The pedaling technique thread

[blutto]

....interesting view....

Australian physiologist and sports scientist Jeremy Richmond says there are a number of new techniques sprinters are employing in an attempt to run even faster. In fact, he is confident the 100-meter record can be lowered below 9.3 seconds, possibly by the 2020 Tokyo Games.

One of the techniques Richmond cites is called plyometrics, also known as jump training.

"We now see a lot of athletes, especially the Jamaicans, doing hurdle drills to strengthen the hip flexion," Richmond said. "These hip flexion drills enhance the soleus muscle (lower calf), and studies show a strong correlation between the size of the soleus muscle and sprinting performance.

http://www.espn.com/olympics/trackandfield/story/_/id/17106676/speed-limit-how-fast-human-being-run-100-meters

Cheers

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Relevance?

 

[blutto]

Re:

Relevance?

....now that I think about it absolutely none...sorry to have wasted your time....

Cheers

 

[Valv.Piti]

I've been working on my cadence, I like to spin. Not too much, but definitely above average RPM. I can't measure it, but Im sure its around 95-105. Pros and cons?

However, its different when climbing. I pretty much stand up all the time, but with lower RPM, more strength and more body movement (trying to imitate Contador, but it works the best for me, that style). Again, pros and cons?

 

[JayKosta]

Re:

...
I like to spin. Not too much, but definitely above average RPM.
...
However, its different when climbing. I pretty much stand up all the time, but with lower RPM,
...

-----------
Your weight, height, and age can have a large influence on cadence.
For someone who is fairly light weight (e.g. approx 60kg) and younger than about 30 years, the cadence you mention seems reasonable.
But on an individual basis, it comes down to 'what works for you'.

I suggest you try training for at least a month doing seated climbing to determine if it helps on longer climbs (e.g 10 minutes). Doing ALL climbing 'standing' takes extra muscle effort to support your body weight.
Doing 'seated climbing' usually requires lower gearing. So it might be that the gearing on your bike is not appropriate for the hills you climb.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

...
I am referring to the 'Rotor Crank' not the Rotor or any other type of non round chainring.

--------
Thank you for the information about the "Rotor System Crank" - I did not know about them.
I found this description of how the system works -
http://www.rotorbikeusa.com/pdf/More%20information_Rotor%20System%20Cranks.pdf

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

The Rotor crank idea was a failure but by changing the cycle of the mechanism together with a suitable technique, it's possible that results could be reversed.

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

...
I am referring to the 'Rotor Crank' not the Rotor or any other type of non round chainring.

--------
Thank you for the information about the "Rotor System Crank" - I did not know about them.
I found this description of how the system works -
http://www.rotorbikeusa.com/pdf/More%20information_Rotor%20System%20Cranks.pdf

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

The Rotor crank idea was a failure but by changing the cycle of the mechanism together with a suitable technique, it's possible that results could be reversed.

The explanation: Natural pedalling's 60 deg. idling sector around TDC makes it impossible for cyclists to benefit from the earlier start to the power stroke that the Rotor crank makes available. Any advantage gained by the higher gear effect in the most effective sector of the downstroke is probably neutralized by the extra weight and reduced efficiency of the drivetrain. But with the ideal TT technique (Anquetil's} which is already starting its power stroke (with close to maximal torque) 60 deg. earlier than the natural start, by adjusting the cycle of the mechanism so that the dead spot is set for 11 instead of 12 o'c, you will be ending your downstroke power application 10-12 deg earlier before 5 o'clock, effectively replacing the weakest sector in that power stroke with maximal torque. This gives a total of 140 deg. of additional close to maximal torque that can be applied from both cranks during one revolution of the chain ring.

 

[CoachFergie]

And of course you have the data to support this theory of yours?

 

[backdoor]

Re:

And of course you have the data to support this theory of yours?

If you did as the inventor suggests and tried to apply an effective downward mashing force at 12 deg. past 12 o'c, how would you rate the effectiveness of that force ?

 

[JayKosta]

Re: Re:

...
If you did as the inventor suggests and tried to apply an effective downward mashing force at 12 deg. past 12 o'c,
...

-------------------------------
I don't understand .... who is the 'inventor' that suggests applying 'downward mashing force' at 12 deg PAST 12 o'c ? I doubt that anyone attempts to produce strictly 'downward mashing force' at that location.

The graphs in the 'Coyle 40' article show that effective torque DOES begin to be generated in the region of 0-15 deg past 12 o'c.

Do you have ANY actual measured data about the location and amount of force being produced by the technique you advocate?
Speculating about 'where' and 'how much' force is produced might be interesting, but without measurements it's still just speculation.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

...
If you did as the inventor suggests and tried to apply an effective downward mashing force at 12 deg. past 12 o'c,
...

-------------------------------
I don't understand .... who is the 'inventor' that suggests applying 'downward mashing force' at 12 deg PAST 12 o'c ? I doubt that anyone attempts to produce strictly 'downward mashing force' at that location.

The graphs in the 'Coyle 40' article show that effective torque DOES begin to be generated in the region of 0-15 deg past 12 o'c.

Do you have ANY actual measured data about the location and amount of force being produced by the technique you advocate?
Speculating about 'where' and 'how much' force is produced might be interesting, but without measurements it's still just speculation.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

I was in discussion with the inventor of these cranks on another forum before they went on sale.


" Development of the Rotor Cranks

The Rotor idea first came from Aeronautic Engineering School students in Madrid in 1995. Seeing that the idea had merit, the designers then set up a business to finish the development and start manufacturing them.

Early versions became available in 1998 along with claims that the RCK system increases power by 16 percent, reduces lactate production by 15 percent, and reduces heart rate by 5 percent.

Since then, the RCK design has been refined from a complex system that needed a special frame to the current model that can be fitted to any bike without any changes. The RCK system has also been approved by UCI officials for competitive use and has seen some pro's using it (most notably members of the Relax Fuenlabrada team), especially in Spain where the company is based.

How the Rotor Cranks work

The theory behind RCK is simple but the practical application is a little hard to get your head around.

The RCK System is a crankset in which the cranks are not fixed at 180º, but are variable during a pedal cycle. The cranks are synchronised through a set of cams that change the angle between the crank arms producing a variation in transmission ratio during each cycle.

The system relies on an eccentric bearing on the bottom bracket (BB), and the right crank movement is then controlled by the two cams accelerating the crank through the 'dead spot' at the top and bottom of the pedal stroke and prolonging the power stroke phase.

What all this means in real terms is that by the time one crank is at the bottom of the stroke and in the six o'clock position, the opposite crank has been accelerated through to the one o'clock position and has already started the power stroke phase."

The problem with this or error here is, the upper crank has not been accelerated by 30 deg. to 1 'o'c.

 

[JayKosta]

Thanks for the explanation about how the RCK works. I understand the 'appeal' of having the upper crank at 1 o'c when the lower crank is at 6. Perhaps sometime I will have the chance to try one - from your description, I imagine it 'feels' quite odd compared to fixed cranks.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Increasing the available time in "power phase" is not addressing a performance limiter. Our limiters are aerobic metabolic in nature, not mechanical, nor of force production. We can only produce so much ATP. Why is this fundamental not understood?

 

[JayKosta]

Alex, yes the aerobic metabolic and ATP limitations are understood.

My main interest in 'pedalling technique' is about whether more 'forward velocity' can be obtained within those limitations by reducing the amount (if there is any) of 'wasted or inefficient effort' that occurs with the traditional pedalling technique.

Perhaps the tradition technique is 'as good as it can ever get', but I don't have the faith (or wisdom) to believe that's true.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Well since gross efficiency seems to drop whenever we diverge from natural pedalling methods, it'll take some extraordinary evidence to demonstrate such interventions are effective.

 

[JayKosta]

Re:

Well since gross efficiency seems to drop whenever we diverge from natural pedalling methods, it'll take some extraordinary evidence to demonstrate such interventions are effective.

----
I agree, and can understand that from the perspective of a coach or athlete, it's likely to be more effective to train for improvement in 'known limitations' rather than spending time on a 'maybe'. And for a researcher, it might be unappealing to spend time on it without belief that 'something worthwhile' would result.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[backdoor]

Re:

Well since gross efficiency seems to drop whenever we diverge from natural pedalling methods, it'll take some extraordinary evidence to demonstrate such interventions are effective.

This drop is the result of trying to combine your powerful natural pedalling muscles with some of your weakest leg muscles, when you know how to combine these powerful muscles with an equally powerful combination of muscles for an extended power stroke with increased effectiveness of the force, results are very different.

 

[CoachFergie]

And of course you have the data to support this theory of yours?

As Alex, and many others who understand this better than you Noel, generating more power is the easy part. Sustaining it is the challenge. No event specific power is greater than an athlete's maximum power. I don't even train sprinters by trying to increase their peak power. I focus on the power they can sustain for 10-30s.

What you think you see in Jacques has been well explained in the literature. A high VO2max, a high fractional utilisation of that VO2max and a very efficient body.

Your explanation is unproven.

 

[CoachFergie]

To suggest a creator, Frank Day did that, implies belief. A limited approach. One that implies that we should believe in some concept in the absence of any real evidence.

 

[backdoor]

Re:

And of course you have the data to support this theory of yours?

As Alex, and many others who understand this better than you Noel, generating more power is the easy part. Sustaining it is the challenge. No event specific power is greater than an athlete's maximum power. I don't even train sprinters by trying to increase their peak power. I focus on the power they can sustain for 10-30s.

What you think you see in Jacques has been well explained in the literature. A high VO2max, a high fractional utilisation of that VO2max and a very efficient body.

Your explanation is unproven.

All cyclists are capable of improving their VO2max both on and off the bike, but what they can't do is improve the effectiveness of their force application at the most powerful 60 deg. sector of their pedalling or extend the range of that most powerful sector. That's what made Anquetil's pedal power sustainable in TT'S. There is nothing to be gained by improving the effectiveness of your force application where minimal force is being applied.

 

[CoachFergie]

Yawn, different day, same snizzle.

 

[backdoor]

Re:

[quote="Alex Simmons/RST"

Increasing the available time in "power phase" is not addressing a performance limiter. Our limiters are aerobic metabolic in nature, not mechanical, nor of force production. We can only produce so much ATP. Why is this fundamental not understood?[/quote]

Force production may not be a limiter but torque return from this force can be a limiter.

 

[backdoor]

Re:

Thanks for the explanation about how the RCK works. I understand the 'appeal' of having the upper crank at 1 o'c when the lower crank is at 6. Perhaps sometime I will have the chance to try one - from your description, I imagine it 'feels' quite odd compared to fixed cranks.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

It was said that PhitBoy was also working on this same type of idea around the same time as the Rotor crank men but his invention must have been abandoned.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Force production may not be a limiter but torque return from this force can be a limiter.

?

 

[berend]

Re: Re:

Increasing the available time in "power phase" is not addressing a performance limiter. Our limiters are aerobic metabolic in nature, not mechanical, nor of force production. We can only produce so much ATP. Why is this fundamental not understood?

Force production may not be a limiter but torque return from this force can be a limiter.

To increase torque from the same force I see three options:
1. increase the lever size (crank length)
2. change gears
3. violate the conservation of energy law

1. will have implications for biomechanics.
2. will have implications for cadence (power stays the same)
3. will have implications for physics (everything is out the window)


edit: fixed quotes