Sure I will stop using that variance for this argument. I simply used that as I was unaware that muscle type could account for that amount of variance (almost). Of course, it doesn't account for it all so it is up to you to let us all know where the other variance comes from as I suspect some of it has to do with pedaling technique even though they didn't find that to be the case to a statistically significant level.JamesCun said:So, are you going to stop using the variance in efficiency shown in the studies as evidence of pedalling technique having huge room for improvement? Pretty weak argument on your part if a key point you've made is so easily shown to be well accounted for in the research.
If I were serious about racing I wouldn't give up on a 1-2% improvement. Why would you?You are massively overstating the losses that might exist. Would you invest as much time it is was a 1-2% change vs the 100% you claim theoretically possible?
Further, I am not massively overstating the losses. Lets assume muscles can optimally contract at an efficiency of between 30 and 40% and we measure at the wheel an efficiency of 16-26%. We see a 10% range at both ends but there is a 14% drop in between. Perhaps 5% of that drop can be accounted for chain, bearing and tire losses. This still leaves 9% drop unaccounted for. That is a pretty big loss since we are talking about this being a loss from the energy expenditure point of view, not the power at the wheel point of view. So, 200 watts at the wheel and at a 20% efficiency requires energy equivalent of 1000 watts at the input to the muscle. 9% of that is 90 watts. Are you willing to give that potential up simply because you can't explain them? Now, I don't believe all of those 90 are recoverable but I suspect 40-50 of them are.
Even if I were "massively overstating" the losses can you at least admit that there are losses here? Are you willing to pass on those improvements simply because you think them small (say just 10 watts or so)?
From a scientific perspective all of the losses need to be accounted for so, from a scientific perspective, one can know where to best approach potential improvement. What can be done? What is not being addressed? No one has done that that I can find. Coggan and Martin (the known researchers who hang out here) sure are being quiet or have you not noticed. You guys can't do that even from a theoretical basis. I believe I can but what I can't do is quantitate the various losses due to pedaling technique that I see. Someone should do that work.