The pedaling technique thread

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
FrankDay said:
Perhaps. But since I was responding to the thought experiment of Dr. Coggan I will wait patiently for him to come and defend his thoughts. Or, will he decide to try to quietly slip away as he tends to do when things are not going his way?
Heaven forbid that his day job of adding to the information base in health and physiology distract him from clearing up your sad attempts to sell unproven methods and gimmicks to people here.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
CoachFergie said:
Heaven forbid that his day job of adding to the information base in health and physiology distract him from clearing up your sad attempts to sell unproven methods and gimmicks to people here.
Dr. Coggan manages to take time from his busy day job (educating the world and adding to its information base, I am told) to come here and other places to put others, who hold views other than his own, down. Heaven forbid that one might expect him to support something he said or, horrors, admit he got something wrong. Instead he just hopes to slink off and pretend he is infallible, or so it seems. But, you continue to make excuses for him. I am sure he appreciates it.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
FrankDay said:
Dr. Coggan manages to take time from his busy day job (educating the world and adding to its information base, I am told) to come here and other places to put others, who hold views other than his own, down. Heaven forbid that one might expect him to support something he said or, horrors, admit he got something wrong. Instead he just hopes to slink off and pretend he is infallible, or so it seems. But, you continue to make excuses for him. I am sure he appreciates it.
Ha ha, we playing the victim today Frank? You seem to have no problem putting others down yourself.
 
Mar 10, 2009
965
0
0
CoachFergie said:
You did say anyone could almost double their power!

Yes, but first that technique and position used by Anquetil in that video has to be improved. This is done by using a pair of clip-on "scott rake" aero bars. To set up new position correctly, while out of the saddle and in the drops on those new aero bars, you use the same technique that racers use when throwing their bike at the finish line. This moves you further back on the saddle and enables you to start that maximal torque across the top earlier than Anquetil could do it It also puts the arms in a straight line and in an ideal aero position which enables you to make maximal use of them when supplying the extra resistance (for that extra forward maximal torque at TDC) alternately from each arm. There you have the perfect TT pedalling technique.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
coapman said:
Yes, but first that technique and position used by Anquetil in that video has to be improved. This is done by using a pair of clip-on "scott rake" aero bars. To set up new position correctly, while out of the saddle and in the drops on those new aero bars, you use the same technique that racers use when throwing their bike at the finish line. This moves you further back on the saddle and enables you to start that maximal torque across the top earlier than Anquetil could do it It also puts the arms in a straight line and in an ideal aero position which enables you to make maximal use of them when supplying the extra resistance (for that extra forward maximal torque at TDC) alternately from each arm. There you have the perfect TT pedalling technique.
So you have to use a set of bars that are illegal in competition (I'm a Commissaire and was on the Commissaires panel at 2012 Junior World Track Cycling Championships so have a good understanding of the rules) to perform the technique. Illegal or not it would be very simple to measure the technique with ANY power meter to determine if it did allow one to nearly double their power output as you claim. I hope you don't hide behind lame excuses or very weak anecdotes (from the 50s) and prove us wrong.
 
Mar 10, 2009
965
0
0
CoachFergie said:
So you have to use a set of bars that are illegal in competition (I'm a Commissaire and was on the Commissaires panel at 2012 Junior World Track Cycling Championships so have a good understanding of the rules) to perform the technique. Illegal or not it would be very simple to measure the technique with ANY power meter to determine if it did allow one to nearly double their power output as you claim. I hope you don't hide behind lame excuses or very weak anecdotes (from the 50s) and prove us wrong.

Do you not get it, this is a special TT / PURSUIT technique where I believe aero bars are legal. You could always use the less effective or Anquetil version with the shoulder width bars in RR breakaways.. Scott Rake aero bars are much safer than those rest on tribars you use.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
coapman said:
Do you not get it, this is a special TT / PURSUIT technique where I believe aero bars are legal. You could always use the less effective or Anquetil version with the shoulder width bars in RR breakaways.. Scott Rake aero bars are much safer than those rest on tribars you use.
Yes I do get it, THOSE BARS ARE ILLEGAL in competition. Get with the times!

Either way should be very easy to prove a rider can almost double their power as you claim with ANY power meter. Stop hiding behind lame excuses, ancient anecdotes, ignorance of the rules and the fact that Scott haven't made Rake bars for a good 15 years!
 
Mar 10, 2009
965
0
0
CoachFergie said:
Yes I do get it, THOSE BARS ARE ILLEGAL in competition. Get with the times!

Either way should be very easy to prove a rider can almost double their power as you claim with ANY power meter. Stop hiding behind lame excuses, ancient anecdotes, ignorance of the rules and the fact that Scott haven't made Rake bars for a good 15 years!
Which is more important, the perfect pedalling technique or a stupid UCI rule like many of their other rules (eg) The saddle must be level, when this can cause injury to many riders.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
coapman said:
Which is more important, the perfect pedalling technique or a stupid UCI rule like many of their other rules (eg) The saddle must be level, when this can cause injury to many riders.
Pathetic, an unproven pedaling technique which could easily be tested with ANY power meter. Yet you decide to shy away from this and very generous offers to test your pet theory in the lab with force measuring pedals. WEAK!
 
FrankDay said:
But, the motion of each foot is still constrained to the same circle whether the cranks are at 180º or not. And, since most people ride independent cranks with them at 180º as their preferred method of using them (except when doing special drills) that "removed constraint" is a moot removal.
No, it isn't. It forces the person to apply force to each pedal to bring it through a whole circle. It has a massive effect, as the paper shows. In fact, that's all the paper shows.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
King Boonen said:
No, it isn't. It forces the person to apply force to each pedal to bring it through a whole circle. It has a massive effect, as the paper shows. In fact, that's all the paper shows.
Of course it has a massive affect, at least to those who don't have very good technique now (which is most people but not all). That is the whole idea. If it didn't have a massive affect it couldn't possibly have a massive affect on the outcome, which we see. :) The question though was on the mechanical constraint and on both cranks the foot is constrained to move in a circle. Nothing prevents the muscles, when on regular cranks, from using the exact same coordination as they are "forced" to use on the PowerCranks. That is the whole idea, to change ones natural way of pedaling to this technique even though to an outside observer both look the same because in both instances the feet move in circles at a, pretty much, constant RPM.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
sciguy said:
Since it was obvious what was wrong with your reasoning, does that mean we will be spared reason #2? ;)

Hugh
Huh? I haven't seen anyone propose a specific "wrongness" to the example. Come on, give it a try. What is wrong with my "thought experiment" and why is it that Coggan is right: that it doesn't matter where force is increased around the pedal circle under all circumstances. 1 lb increase here is exactly the same as 1 lb increase there. Do that and I will give you reason #2. I mean, really, why on earth do you think that, not just most people, but, everyone actually unweight on the backstroke (the main difference is in the degree of the unweighting) if there isn't an advantage to it over simply pushing and letting the leg come up flacidly?

If you (or anyone else) can actually find an example where it seems that where the force is increased would have the same, seeming, benefit to the rider I will give you reason #2 which would explain why you are wrong.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
FrankDay said:
Of course it has a massive affect, at least to those who don't have very good technique now (which is most people but not all). That is the whole idea. If it didn't have a massive affect it couldn't possibly have a massive affect on the outcome, which we see. :) The question though was on the mechanical constraint and on both cranks the foot is constrained to move in a circle. Nothing prevents the muscles, when on regular cranks, from using the exact same coordination as they are "forced" to use on the PowerCranks. That is the whole idea, to change ones natural way of pedaling to this technique even though to an outside observer both look the same because in both instances the feet move in circles at a, pretty much, constant RPM.
There is a difference between "affect" and "effect" - look it up. Makes your argument look even more amusing than normal when using "affect" instead of "effect".
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
elapid said:
There is a difference between "affect" and "effect" - look it up. Makes your argument look even more amusing than normal when using "affect" instead of "effect".
Boy, your post sure put me in my place - NOT! Why don't we look it up since I chose to use the word affect as opposed to effect. Why?
af·fect 1 (-fkt)
tr.v. af·fect·ed, af·fect·ing, af·fects
1. To have an influence on or effect a change in: Inflation affects the buying power of the dollar. or PowerCranks affects the way a person pedals a bicycle.
Anyhow, I am glad I brought some amusement to your life today and I hope you feel a lot better for putting my use of a word down. Sigh.

Affect: to cause
Effect: the result

Now, would someone try to put forth an argument supporting Dr. Coggan's statement (since he seems to have left the house with Elvis).
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
FrankDay said:
Boy, your post sure put me in my place - NOT! Why don't we look it up since I chose to use the word affect as opposed to effect. Why? Anyhow, I am glad I brought some amusement to your life today and I hope you feel a lot better for putting my use of a word down. Sigh.

Affect: to cause
Effect: the result

Now, would someone try to put forth an argument supporting Dr. Coggan's statement (since he seems to have left the house with Elvis).
You always amuse me, Frank.

Your use of "affect" is correct in your example of "PowerCranks affects the way a person pedals a bike", but is incorrect in your previous post with your references to "massive affect".

Here's a simple explanation for you: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/affect-versus-effect?page=all

Frank, you can argue science and biomechanics until you're blue in the face, but you'll lose to me on grammar every day of the week.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
Be warned that Frank has a black belt in using Wiki and Google to make his point. In lieu of actual evidence of course. Your point of amount of affect is most apt.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
elapid said:
You always amuse me, Frank.

Your use of "affect" is correct in your example of "PowerCranks affects the way a person pedals a bike", but is incorrect in your previous post with your references to "massive affect".

Here's a simple explanation for you: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/affect-versus-effect?page=all

Frank, you can argue science and biomechanics until you're blue in the face, but you'll lose to me on grammar every day of the week.
You know, it is the internet and not everything gets proof read. Anyhow, I think the use is still correct in the context of the study which looked at the affect of the cranks during a single use, the affect could easily be described as massive. Which is why I chose that word. When it comes to PowerCranks both the initial affect is considered massive by most users and the long-term effect is, generally, massive. Either word works when combined with massive depending on the context.

The issue here has more to do with how some of you debate/discuss. Instead of forgiving someone a perceived misuse of a word when the understanding of what was meant was clear you (and others) prefer to argue that the point I was trying to make couldn't possibly have any merit because of that issue rather than address the issue itself, apparently because you don't have any rebuttal for my points. But, it is the internet and that seems to be the preferred debating style of many.

Ad hominem attacks say more about the weakness of the argument on the other side (and the character of those making the attacks) than the argument and character of those being attacked.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
FrankDay said:
You know, it is the internet and not everything gets proof read. Anyhow, I think the use is still correct in the context of the study which looked at the affect of the cranks during a single use, the affect could easily be described as massive. Which is why I chose that word. When it comes to PowerCranks both the initial affect is considered massive by most users and the long-term effect is, generally, massive. Either word works when combined with massive depending on the context.
Pure comedy, can see why you need to use your imagination, sorry I mean a thought experiment, to find evidence of a massive affect or effect.

The issue here has more to do with how some of you debate/discuss. Instead of forgiving someone a perceived misuse of a word when the understanding of what was meant was clear you (and others) prefer to argue that the point I was trying to make couldn't possibly have any merit because of that issue rather than address the issue itself, apparently because you don't have any rebuttal for my points. But, it is the internet and that seems to be the preferred debating style of many.
Ha ha, like you haven't done the same.

Ad hominem attacks say more about the weakness of the argument on the other side (and the character of those making the attacks) than the argument and character of those being attacked.
Again nothing you haven't been above yourself!
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
FrankDay said:
You know, it is the internet and not everything gets proof read. Anyhow, I think the use is still correct in the context of the study which looked at the affect of the cranks during a single use, the affect could easily be described as massive. Which is why I chose that word. When it comes to PowerCranks both the initial affect is considered massive by most users and the long-term effect is, generally, massive. Either word works when combined with massive depending on the context.

The issue here has more to do with how some of you debate/discuss. Instead of forgiving someone a perceived misuse of a word when the understanding of what was meant was clear you (and others) prefer to argue that the point I was trying to make couldn't possibly have any merit because of that issue rather than address the issue itself, apparently because you don't have any rebuttal for my points. But, it is the internet and that seems to be the preferred debating style of many.

Ad hominem attacks say more about the weakness of the argument on the other side (and the character of those making the attacks) than the argument and character of those being attacked.
Are you getting a little sensitive, Frank? I don't believe I attacked you at any point other than to highlight the use of affect and effect, and as you know that is not an ad hominem attack. My argument is not weakened by highlighting your grammatical errors because I do not have a dog in this fight. As you know, I come here to learn rather than participate in discussions on pedalling technique so I have no argument to weaken.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
elapid said:
Are you getting a little sensitive, Frank? I don't believe I attacked you at any point other than to highlight the use of affect and effect, and as you know that is not an ad hominem attack. My argument is not weakened by highlighting your grammatical errors because I do not have a dog in this fight. As you know, I come here to learn rather than participate in discussions on pedalling technique so I have no argument to weaken.
Huh? What on earth was the reason for even going there?
There is a difference between "affect" and "effect" - look it up. Makes your argument look even more amusing than normal when using "affect" instead of "effect".
It is the internet. We don't have editors and proof readers. It added nothing to the conversation other than to make me look bad so my argument for my position might hold less water even though no one has really even tried to make an argument for the other side. I am simply pointing out you should examine your motives when you make a post. "makes your argument look even more amusing" without giving what was amusing (or wrong) about the argument to you is, in my opinion, an ad homimen attack as it was personal and offered no substance to the conversation. This is especially true in view of the fact that either word could be used correctly to convey the intended meaning. Rather than pointing out that I might have used the word wrong you found it amusing. What on earth was the purpose of doing that?
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
FrankDay said:
Huh? What on earth was the reason for even going there?It is the internet. We don't have editors and proof readers. It added nothing to the conversation other than to make me look bad so my argument for my position might hold less water even though no one has really even tried to make an argument for the other side. I am simply pointing out you should examine your motives when you make a post. "makes your argument look even more amusing" without giving what was amusing (or wrong) about the argument to you is, in my opinion, an ad homimen attack as it was personal and offered no substance to the conversation. This is especially true in view of the fact that either word could be used correctly to convey the intended meaning. Rather than pointing out that I might have used the word wrong you found it amusing. What on earth was the purpose of doing that?
So it is yes to the sensitivity as this is behaviour you have resorted to yourself. Your habit of switching between bully and victim when it suits is quite telling.

As telling as making a mistake between affect and effect shows you yourself are playing the man rather than the topic being argued.

That we highlight your behaviour is a situation you create yourself through years of cherry picking the literature, applying a cognitive bias when it suits relying on belief rather than evidence and attacking others personally when you see the opportunity.

One would suspect seeing we are not taking the thought experiment bait you realise another attempt to misdirect the argument is failing and are lashing out again. For the 100th time.

It's what we would would expect from a Noel, a Trev or a Boing who are just children whining because no one gives them a seat at the big boy table. One would assume a former Physician (something you trot out when it suits then plead ignorance of basic science when it doesn't) has a level of intelligence but continually lower yourself to personal attack and weak anecdotes when challenged.

So 13-14 years of claiming an importance of pedalling style and nothing beyond weak anecdotes, your fair share of ad hominem attacks and now pointless though experiments. Some track record.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
FrankDay said:
It is the internet. We don't have editors and proof readers.
No, we don't have editors or proof readers - that's up to the forum members. Classic examples which forum members often correct are your versus you're, their versus there, and peloton versus however people misspell peloton. Affect and effect is another one. Rather than whinging like a little girl, why don't you man up, acknowledge your grammatical error, and move on? Your actions are blowing a simple correction out of proportion and just making you look worse.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
elapid said:
No, we don't have editors or proof readers - that's up to the forum members. Classic examples which forum members often correct are your versus you're, their versus there, and peloton versus however people misspell peloton. Affect and effect is another one. Rather than whinging like a little girl, why don't you man up, acknowledge your grammatical error, and move on? Your actions are blowing a simple correction out of proportion and just making you look worse.
Phooey. I could have used either word. I choose affect because I felt it best fit the situation. Perhaps effect might have been a better choice. However, your response to that choice by me was way out of line. Instead of simply saying "I think you chose the wrong word" you stated that my choice of that word made my response "look even more amusing than normal", as if you believe my position to be bizarre (even though there is yet to be a counter position posted) yet you later state you have no position and come here to learn. Phooey. At least as far as I am concerned it appears you come here to kibitz about things you know nothing about, hopping on the AC and Coach Fergie bandwagon, thinking they must be right just because of who they are. LOL.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
FrankDay said:
Phooey. I could have used either word. I choose affect because I felt it best fit the situation. Perhaps effect might have been a better choice. However, your response to that choice by me was way out of line. Instead of simply saying "I think you chose the wrong word" you stated that my choice of that word made my response "look even more amusing than normal", as if you believe my position to be bizarre (even though there is yet to be a counter position posted) yet you later state you have no position and come here to learn. Phooey. At least as far as I am concerned it appears you come here to kibitz about things you know nothing about, hopping on the AC and Coach Fergie bandwagon, thinking they must be right just because of who they are. LOL.
Get off your high horse Frank, you have no right to criticise others round here!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS