The Powercrank Thread

[Alex Simmons/RST]

No, the power meter alone cannot pick up improvements due to aerodynamics. If the power doesn't change that is all the power meter knows. One needs a different metric to pick up aero improvements, something like speed also.

Yep, everyone has power meters that don't also record speed.

So, yes, the power meter can help one to understand why one is faster (power or aero) but does knowing that bit of trivia make one whit of difference when it comes to racing? No.

Well, yes, it does actually. But going there of course is just you taking us off-topic.

One doesn't need a power meter to know one is improving, a stopwatch works fine for that.

The stopwatch can give a completely false impression on performance. Without context, going on time alone can be most misleading. Again, just correcting your error, not wishing to take this off-topic.

 

[CoachFergie]

When testing the efficacy of independent cranks power offers us the ability to compare different rides or different riders.

Even on the same course with the same rider in the same position the stopwatch doesn't tell you how hard the rider is going on each ride, how strong the wind was, where it was coming from, if it was wet or dry, what the temperature was, what cadence was used for either ride.

Without this information or a power meter the comparison of two rides using time or speed is meaningless.

 

[FrankDay]

As a rabid long term power meter user I've had the opportunity to look at my pedaling patten for the past 20 years and by gosh I hardly coast at all. Now that I'm in my 60s I'll let off the gas when the down grade helps me hit 40+mph and there is the occasional stop sign or light but coast through turns?????? Who does that unless they're 180s? A typical 3 hour ride for me will yield on the order of 3 minutes coasting time.

I am not sure you understand the term rest or not but "letting off the gas" is more "resting" than what I was doing before when "coasting" but also trying to unweight the saddle. A mechanical engineer would determine that an engine is most efficient if held at the same power for long periods vs always changing power. Car engines do not get more powerful if you give them a bit of a rest. That isn't the same for biological engines, such as muscles. If they are used constantly they deteriorate. If they are rested they improve. Being a power meter advocate I am sure you are aware of the concept of normalized power, which tries to account for this biological issue. Whether I am coasting or you are "letting off the gas" we are both "resting" the muscles with the hope that they will perform better after the rest. We are just doing it differently (as I had a secondary purpose of relieving my bum a bit and I determined that I wasn't resting the muscles as well as I could have.) So, I don't care who you are, you vary your power (unconsciously or not) some to optimize your performance. The problem is no one knows the best way to do this. The power meter certainly doesn't tell you this. Try to maintain a constant power and you will hurt your power (that is what NP tells you) but that is what many coaches who use a pm tell their clients that is what they are supposed to do.

I'd be a bit careful raising your saddle so you can lock out your legs. A high saddle can irritate the heck out of you IT band as well as decrease seat comfort.....oh that's what you're already lacking....hmmmmmmm. I'd have thought you'd already have a cast iron **** after all the years you've spent on PCs.

You would have thought, especially with the thick skin I have developed being on some of these internet discussions. Anyhow, one should always be aware of one change in bike fit to solve one problem causing another. Thanks for the tip.

One other problem created by hyper extending an cyclist's leg is the reduction of their ability to roll their pelvis forward due to increase tension on their hamstrings. The upshot this reduced anterior pelvic tilt being a more upright and probably less aero position. Short cranks do not alleviate this problem as it occurs at the bottom of the stroke.

Didn't seem to be an issue for me.

Oh, My point- After all the time you've spent talking about using more muscles for more of the pedal stroke suddenly you seem to be advocating not even pedaling for a significant portion of the time and coasting instead.
One would think that strategy might knock the heck out of your 40% improvement???

As I said above, you don't have a particularly good concept of rest improving muscle performance. No one knows what the best method of "resting" during a performance is to obtain maximal performance. My method is simply different than yours and what I found (and reported on) was my previous method (coasting but still using the muscles to unweight the saddle) was less effective than my new method (coasting but "locking the knees" to unweight), even dramatically so. I think it showed that working on developing a better "rest" pattern might have dramatic benefits to power overall.

But, if you believe that constant pedaling and maintaining high power during the entire ride is the best approach I say go for it. Good luck!

 

[FrankDay]

As a rabid long term power meter user I've had the opportunity to look at my pedaling patten for the past 20 years and by gosh I hardly coast at all. Now that I'm in my 60s I'll let off the gas when the down grade helps me hit 40+mph and there is the occasional stop sign or light but coast through turns?????? Who does that unless they're 180s? A typical 3 hour ride for me will yield on the order of 3 minutes coasting time.

I am not sure you understand the term rest or not but "letting off the gas" is more "resting" than what I was doing before when "coasting" but also trying to unweight the saddle. A mechanical engineer would determine that an engine is most efficient if held at the same power for long periods vs always changing power. Car engines do not get more powerful if you give them a bit of a rest. That isn't the same for biological engines, such as muscles. If they are used constantly they deteriorate. If they are rested they improve. Whether I am coasting or you are "letting off the gas" we are both "resting" the muscles with the hope that they will perform better after the rest. We are just doing it differently (as I had a secondary purpose of relieving my bum a bit and I determined that I wasn't resting the muscles as well as I could have.) So, I don't care who you are, you vary your power (unconsciously or not) some to optimize your performance. Do you "save yourself" on a downhill to be ready to hammer the soon to be seen uphill? Of course you do. The problem is no one knows the best way to do this. The power meter certainly doesn't tell you this. Try to maintain a constant power and you will hurt your performance.

I'd be a bit careful raising your saddle so you can lock out your legs. A high saddle can irritate the heck out of you IT band as well as decrease seat comfort.....oh that's what you're already lacking....hmmmmmmm. I'd have thought you'd already have a cast iron **** after all the years you've spent on PCs.

You would have thought (except I did start by saying that what I had to say would probably not mean a lot to people who hadn't spent any time training on the cranks which, I believe, includes you), especially with the thick skin I have developed being on some of these internet discussions. Anyhow, one should always be aware of one change in bike fit to solve one problem causing another. Thanks for the tip.

One other problem created by hyper extending an cyclist's leg is the reduction of their ability to roll their pelvis forward due to increase tension on their hamstrings. The upshot this reduced anterior pelvic tilt being a more upright and probably less aero position. Short cranks do not alleviate this problem as it occurs at the bottom of the stroke.

Didn't seem to be an issue for me.

Oh, My point- After all the time you've spent talking about using more muscles for more of the pedal stroke suddenly you seem to be advocating not even pedaling for a significant portion of the time and coasting instead.
One would think that strategy might knock the heck out of your 40% improvement???

As I said above, you don't have a particularly good concept of rest improving muscle performance. No one knows what the best method of "resting" during a performance is to obtain maximal performance (it is probably course specific and will also vary a lot based upon the specific fitness of the individual). Muscles perform better after a period of rest. More rest, better performance. Less rest, more fatigue, less performance. My method is simply different than yours and what I found (and reported on) was my previous method (coasting but still using the muscles to unweight the saddle) was less effective in resting the muscles (hurting performance it seems) than my new method (coasting but "locking the knees" to unweight), even dramatically so. I think it showed that working on developing a better "rest" pattern might have dramatic benefits to power overall. My guess is the lesser trained the more rest one needs to improve performance, just look at the effective Galloway method of improving marathon times in lesser trained individuals (run 50 walk 50) which isn't particularly effective for those hoping to win the Olympics. So, what is best for you may not be best for me although I am sure it is possible for me to improve more.

But, if you believe that constant pedaling and maintaining high power during the entire ride is the best approach for you I say go for it. Good luck!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

The problem is no one knows the best way to do this. The power meter certainly doesn't tell you this.

I wouldn't be so sure that no one knows how to address the issue of the pacing challenge with the aid of power meter data. Certainly I've studied it, and I'm sure not alone in that regard.

And of all the successful TT rider files I've assessed, where there is no requirement to stop pedalling, none of them do.

Try to maintain a constant power and you will hurt your performance.

To quote right back at you: and your evidence for this is?

It's rhetorical BTW.

There are many riders for whom near steady state / constant power output is a very successful strategy (on courses where that's appropriate).

 

[coapman]

Try to maintain a constant power and you will hurt your performance.

The opposite applied to Anquetil in TT's.

 

[CoachFergie]

I wouldn't be so sure that no one knows how to address the issue of the pacing challenge with the aid of power meter data. Certainly I've studied it, and I'm sure not alone in that regard.

And of all the successful TT rider files I've assessed, where there is no requirement to stop pedalling, none of them do.


To quote right back at you: and your evidence for this is?

It's rhetorical BTW.

There are many riders for whom near steady state / constant power output is a very successful strategy (on courses where that's appropriate).

Frank hanging himself again admitting that there may something other than the product he is spamming here that may have affected the outcome of a riders time on two different days.

Now we can easily measure anaerobic work capacity and it's balance during a ride the power meter offers us another way to visualise a timed event. My observations match the numerous studies showing an even pace is optimal when the course suits. Thanks to recording power meter data I would suggest this applies even to very short timed events like the flying 200m or Kilo although the literature suggests otherwise.

 

[FrankDay]

I wouldn't be so sure that no one knows how to address the issue of the pacing challenge with the aid of power meter data. Certainly I've studied it, and I'm sure not alone in that regard.

Lots of people think they know what is best. There is simply no evidence that what they think to be best actually is.

And of all the successful TT rider files I've assessed, where there is no requirement to stop pedalling, none of them do.

Really, even on a hilly course? Anyhow, there is no requirement that they pedal continuously either. And, I suspect that most of the files you analyze are from riders who are on the pointy end of the fitness spectrum where full rests may not be as useful to a best performance.

To quote right back at you: and your evidence for this is?

It is simply an extrapolation from what is known about muscle physiology.

It's rhetorical BTW.

There are many riders for whom near steady state / constant power output is a very successful strategy (on courses where that's appropriate).

My guess is that might very well be the best strategy for a very fit individual on a flat, non-windy, course. That having been said, "very successful" is not evidence that the strategy cannot be improved upon. If one doesn't look for a better way one will never find a better way.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Lots of people think they know what is best. There is simply no evidence that what they think to be best actually is.Really, even on a hilly course? Anyhow, there is no requirement that they pedal continuously either. And, I suspect that most of the files you analyze are from riders who are on the pointy end of the fitness spectrum where full rests may not be as useful to a best performance. It is simply an extrapolation from what is known about muscle physiology.My guess is that might very well be the best strategy for a very fit individual on a flat, non-windy, course. That having been said, "very successful" is not evidence that the strategy cannot be improved upon. If one doesn't look for a better way one will never find a better way.

Your illogic is impeccable.

 

[CoachFergie]

Your illogic is impeccable.

Sarcasm?

(10 letters)

 

[sciguy]

If one doesn't look for a better way one will never find a better way.

It sounds like you think a strategy where one alternates pedaling more intensely with coasting makes the most sense for many compared to a strategy where one rides with an even intensity. The obvious problem with that is that muscles use glycogen at rates that increase exponentially with intensity so even a slight increase in intensity during your pedaling phase gobbles up a disproportionate amount of scarce glycogen compared to riding the same overall average intensity continuously without large variations.

Additionally, standing there with your knees locked out doesn't sound to be a very effective rest strategy. Venous return is greatly aided by the muscular contraction. Locked legs just aren't going to help with that at all.

How do you plan to pace Challenge Atlantic City? RPE? Heart Rate? Prayer?

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

It sounds like you think a strategy where one alternates pedaling more intensely with coasting makes the most sense for many compared to a strategy where one rides with an even intensity. The obvious problem with that is that muscles use glycogen at rates that increase exponentially with intensity so even a slight increase in intensity during your pedaling phase gobbles up a disproportionate amount of scarce glycogen compared to riding the same overall average intensity continuously without large variations.

Additionally, standing there with your knees locked out doesn't sound to be a very effective rest strategy. Venous return is greatly aided by the muscular contraction. Locked legs just aren't going to help with that at all.

How do you plan to pace Challenge Atlantic City? RPE? Heart Rate? Prayer?

Hugh

I think the smartest strategy is for each person to figure out what the best strategy for them is based on their capability and the race course. The best strategy for you is probably not the best strategy for me, especially if you think it is possible for me to exactly figure out what I will be able to maintain for the next 6 hours or so in the first mile or so of the race and then maintain that effort without any variation, even though the aid stations. I am simply not that good nor experienced. Good luck to you and anyone else who thinks that is possible.

The observation remains that I gained 1 mph when I changed my bike fit to allow my legs to coast/rest in a different fashion. I don't see 2-3-4 seconds of locked knees being much of an issue regarding venous return. If I pass out because of this at least I will be closer to the finish line when it happens. Again, you have zero experience with the PowerCranks. You don't have a clue what I am talking about. Why don't you just let it go?

I will do Atlantic City RPE. I will monitor HR to keep it below a certain level for the first half of the race or so but for racing RPE is king in my book. I hope to have the iCranks on the bike (if they have their head unit ready) to gather power and technique data (so I can analyze how my technique changed as I get tired for educational purposes) but I won't use the number for anything during the race.

 

[sciguy]

I think the smartest strategy is for each person to figure out what the best strategy for them is based on their capability and the race course.

A basic understanding of exercise physiology would tell us that a strategy of constant surging would not be ideal for anyone.

The best strategy for you is probably not the best strategy for me,

Actually I'd contend that the best strategy for both of us would be very similar with the only difference being that I'd work to maintain a somewhat higher average wattage yet quite similar intensity say on the order of 72% of my FTP if not concerned about running a marathon afterwards.

especially if you think it is possible for me to exactly figure out what I will be able to maintain for the next 6 hours or so in the first mile or so of the race and then maintain that effort without any variation, even though the aid stations. I am simply not that good nor experienced. Good luck to you and anyone else who thinks that is possible.

With a some good testing during your longer training rides you should have a pretty darn good idea of the wattage you can hold for 6 hours.....especially if some of your rides are 6 hours or longer. With that knowledge you could easily formulate a pacing strategy that might well include starting a bit conservatively for the first half of the ride and bumping up from there for the last half if things are going well. You might ask Sam Glyde about this as he and his coach seem to have worked on power pacing strategies.

The observation remains that I gained 1 mph when I changed my bike fit to allow my legs to coast/rest in a different fashion. I don't see 2-3-4 seconds of locked knees being much of an issue regarding venous return.

The fact remains that you had a single ride where you went faster than normal but have no way of knowing the root cause as you weren't measuring power. The wind or a host of other environmental factors may have been much more ideal that day than normal but without more data we'll never know if you put out more power due to your new coasting technique or not.

Again, you have zero experience with the PowerCranks. You don't have a clue what I am talking about. Why don't you just let it go?

Well I've talked to a good number amateurs as well as a couple of pros who have used them and found them to be a waste of time at best and a negative influence at worst. I was lucky enough to spend time with Pete Jacobs as we both waited for a flight out of Kona back in 2012 and surprisingly he gave his very short term usage of Powercranks absolutely no credit for his success in winning that year despite your trumpeting of it on your web site as if his use of PCs were the reason for his success..... At least you took down the congratulations on your web page after he chewed you out via twitter. When I asked another pro triathlete who is a former PC user why more pros don't call you out for implying their success is due to using PCs and he told me that Pros have to be very careful about never being seen biting the hand that feeds them ....sponsors.....so most just keep their mouths shut. Pete obviously is a bit more outspoken.

 

[elapid]

The best strategy for you is probably not the best strategy for me, especially if you think it is possible for me to exactly figure out what I will be able to maintain for the next 6 hours or so in the first mile or so of the race and then maintain that effort without any variation, even though the aid stations.

I thought you claimed that you could maintain your pedalling technique for "many minutes" (which later turned out to be two minutes) and saw no problem with holding this form for 2 hours. Now you're saying that you cannot work out in the first mile what you would be able to maintain over the next 6 hours? Make up your mind, Frank.

I suspect my technique looks pretty much the same after 2 hours as it does after 2 minutes..

 

[FrankDay]

A basic understanding of exercise physiology would tell us that a strategy of constant surging would not be ideal for anyone.

I guess it depends upon what you mean by constant surging. I don't mean constant surging, what I mean is short regular rests for recovery. Of course that involves some speed variation but those occur normally anyhow as few are able to maintain constant power and few still pedal constantly for 6 hours. You don't seem to understand that riding PowerCranks is nothing like riding regular cranks. One can rest on regular cranks by soft pedaling. That really isn't possible on PowerCranks. It is possible to soft pedal on the downstroke but it isn't possible to soft pedal on the upstroke. If one wants to give the upstroke muscles a rest one needs to stop pedaling. Of course you have never used them so you don't have a clue what is going on. What I observed was a 1 mph speed improvement when I endeavored to improve the rest I obtained during my pauses.

Actually I'd contend that the best strategy for both of us would be very similar with the only difference being that I'd work to maintain a somewhat higher average wattage yet quite similar intensity say on the order of 72% of my FTP if not concerned about running a marathon afterwards.

I will tell you what, you get on a pair of PowerCranks and let's see how you do. Right now you have no trouble pedaling constantly for hours on end. If you are like most people you won't be able to pedal for more than a minute at a time without resting and 10-15 minutes and your legs will be toast. Tell me your best strategy then for going 10 miles. It sure as heck isn't going to be pedaling constantly for 10 miles when you can't physically do it for 1 minute. As I said, you don't have a clue what is going on here yet you are willing to join the peanut gallery and comment.

With a some good testing during your longer training rides you should have a pretty darn good idea of the wattage you can hold for 6 hours.....especially if some of your rides are 6 hours or longer. With that knowledge you could easily formulate a pacing strategy that might well include starting a bit conservatively for the first half of the ride and bumping up from there for the last half if things are going well. You might ask Sam Glyde about this as he and his coach seem to have worked on power pacing strategies.

Well, I am working on it. But, the longest ride to date is 3 hours. I understand pacing as in the old days I was a reasonably experienced ultrarunner. The problem is to understand pacing one needs to understand ones capabilities and right now I don't have a good handle on mine. I don't quite understand why you think you have a better handle on my capabilities than I do.

The fact remains that you had a single ride where you went faster than normal but have no way of knowing the root cause as you weren't measuring power. The wind or a host of other environmental factors may have been much more ideal that day than normal but without more data we'll never know if you put out more power due to your new coasting technique or not.

If you will read the original post I recognize that there could be several possible explanations. However, based upon my experience I surmised that power improvement was the primary explanation.

Well I've talked to a good number amateurs as well as a couple of pros who have used them and found them to be a waste of time at best and a negative influence at worst. I was lucky enough to spend time with Pete Jacobs as we both waited for a flight out of Kona back in 2012 and surprisingly he gave his very short term usage of Powercranks absolutely no credit for his success in winning that year despite your trumpeting of it on your web site as if his use of PCs were the reason for his success..... At least you took down the congratulations on your web page after he chewed you out via twitter. When I asked another pro triathlete who is a former PC user why more pros don't call you out for implying their success is due to using PCs and he told me that Pros have to be very careful about never being seen biting the hand that feeds them ....sponsors.....so most just keep their mouths shut. Pete obviously is a bit more outspoken.

LOL. Details please. Why aren't they posting here to tell their story. My guess is these are people who used them part-time and never got through the transition. They are probably too embarrassed to come here and state they didn't have the ego strength or fortitude to use them as required to see improvement. Of course, unless they come here and post themselves we will never know. And, I don't think this is the forum to bring up pros and what they say or don't say about them. Why can't you restrict yourself to talk about your own personal experience or thoughts? Invoking "authority" to make a point is a sure sign of a weak argument.

 

[FrankDay]

I thought you claimed that you could maintain your pedalling technique for "many minutes" (which later turned out to be two minutes) and saw no problem with holding this form for 2 hours. Now you're saying that you cannot work out in the first mile what you would be able to maintain over the next 6 hours? Make up your mind, Frank.

Huh? What are you talking about. I said "I suspect" my form doesn't change much over 2 hours. I certainly did not mean to imply after 2 hours of constant pedaling at power but, rather, 2 hours of pedaling as I do, with occasional very short coasting rests. Of course, I can't prove it because I can't measure it. Hopefully, that is about to change.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

So you ride cranks that even at a modest IM pace fatigue you so much that you to have to stop pedalling every couple of minutes to recover.

 

[CoachFergie]

So you ride cranks that even at a modest IM pace fatigue you so much that you to have to stop pedalling every couple of minutes to recover.

Not that surprising seeing Frank has admitted that a rider training on his product performs worse in competition when they go back to normal cranks.

Specifamicity!!!

 

[FrankDay]

So you ride cranks that even at a modest IM pace fatigue you so much that you to have to stop pedalling every couple of minutes to recover.

What may be a modest ironman pace seems like a good ironman pace to me, based on my current condition, and to most of the other people who are my age, it seems. In fact, I think it is pretty good for someone who has been training less than 10 hours a week. Exactly what is your problem other than you need to find fault with me somehow?

Anyhow, my technique is what I have determined is best for me - a person who is going to be racing on PowerCranks because he believes that will be best for him also. I really think that if you want me to listen to you that it would probably be best if you had actually spent a substantial amount of time training on the device to the point that you also were capable of racing on the device such that you could give me what works best for you and why.

 

[FrankDay]

Not that surprising seeing Frank has admitted that a rider training on his product performs worse in competition when they go back to normal cranks.

Specifamicity!!!

Spacifamicity indeed. Those riders should be racing the way they train, on PowerCranks. They are faster than if they had not trained on the tool at all but not as fast as they could/would be if they raced on the PC's. I don't intend to make that mistake.

 

[42x16ss]

I guess it depends upon what you mean by constant surging. I don't mean constant surging, what I mean is short regular rests for recovery.

I'm pretty certain that's what constant surging actually is Frank.

Right now you have no trouble pedaling constantly for hours on end. If you are like most people you won't be able to pedal for more than a minute at a time without resting and 10-15 minutes and your legs will be toast. Tell me your best strategy then for going 10 miles. It sure as heck isn't going to be pedaling constantly for 10 miles when you can't physically do it for 1 minute.

MY strategy would be to not race with such a stupid set of cranks, so that I can pedal for the duration of the race and still be physically capable of running, not tiring myself out 10-15 mins in.

My guess is these are people who used them part-time and never got through the transition. They are probably too embarrassed to come here and state they didn't have the ego strength or fortitude to use them as required to see improvement.

My guess would be that their race bike, equipped and provided by the team doesn't have independant cranks and the athletes in question realised that it's probably smartest to train on what they race.

 

[FrankDay]

I'm pretty certain that's what constant surging actually is Frank.

I don't as a surge involves a STRONG, wavelike forward movement, or speed change. Constant surging would be repeated such actions interspersed with substantial lulls.

surge
[surj] Show IPA
noun
1. a strong, wavelike, forward movement, rush, or sweep: the onward surge of an angry mob.
2. a strong, swelling, wavelike volume or body of something: a billowing surge of smoke.
3. the rolling swell of the sea.
4. the swelling and rolling sea: The surge crashed against the rocky coast.
5. a swelling wave; billow. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surge

I think this is another way to describe what many climbers do when attacking on climbs. This is not what I do. What I do hardly involves any speed changes at all. A couple of seconds of low power (even zero power) doesn't result in much of a speed change at 20 mph on the flat (it would if I did this while climbing, which I don't). I have no trouble doing this, and maintaining contact when in the back of a group. Of course, I don't do it when in the front of the group and people are relying on my maintaining constant speed/power while there.

MY strategy would be to not race with such a stupid set of cranks, so that I can pedal for the duration of the race and still be physically capable of running, not tiring myself out 10-15 mins in.

That would be my strategy also if I had never trained on them. You are welcome to your strategy, I think I will stay with mine.

My guess would be that their race bike, equipped and provided by the team doesn't have independant cranks and the athletes in question realised that it's probably smartest to train on what they race.

Perhaps. Or course, not all athletes in that position reach the same conclusion. So, which ones are the smart ones? The ones who stayed with them long enough to see benefit and are winning the championships (need to see a list) or those who decided to train the way they race?

 

[FrankDay]

So you ride cranks that even at a modest IM pace fatigue you so much that you to have to stop pedalling every couple of minutes to recover.

Here is the issue that you have to deal with using your "constant" pedaling technique and not worrying about training the backstroke, fatigue and loss of pedaling efficiency as one gets tired as found by Sanderson and Black. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0264041031000071010#.U3oc2S_DbOU
Check out figure 1 from this study.

Note that the area that the major deterioration, as one fatigues, is during the backstroke, probably because that is the part that people ignore in their training. This group had hypothesized that pedaling efficiency would improve as people got tired (why they thought that is beyond me) but they found the opposite.

I wonder how one might train that area such that it doesn't lose effectiveness as one tires? I wonder if there might be a racing strategy that helped reduce that deterioration as one got tired? All of your guessing as to the best way to race is a big hoot. I may not be correct either but I, at least, have some science to back up my thoughts.

Why one would want to pedal at reduced effectiveness during the most important part of most races (the last 10%) is beyond me. But, you are the one making that choice, not me.

 

[sciguy]

I'm pretty certain that's what constant surging actually is Frank.

I don't as a surge involves a STRONG, wavelike forward movement, or speed change. Constant surging would be repeated such actions interspersed with substantial lulls.

Franks it's your power that is surging when you pedal harder for 30 to 90 seconds then coast for 5 seconds. It's the surging of power that influences glycogen usage rather than anything to do with the speed.

Time for another anecdotal report that might shed some light on the practicality of competing on Powercranks at low wattages.

I recently asked long time Powercranker Devashish Paul the following question.

Dev,

How does riding Powercranks noodling around at 150 watts feel to you compared to riding fixed cranks at the same wattage?

Dev's reply:

150W on powercranks just feels a lot harder than 150W on conventional cranks. In the end they are less efficient in terms of the real work your body is doing versus putting power to the road so of course, they should feel harder which they do.

So here is a long time user and advocate of Powercranks who feels that when you are using them you are less efficient particularly at lower power outputs. Dev still thinks that training with Powercranks has helped him and he continues to use them.

From your experience needing to coast every 30 to 90 seconds it would seem you're finally seeing that your hip flexors aren't up to the task despite years and years of 90 to 95 spinscans.

I'll freely admit to have zero hours on Powercranks but can turn around to tell you that I spent hundreds of hours doing one legged drills back in the early 70s and umpteen hours working to drive my spinscan to higher and higher numbers when Computrainer first came out. The interesting thing is that when I began to correlate spinscan with my sustainable power they two were distinctly inversely proportional. The fibers of the muscles we use to do situps are predominantly of the fast twitch variety and because of that not well suited to endurance feats.

 

[sciguy]

The ones who stayed with them long enough to see benefit and are winning the championships (need to see a list) or those who decided to train the way they race?

I'd love to see some current feedback from those you list on your web page as to how much they have used PCs in the last year. The act of sending a free set of PCs off to someone does not ensure that the box ever gets opened let alone is used for 10,000 hours.


Hugh