pealling push up push down

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Frank, if a circular and a stomper rider unweighted their pedals, who would be fastest in a 4K pursuit, both riders of equal fitness etc.





I don't see any restriction on the average power in this question, the fastest rider is the one who can produce the greatest average power. The problem with using the dead spot area for pedal power production is that unless you can make it part of your main power stroke (not impossible), as cadence increases effective power decreases rapidly, you do not have time for all the varying directions through which you are applying the power. It is more beneficial to concentrate on the main power stroke. This 40 % improvement, in what part of the pedal stroke does this take place?

First, understand that a 40% increase in power is only a 2-3 mph speed increase for almost everyone. So, we are not talking about unobtainable speeds.


To clarify, and put into perspective, the approximate increase in power from taking rH-Epo is < ~10%. Thus, 40% increase in power is absolutely *HUGE*.


Our "typical" user who can expect to gain that much is almost every triathlete except the very elite and most cyclists from Cat 2 or 3 down.


In the elite cyclists e.g., those who are Div1 pros, what would you suggest is their likely potential for increasing power output, with your cranks?

Taking your "typical" rider, a 68 - 70 kg male cat 2 or 3 rider can typically sustain ~300 W for a 40-km TT. Therefore, a 40% increase in power would take that rider from ~300 W to ~420 W. To explain what that means, it would mean that an "average" racer would go from being "average" to being "world class". At 420 W and at that mass, the rider would likely place in the first ten at the Tour de France or similar.

I seem to recall that your product has been available for some time, certainly longer than the 6 to 9 months for the exclusive use of the Power Cranks that's needed to get the ~40% increase in power (as you suggested). I *think* your product has been available since the late 90's, i.e., at least six years (i'm prepared to be corrected on this). I would therefore have thought that someone, somewhere in the many people that have purchased your cranks have correctly and exclusively used your cranks?

Surely, out of these exclusive users at least one person is a "typical cyclist" and has gained this ~40%. Can you identify which one of these "typical cyclists" is now riding the Tour de France or similar and placing highly. I'm not talking about the pros that use your product but one of the "typical cyclists" (i.e., a cat 2 or 3) who has gained the 40%.

Someone, somewhere who is a "typical cyclist" must have gained this 40% and be world class now.

Ric

I don't see any restriction on the average power in this question, the fastest rider is the one who can produce the greatest average power. The problem with using the dead spot area for pedal power production is that unless you can make it part of your main power stroke (not impossible), as cadence increases effective power decreases rapidly, you do not have time for all the varying directions through which you are applying the power. It is more beneficial to concentrate on the main power stroke. This 40 % improvement, in what part of the pedal stroke does this take place?

I thought you asked me who would win between two riders who were equivalent in all ways except for pedaling style, which I would presume meant they had equal average power output. If you are changing the requirements, assuming equal aerodynamics, the rider producing enough more power (enough to overcome any efficiency differences) will win, regardless of style, as demonstrated by the Coyle study.

The 40% improvement probably is a summation of many small improvements that are occuring throughout the pedal stroke. No one has studied this question yet to answer where this is occurring. I am only confident in stating that, on average, it does.

I don't know why you would say if one is interested in improvement it is more beneficial to concentrate on the "main power stroke" over reducing inefficiencies when there is essentially no data to support that view. People may say that is what the Coyle study showed, but it did not. It looked at end differences in the pre-PC era, not what is the best method of improvement.

To clarify, and put into perspective, the approximate increase in power from taking rH-Epo is < ~10%. Thus, 40% increase in power is absolutely *HUGE*.

I agree.

In the elite cyclists e.g., those who are Div1 pros, what would you suggest is their likely potential for increasing power output, with your cranks?

I think it would depend upon their pedaling style and inefficiencies now. Those who are more inefficient will have more potential to gain. Inefficiencies can be measured but most don't know what their real inefficiencies are so they will not know what the potential is until they get on them. Those who get on and are riding for 2 hours in the aero postition within a week will see smaller gains than those who get on and their first ride ends in 20 minutes. That much variation exists in the Div 1 pros. So, I would say power increase potential could be as low as 5-10% in the first group and around 20% in the second. Another thing, is these individuals are unlikely to see these improvements in just 6-9 months because of the type of racing they do and few of them are using the PC's exclusively, which is what such improvements take.


Taking your "typical" rider, a 68 - 70 kg male cat 2 or 3 rider can typically sustain ~300 W for a 40-km TT. Therefore, a 40% increase in power would take that rider from ~300 W to ~420 W. To explain what that means, it would mean that an "average" racer would go from being "average" to being "world class". At 420 W and at that mass, the rider would likely place in the first ten at the Tour de France or similar.

I seem to recall that your product has been available for some time, certainly longer than the 6 to 9 months for the exclusive use of the Power Cranks that's needed to get the ~40% increase in power (as you suggested). I *think* your product has been available since the late 90's, i.e., at least six years (i'm prepared to be corrected on this). I would therefore have thought that someone, somewhere in the many people that have purchased your cranks have correctly and exclusively used your cranks?

Surely, out of these exclusive users at least one person is a "typical cyclist" and has gained this ~40%. Can you identify which one of these "typical cyclists" is now riding the Tour de France or similar and placing highly. I'm not talking about the pros that use your product but one of the "typical cyclists" (i.e., a cat 2 or 3) who has gained the 40%.

Someone, somewhere who is a "typical cyclist" must have gained this 40% and be world class now.

Ric

Doing well in a 40K TT and being capable of riding at the highest level at the TDF are completely different things and you know it. Many users have jumped from amateur to pro or improved substantially as pros. Names that come immediately to mind are Jurgen Van deWalle, and Todd Herriot who went from being an amateur to winning the Univega Grand Prix and Tour of Cuba then achieved his dream and became a first time Pro when over 30 years old (Health Net, still riding for Colavita). Brian Sheedy is another who has done pretty well since getting on them. Many pro triathletes (many more of whom use them exclusively in training) have taken 30 minutes off their IM bike splits which calculates to about 40% power improvement.

You may think such improvements are impossible. Well, they most certainly are if you do not try.

Doing well in a 40K TT and being capable of riding at the highest level at the TDF are completely different things and you know it.

i'm sorry, you're wrong. If your typical cyclist weighing 68 - 70 kg, suddenly (~9 months) improves from 300 to 420 W for a TT, he'd be very capable of being up there in the TdF. Such an increase in power is huge, and anyone that truly increased that amount from a "typical" cyclist standing of ~ 300 W to 420 W would stick out like a sore thumb.

Ric

The 40% improvement probably is a summation of many small improvements that are occuring throughout the pedal stroke. No one has studied this question yet to answer where this is occurring. I am only confident in stating that, on average, it does.Among users of your cranks, is there a correlation between rate of improvement and FT at the outset? Specifically, if you limit the users to those who had FTs ~300w when they began using your cranks, have they averaged a 40% improvement? BTW, if your users have experienced an average of 40%, some of them must have experienced really huge improvements (e.g., 60-80%) to offset those who realize only 10-20% improvement.

i'm sorry, you're wrong. If your typical cyclist weighing 68 - 70 kg, suddenly (~9 months) improves from 300 to 420 W for a TT, he'd be very capable of being up there in the TdF. Such an increase in power is huge, and anyone that truly increased that amount from a "typical" cyclist standing of ~ 300 W to 420 W would stick out like a sore thumb.

Ric

I disagree. A one hour effort and a 21 day effort are two completely different things and requires completely different training and endurance bases. One cannot prepare unused muscles for a world-class effort in a 21 day event on 6-9 months training. That is why we couch that the improvement generally seen in that period of time is for reasonable distances. It would take several years to get the base for these new muscles up to speed for a TDF type of effort. Our ultra-cyclist users are generally not reporting such huge power increases for the full distance but, rather, are reporting less fatigue associated with these efforts. A few though have reported substantial power improvements after several years including Shana Armstrong (who won the Mixed 2 person division at RAAM this year despite here partner being sick and she having to ride about 70% of the distance, then she turned around and won the Ultraman World Championship a month ago despite still being a little tired from her RAAM effort) and Kenneth Philbrick, winner of Race Across Oregon last year. Would you consider them world class?

Among users of your cranks, is there a correlation between rate of improvement and FT at the outset? Specifically, if you limit the users to those who had FTs ~300w when they began using your cranks, have they averaged a 40% improvement? BTW, if your users have experienced an average of 40%, some of them must have experienced really huge improvements (e.g., 60-80%) to offset those who realize only 10-20% improvement.

Not sure what FT means but, in general, we expect the better the cyclist now, the less improvement they can expect. I have only had one customer who I thought would not see any improvement from use of PC's and he was an ultracyclist who rode exclusivly on a fixie, including races. He rode the PC's from Seattle to Portland on day three with little problem. After a month he sent them back for his refund saying he didn't see any benefit and I would agree with him, he didn't need them. And, yes, many users report substantially more improvement than 40%. Joe Skufka, an experienced triathlete, reported improving from 20 to 25 mph on a 12 mile loop he does once a month to assess fitness in 6 months. This is almost a 100% improvement (a doubling) in power in 6 months. Over 2 years he improved to 27 mph getting him to 146% improvement and over three years he improved again to 28 mph, which would be a 175% improvement over 3 years.

So, our testing data suggests that most ordinary people can expect a 40% improvement reports from users substantiate that claim even though some see less, others see much more.

Not sure what FT meansFT is functional threshold, one's maximum sustainable constant power (or NP) for ~1 hour or 40K TT (usually close enough to 1 hr that the two durations are basically equivalent). I would anticipate that % improvement would be a decreasing function of initial FT.

FT is functional threshold, one's maximum sustainable constant power (or NP) for ~1 hour or 40K TT (usually close enough to 1 hr that the two durations are basically equivalent). I would anticipate that % improvement would be a decreasing function of initial FT.

i think that's what Frank has suggested (that % improvement decreases as a function of absolute fitness). Nonetheless, Franks is suggesting that a 2rd or 3rd category quality rider could improve 40%, which would be sufficient in 6 to 9 months to place in the first few of the world senior TT championships...

Ric

i think that's what Frank has suggested (that % improvement decreases as a function of absolute fitness). Nonetheless, Franks is suggesting that a 2rd or 3rd category quality rider could improve 40%, which would be sufficient in 6 to 9 months to place in the first few of the world senior TT championships...

RicThat's how I read it too. And I find that assertion to be hard to believe. I have no idea what my pedaling inefficiencies are at this point, but if I thought I could increase my FT by 40% in 9 months I'd make my reservations now for the masters world championships (if there is such an event) for 2007.

That's how I read it too. And I find that assertion to be hard to believe. I have no idea what my pedaling inefficiencies are at this point, but if I thought I could increase my FT by 40% in 9 months I'd make my reservations now for the masters world championships (if there is such an event) for 2007.

There is a Masters Worlds, usually in Austria in August. A big US contingent goes. Nonetheless, at 40% you wouldn't need to worry about the old guys, you could turn up for the elite senior race (i.e., the Div 1 pros) and be a force to be reckoned with.

Ric

There is a Masters Worlds, usually in Austria in August. A big US contingent goes. Nonetheless, at 40% you wouldn't need to worry about the old guys, you could turn up for the elite senior race (i.e., the Div 1 pros) and be a force to be reckoned with.

RicSo, why do I have this nagging doubt about my ability to increase my FT by 40% with these cranks? I think it is because I know what it takes to ride at 40% higher power levels and find it hard to believe I can do that for an hour without illegal drugs. Hell, I find it hard enough to do it for a few minutes. I do this little experiment with riders in my club who don't have PMs. I tell them that they can ride at LA's TT power and that I can prove it to them. Then I tell them to just stay alongside me and I gradually ramp up to ~425w. We hold the pace for ~30 seconds and when we slow down I say, "Now you know you can ride at LA's power. All you have to do is learn to do that for an hour." The look on their faces is -- priceless.

This reminds me of a little story. There was a 24hr swim organized to raise money for sick children. The coaching staff, we took a lane, we where relaying every 200m or so. Our pro swimmers where doing 6 hours in a row non stop, in the lane next to us.

Even with proper rest between my swims, I could match their speed for only 2 small length (~37 seconds), after that, it would take them 3 lengths to lap me.
:o

So, why do I have this nagging doubt about my ability to increase my FT by 40% with these cranks?

Because it's sooooooooooooo unlikely, that it's laughable.

I think it is because I know what it takes to ride at 40% higher power levels and find it hard to believe I can do that for an hour without illegal drugs.

even rH-Epo gives < 10% increase in power...and there's unlikely to be anything that gives a significantly greater increase in power...

ric

Because it's sooooooooooooo unlikely, that it's laughable.


even rH-Epo gives < 10% increase in power...and there's unlikely to be anything that gives a significantly greater increase in power...

ricAw, shucks. So, there's no magic bullet. Oh, well, good thing I enjoy intervals.:D

Not sure what FT means but, in general, we expect the better the cyclist now, the less improvement they can expect. I have only had one customer who I thought would not see any improvement from use of PC's and he was an ultracyclist who rode exclusivly on a fixie, including races. He rode the PC's from Seattle to Portland on day three with little problem. After a month he sent them back for his refund saying he didn't see any benefit and I would agree with him, he didn't need them. And, yes, many users report substantially more improvement than 40%. Joe Skufka, an experienced triathlete, reported improving from 20 to 25 mph on a 12 mile loop he does once a month to assess fitness in 6 months. This is almost a 100% improvement (a doubling) in power in 6 months. Over 2 years he improved to 27 mph getting him to 146% improvement and over three years he improved again to 28 mph, which would be a 175% improvement over 3 years.

So, our testing data suggests that most ordinary people can expect a 40% improvement reports from users substantiate that claim even though some see less, others see much more.




Having experimented and tested every possible style of pedalling, I know that it can take time to train muscles but the improvement must be visiable from day one, if not why continue. What are the inefficiencies in the circular and stomping styles that PC's can eliminate and what are the muscles that take so long to train or could it be that they are not trainable.

I agree.



I think it would depend upon their pedaling style and inefficiencies now. Those who are more inefficient will have more potential to gain. Inefficiencies can be measured but most don't know what their real inefficiencies are so they will not know what the potential is until they get on them. Those who get on and are riding for 2 hours in the aero postition within a week will see smaller gains than those who get on and their first ride ends in 20 minutes. That much variation exists in the Div 1 pros. So, I would say power increase potential could be as low as 5-10% in the first group and around 20% in the second. Another thing, is these individuals are unlikely to see these improvements in just 6-9 months because of the type of racing they do and few of them are using the PC's exclusively, which is what such improvements take.




Doing well in a 40K TT and being capable of riding at the highest level at the TDF are completely different things and you know it. Many users have jumped from amateur to pro or improved substantially as pros. Names that come immediately to mind are Jurgen Van deWalle, and Todd Herriot who went from being an amateur to winning the Univega Grand Prix and Tour of Cuba then achieved his dream and became a first time Pro when over 30 years old (Health Net, still riding for Colavita). Brian Sheedy is another who has done pretty well since getting on them. Many pro triathletes (many more of whom use them exclusively in training) have taken 30 minutes off their IM bike splits which calculates to about 40% power improvement.

You may think such improvements are impossible. Well, they most certainly are if you do not try.

So how do you know the improvement is due to your cranks?

FT is functional threshold, one's maximum sustainable constant power (or NP) for ~1 hour or 40K TT (usually close enough to 1 hr that the two durations are basically equivalent). I would anticipate that % improvement would be a decreasing function of initial FT.

So would I, although there would be some variation. The more elite people usually have better form (perhaps having spent more time doing single leg drills) so they have less room for improvement form wise.

i think that's what Frank has suggested (that % improvement decreases as a function of absolute fitness). Nonetheless, Franks is suggesting that a 2rd or 3rd category quality rider could improve 40%, which would be sufficient in 6 to 9 months to place in the first few of the world senior TT championships...

Ric

Well, it is quite possible it has happened. I don't know everyone who uses them nor, if I did, would I recognize all of their names, and i don't follow every race that could have a user in it. I know we came close at the World Track Championships with Phil Holman awhile back, who got a bronze after increasing his pursuit speed 2 mph in 7 months. Of course, this improvement only represented an approximate 28% power improvement in 7 months which would explain his failure to win the gold.