The perfect pedal stroke - Comparing Contador and Froome

[42x16ss]

There are mountains of research which demonstrate that pedaling efficiency is determined by biology, not pedaling mechanics. You can't "work on it" to pedal more efficiently. And generally, the smoother one's pedal stroke, i.e. the more force is applied evenly, the less efficient it is. The most efficient riders push down harder.

I disagree that pedaling efficiency is a variable of performance that cannot be improved. The gains might be tiny, but they are achievable through mechanics.

We all know riders of different heights use different length crank arms. The reason is so that the bike and the rider work efficiently together.

Riders also use wedge shims in their shoes, or between the shoe and the cleat in order to improve their mechanical efficiency as well as to reduce the risk of over-use injury.

A proper bike fit yields benefits to efficiency as well. If this were not the case,

The whole point of toe clips, and then clipless pedals/shoes is to improve pedalling efficiency.

I was always under the impression that they were designed for improved power transfer.

 

[131313]

I disagree that pedaling efficiency is a variable of performance that cannot be improved. The gains might be tiny, but they are achievable through mechanics.

We all know riders of different heights use different length crank arms. The reason is so that the bike and the rider work efficiently together.

Disagree all you want, but your feeling don't trump all of the published research, which all says the same thing.

Riders also use wedge shims in their shoes, or between the shoe and the cleat in order to improve their mechanical efficiency as well as to reduce the risk of over-use injury.

A proper bike fit yields benefits to efficiency as well. If this were not the case,

The whole point of toe clips, and then clipless pedals/shoes is to improve pedalling efficiency.

Wedge shims to prevent injury have nothing to do with pedaling efficiency, and there's no evidence that clipless pedals improve efficiency. Of course, there IS published research to show that pedaling in platform pedals is just as efficient as clipless pedals: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18418807. Clipless pedals are a comfort and safety issue, and they don't provide any mechanical advantage.

Pedaling efficiency is well-researched and well-understood. You can stick with what you "feel" or "believe", or can try to unstand what "is". The choice is yours.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Is it?

To me the purpose of such pedals is to provide security when pedalling. Plenty of riders can attain similar sustainable power output with flat bed pedals as they can with cleats.

efficiency most likely does change, a little.....

Not specific to you or your post, but I recall efficiency was one of the explanations for Armstrong's fraud. And now it's back. Do you see the pattern?

Froome's doping.

 

[sittingbison]

....efficiency was one of the explanations for Armstrong's fraud...

On this note please take a deep breath and refrain from starting a bushfire. You know who you are

cheers
Bison

 

[spalco]

Interesting. Very counter-intuitive, I would have expected there's at least some difference in efficiency between for example Ullrich's, Contador's and Froome's pedalling styles.

 

[Hawkwood]

That's why it stands out. He looks like a middle aged fred struggling up the local 4% "KOM". All knees and elbows, even Evans looks better out of the saddle

This is what has always annoyed me about the game changing doping products and techniques. Ugly first rate climbers like Froome, Botero, Olano, Evans and Soler were rarities pre epo.

Anyone who doesn't agree needs to go and find some old footage of guys like Merckx, Bahamontes, Van Impe, Poulidor, Hinault, Lemond - just about any of the great pre-epo climbers. Their styles were almost always excellent and bear almost no semblance to Froome's.

Except Anquetil amongst others criticised Merckx's style saying he looked like a postman. The difference appears to me that pre-epo riders tended to grind up mountains, post-epo they appeared to spin. Merckx himself criticised the new spinning technique.

 

[TheBean]

Disagree all you want, but your feeling don't trump all of the published research, which all says the same thing.



Wedge shims to prevent injury have nothing to do with pedaling efficiency, and there's no evidence that clipless pedals improve efficiency. Of course, there IS published research to show that pedaling in platform pedals is just as efficient as clipless pedals: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18418807. Clipless pedals are a comfort and safety issue, and they don't provide any mechanical advantage.

Pedaling efficiency is well-researched and well-understood. You can stick with what you "feel" or "believe", or can try to unstand what "is". The choice is yours.

Thanks for the link. Interesting reading.

Perhaps my confusion comes from not discerning properly between efficiency, net pedal efficiency, and effectiveness.

Could you provide a clear definition of each?

 

[Winterfold]

I'm more concerned about his horrible style than whether he is on the gear. Cycling is supposed to be beautiful. Froome looks like a gibbon humping a ball. If I've insulted any gibbons out there I'm sincerely sorry.

This. Not only is he insulting our intelligence he/they are also ruining the aesthetic of the sport.

Say what you like about Wiggo at least he can pedal with style!

 

[42x16ss]

Except Anquetil amongst others criticised Merckx's style saying he looked like a postman. The difference appears to me that pre-epo riders tended to grind up mountains, post-epo they appeared to spin. Merckx himself criticised the new spinning technique.

That was due to Merckx's position as much as his pedalling style IIRC

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Interesting. Very counter-intuitive, I would have expected there's at least some difference in efficiency between for example Ullrich's, Contador's and Froome's pedalling styles.

Indeed. It also means that cycling is unique in the realms of self-propelling the human body from A to B in that efficiency cannot be improved.

 

[Cramps]

Pedaling efficiency is well-researched and well-understood. You can stick with what you "feel" or "believe", or can try to unstand what "is". The choice is yours.

Can I ask what you think about Contador's style? It seems like it would be much more efficient if he stayed sitting more often in the climbs. Just in the simple sense that he wouldn't have to raise or hold his body weight so much.

Just seeking info, obviously pedaling style is an emotional topic for some!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Interesting. Very counter-intuitive, I would have expected there's at least some difference in efficiency between for example Ullrich's, Contador's and Froome's pedalling styles.

There may well be differences in efficiency between those riders (that's normal), however assuming such differences are due to their pedalling "style" is where the problem lies.

 

[Red Lobster]

I'm more concerned about his horrible style than whether he is on the gear. Cycling is supposed to be beautiful. Froome looks like a gibbon humping a ball. If I've insulted any gibbons out there I'm sincerely sorry.

Finally someone put into words exactly what I think every time I have to watch Froome ride. Who cares if he is doped; anyone that ugly on the bike should not be allowed to pollute the aesthetics of the sport. Even in still photos it is obvious and that is saying something; not even Didier Rous or Fernando Escartin could accomplish that feat.

 

[BroDeal]

Interesting. Very counter-intuitive, I would have expected there's at least some difference in efficiency between for example Ullrich's, Contador's and Froome's pedalling styles.

Frank Day makes his living from this intuition. It sounds logical. Cycling magazines have pushed this idea for so long that its truthiness is embedded in the collective cycling psyche. But the research says no.

 

[ebandit]

eggy

Frank Day makes his living from this intuition. It sounds logical. Cycling magazines have pushed this idea for so long that its truthiness is embedded in the collective cycling psyche. But the research says no.

froomey seems sold on those 'wiggo like' egg shaped chain rings

do they really make any difference? ok the idea is that they help the pedal

stroke pass top dead centre but my thought is at 100 rpm it will make

negligible difference

aesthetics are nice in cycling but power counts............what's the prize

money for style?

Mark L

 

[coapman]

Disagree all you want, but your feeling don't trump all of the published research, which all says the same thing.

Of course, there IS published research to show that pedaling in platform pedals is just as efficient as clipless pedals: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18418807. Clipless pedals are a comfort and safety issue, and they don't provide any mechanical advantage.

Pedaling efficiency is well-researched and well-understood. You can stick with what you "feel" or "believe", or can try to unstand what "is". The choice is yours.

As there is already a pedaling thread running I am only making one post here. Your problem is you have too much faith in earlier research. If it took those experts who did all this research over eighty years to realize the importance of an aerodynamic arm position in TT's, how long should it take them to realize the massive advantage cleats/toeclips can give to TT pedalling. Ever since they were invented, it has been possible to apply maximal torque as the crank moves through 12, 1, 2 and 3 o'c, the platform pedaler can only apply this maximal torque around 3 o'c. Pedaling efficiency may be well researched but the fact is there are two types of efficiency and the metabolic type was all scientists were interested in, the more important power application efficiency ( torque / force applied to pedal) they ignored because their knowledge was limited by believing natural pedalling or variations of this same basic technique was the only way to power the cranks.

 

[131313]

As there is already a pedaling thread running I am only making one post here. Your problem is you have too much faith in earlier research. If it took those experts who did all this research over eighty years to realize the importance of an aerodynamic arm position in TT's, how long should it take them to realize the massive advantage cleats/toeclips can give to TT pedalling.

As far as I know, no one ever experimented with sticking out your arms in a TT until the 80's or so. It was understood almost immediately that it worked. People have been researching pedaling and trying to improve pedaling efficiency as long as the bicycle has been around. The new research says the same as the old research: pedaling technique doesn't matter that much, and even pedal strokes are less efficient.

Secondly, there's no "massive advantage" to pedals and toe clips for "TT pedaling", whatever that is. I can put out the same power in tennis shoes as I can in shoes/clips, and I'm hardly alone.

Ever since they were invented, it has been possible to apply maximal torque as the crank moves through 12, 1, 2 and 3 o'c, the platform pedaler can only apply this maximal torque around 3 o'c. Pedaling efficiency may be well researched but the fact is there are two types of efficiency and the metabolic type was all scientists were interested in, the more important power application efficiency ( torque / force applied to pedal) they ignored because their knowledge was limited by believing natural pedalling or variations of this same basic technique was the only way to power the cranks.

You should invest some time studying some basic principles of thermodynamics and biology. "even torque" from a pedaling human doesn't equate to a more efficient pedal stroke.

 

[ToreBear]

http://www.up-shack.com/assets/up/10866121d68f8b9af608cb16b440c8b4.swf

Sure thats a motorbike? Sounded like a 1.6l WRC car to me?

Never mind this is a cycling forum, and I don't know anything about cars anyway.

 

[Granville57]

Interesting discussion. But what to make of Landis’ comments on the matter? It could be seen as just PR spin to deflect from the dark side, but is it more than that? Are pros just repeating what they’ve been told through the years, or are the incremental differences indeed notable, but perhaps only at the most elite level?

From Positively False
Page 98
[emphasis mine]

In cycling, it’s silly to have the latest carbon-fiber wonder-bike without an efficient pedaling motion to power it. Over the course of three weeks at the Tour, the smallest increase in efficiency can make a huge difference. As long as I was going to a new team [Phonak] with new bikes [BMC], I wanted to make the engine that powered the bike—me—more efficient.

That fall [2004], I went to Boulder, Colorado, to have my pedal stroke analyzed by renowned physiologist Dr. Andy Pruitt. Andy had looked at the simple circular pedal motion of dozens of the world’s best riders, including Lance and Tinker Juarez, and helped them improve.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Interesting discussion. But what to make of Landis’ comments on the matter? It could be seen as just PR spin to deflect from the dark side, but is it more than that? Are pros just repeating what they’ve been told through the years, or are the incremental differences indeed notable, but perhaps only at the most elite level?

From Positively False
Page 98
[emphasis mine]

Myths are handed down through the generations

 

[131313]

Interesting discussion. But what to make of Landis’ comments on the matter? It could be seen as just PR spin to deflect from the dark side, but is it more than that? Are pros just repeating what they’ve been told through the years, or are the incremental differences indeed notable, but perhaps only at the most elite level?

From Positively False
Page 98
[emphasis mine]

You're really quoting this from "Positively False"? Really??

 

[Granville57]

You're really quoting this from "Positively False"? Really??

I thought you'd enjoy that. C'mon, he even mentions Lance!

 

[Snafu352]

Couple of comments:

1) The OP asked about pedaling style not whether the clips make a difference.

2) This is stated in one of the articles "did not significantly influence cycling technique during submaximal exercise" Note the submaximal, so what happens when it is maximal? Again that article address being clipped in or not, it does not address style.

 

[biker jk]

An interesting collection of "styles" here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THA59sKBkF0&feature=c4-overview&list=UUI9-Ix7G7Q8hGbgwCsLv82Q

 

[Robert21]

I am astonished that anyone could think that Froome has in any way a 'perfect style'; he just looks so ungainly on a bike! In fact his style is perhaps the worst-looking in the entire peloton.

I also see that the usual suspects have come along to shout down any suggestion that pedalling style is any way important, referring to those experimental studies that failed to find a link between style and gross efficiency. Without going through that debate again, I think that it is significant that despite what the 'experts' say, many riders are convinced that a 'good' style helps them to delay the onset of fatigue and so forth and most professionals do have a very 'smooth' pedalling style. This makes me suspect that the 'experts', who after all not that long ago were telling everyone that elevated levels of blood lactate 'caused' fatigue, are missing something.

I recently read the following paper:

Fatigue is a brain-derived emotion that regulates the exercise behavior to ensure the protection of whole body homeostasis

http://www.frontiersin.org/striated_muscle_physiology/10.3389/fphys.2012.00082/abstract

This paper essentially argues that fatigue is not a physical state at all, rather a neural 'Central Governor' acting on multiple cues, triggers a feeling of fatigue in order to maintain homeostasis and prevent damage. In reality, in a trained person at least, the body is actually capable of much higher levels of work, if only this 'Central Governor' could somehow be over-ridden. (Which is exactly what drugs like amphetamine and caffeine do.)

Relating this to the old 'pedalling efficiency / style debate, it strikes me that one factor that might contribute to the 'emotion' of fatigue is how well a rider is able to maintain a 'smooth', 'coordinated' pedalling style. Studies show that, when riding at the limit, the style of even the best rider tends to break down. It seems quite possible that this break-down in style would create neuro-muscular cues that the 'Central Governor' would, along with multiple other cues, interpret as signalling the onset of a state where homeostasis is threatened. In turn, it would follow that the longer a rider is able to feel that they are pedalling in a smooth and coordinated manner, the longer they would be able to suppress these cues.

In short, you feel fatigued in part because of a failure in the ability to maintain a smooth and highly coordinated pedalling style, not because this directly influences gross efficiency but because of the influence this has on the functioning of the 'Central Governor'

Doubtless the 'experts' would cling to the old view that it is the fatigue that is the limiting factor here and the breakdown in style is just a symptom of this. However, as that paper above argues, fatigue as a genuine physical state may only occur at a level of work way beyond the point where the rider actually feels fatigued.