why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power

Ilan Vardi

Lots of technical terms there, as befits a scientific article. As is typical in scientific
literature technical terms are also misused if they sound more technical. In particular, the chart
describes "circumferential pedal velocity." As far as I know, the term "velocity" describes speed
and direction, so the correct term here is "speed", since the "velocity" of the pedal is constantly
changing. Moreover, the word "circumferential" is redundant, given the natural assumption that pedal
speed is taken with respect to the bicycle as frame of reference.

-ilan

"Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<FlRsb.11677$6c3.4880@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Since this comes up over and over and over again on multiple forums, I thought I'd try to clear up
> some of the confusion:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html

Top Sirloin

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:56:21 GMT, "Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Since this comes up over and over and over again on multiple forums, I thought I'd try to clear up
>some of the confusion:
>
>http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html

Great article.

--
Scott Johnson "Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are why they only open the
top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen

Andy Coggan

The top-posting Ilan Vardi wrote:

> Lots of technical terms there, as befits a scientific article. As is
typical
> in scientific literature technical terms are also misused if they sound more technical. In
> particular, the chart describes "circumferential pedal velocity." As far as I know, the term
> "velocity" describes speed and
direction,
> so the correct term here is "speed", since the "velocity" of the pedal is constantly changing.
> Moreover, the word "circumferential" is redundant, given the natural assumption that pedal speed
> is taken with respect to the bicycle as frame of reference.

Conveying precise concepts requires precise use of terminology. While I agree with you that simple
"pedal speed" might be sufficient should it be used within context, it might not be if, for example,
the plot was presented out of context. Hence, "circumferential pedal velocity", i.e, the speed and
direction that the pedal travels.

Andy Coggan

Ewoud Dronkert

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:00:25 GMT, Andy Coggan wrote:
> Conveying precise concepts requires precise use of terminology. While I agree with you that simple
> "pedal speed" might be sufficient should it be used within context, it might not be if, for
> example, the plot was presented out of context. Hence, "circumferential pedal velocity", i.e, the
> speed and direction that the pedal travels.

http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/strengthvspower.gif

Bull****. It's a simple 2D plot, only the magnitude of the velocity is used. How can "pedal speed
(m/s)" be misinterpreted?! If you want to be more precise you could say "Pedal turning speed (m/s)"
or "Pedal speed wrt. axle (m/s)", but "Circumferential pedal velocity", please. I think you were
just afraid of the alternative abbreviation PTS.

Btw, thanks for your efforts in writing the article.

Raptor

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:00:25 GMT, Andy Coggan wrote:
>
>>Conveying precise concepts requires precise use of terminology. While I agree with you that simple
>>"pedal speed" might be sufficient should it be used within context, it might not be if, for
>>example, the plot was presented out of context. Hence, "circumferential pedal velocity", i.e, the
>>speed and direction that the pedal travels.
>
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/strengthvspower.gif
>
> Bull****. It's a simple 2D plot, only the magnitude of the velocity is used. How can "pedal speed
> (m/s)" be misinterpreted?! If you want to be more precise you could say "Pedal turning speed
> (m/s)" or "Pedal speed wrt. axle (m/s)", but "Circumferential pedal velocity", please. I think you
> were just afraid of the alternative abbreviation PTS.
>
> Btw, thanks for your efforts in writing the article.

This is the kind of discussion that turns many people off from science and engineering. (I
haven't read the paper yet but maybe a conversion to angular velocity would've created a more
unassailable text?)

"You call THAT punctuation?"

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall "We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young
soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what
would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever
greater instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

Voltaire

"Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FlRsb.11677$6c3.4880@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Since this comes up over and over and over again on multiple forums, I thought I'd try to clear up
> some of the confusion:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html
>
>
Andy,

Thank you very much for the excellent technical essay. Am I correct in concluding from your essay
that my twice a week, three or four seated, in-the-hooks, 4 minute climbs up a steep hill are the
type of specificity to which you refer? I'm doing these rather than weight-room leg exercises in
hopes of building bicycling specific strength and power.

Vol(tryingtobeabetterfattiemastersracer)taire

Andy Coggan

"Voltaire" <vo1taire@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41btb.71566$KY1.13442@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> Am I correct in concluding from your essay that my twice a week, three or four seated,
> in-the-hooks, 4 minute climbs up a steep hill are the type of specificity
to
> which you refer? I'm doing these rather than weight-room leg exercises in hopes of building
> bicycling specific strength and power.

That would certainly be more specific than lifting weights. However, depending on the cadence you do
them at, vs. the cadence you actually (wish to) climb at, they may still not be specific enough. It
is well-established, for example, that performing isokinetic training at a slow velocity only
improves force at a slow velocity, whereas doing isokinetic training at a high velocity only
improves force at a high velocity.

Andy Coggan

Ilan Vardi

"Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<Jl4tb.227$n56.72@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
> Conveying precise concepts requires precise use of terminology. While I agree with you that simple
> "pedal speed" might be sufficient should it be used within context, it might not be if, for
> example, the plot was presented out of context. Hence, "circumferential pedal velocity", i.e, the
> speed and direction that the pedal travels.

It looks like my previous critique was not quite accurate. In order to make a graph of pedal
velocity versus some other quantity, you would actually need to make a four dimensional plot. This
is because pedal velocity, as opposed to pedal speed, is not roughly constant for a given value of
the other quantity, so you must include time to make a plot. That is, you need to make a graph with
respect to the scalars: speed, direction, time, quantity you used in your graph.

To highlight the complication you introduce by insisting on using pedal velocity, note that the
graph of the speed of a pedal rotating in a circle at constant speed consists of a single point,
while the graph of its velocity is a 3-dimensional figure, a helix (this is what I was thinking of
previously).

Once again, I use an opportunity to differentiate myself from most scientists by admitting when I
have made a mistake.

-ilan

Andy Coggan

"Ilan Vardi" <ilan@tonyaharding.org> wrote in message
news:6c8faec2.0311141350.646d626@posting.google.com...

> Once again, I use an opportunity to differentiate myself from most scientists by admitting when I
> have made a mistake.

Once again, you use an opportunity to aggrandize yourself by making trivial criticisms.

Andy Coggan

Charles Berista

Andy: I find the conclusions very intriguing. In my group of riding friends... I need at least one
gear lower to accomplish the same task. There was a time I was stronger then they were... but they
all started weight training and cross training. I stick to riding 7 days a week all year 'round. It
really bugs me that I can't climb some really technical sections (MTB) they they can, because they
higher gearing they can use gives them a slightly faster speed/more momentum to get over the
obstacles.

Any hints on how i can increase my pedaling strength on the short technical climbs?

thanks charlie

Kurgan Gringion

"Charles Beristain" <charlieb@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:jk5brv0kbvc549ipdl6i12i83jrep11aag@4ax.com...
> Andy: I find the conclusions very intriguing. In my group of riding friends... I need at least one
> gear lower to accomplish the same task. There was a time I was stronger then they were... but they
> all started weight training and cross training. I stick to riding 7 days a week all year 'round.
> It really bugs me that I can't climb some really technical sections (MTB) they they can, because
> they higher gearing they can use gives them a slightly faster speed/more momentum to get over the
> obstacles.
>
> Any hints on how i can increase my pedaling strength on the short technical climbs?

Read Bicycling Magazine.

They have scores of ways to get better.

Tom Kunich

Now if we can only think of a reason to abbreviate it PMS.

"Ewoud Dronkert" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:6in9rv0fn0laqvo8nhqffq62re8g8kor46@news.xs4all.nl...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:00:25 GMT, Andy Coggan wrote:
> > Conveying precise concepts requires precise use of terminology.
While I
> > agree with you that simple "pedal speed" might be sufficient
should it be
> > used within context, it might not be if, for example, the plot was
presented
> > out of context. Hence, "circumferential pedal velocity", i.e, the
speed and
> > direction that the pedal travels.
>
>
http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictu res/strengthvspower.gif
>
> Bull****. It's a simple 2D plot, only the magnitude of the velocity
is
> used. How can "pedal speed (m/s)" be misinterpreted?! If you want to be more precise you could say
> "Pedal turning speed (m/s)" or "Pedal speed wrt. axle (m/s)", but "Circumferential pedal
> velocity",
please.
> I think you were just afraid of the alternative abbreviation PTS.
>
> Btw, thanks for your efforts in writing the article.

Tom Kunich

Gee, I just love that kind of talk.

"Ilan Vardi" <ilan@tonyaharding.org> wrote in message
news:6c8faec2.0311141350.646d626@posting.google.com...
> "Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<Jl4tb.227$n56.72@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > Conveying precise concepts requires precise use of terminology.
While I
> > agree with you that simple "pedal speed" might be sufficient
should it be
> > used within context, it might not be if, for example, the plot was
presented
> > out of context. Hence, "circumferential pedal velocity", i.e, the
speed and
> > direction that the pedal travels.
>
> It looks like my previous critique was not quite accurate. In order to make a graph of pedal
> velocity versus some other
quantity,
> you would actually need to make a four dimensional plot. This is because pedal velocity, as
> opposed to pedal speed, is not roughly constant for a given value of the other quantity, so you
> must include time to make a plot. That is, you need to make a graph with respect to the scalars:
> speed, direction, time, quantity you used in your graph.
>
> To highlight the complication you introduce by insisting on using pedal velocity, note that the
> graph of the speed of a pedal rotating in a circle at constant speed consists of a single point,
> while the graph of its velocity is a 3-dimensional figure, a helix (this is what I was thinking of
> previously).
>
> Once again, I use an opportunity to differentiate myself from most scientists by admitting when I
> have made a mistake.
>
> -ilan

Benjamin Weiner

Ilan Vardi <ilan@tonyaharding.org> wrote:

> Once again, I use an opportunity to differentiate myself from most scientists by admitting when I
> have made a mistake.

Ilan, you're not a scientist. You are a mathematician.

Ron Jenkins

Strength gains are triggered by intensity, not by duration.

Ron

Voltaire wrote:

>
> Thank you very much for the excellent technical essay. Am I correct in concluding from your essay
> that my twice a week, three or four seated, in-the-hooks, 4 minute climbs up a steep hill are the
> type of specificity to which you refer? I'm doing these rather than weight-room leg exercises in
> hopes of building bicycling specific strength and power.
>
> Vol(tryingtobeabetterfattiemastersracer)taire

Ilan Vardi

"Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<VBctb.754$sb4.349@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "Ilan Vardi" <ilan@tonyaharding.org> wrote in message
> news:6c8faec2.0311141350.646d626@posting.google.com...
>
> > Once again, I use an opportunity to differentiate myself from most scientists by admitting when
> > I have made a mistake.
>
> Once again, you use an opportunity to aggrandize yourself by making trivial criticisms.
>
> Andy Coggan

I am continually amazed by the capacity of scientists to defend their mistakes. How can you not
admit that you were completely wrong in defending your use of the term velocity? Recall that science
is a search for the truth. In that sense it is you who is more concerned with ego, since it takes
precendence over objective truth.

-ilan

Benjamin Weiner <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message news:<3fb5beee$1@darkstar>...
> Ilan Vardi <ilan@tonyaharding.org> wrote:
>
> > Once again, I use an opportunity to differentiate myself from most scientists by admitting when
> > I have made a mistake.
>
> Ilan, you're not a scientist. You are a mathematician.

How to tell the difference between a mathematician and a scientist:

Step 1: Present the subject with a bunson burner, an empty beaker and a match. The tast is to boil
water. Both the mathematican and the scientist will fill the beaker with water, light the burner,
and place the beaker over the flame until it boils.

Step 2. This time the beaker is full of water and the burner is already lighted. The subject is told
to boil water. The scientist places the beaker over the flame until the water boils. The
mathematician empties the beaker, turns off the burner, and says "I have reduced the problem to the
preceeding case."
-----
Back to power and weight lifting: If hypertrophy accounts for 10 to 20% of the strength increase,
isn't that sufficient to justify some amount of traditional weight training in conjunction with
cycling specific exercises?

Ilan Vardi

Andy Coggan

"Ilan Vardi" <ilan@tonyaharding.org> wrote in message
news:6c8faec2.0311150412.55f70eb7@posting.google.com...

> How can you not admit that you were completely wrong in defending your use of the term velocity?

Simple: because I wasn't. I specified a direction ("circumferential"), meaning that what I was
speaking about was indeed velocity, not just speed.

Andy Coggan