What is Brim Bros going to bring to the table that iCranks or Pioneer isn't bringing now (or soon)?coapman said:I hope BB PM can produce more revealing pedalling graphs.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
What is Brim Bros going to bring to the table that iCranks or Pioneer isn't bringing now (or soon)?coapman said:I hope BB PM can produce more revealing pedalling graphs.
Martin has no interest in actually doing a proper study about this stuff. He has known for a long time what needs to be done and has failed to do so.CoachFergie said:If your method was effective you would be able communicate it to someone like Jim Martin and he could easily test it on a validated and calibrated erg.
FrankDay said:Martin has no interest in actually doing a proper study about this stuff. He has known for a long time what needs to be done and has failed to do so.
FrankDay said:What is Brim Bros going to bring to the table that iCranks or Pioneer isn't bringing now (or soon)?
CoachFergie said:If the method produced more power any PM could show that.
That will be an advance if it provides all of that data because it will be combining the data of iCranks and Pioneer. Of course, it really cannot give data about "wasted force" since forces coming from gravity are not wasted since they involve no muscle activity/energy use. Determining wasted force is a very difficult proposition.coapman said:It has been said it can measure positive torque, negative torque and wasted force around the pedalling circle.
coapman said:You still don't get it, I am not interested in measuring power/torque but where exactly this torque is being applied especially where maximal torque can be applied while in the natural racing drops position.
Just thought I would make it such that this thought can't disappear.CoachFergie said:who would back that losing horse when so many other companies and getting the hardware to market even if the software is sadly lacking.
CoachFergie said:No I get it very well, you want to maintain the delusion that your technique is something special despite numerous other coaches and riders like Obree having suggested something similar but all fail to supply any evidence. It doesn't matter where you can apply torque or not if it doesn't improve your ability to increase total power which can be measured with any power meter.
Brim Brothers, and lets face it, who would back that losing horse when so many other companies and getting the hardware to market even if the software is sadly lacking. Lets face it if you can't prove your theory with any power meter then you really have nothing of use!
coapman said:Yes my technique is something special, Obree and other coaches are using or attempting to use minimal torque through 12 o'c ( nothing more than circular pedalling style). Their very limited extra torque is coming from the knee, my torque comes from the hip, in one continuous power stroke it applies maximal torque through 12, 1 and 2 o'c in addition to what is normally applied around 3 o'c. J Martin's idea of solving the 12 o'c dead spot sector was no different from that of those who attempted to compensate for it by changing equipment ( rotor cranks), an impossible task and of course all attempts ended in failure. I use nothing more than standard equipment and more effective use of muscles.
coapman said:You still don't get it, I am not interested in measuring power/torque but where exactly this torque is being applied especially where maximal torque can be applied while in the natural racing drops position.
Alex Simmons/RST said:Where in a pedal stroke one produces torque isn't relevant if the total power output isn't improved.
Unless an alternative technique enables a rider to produce more power over durations of relevance and/or in circumstances that matter, then it is of no value.
The ability to demonstrate that such techniques do or do not enable a rider to produce more power have been available for over a century with power measurement ergometers, and for nearly 30 years with on bike power meters.
The fact that you persistently refuse to put your notion to the performance test when the means to do so have been available for generations, suggests that it is, well, nonsense.
Suggesting that you need to measure the torque around the pedal stroke is a big fat overweight red herring. No more power is no more power, no improvement in performance, no increase in speed.
coapman said:The fact that ye do not realize that this will result in greater power from each pedal stroke demonstrates how little ye know about pedalling.
Alex Simmons/RST said:Imparting spin on a ball to introduce aerodynamic effects that cause a ball to deviate from a straight line flight path has absolutely nothing to do with the technique involved pedalling a bicycle. I can move chess pieces with precision too, and that's about as (ir)relevant.
If such a training intervention results in more power output, then show us. It's really very simple. A power meter, some testing of performance before and after intervention and voila - you've some evidence to support what you say. Add in some controls and even better.
However you have consistently refused to provide any data to support your assertions of an improvement in power output.
coapman said:I used these examples to show that competitive sports need more techniques than the one each child instinctively begins with. Cycling does not have to be different. By changing the way force is applied to the pedal you can get maximal sprinter power or maximal sustainable power. By applying maximal torque over 120 deg. instead of 30 deg., you can increase power output from each pedal stroke while reducing peak force applied to pedal, resulting in less knee stress and injury and the removal of all stress from the lower back (core) to the hips.
Fergie, you ought to know that it really is impossible for Coapman to do what you claim is so easy since he cannot go back to where he was before and show the power improvement. He has already made the "change" so how is he to demonstrate improvement now? All, he can do is to demonstrate that he actually pedals in the fashion he claims he does. My guess is he will fail in this effort if he ever gets around to it as what he describes is essentially impossible also because of the effects of gravity on pedal forces and torque.CoachFergie said:So you keep claiming. If such a technique is beneficial to cycling performance you will see more power using any power meter. Continually dodging this very obvious point would suggest the technique is not really effective.
FrankDay said:Fergie, you ought to know that it really is impossible for Coapman to do what you claim is so easy since he cannot go back to where he was before and show the power improvement. He has already made the "change" so how is he to demonstrate improvement now? All, he can do is to demonstrate that he actually pedals in the fashion he claims he does. My guess is he will fail in this effort if he ever gets around to it as what he describes is essentially impossible also because of the effects of gravity on pedal forces and torque.
FrankDay said:Fergie, you ought to know that it really is impossible for Coapman to do what you claim is so easy since he cannot go back to where he was before and show the power improvement. He has already made the "change" so how is he to demonstrate improvement now? All, he can do is to demonstrate that he actually pedals in the fashion he claims he does. My guess is he will fail in this effort if he ever gets around to it as what he describes is essentially impossible also because of the effects of gravity on pedal forces and torque.
coapman said:A PM cannot distinguish between sustainable and unsustainable power.
Because the weight of the leg is quite large and so contributes substantial force in the down direction regardless of crank position. Therefore, the gravity component to torque is maximum and large at 3 o'clock and zero at 6 and 12 o'clock (in addition to being large and negative at 9 o'clock) and somewhere in between everywhere else. Because of this it is essentially impossible to see "maximum" sustained torque (as you claim) over a wide range of pedal positions even if the muscles are providing equal and maximal torque through this range. You have talked yourself into believing you are doing something even though it is essentially impossible to do what you say. Until you see the pedal forces you will continue to believe this. Accelerations and decelerations of the thigh also contribute to this "passive torque" problem. I look forward to hearing about what you do once you see what you actually do.coapman said:How does gravity make what I claim impossible?
FrankDay said:Because the weight of the leg is quite large and so contributes substantial force in the down direction regardless of crank position. Therefore, the gravity component to torque is maximum and large at 3 o'clock and zero at 6 and 12 o'clock (in addition to being large and negative at 9 o'clock) and somewhere in between everywhere else. Because of this it is essentially impossible to see "maximum" sustained torque (as you claim) over a wide range of pedal positions even if the muscles are providing equal and maximal torque through this range. You have talked yourself into believing you are doing something even though it is essentially impossible to do what you say. Until you see the pedal forces you will continue to believe this. Accelerations and decelerations of the thigh also contribute to this "passive torque" problem. I look forward to hearing about what you do once you see what you actually do.
Prove it.coapman said:Sorry to disappoint you, unlike the weak footballing muscles you use across the top (12 o'c), the combination of muscles I use there are capable of generating greater torque than what the down stroke muscles can produce at 3 o'c.
FrankDay said:Prove it.
10 letters