• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

The pedaling technique thread

Page 17 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
FrankDay said:
You ignore the cadence and efficiency data (pointless studies was how you referred to the data I believe), why would you care about any other "new" data.

Pointless from a performance perspective. A change in efficiency at very high or very low cadences is a no brainer. Cadence is a red herring. If one could develop a portable efficiency meter to record data in the field I would pay more attention to the results.
 
Mar 10, 2009
965
0
0
Visit site
sciguy said:
Sorry to break this to you Noel but I'm quite certain that Jim was just having a bit of little fun with you. I'm certain his offer to "hook you up" with a group that could test you with force plate pedals was genuine but the intent was to prove to you what really is happening.

Hugh

That may be so but when you are applying maximal torque across the top and have to supply independent (from gravity) resistance to counteract this force, you don't need a PM to prove what is really happening.
 
coapman said:
That may be so but when you are applying maximal torque across the top and have to supply independent (from gravity) resistance to counteract this force, you don't need a PM to prove what is really happening.

That is correct but your claims that this technique can improve performance can be measured with ANY power meter. So you don't need to hide behind your Brim Brothers excuse.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
CoachFergie said:
No Frank, you're just making s**t up!
If you say so. LOL. Speaking of making stuff up. Just where is Dr. Coggan who has been asked to defend his earlier statement regarding pedaling technique. Why is he so silent on the topic?
 
Mar 10, 2009
965
0
0
Visit site
CoachFergie said:
Wow, that sounds as amazing as a 40% gain from using Gimmickcranks. Do you have to do 10,000hrs to perfect this technique. Does it require any specific equipment. Like a set of Scott Rake bars that haven't been made for 15 years and were banned by the UCI 16 years ago?

Their problem was like that of cleats they did not know how to use these Scott Rake bars. Who would be safer in an emergency stop, a rider perched on the tip of his saddle with head hanging over the front wheel or a rider seated well back on the saddle in the ideal emergency stop position with brake levers at his finger tips. It may be as amazing as that 40% increase in power but attempting to create extra pedalling time was also the objective of the inventor of rotorcranks and also what J Martin had in mind. While the inventor claimed extra pedalling time by moving the upper crank forward by about 10 deg. his problem was apart from the extra weight and increased resistance caused by the equipment his extra pedalling time was still inside the dead spot sector which proves the dead spot sector can only be solved by changing pedalling technique and not by altering equipment.
 
coapman said:
Their problem was like that of cleats they did not know how to use these Scott Rake bars.

Step 1. Apply hands to handlebars.

Doesn't seem too hard to me.

UCI haven't banned cleats yet. Probably on the list.

Who would be safer in an emergency stop, a rider perched on the tip of his saddle with head hanging over the front wheel or a rider seated well back on the saddle in the ideal emergency stop position with brake levers at his finger tips.

On Rake bars?

368732902_8db01b882e.jpg


It may be as amazing as that 40% increase in power but attempting to create extra pedalling time was also the objective of the inventor of rotorcranks and also what J Martin had in mind.

What Jim Martin paper was that?

... which proves the dead spot sector can only be solved by changing pedalling technique and not by altering equipment.

Which is meaningless unless one can show it actually improves performance which can be measured by ANY power meter.
 
Mar 10, 2009
965
0
0
Visit site
CoachFergie said:
As Sci Guy pointed out you are misinterpreting his offer to test your theory as an endorsement of it.

Makes no difference to me, it is not a theory, it is a pedaling technique, freely available for inspection by anyone who is sufficiently interested. But then it is no different from technique used by Anquetil in that video except that mine is the perfected version of the same technique, made possible by the use of the narrower hand/arm position, unheard of during Anquetil's racing years.
 
coapman said:
Makes no difference to me, it is not a theory, it is a pedaling technique, freely available for inspection by anyone who is sufficiently interested. But then it is no different from technique used by Anquetil in that video except that mine is the perfected version of the same technique, made possible by the use of the narrower hand/arm position, unheard of during Anquetil's racing years.

The voices in your head telling you something is not evidence.

Easily testable, ANY power meter.
 
Mar 10, 2009
965
0
0
Visit site
CoachFergie said:
The voices in your head telling you something is not evidence.

Easily testable, ANY power meter.


What type of evidence do you believe the PM could provide and how much are you prepared to bet on the result.
 
If one makes a claim that power can almost be doubled using your technique or that one can increase torque around the pedal stroke then it can be measured with ANY power meter.

Willing to bet?

DrEvil.jpg


But that is you would rival Forrest Gump in an IQ contest!

You and Frank should stop hiding behind changes in efficiency, heart rate, cadence, race times in different conditions and other red herrings and admit that neither approaches make any significant difference to performance.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
CoachFergie said:
You and Frank should stop hiding behind changes in efficiency, heart rate, cadence, race times in different conditions and other red herrings and admit that neither approaches make any significant difference to performance.
LOL. Just because something has yet to be scientifically proven does not mean that no potential for improvement exists from proper utilization of any or all of the above issues. Hence, the discussion continues.

While I agree that Coapman doesn't seem to understand some of the essentials of power generation I have no evidence that he isn't on to something. While I doubt this it is possible in the end he may be the one proven the most right when the proper studies are done. But, like I said, I doubt this will be the case. But, it is your inability to recognize that the potential for improvement exists from what most people currently do and that these improvements might come from looking at the different elements involved in pedaling that makes trying to have a back and forth on these issues so frustrating. Why don't you join the discussion instead of trying to stifle it. As has been said many times before, the lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking. You don't seem to understand that.
 
FrankDay said:
LOL. Just because something has yet to be scientifically proven does not mean that no potential for improvement exists from proper utilization of any or all of the above issues. Hence, the discussion continues.

While I agree that Coapman doesn't seem to understand some of the essentials of power generation I have no evidence that he isn't on to something. While I doubt this it is possible in the end he may be the one proven the most right when the proper studies are done. But, like I said, I doubt this will be the case. But, it is your inability to recognize that the potential for improvement exists from what most people currently do and that these improvements might come from looking at the different elements involved in pedaling that makes trying to have a back and forth on these issues so frustrating. Why don't you join the discussion instead of trying to stifle it. As has been said many times before, the lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking. You don't seem to understand that.

And a lack of evidence doesn't give people the right to make s**t up instead of looking to produce the evidence that if your claims had any merit it would easily be seen in 5-10 weeks of training against a control measuring with ANY power meter.

1381844_675359259151755_508816573_n.jpg
 
Mar 10, 2009
965
0
0
Visit site
FrankDay said:
LOL. Just because something has yet to be scientifically proven does not mean that no potential for improvement exists from proper utilization of any or all of the above issues. Hence, the discussion continues.

While I agree that Coapman doesn't seem to understand some of the essentials of power generation I have no evidence that he isn't on to something. While I doubt this it is possible in the end he may be the one proven the most right when the proper studies are done. But, like I said, I doubt this will be the case. But, it is your inability to recognize that the potential for improvement exists from what most people currently do and that these improvements might come from looking at the different elements involved in pedaling that makes trying to have a back and forth on these issues so frustrating. Why don't you join the discussion instead of trying to stifle it. As has been said many times before, the lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking. You don't seem to understand that.



Can you give two of these essentials that I do not understand.
 
coapman said:
Can you give two of these essentials that I do not understand.

Well, this is a form and fitness forum.

Any extra torque one can apply to the pedals should lead to an increase in fitness or form. This is best measured with a power meter. If one can improve their power in a 40km TT they are more fit for the task.

You also don't seem to comprehend that claiming that one has to use a handlebar that hasn't been made for years, is banned by the UCI and even if one could find a pair would not fit on newer oversize bars makes your claims even more redundant.

Stop hiding behind pet theories and deliver the proof that can be tested with ANY power meter!
 
Mar 10, 2009
965
0
0
Visit site
CoachFergie said:
Well, this is a form and fitness forum.

Any extra torque one can apply to the pedals should lead to an increase in fitness or form. This is best measured with a power meter. If one can improve their power in a 40km TT they are more fit for the task.

You also don't seem to comprehend that claiming that one has to use a handlebar that hasn't been made for years, is banned by the UCI and even if one could find a pair would not fit on newer oversize bars makes your claims even more redundant.

Stop hiding behind pet theories and deliver the proof that can be tested with ANY power meter!


More nonsense. So it's now down to fitness, using any pedalling technique will make you fitter. You are also forgetting that even the non perfected version of this technique for use with standard bars as used by Anquetil was still capable of producing invincible power in TT's. Can you state one valid reason why Scott Rake bars should be banned ahead of todays dangerous aero bars. UCI's nonsensical rules mean nothing to me, my only objective was to find the perfect pedalling technique, one that does not have a dead spot sector and I succeeded in my search. There is nothing to prevent any engineer from producing the ideal Scott Rake bar set up.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
CoachFergie said:
And a lack of evidence doesn't give people the right to make s**t up instead of looking to produce the evidence that if your claims had any merit it would easily be seen in 5-10 weeks of training against a control measuring with ANY power meter.

1381844_675359259151755_508816573_n.jpg
Fergie, I don't think you understand what it means to put forth a testable hypothesis. Doing so is not making stuff up. Anyhow, our testable hypothesis is if you train on our product "enough" our average user should see an approximate 40% increase in power. And, even though your little cartoon is asking for one to be a little more explicit we believe we are being explicit in stating that it takes 6-9 months of pretty much exclusive use to see these gains. That would be about 200-300 hours with the product. But you think 10 hours with the product is enough to disprove our hypothesis. It ain't a miracle, improvement comes about because of a lot of smartly applied hard work.

It doesn't matter that you think 5-6 weeks of part-time use is adequate to test the hypothesis. Just how does that work? No one who has ever trained with this product would conclude 10 hours over 5 weeks would be adequate to test our claims. But you, who has never used the product, come here (and everywhere else) and spout off you know what it does, what it doesn't do, and what it takes to show this stuff. LOL.
 
coapman said:
So it's now down to fitness, using any pedalling technique will make you fitter. You are also forgetting that even the non perfected version of this technique for use with standard bars as used by Anquetil was still capable of producing invincible power in TT's.

Speculation. Maybe it was the drugs, maybe he wore lucky red socks, maybe he lucked out and had the best genetic advantage.

I think Tony Martin looks awful on a bike. Never been a fan of Specialized BG fit. But he has had his share of high speed crashes so perhaps there is a reason his back is so rounded. But just because he is World Champion should we assume he is the best example?

Taylor Phinney was 2nd in the TT last year 5.37 seconds behind Martin, starts using Gimmickcranks, and drops to 5th place at 2:08min. By Franks logic that tells me that his product has had a hugely negative consequence to his TT performance. Or perhaps he just has 9750 more hours till he perfects his pedalling technique using them:cool:

Can you state one valid reason why Scott Rake bars should be banned ahead of todays dangerous aero bars. UCI's nonsensical rules mean nothing to me, my only objective was to find the perfect pedalling technique, one that does not have a dead spot sector and I succeeded in my search. There is nothing to prevent any engineer from producing the ideal Scott Rake bar set up.

Well apart from the rule that any equipment on the bike must be mass produced and widely available for anyone to purchase. The intent of that rule was to stop the BCF from using $40,000 carbon handlebars made specifically for each rider.
 
FrankDay said:
Fergie, I don't think you understand what it means to put forth a testable hypothesis. Doing so is not making stuff up. Anyhow, our testable hypothesis is if you train on our product "enough" our average user should see an approximate 40% increase in power.

Well go and test it then. Creating a testable hypothesis is not evidence of anything beyond creating a testable hypothesis.

And, even though your little cartoon is asking for one to be a little more explicit we believe we are being explicit in stating that it takes 6-9 months of pretty much exclusive use to see these gains.

Again an untested testable hypothesis is evidence of nothing.

But you think 10 hours with the product is enough to disprove our hypothesis. It ain't a miracle, improvement comes about because of a lot of smartly applied hard work.

Hug, Bohm and Fernandez-Pena studies suggest that changes easily occur in that time. Numerous other studies using cycling performance as the dependant variable achieve a significant improvement within that time.

It doesn't matter that you think 5-6 weeks of part-time use is adequate to test the hypothesis.

I can read the results of several well performed studies on pedalling technique that showed learning of the new technique occurred but didn't have an influence on performance.

No one who has ever trained with this product would conclude 10 hours over 5 weeks would be adequate to test our claims.

Again an untested testable hypothesis is evidence of nothing.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
coapman said:
Can you give two of these essentials that I do not understand.
1. you do not seem to know that it is physiologically impossible to instantaneously apply full force to the pedal and to instantaneously remove that force.

2. You do not realize that what goes on during the other 180º of crank motion actually affects the overall power the rider generates (by either adding or subtracting from what is done on the part you concentrate on).
 
Mar 10, 2009
965
0
0
Visit site
FrankDay said:
1. you do not seem to know that it is physiologically impossible to instantaneously apply full force to the pedal and to instantaneously remove that force.

2. You do not realize that what goes on during the other 180º of crank motion actually affects the overall power the rider generates (by either adding or subtracting from what is done on the part you concentrate on).

1 Why is physiologically impossible to apply such force, I don't remove full force, normal torque is applied from 3 to 5 o'c. The advantage of my technique is that it enables one to apply maximal torque through 12,1,2 and 3 o'c.

2 I fully realize what goes on during the backstroke, I spent over a year experimenting in that sector. What that taught me was, except for unweighting any extra pedaling work attempted here resulted in a loss of torque in the downstroke. Having said that my legs are not idling there, the muscles are being prepared with spring loaded effect for that instant application of maximal torque at TDC.