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.

I have never had a customer call at 6 months and ask for a refund, probably because the refund policy is good for only 3 months. Further, most customers don't even have power measurement devices and oxygen consumption devices so they don't know what their power is doing at various percentages of VO2 max. All they know is what their speedometer and effort meter tells them.

I personally think the reason some (most) people don't buy (easily or not) the 40% number is because it is so outrageously outside of anyones normal experience that it seems totally unbelievable. However, if true (which I believe it to be - again, for my typical customer), it points out how inadequate current training techniques are for maximizing the potential of athletes. Even if the number is only 20% (what if it is 60?) this technology would still represent a huge improvement over standard training (which I believe it does). How can I represent to potential customers that I believe this technology represents a huge leap forward without putting out a number that says that (and that I actually believe to be true)? Then, I give them the best return policy in the business, to let them decide for themselves if they are worth the money to them. About 3 in a 1000 send them back so to me which, in and of itself, tells me I am not grossly misrepresenting what these do or can do.

Frank

You're talking trash. Simply, if typical cyclists (which you defined) increased their power output 40% there would be huge changes in cycle racing. You obviously, have no idea whatsoever what an improvement of 40% means. Your typical 3rd category racing cyclist, would in a matter of months find themself on a div1 or div 2 pro cycling team. Teams would be clamouring to sign (typical) PC users. The whole order of pro cycling would change.

Just because only 3 in 1000 people send them back to you, doesn't mean you are not "grossly misrepresenting" what your cranks can do. As you pointed out above that "most" of your customers have neither a power meter or gas analysis equipment then perhaps they actually don't know what is happening and assume that the difficulty of using your cranks is doing them good.

I suggest you stop insulting the readers intelligence and wasting bandwidth with your absurd and frankly ridiculous claims.

Ric

That 10% improvement occurred in only 6 weeks with only 3 x per week use. I would have never predicted that kind of improvement was possible in that time frame with that little use and I still think it unlikely most will see it, so I don't claim it. My 40% claim requires 6 to 9 months of pretty much exclusive use to see and I think is a much more "reasonable" expectation even though it doesn't seem so to most.





During the 9 months of exclusive use, biomechanically what exactly is being trained. Don't forget, the advantage of the PC's lies in the unweighting effect only. If there are other advantages, how does dragging the cranks round in circles create them.

During the 9 months of exclusive use, biomechanically what exactly is being trained. Don't forget, the advantage of the PC's lies in the unweighting effect only. If there are other advantages, how does dragging the cranks round in circles create them.

Under the assumption that these gains are real (they seem to be but remember, these have yet to be "proven" in a controlled trial) I believe they come from many sources and I believe I have answered this question for you before. But, here I go again. These are my predictions as to where the benefits will come from. It will be up to the researchers to study this question to find out where they are really coming from (remember, assuming they are real). I would think that 10-25% of the improvement will come from simply unweighting, depending upon the pedaling style of the rider before PC's. then 50-75% will come from changing the coordination to make the delivered forces more tangential to the pedaling circle and improving the forces across the top and bottom, especially the top. And 5-15% perhaps from allowing the muscles to work at a more efficient load, reducing cadence to a more efficient cadence and not making the pushing muscles contract quite as hard as they do now.

That is my prediction. Nobody knows right now. But, if the gains are real they have to come from somewhere and simply unweighting cannot give these kinds of gains, so there have to be other mechanisms. These are some of the other possible mechanisms.

Frank

During the 9 months of exclusive use, biomechanically what exactly is being trained. Don't forget, the advantage of the PC's lies in the unweighting effect only. If there are other advantages, how does dragging the cranks round in circles create them.

I thought you were asking these questions because you were taking the piss out of this guy but I'm starting to believe that you believe his claims.

Or is there a third possibility that I haven't thought of?

I thought you were asking these questions because you were taking the piss out of this guy but I'm starting to believe that you believe his claims.

Or is there a third possibility that I haven't thought of?



I know that with the right technique TT pedal power can be very effectively increased but if all you are depending on is attempted tangential circular pedalling, the already unweighting rider has nothing to gain from trying to perfect this technique.

Under the assumption that these gains are real (they seem to be but remember, these have yet to be "proven" in a controlled trial) I believe they come from many sources and I believe I have answered this question for you before. But, here I go again. These are my predictions as to where the benefits will come from. It will be up to the researchers to study this question to find out where they are really coming from (remember, assuming they are real). I would think that 10-25% of the improvement will come from simply unweighting, depending upon the pedaling style of the rider before PC's. then 50-75% will come from changing the coordination to make the delivered forces more tangential to the pedaling circle and improving the forces across the top and bottom, especially the top. And 5-15% perhaps from allowing the muscles to work at a more efficient load, reducing cadence to a more efficient cadence and not making the pushing muscles contract quite as hard as they do now.

That is my prediction. Nobody knows right now. But, if the gains are real they have to come from somewhere and simply unweighting cannot give these kinds of gains, so there have to be other mechanisms. These are some of the other possible mechanisms.

Frank



Frank, from the pedalling power output improvement aspect, what was your main objective when you invented these cranks ?

Frank, from the pedalling power output improvement aspect, what was your main objective when you invented these cranks ?

I didn't have a pedaling power objective per se. I was actually trying to just explore an HPV design I had in my little pea brain - I was mostly interested in reducing the frontal area and improving the aerodynamics of the bike, not improving the rider's power and pedaling dynamic. My idea required independent drive and was playing with the idea as to how to do this on a regular bike before I went and built an expensive HPV from scratch. Somewhere along the line the lightbulb went on that this might be a pretty good training tool to help teach circular pedaling so I decided to commune with it for awhile to see what it might mean. Within about 2 weeks this was getting natural and within 2 months I was definitely riding about 3 mph faster than I was generally used to before at the same effort. I then looked into whether the idea was patentable (I would have never pursued this idea if the big guys could bully me out of the marketplace once the potential became generally understood). It was patentable so I dropped the HPV idea and started working on developing this product.

So, to answer your question again more succinctly. I had no expectations from a pedaling power perspective when I "invented" (stumbled across with the background to recognize the potential is a better term) these other than I expected there might be some benefits, but I had no clue how large they might be or how "easy" they would come. After I saw the size and speed of the benefits in myself I then started to examine the physics and biophysiology of pedaling to try to explain what was being seen in myself and, subsequently, others. I believe I understand it pretty well now although we will know more once we have data correlating power and efficiency increases seen with pedaling differences caused in a large number of riders.

[QUOTE=Fday]I didn't have a pedaling power objective per se. I was actually trying to just explore an HPV design I had in my little pea brain - I was mostly interested in reducing the frontal area and improving the aerodynamics of the bike, not improving the rider's power and pedaling dynamic. My idea required independent drive and was playing with the idea as to how to do this on a regular bike before I went and built an expensive HPV from scratch. Somewhere along the line the lightbulb went on that this might be a pretty good training tool to help teach circular pedaling so I decided to commune with it for awhile to see what it might mean. Within about 2 weeks this was getting natural and within 2 months I was definitely riding about 3 mph faster than I was generally used to before at the same effort. I then looked into whether the idea was patentable (I would have never pursued this idea if the big guys could bully me out of the marketplace once the potential became generally understood). It was patentable so I dropped the HPV idea and started working on developing this product.





You say you were riding 3 mph faster, was this due to a higher gear or higher cadence and how do you know it was the same effort ? I believe that if it was possible to improve the circular pedalling power output, with all the analysis that has been concentrated on this style of pedalling, it would have been discovered long before now. You say you understand or can explain the sudden improvement in your own pedalling after using these cranks, what is that explanation ? Happy Christmas to yourself and all who read this.

You say you were riding 3 mph faster, was this due to a higher gear or higher cadence and how do you know it was the same effort ? I believe that if it was possible to improve the circular pedalling power output, with all the analysis that has been concentrated on this style of pedalling, it would have been discovered long before now. You say you understand or can explain the sudden improvement in your own pedalling after using these cranks, what is that explanation ? Happy Christmas to yourself and all who read this.

It was not possible to discover this until it was possible to train people to pedal this way. Many people had "discovered" this principle in theory before PC's and advocated this manner of pedaling but analysis of pedaling technique by the likes of Coyle showed that almost nobody, even the most elite, actually pedaled this way. Some have understandibly interpreted this failure as pedaling in circles is not optimum. An alternative explanation is it is essentially impossible to learn how to pedal in this fashion training on regular cranks. Now that it is possible to actually train people to pedal in this way this question can actually be answered. The initial study by Luttrell suggests pedaling technique does make a difference.

Regarding your question regarding how did I know I was better? 3 mph is not a simple matter or riding a different cadence, a bigger gear, or anything else. I was riding faster than I ever had before and I knew it. Further, everyone knows how hard they are riding, or what their effort is even without a HR monitor, based upon how hard they are breathing. The Conconi testing protocol looks at both HR and percieved effort compared to power and there is good correlation between these two methods of measuring effort. If you were riding 3 miles an hour faster in 6 month for what you perceived was the same effort as before you would know it, and so does everyone else. Why do you question me or anyone else when they report this? .

All I know is the results I have observed in myself and those that have been reported to me and these results are so exceptional they require an explanation. There are several areas that could be improved and the totality could be a combination of all of them acting together. The theory must explain the data. If the data does not match the theory (such as the theory that it is impossible to improve that much) then the theory is wrong.

My analysis as to why people improve could be wrong but that does not obviate the fact that the data shows that many many people see improvements around what I claim, and these improvements must be coming from somewhere.

It was not possible to discover this until it was possible to train people to pedal this way. Many people had "discovered" this principle in theory before PC's and advocated this manner of pedaling but analysis of pedaling technique by the likes of Coyle showed that almost nobody, even the most elite, actually pedaled this way. Some have understandibly interpreted this failure as pedaling in circles is not optimum. An alternative explanation is it is essentially impossible to learn how to pedal in this fashion training on regular cranks. Now that it is possible to actually train people to pedal in this way this question can actually be answered. The initial study by Luttrell suggests pedaling technique does make a difference.

Regarding your question regarding how did I know I was better? 3 mph is not a simple matter or riding a different cadence, a bigger gear, or anything else. I was riding faster than I ever had before and I knew it. Further, everyone knows how hard they are riding, or what their effort is even without a HR monitor, based upon how hard they are breathing. The Conconi testing protocol looks at both HR and percieved effort compared to power and there is good correlation between these two methods of measuring effort. If you were riding 3 miles an hour faster in 6 month for what you perceived was the same effort as before you would know it, and so does everyone else. Why do you question me or anyone else when they report this? .

All I know is the results I have observed in myself and those that have been reported to me and these results are so exceptional they require an explanation. There are several areas that could be improved and the totality could be a combination of all of them acting together. The theory must explain the data. If the data does not match the theory (such as the theory that it is impossible to improve that much) then the theory is wrong.

My analysis as to why people improve could be wrong but that does not obviate the fact that the data shows that many many people see improvements around what I claim, and these improvements must be coming from somewhere.




The only reason for me questioning you is that I am trying to build a sensible explanation for the increase which I know exists and as I already have the explanation, it's more to confirm that I am correct. It is also worth remembering that a 3 mph increase does not have much value unless you state the speed range you are referring to, 15 to 18, 20 to 23, 30 to 33 ?
I am also trying to discover what this increase in power meant to you, or how did you use it, to turn a higher gear or pedal faster in the same gear.
Also what did you mean by independent drive in HPV's, independent drive which combines upper and lower body musles is what Anquetil's linear style is based on. Like Anquetil's style, HPV's use a semi independent pedalling resistance system, Anquestil's is completely independent.

The only reason for me questioning you is that I am trying to build a sensible explanation for the increase which I know exists and as I already have the explanation, it's more to confirm that I am correct. It is also worth remembering that a 3 mph increase does not have much value unless you state the speed range you are referring to, 15 to 18, 20 to 23, 30 to 33 ?

Actually a 2-3 mph speed improvement is not that big a deal to claim for almost everyone because 15 to 18 mph improvement represents a much bigger power increase percentage than a 30 to 33 mph improvement. 15 to 18 represents a 72% increase in power but the initial power is so "low" that such an increase is not hard to imagine as being possible (many are probably able to do it without PowerCranks) whereas an increase from 30 to 33 represents "only" a 33% increase in power, and an increase from 30 to 32 is only a 21% increase in power, both less than my 40% claim but a much larger absolute increase in watts and more difficult to achieve compared to the 15 to 18 mph increase. Such improvements, while seeming hard to imagine have been reported, including Phil Holman's reported improvement in top speed on the track from 35 to 38 mph and his improvement in his pursuit speed from 30 to 32 mph in 7 months.

I am also trying to discover what this increase in power meant to you, or how did you use it, to turn a higher gear or pedal faster in the same gear.
Also what did you mean by independent drive in HPV's, independent drive which combines upper and lower body musles is what Anquetil's linear style is based on. Like Anquetil's style, HPV's use a semi independent pedalling resistance system, Anquestil's is completely independent.

You seem to misunderstand what I mean by an increase in power. I do not mean that one looks in the mirror and suddenly realizes he is more powerful and then tries to decide how to best use it to go faster. All I am saying is suddenly one finds one riding faster than they did before without thinking about it and the only way to interpret this data is one must be getting more power to the wheel, whether they are pushing much bigger gears at lower cadence, bigger gears at the same cadence, or the same gears at increased cadence. However, they are doing it, it must be happening and we should be able to explain it. It would be easier to explain if we actually had the data as to how the pedal forces were changing during these changes but we do not. Someday . . .

To me, Anquetil is not using what I would call an independent drive or pedaling style in that he cannot use his arms while resting his legs or power with one leg while the other is at rest, instead, he is using his arms to assist his legs, as I understand what you are describing.

Regarding my HPV, my design was going to require the rider to straddle the drive wheel and use a back and forth motion (not circular), with one leg on the right and one leg on the left of the wheel which would allow the rider to achieve the smallest frontal area while still developing substantial power. Seemed easier to me to have two "independent drives" for each leg than try to connect them somehow and use a single drive. Having rowed crew in college I did believe that a back and forth motion could develop as much (if not more) power than a standard cycling motion and that incorporating the arms into the powerstroke would be further beneficial but I saw that incorporating the arms while still steering the bike as a difficult job and would have to wait until a later iteration if my first iteration worked as well as I hoped.

Actually a 2-3 mph speed improvement is not that big a deal to claim for almost everyone because 15 to 18 mph improvement represents a much bigger power increase percentage than a 30 to 33 mph improvement. 15 to 18 represents a 72% increase in power but the initial power is so "low" that such an increase is not hard to imagine as being possible (many are probably able to do it without PowerCranks) whereas an increase from 30 to 33 represents "only" a 33% increase in power, and an increase from 30 to 32 is only a 21% increase in power, both less than my 40% claim but a much larger absolute increase in watts and more difficult to achieve compared to the 15 to 18 mph increase. Such improvements, while seeming hard to imagine have been reported, including Phil Holman's reported improvement in top speed on the track from 35 to 38 mph and his improvement in his pursuit speed from 30 to 32 mph in 7 months.



You seem to misunderstand what I mean by an increase in power. I do not mean that one looks in the mirror and suddenly realizes he is more powerful and then tries to decide how to best use it to go faster. All I am saying is suddenly one finds one riding faster than they did before without thinking about it and the only way to interpret this data is one must be getting more power to the wheel, whether they are pushing much bigger gears at lower cadence, bigger gears at the same cadence, or the same gears at increased cadence. However, they are doing it, it must be happening and we should be able to explain it. It would be easier to explain if we actually had the data as to how the pedal forces were changing during these changes but we do not. Someday . . .

To me, Anquetil is not using what I would call an independent drive or pedaling style in that he cannot use his arms while resting his legs or power with one leg while the other is at rest, instead, he is using his arms to assist his legs, as I understand what you are describing.

Regarding my HPV, my design was going to require the rider to straddle the drive wheel and use a back and forth motion (not circular), with one leg on the right and one leg on the left of the wheel which would allow the rider to achieve the smallest frontal area while still developing substantial power. Seemed easier to me to have two "independent drives" for each leg than try to connect them somehow and use a single drive. Having rowed crew in college I did believe that a back and forth motion could develop as much (if not more) power than a standard cycling motion and that incorporating the arms into the powerstroke would be further beneficial but I saw that incorporating the arms while still steering the bike as a difficult job and would have to wait until a later iteration if my first iteration worked as well as I hoped.



When using the hpv back and forth motion, was it intended to have power generated in both directions ?

Anquetil used a V shaped back and forth (+unweighting) motion except the forth motion was in a 45 degree angle direction, the back motion was parallel to the ground, the cranks did the rest. While one leg/arm was generating power over 180 degrees of the crank revolution and that was constant max power, the other leg/arm was effectively resting as leg was unweighted and drawn back to be ready for instant takeover of max power application. Because the arm resistance was generated by pulling up (also at a 45 degree angle), it did not affect the steering.
I did look up some HPV sites and there seems to be an unlimited variation of these, even rowing bikes, it would be difficult to invent a new successful hpv technique.
When using PC's at moderate to high cadence as Holman would have been using, do you believe it's possible that additional power could be generated between 8 and 12 o'clock.

When using the hpv back and forth motion, was it intended to have power generated in both directions ?

My initial idea was to only generate power in the pushing direction. I would now consider trying to do it in both directions as I think it important to get as much muscle mass involved in such an effort as possible, although I would not try to do it directly with direct driving force on the pedals but rather through the increase in potential energy on the "upstroke", although this is not so easily done when the rider is prone because the thigh is not being lifted against gravity on the recovery.

Anquetil used a V shaped back and forth (+unweighting) motion except the forth motion was in a 45 degree angle direction, the back motion was parallel to the ground, the cranks did the rest. While one leg/arm was generating power over 180 degrees of the crank revolution and that was constant max power, the other leg/arm was effectively resting as leg was unweighted and drawn back to be ready for instant takeover of max power application. Because the arm resistance was generated by pulling up (also at a 45 degree angle), it did not affect the steering.

That all sounds well and good but I just don't understand how one trains onself to do this and then know that one is actually doing it when one is not thinking about it.

I did look up some HPV sites and there seems to be an unlimited variation of these, even rowing bikes, it would be difficult to invent a new successful hpv technique.

That does not mean it is impossible. There was a new one this year, a technique that I would have never thought to try. The rider was riding like a recumbent but facing backwards. He set a new European record. Nor did I claim my idea was completely new. I only thought my idea would have been a better implementation of what others in the past might have tried.

When using PC's at moderate to high cadence as Holman would have been using, do you believe it's possible that additional power could be generated between 8 and 12 o'clock.

Additional power over what people trained on regular cranks at the same cadence do? Yes I do believe it is possible, simply from the unweighting at the 8-10 o'clock position but also from improved pedal forces over the top.

[QUOTE=Fday



That all sounds well and good but I just don't understand how one trains onself to do this and then know that one is actually doing it when one is not thinking about it.



Once you have a thorough understanding of what's involved, there is no problem training as you can feel the power increase effect from day one and as there is only one way that maximum use can be made of upper body muscle power when seated, you have to be doing it correctly. Also if you have been a victim of the worst "on the bike" lower back pain, the instant complete elimination is also a clear indication that you have the perfect technique.




That does not mean it is impossible. There was a new one this year, a technique that I would have never thought to try. The rider was riding like a recumbent but facing backwards. He set a new European record. Nor did I claim my idea was completely new. I only thought my idea would have been a better implementation of what others in the past might have tried.




Has anyone ever tried to use this hpv aerodynamic equipment on a normal bike ?




Additional power over what people trained on regular cranks at the same cadence do? Yes I do believe it is possible, simply from the unweighting at the 8-10 o'clock position but also from improved pedal forces over the top


I meant excluding the unweighting effect. I believe that the PC's advantage comes at the instant when a rider changes from the scraping the mud or in your PC case, drawing them across the bottom and starts the upward acceleration of lower leg and crank. At that instant the other leg is forced to respond with resistance and that leads to a slight injection of power at the weakest point of the power stroke and an earlier start than normal for the downstroke. This unweighting effect is even more noticeable with Anquetil's linear style because while your unweighting effect takes place after the neutral drawing across the bottom position, with the linear style the weight of the leg switches instantly from a forward/downward movement to an almost opposite direction. This would explain why PC's lead to faster pedalling, your rising leg has to make a faster than normal movement when picking up that crank for the upward drawing up. But no power comes from conscious pulling up any more than is necessary to raise that leg and crank.

Actually perception has nothing to do with and that's the crux I guess. It happens often with race cars. The driver will perceive that one setup is faster than another setup. The unfortunate truth is, the stopwatch doesn't lie. In this case the powermeter doesn't lie. And so far your unfailing response to the power question is. "We don't have those test results." Or some variation thereof. Another possible answer has been the we don't really need more power because we are more efficient answer. One potential problem with this answer is that I am aware of no correlation between HR effeciency and power production. The last possible anwer seems to lie in the realm of cadence effiency. ie. greeater effiency achieved through a lower cadence. No one will argue this. Just it's applicability to real life cinditions and situations. So you have a tool that teaches me to pedal slower?

One really practical view that I am convinced of after about 12 years.
a. The pulling up muscles of your legs are NOT meant for prolonged power output
b. All professionals I have met have always told me that complete pulling and pushing is done by them only during fast acceleration or extreme power outputs..Sprints or Climbs
c. Smooth motion is attained by "lifting" the legs during the upward motion not actually pulling.
d. All of the above applies to prolonged high RPM outputs.

While cycling up-hill, I have tried out several combinations of pulling-up and pushing-down styles, at the same time monitoring power on the display of my BC401 instrument (see a description at www.clino.it (http://www.clino.it)).
In my case, the style that allows me to achieve maximum generated power consist in:
- push-down on the pedal that at that moment is moving downwards, with the maximum force I can
- pull-up on the pedal that at that moment is moving upwards, with a force that I estimate to be about double what I feel as needed to lift up the weight of my leg (OK, that is just a feeling, as I do not have any force measuring apparatus on my pedals ...)
With this style I can really see on the display a power increment (with respect to passively dragging along the upward moving foot) of about 10 to 15% ...

While cycling up-hill, I have tried out several combinations of pulling-up and pushing-down styles, at the same time monitoring power on the display of my BC401 instrument (see a description at www.clino.it (http://www.clino.it)).
In my case, the style that allows me to achieve maximum generated power consist in:
- push-down on the pedal that at that moment is moving downwards, with the maximum force I can
- pull-up on the pedal that at that moment is moving upwards, with a force that I estimate to be about double what I feel as needed to lift up the weight of my leg (OK, that is just a feeling, as I do not have any force measuring apparatus on my pedals ...)
With this style I can really see on the display a power increment (with respect to passively dragging along the upward moving foot) of about 10 to 15% ... In regards to the statement in bold, how long can you sustain that increased power? Is that 10-15% increase something that would be beneficial in any particular situation? For example, would the energy expenditure required to do such a forceful movement in the upstroke outweigh the benefits of having an increased power output of 10-15%?

I can't see the benefit in pulling up so hard with the other foot that you get that kind of increase. It seems like such a gross/jerky movement that would not only unecessarily increase energy expenditure, but would also throw off rhythm.
Just my two cents. Any thoughts?

In regards to the statement in bold, how long can you sustain that increased power? Is that 10-15% increase something that would be beneficial in any particular situation? For example, would the energy expenditure required to do such a forceful movement in the upstroke outweigh the benefits of having an increased power output of 10-15%?

I can't see the benefit in pulling up so hard with the other foot that you get that kind of increase. It seems like such a gross/jerky movement that would not only unecessarily increase energy expenditure, but would also throw off rhythm.
Just my two cents. Any thoughts?
In fact it not completely wasted:
- as a minimum you recover the energy necessary to lift the "moving upwards" leg, which would otherwise be expended by the other leg
- furthermore, if the active downward leg is already at the its max you can only increase the total torque by getting some help from the other leg
- of course, you do not wish to exagerate with the other leg, as you also want to rest it a little ...

So, is it convenient total-energy-expenditure wise ?
Of course, that it is so it is only my subjective feeling ...

But next time I find a suitable hill to climb, I might try to use the total calories expenditure feature of BC401 (www.clino.it (http://www.clino.it)) to help me with the comparison of different styles.

[QUOTE=Fday]

To me, Anquetil is not using what I would call an independent drive or pedaling style in that he cannot use his arms while resting his legs or power with one leg while the other is at rest, instead, he is using his arms to assist his legs, as I understand what you are describing.






You misunderstood what I wrote, I was referring to the fact that Anquetil's pedalling never uses the lower back for resistance, while with HPVs the lower back is assisted by the back rest when supplying the necessary pedalling resistance. That explains why HPVs are less likely to cause lower back pain and why Anquetil's method completely eliminates it.