to provide sufficient temporal resolution to quantify the pattern of force application when pedaling:

"As the sensors broadcast standard ANT+ data, riders can use other compatible bike computers but Pioneer says that using the SGX-CA900 will ensure "they receive the maximum benefit from our customized graphics and data capture."

The people developing our system have told me the ant+ standard does not provide sufficient data transfer capability to supply pedal force vs position data. I have told them I simply won't sell their system until they add bluetooth capability because otherwise this simply becomes a very expensive power monitor just to get accurate left/right numbers. Not worth it in my opinion. The real advance comes from being able to measure and analyze technique. They are working on adding that capability now.

The pioneer system you linked to says it uses ant+, so it will not be an advance. I don't know the details of the Rotor system. If it does use ant+ it will be pretty useless IMHO as it will do little more than present systems but cost a lot more. Perhaps we will be the first 2nd generation system on the market after all. If Vector and Brim bros also will be using ant+ maybe we will be the only one for quite awhile.

We think our power meter will be quite a bargain, especially if we are going to be the only one available for awhile. About the same price as an SRM with the same or better accuracy but giving 2nd generation pedal force data combined with cranks designed to help riders improve pedaling technique (should they choose to put them in independent mode). As I said, I look forward to your analysis as to how the rider should best use this information to see how it compares to my ideas.

 

[acoggan]

The people developing our system have told me the ant+ standard does not provide sufficient data transfer capability to supply pedal force vs position data.

Thanks for confirming that.

The pioneer system you linked to says it uses ant+, so it will not be an advance.

Since it does provide data for force-vs-crank angle, it must be able to bypass the limitations of ANT+ somehow. My assumption (based on the quote I provided) is that the senors use some other, proprietary protocol to transmit the data to the Pioneer head unit, but also broadcast ANT+ messages should the user wish to pair the powermeter with an 'ordinary' head unit.

 

[function]

AEPF and directly-sampled force data ("force vectors") are not the same thing.

Indeed they are not the same thing and i was not claiming that they were, your article itself points out you were using AEPF to compensate for pedals that could not provide you with more direct force data.

However, velocity of muscle contraction (as indicated by cadence) is only one of two determinants of power, with the other of course being force. Unfortunately, at present no powermeter directly measures the force(s) applied to the pedal. However, it is possible to derive the average (i.e., over 360&#186]

I was pointing out to CoachFergie that that was one novel way of using force data to do performance analysis.

 

[function]

Frank, your latest analysis is interesting, and i am of course curious of the following;

1) How much of those potential gains can actually be realised considering that the human body has to work within the confines of the cardiovascular system?

2) When operating at high power outputs (FTP and Supra-FTP), how much of the "optimised" pedal stroke can be reproduced, how much of it is a matter of neuromuscular training?

For the latter question, i'll do some of my own homework too a bit later on.

Thanks

 

[FrankDay]

Frank, your latest analysis is interesting, and i am of course curious of the following;

1) How much of those potential gains can actually be realised considering that the human body has to work within the confines of the cardiovascular system?

I don't know the answer to that but I don't think the cardiovascular system will be the limiter in the long run. Of course, it will in the beginning because it has adapted to what it has been seeing but the cardiovascular system tends to adapt well to increased stress such that those endurance athletes who tend to use more muscles in their activity (nordic skiers, rowers) tend to have higher VO2max than those who use fewer muscles (cyclists/runners). So, given enough time I think the Cardiovascular system will adapt to at least a higher level than seen in most cyclists now. Even if it is limited in how much it can adapt, the rider should still see substantial improvement because I think spreading the work out will be more efficient.

2) When operating at high power outputs (FTP and Supra-FTP), how much of the "optimised" pedal stroke can be reproduced, how much of it is a matter of neuromuscular training?

I am not sure what you are asking. My guess is that our pedaling pattern doesn't change much with effort except at the extremes. That is because the pattern becomes embedded into our unconscious coordination and is the coordination we learned as children on platform pedals. This is why it is so hard to change (aside from the fact we have had, until recently, the ability to measure what we are doing. So, the pattern is ingrained and mostly what people train is the ability to increase effort.

For the latter question, i'll do some of my own homework too a bit later on.

Thanks

Let me know what you find.

 

[FrankDay]

Since it does provide data for force-vs-crank angle, it must be able to bypass the limitations of ANT+ somehow. My assumption (based on the quote I provided) is that the senors use some other, proprietary protocol to transmit the data to the Pioneer head unit, but also broadcast ANT+ messages should the user wish to pair the powermeter with an 'ordinary' head unit.

Well, we will see what they have when it is available. Certainly the display shown in the article doesn't even seem to show a left right balance let alone the vectors they talked about. If they could do that it would seem to me that is what they would be showing. Good for them if they can do this.

 

[acoggan]

the cardiovascular system tends to adapt well to increased stress such that those endurance athletes who tend to use more muscles in their activity (nordic skiers, rowers) tend to have higher VO2max than those who use fewer muscles (cyclists/runners). So, given enough time I think the Cardiovascular system will adapt to at least a higher level than seen in most cyclists now.

1. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you before, this is a myth based upon incorrect use of 'per ratio' scaling.

2. If you think that the cardiovascular system is infinitely adaptable to increased load, how do you explain cases of heart failure resulting from, say, hypertension, or even pregnancy?

My guess is that our pedaling pattern doesn't change much with effort except at the extremes. .

Why rely on guesses, when there is quite a bit of published research on the topic (that shows otherwise)?

 

[acoggan]

the display shown in the article doesn't even seem to show a left right balance let alone the vectors they talked about.

You need new glasses, Frank (although the percentage figure in the upper right hand field isn't R/L balance, but is apparently force effectiveness...stupidly labeled "efficiency").

EDIT: http://www.gizmag.com/pioneer-cycling-computer-and-pedaling-monitors/24292/pictures#3

 

[JayKosta]

...
(although the percentage figure in the upper right hand field isn't R/L balance, but is apparently force effectiveness...stupidly labeled "efficiency").
...

==============================
This image of the output screen does appear to show L and R force and direction - with the color and length of the arrows -
http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_lrg/cyclopioneer-5.jpg

My guess is that the 'Efficiency LR' % value is the
'1 revolution total power' / '12 X peak power sector'

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

1. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you before, this is a myth based upon incorrect use of 'per ratio' scaling.

2. If you think that the cardiovascular system is infinitely adaptable to increased load, how do you explain cases of heart failure resulting from, say, hypertension, or even pregnancy?

I didn't say the CV system was infinitely adaptable to increased load. I simply believe that few of us have, athletically, pushed it as far as it is capable of going so there should be room for improvement. This view supported by the Dixon study. Further, broadening of the power stroke should be possible even if one is maxed out on CV system if one is pedaling in a narrow power application curve fashion because pushing hard involves recruiting less efficient fast twitch fibers to accomplish this task. If, instead of using up oxygen on these less efficient fast twitch fibers we diverted it to slow twitch fibers in other muscles we could increase the amount of muscle mass being used without increasing oxygen consumption. As I said before, I believe a broader power application curve should be more efficient. This view is supported by the Luttrell study. Perhaps both will be further supported by the upcoming Gibson study (we just shipped him the cranks he needs to get started).

Why rely on guesses, when there is quite a bit of published research on the topic (that shows otherwise)?

And, I will bet that I have read more CV system literature than you have having been an anesthesiologist. But, what would an anesthesiologist know about cardiovascular system physiology or function? IMO you have simply read into the studies you have seen interpretations that support your bias.

 

[FrankDay]

You need new glasses, Frank (although the percentage figure in the upper right hand field isn't R/L balance, but is apparently force effectiveness...stupidly labeled "efficiency").

EDIT: http://www.gizmag.com/pioneer-cycling-computer-and-pedaling-monitors/24292/pictures#3

That wasn't the picture in the article I saw. Interesting. Unless they can store that data I don't see it being very useful. Few will spend much time looking at a screen to see how they are pedaling, especially on the road. Perhaps indoors but I suspect that will get old very quickly for most. One thing I noticed, that rider had a very similar pattern as the rider I highlighted in that he is doing nothing (in fact, negative work) over the top. I think this could be because he is so focused on making his forces parallel to the circle that he must be engaging his hamstrings early (the only muscles that can pull the foot back). There is simply zero evidence that a purely tangential force application around the circle is achievable, let alone optimum, by humans pedaling in gravity (because the gravity forces are almost always non-tangential because they are always perpendicular to the ground so would only be tangential at 3 and 9 o'clock). IMO, what one should be looking for is a tangential application of the muscle component, not the tangential application of the total force.

I am impressed that they are able to achieve this using ant+ based upon what I have been told. This is "more" than our system will display as we are only displaying net torque although i think in smaller increments. Although, as I said above, I am not sure this extra information is worth much. When I see this working in practice I will be able to make a better assessment of what I think as to its overall usefulness.

 

[JayKosta]

...
There is simply zero evidence that a purely tangential force application around the circle is achievable, let alone optimum, by humans pedaling in gravity (because the gravity forces are almost always tangential).
...

========================================
Frank,
I don't understand "gravity forces are almost always tangential".
In my view, gravity forces (the gravity vector) are only 'fully tangent' (parallel) to the circle at 3 & 9 o'clock.

edit: the inertia / momentum of the foot IS 'nearly tangent' to the circle around the entire rotation.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

========================================
Frank,
I don't understand "gravity forces are almost always tangential".
In my view, gravity forces (the gravity vector) are only 'fully tangent' (parallel) to the circle at 3 & 9 o'clock.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Ooops. non-tangential. I will correct in the original.

 

[acoggan]

I will bet that I have read more CV system literature than you have having been an anesthesiologist.

And I'm willing to bet that you would lose that bet.

 

[FrankDay]

And I'm willing to bet that you would lose that bet.

If you say so. Would you also be willing to bet you have a better understanding of all that medical literature you have supposedly read? My guess is, YES! LOL.