The Powercrank Thread

[FrankDay]

Why did you delete your last post, who objected. What do you believe to be true about PC's, can you explain why powercrank pedaling is more effective than mashing. I can explain why the opposite is true.

I didn't delete anything. I believe PowerCranks help the cyclist improve both power and efficiency beyond what can be done without them. And, yes, I can explain why (there are many reasons) and I have done so many times here and at other places so I won't do so again.

 

[coapman]

I didn't delete anything. I believe PowerCranks help the cyclist improve both power and efficiency beyond what can be done without them. And, yes, I can explain why (there are many reasons) and I have done so many times here and at other places so I won't do so again.

What happened to your post about powercranker Mark Arnold and his fixed wheel performance in the 12 hr. TT.

 

[coapman]

And, yes, I can explain why (there are many reasons) and I have done so many times here and at other places so I won't do so again.

All you have said is PC's increase power all around the pedalling circle, you never did explain how PC's do this during the down stroke.

 

[CoachFergie]

All you have said is PC's increase power all around the pedalling circle, you never did explain how PC's do this during the down stroke.

Can't wait to hear how a crank increases power! I thought that contraction of the muscles generated power.

All easily testable.

 

[CoachFergie]

What happened to your post about powercranker Mark Arnold and his fixed wheel performance in the 12 hr. TT.

Don't encourage SPAM!

 

[veganrob]

I didn't delete anything. I believe PowerCranks help the cyclist improve both power and efficiency beyond what can be done without them. And, yes, I can explain why (there are many reasons) and I have done so many times here and at other places so I won't do so again.

You did delete the post. it is the second post you deleted in last few days. Why do you lie about this?

 

[FrankDay]

You did delete the post. it is the second post you deleted in last few days. Why do you lie about this?

As far as I know the only people who can delete posts here is the OP and a moderator. Again, I haven't deleted anything. Apparently a moderator thinks it inappropriate (without informing me) to post use of a product by recently crowned champion (or two, since two posts were deleted) in a thread devoted to that product. What more can I say?

 

[coapman]

As far as I know the only people who can delete posts here is the OP and a moderator. Again, I haven't deleted anything. Apparently a moderator thinks it inappropriate (without informing me) to post use of a product by recently crowned champion (or two, since two posts were deleted) in a thread devoted to that product. What more can I say?

That's more sensible than banning you from the forum as Slowtwitch did, but it would be helpful if the moderator left a message referring to the deletion. Now can I have an explanation as to how PC's make it possible for a rider to increase torque during the down stroke.

 

[sciguy]

That's more sensible than banning you from the forum as Slowtwitch did, but it would be helpful if the moderator left a message referring to the deletion. Now can I have an explanation as to how PC's make it possible for a rider to increase torque during the down stroke.

As it stands right now I think it looks something like this-

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

That's more sensible than banning you from the forum as Slowtwitch did, but it would be helpful if the moderator left a message referring to the deletion.

The problem is that the moderators allow all these negative comments regarding the product and personal attacks against me (or anyone who tries to post anything positive about the product) and then don't like it when I don't quietly lie down and take it but, rather, serve up a rebuttal to try make it a discussion with these bullies. And, of course, this is a thread about a specific product (mine) that was not started by me. It does seem that timely anecdotes about top pros (and amateurs with significant results) using the product would be reasonable for inclusion to counter those negative remarks.

Now can I have an explanation as to how PC's make it possible for a rider to increase torque during the down stroke.

While I seriously doubt that PC's actually increase the maximum torque seen on the downstroke (which should occur at 3 o'clock where torque due to gravity is at a maximum) it would be possible because my expectation is that PowerCranks improve how close the applied force is to being tangential and torque is determined by the total force times the cosine of the angle between the tangent at that spot and the actual force. Make any given force more tangential and the torque should increase. Whether the peak torque is increased or not is not important because what is really important is the average torque/power seen around the two circles because that is what the real power determining bike speed is.

 

[CoachFergie]

Hugh

It's the part where the rider who Frank claims to have used a independent crank, or has a photo of a bike , also did a lot of training, did recovery stuff, ate stuff and a million other things that might just have a wee part to play in outcomes.

Such claims are only for marketing and serve no purpose in this discussion when we have excellent research papers from high quality journals that give us real information to discuss.

Franks posts are usually just spam and looks like the moderators agree. He was told by moderators to stop making stupid comments about power meters not improving performance and to stop making spam posts about the claimed efficacy of his product. Sure Cyclingnews.com would prefer people pay for advertising than spam the forums.

 

[FrankDay]

It's the part where the rider who Frank claims to have used a independent crank, or has a photo of a bike , also did a lot of training, did recovery stuff, ate stuff and a million other things that might just have a wee part to play in outcomes.

LOL. Of course, you are pointing out the difficulty in obtaining scientific proof of a benefit when so many variables are present and the time involved requires months to see the claimed benefit.

Anyhow, of course all of that other stuff is important. The only claim that PowerCranks makes is that the cyclist can see increased benefit (a better outcome) when PowerCranks are added to the mix. The athlete still has to do all the hard work they were going to do anyhow (although it will probably be a little different during the transition). I would assume that most of those coming to the PowerCranks thread are interested in learning about PowerCranks. Letting those readers coming here know that PowerCranks were part of the training process of particularly successful athletes is something that those reading this thread (not you, of course) might be interested in learning, or so I thought (apparently the moderator disagreed which makes one wonder what information is appropriate, in his/her mind, for a PowerCranks thread). While I cannot say that the PowerCranks were important in determining the outcome neither can you say that they were not. All we can say is they were used. Every reader has to decide for themselves what it might mean even though I am sure there are a few out there who are grateful to you for deciding for them.

 

[CoachFergie]

That's more sensible than banning you from the forum as Slowtwitch did, but it would be helpful if the moderator left a message referring to the deletion. Now can I have an explanation as to how PC's make it possible for a rider to increase torque during the down stroke.

Such claims add nothing to the argument. No data is presented what training the person did, if they did at all, no indication of what other training, dietary, recovery, psychological and biomechanical training interventions were used. No indication if the events were similar. A 12 hour time trial spaced 4 years apart probably might vary just a tad. No indication if the the progress seen in this 4 years has been matched or exceeded by other competitiors. Then of course because his evil twin didn't follow the same procedure using normal cranks we have no idea if this is not just normal progression, over 4 years, that any motivated person might expect to see. Nothing to indicate if he had training with normal cranks that he might have performed better. BCF don't allow riders to compete with independent cranks so as Frank has said himself going from his product to normal cranks harms performance.

Nibali, just a photo of a Cannondale. Wow, that tells us so much Again as Frank has said one needs to carry out total immersion training for 6-9 months to see any real benefit from the cranks, his lame excuse against 5-6 week studies unless they show limited support for his claims, it is clear from the amount of SRM data available for Nibali that he doesn't do a lot, and no evidence he has actually ridden independent cranks, what Frank claims is a necessary amount of independent cranking to see any benefit. The same waste of time the Mapei guys said of the 1-2 riders who do at their test centre.

 

[FrankDay]

Such claims add nothing to the argument. No data is presented what training the person did, if they did at all, no indication of what other training, dietary, recovery, psychological and biomechanical training interventions were used.

The only data presented regarding what training he did was that he added PowerCranks to his training regimen. I have come to understand the reason he started on PowerCranks was to help him recover from a back injury such that, because of that injury, one might predict that might cause one to slow down in a 12 hour effort. If getting a back injury improves performance then everyone will want one as soon as the word gets out.

No indication if the events were similar.

Ugh, it was the national championships. I believe the course is similar year after year but that is easily checked. Anyhow, I am told conditions were pretty tough, high winds.

A 12 hour time trial spaced 4 years apart probably might vary just a tad.

Yes, but, in most instances one might expect one to go slower when comparing performances 4 years apart between age 35 and 39. Pretty rare one sees a 39 yo win the 35-39 age-group.

No indication if the the progress seen in this 4 years has been matched or exceeded by other competitiors.

Probably not "exceeded by others" since he won the championship (when his previous best effort was a 4th place and he has been setting a bunch of course records all season). Further, his distance of over 299 miles has only been exceeded by 3 other participants in the history of the event according to the article.

Arnold covered 299.03 miles in the 12 hours, a distance only bettered by Andy Bason, Andy Wilkinson and Nik Bowdler in previous Championships

Then of course because his evil twin didn't follow the same procedure using normal cranks we have no idea if this is not just normal progression, over 4 years, that any motivated person might expect to see.

Yes, how silly of me to forget that any motivated person might expect to improve from a 23 mph average to a 25 mph average for 12 hours in 4 years of normal training. Done all the time I am sure, if one is properly motivated. Failure to do so simply indicates poor motivation.

Nothing to indicate if he had training with normal cranks that he might have performed better.

You are right, absolutely nothing. If he had trained after his back injury on normal cranks I am sure he could have averaged 26, maybe 27 mph for the 12 hours. Silly me to think that the PC could have possibly played a role in this performance and posting the result in the PC thread.

BCF don't allow riders to compete with independent cranks so as Frank has said himself going from his product to normal cranks harms performance.

Actually, I don't say that at all but you refuse to listen or understand and continue to misrepresent what I do say about the product.

Nibali, just a photo of a Cannondale. Wow, that tells us so much

Hmmmm. a tweet is more than just a photo

Again as Frank has said one needs to carry out total immersion training for 6-9 months to see any real benefit from the cranks,

That is not what I have said at all. I have said that our 40% power improvement claim requires such an intervention. Lots of people have seen improvement on part-time use in shorter periods of time. It is just that those that fail to see improvement almost invariably have used them part-time or gave up on them quickly.

his lame excuse against 5-6 week studies unless they show limited support for his claims,

It is not possible to confirm or refute a claim that requires 6-9 months of immersion use in a study lasting 5-6 weeks of part-time use. The positive studies that have occurred in 5-6 weeks have simply shown changes that can help to explain why the changes we claim might occur (increased efficiency, increase in VO2max).

it is clear from the amount of SRM data available for Nibali that he doesn't do a lot, and no evidence he has actually ridden independent cranks,

Check out the tweet again

Buon giorno, penso che la prima sessione di un'ora con le powercrank può bastare! Tibia li a pezzi! yfrog.com/j2eyyhij

what Frank claims is a necessary amount of independent cranking to see any benefit.

You again are seemingly deliberately misrepresenting what I say. Most new users are starting to see benefit in 6 weeks, even with part-time use (at least those who will benefit from part-time use). It is simply that the more and longer they are used results in larger benefits and for longer distances.

The same waste of time the Mapei guys said of the 1-2 riders who do at their test centre.

Not sure who your Mapei contact is but Mapei has put a lot of riders on the cranks, including P. Bettini. They gave cranks to Bettini at the behest of Dr. Max Testa, for a trial. After a few weeks they asked for them back and he refused. Probably wanted to keep them to use as a paperweight since they are so heavy.

 

[elapid]

tweet[/URL] is more than just a photo

Google translation of Nibali's tweet: Good day, I think the first one-hour session with the powercrank is enough! Tibia them to pieces!

Doesn't sound like Nibali was a fan. He may have purchased them, but he certainly did not train on them for more than an hour. Time to stop using Nibali as your poster child.

 

[FrankDay]

Google translation of Nibali's tweet: Good day, I think the first one-hour session with the powercrank is enough! Tibia them to pieces!

Doesn't sound like Nibali was a fan. He may have purchased them, but he certainly did not train on them for more than an hour. Time to stop using Nibali as your poster child.

Poster child? Simply posting the fact that Nibali has used the product does not make him a poster child.

Anyhow, your interpretation of that translation is not mine. I took it to mean that after about an hour on them he had had "enough" in that his legs were trashed. This is much better than the average first ride which generally lasts between 10-15 minutes before the legs are trashed. Perhaps someone who actually speaks Italian can tell us the real meaning of "Tibia them to pieces!" The fact remains, Nibali has used the product and tweeted about it.

 

[Oldman]

Poster child? Simply posting the fact that Nibali has used the product does not make him a poster child.

Anyhow, your interpretation of that translation is not mine. I took it to mean that after about an hour on them he had had "enough" in that his legs were trashed. This is much better than the average first ride which generally lasts between 10-15 minutes before the legs are trashed. Perhaps someone who actually speaks Italian can tell us the real meaning of "Tibia them to pieces!" The fact remains, Nibali has used the product and tweeted about it.

It's been several months and the same shill....Please feel free to quote me again for my anecdotal experience with shorter cranks: They didn't work for me. My TT time peaked at 172.5mm length on flat to rolling hills. 170mm optimal for hillier, curvier transition courses. Shorter cranks severely limited larger gear size selection and response times to transitions, particularly hills.
Real world, real use and more than an hour.
Quack.

 

[FrankDay]

It's been several months and the same shill....Please feel free to quote me again for my anecdotal experience with shorter cranks: They didn't work for me. My TT time peaked at 172.5mm length on flat to rolling hills. 170mm optimal for hillier, curvier transition courses. Shorter cranks severely limited larger gear size selection and response times to transitions, particularly hills.
Real world, real use and more than an hour.
Quack.

And you posted this shorter cranks anecdote in the PowerCranks thread instead of the crank length thread because…?

 

[Oldman]

And you posted this shorter cranks anecdote in the PowerCranks thread instead of the crank length thread because…?

My mistake. I thought this was the Snake Oil thread.

 

[elapid]

The fact remains, Nibali has used the product and tweeted about it.

Because he used them for an hour and tweeted that that was enough for him, doesn't mean he endorses them. Far from it. You continue to play loosey goosey with your "facts". Add Nibali to the following list of marketing "facts" that you have used to support your product:

1. You can maintain your spinscan results for "many minutes" and this ends up being 2 minutes
2. Your aborted study into PowerCranks involved an undisclosed number of cyclists, which then ended up being 10 cyclists, which then ended up being only 3 cyclists.
3. Your claim of a 40% increase in power being based on 3 cyclists
4. Your claim of a 2-3mph increase in speed being extrapolated from your claim of a 40% increase in power using a computer program

 

[elapid]

My mistake. I thought this was the Snake Oil thread.

It is ... just a different snake oil.

 

[FrankDay]

Because he used them for an hour and tweeted that that was enough for him, doesn't mean he endorses them. Far from it. You continue to play loosey goosey with your "facts". Add Nibali to the following list of marketing "facts" that you have used to support your product:

??? I guess there are several ways one might interpret Nibali's use of the product. We haven't paid him to endorse them, which is true. He decided to use (try?) them without needing to be paid to do so, which is true.

1. You can maintain your spinscan results for "many minutes" and this ends up being 2 minutes

??? My spinscan is pretty much the same as long as I am pedaling.

2. Your aborted study into PowerCranks involved an undisclosed number of cyclists, which then ended up being 10 cyclists, which then ended up being only 3 cyclists.

??? So?

3. Your claim of a 40% increase in power being based on 3 cyclists

Well, that is true initially many many years ago. However, that number continues to be supported though many many customer reports to us.

4. Your claim of a 2-3mph increase in speed being extrapolated from your claim of a 40% increase in power using a computer program

No, not quite. 2-3 mph improvement is what people tend to report. Most of our customers don't have or use power meters so one has to work backwards to calculate what their reported speed improvements mean in power if all else is the same. Here is the report of Phil Holman after 7 months, a naysayer who didn't believe the cranks could do anything and took my challenge to use them exclusively and report his results. In 7 months he increased his speed 2-3 mph and managed to win a bronze medal at track worlds.

5/ My training sessions got faster especially intervals on the track.
My pursuit pace for training improved from last years 30 mph to 32 mph this
summer.

6/ My top speed improved from around 35mph to 38mph.

7/ Although I didn't ride any TTs this year (missed Nats with broken arm) my
30min power workouts on the trainer improved to equal my best ever without
having to do my killer TT intervals.

8/ My AT heart rate improved from my usual (low 150s) to 160.
160 was normally my max yet I was able to sustain it for 30 mins......wow.

It turns out that such reports are commonplace if the people have used the cranks as we suggest for many months even though everyone doesn't see such improvement as some see less and some have even seen more - up to 5 mph (20-25mph) reported. You hear about a couple of anecdotes and think that is all we have. It isn't.

 

[elapid]

Frank, you are your own worst enemy. You are too loose with your "facts" for anyone to take you seriously, as shown above. Anecdotes don't mean anything in this context because you are not following up on all PC users. I know you refuse to do a study on PCs, but you could at least get feedback from of all PC users at regular time intervals. How many have purchased them and used them once, like Nibali? How many have had worse results? How many have had the results you like to report? How long have they used them for? etc etc. I doubt that you'll do anything like this, despite how easy it is, because you'd much rather live in your happy little biased world where positive anecdotes mean everything and negative anecdotes can be explained away and where you're too scared to do anything scientific because it may contradict the lovely little anecdotes that you have.

 

[FrankDay]

Frank, you are your own worst enemy. You are too loose with your "facts" for anyone to take you seriously, as shown above. Anecdotes don't mean anything in this context because you are not following up on all PC users. I know you refuse to do a study on PCs, but you could at least get feedback from of all PC users at regular time intervals. How many have purchased them and used them once, like Nibali?

Nibali used them only once? Did he tell you that? (edit: doesn't it seem a little strange that he would only use them once but still keep them on a bike he took to training camp as mentioned in that article I linked to but that the moderator deleted for some reason)

How many have had worse results?

Not many I suspect or I think they would be populating these forums. As I said, 1-2 in 1,000 send them back for their moneyback in 90 days. Of those, most tell me that they are too hard for them and they take the fun out of cycling, not that they don't work. (edit: I can hear the thought process now: "These are making me slower but I think I would rather Frank keep my $1,000 so he will think these are better than they really are.")

How many have had the results you like to report? How long have they used them for? etc etc. I doubt that you'll do anything like this, despite how easy it is, because you'd much rather live in your happy little biased world where positive anecdotes mean everything and negative anecdotes can be explained away and where you're too scared to do anything scientific because it may contradict the lovely little anecdotes that you have.

I try to get as much feedback from as many as I can. For those who report little or no benefit when possible I question them to see if I can learn anything that might explain why. I try to see what sets those apart that get great results from those that don't? The one thing I have learned is the more you use them the more likely you are to see the big benefits. The other thing I have learned is that ego seems to be the big obstacle to getting better in many in that these people (especially the good ones) cannot stand the fact that the cranks make them slower for a period and they simply cannot stand not going out with their friends every weekend and kicking but* on those hammerfests. They "race" themselves every workout and such an approach inhibits their growth. edit: these folks tend to use them 1-2 per week, never develop the ability to ride them for more than 1-2 hours, and then stop using them whether they have seen improvement or not and if they have seen improvement they never credit the PC's as having done anything.

One thing that sets me apart from you is I have actually talked to hundreds, if not thousands of users and gotten their feedback. I actually care about helping those who purchase the product getting the most out of it. One learns as much from those who get poor results as from those who get great results. Hence, my recommendations have evolved to what they are. You, on the other hand, have zero personal experience with the product, and little or no experience with people who have used the product. You think you know what you are talking about and you don't. Watch the video(s) on the web page of users talking about their experience and results and then compare it to your database.

 

[CoachFergie]

Frank, you are your own worst enemy. You are too loose with your "facts" for anyone to take you seriously, as shown above. Anecdotes don't mean anything in this context because you are not following up on all PC users. I know you refuse to do a study on PCs, but you could at least get feedback from of all PC users at regular time intervals. How many have purchased them and used them once, like Nibali? How many have had worse results? How many have had the results you like to report? How long have they used them for? etc etc. I doubt that you'll do anything like this, despite how easy it is, because you'd much rather live in your happy little biased world where positive anecdotes mean everything and negative anecdotes can be explained away and where you're too scared to do anything scientific because it may contradict the lovely little anecdotes that you have.

Lets face it, 13 years of this nonsense. Frank is never going to change, why bother. Block him like I have and report spam when he posts it.

Have submitted my thesis so we will have some good power meter discussions coming soon!