pealling push up push down

Fday

Maybe someone who was there would tell us how he did zero his pedals since he didn't tell us how he did so (or, more importantly from a study perspective, even that he did) in the study. Unless any of these respected researchers tells us they did so my presumption is they did not. It is pretty bold (or foolish) of you to presume these people did.



Perhaps you should critically read those studies before you accept the pronouncements of "those smarter" than you. Then you might let me know what was so improper about these control groups, or the studies themselves. You might be surprised where you fall on the smartness scale, or then again, maybe not.

n crowley

[QUOTE=Fday]Maybe someone who was there would tell us how he did zero his pedals since he didn't tell us how he did so (or, more importantly from a study perspective, even that he did) in the study. Unless any of these respected researchers tells us they did so my presumption is they did not. It is pretty bold (or foolish) of you to presume these people did.





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.

Fday

The one with the best combination of power and aerodynamics I would presume. If they were equal in both these respects I would put my money on the one with the smoothest power application, i.e., the "circular" pedaler.

n crowley

Why ? Don't forget the movement of the upper leg is now ruled out of the equation.

n crowley

Why ? Don't forget the movement of the rising leg is now ruled out of the equation.

Fday

Because there is an introduced inefficiency in the small but frequent speed changes that comes from the mashing style vs the smoother power application. So, for the same average power there will be a subtle difference in average speed. This inefficiency is similar to why one will get better gas mileage when using cruise control over trying to maintain "constant" speed manually.

ric_stern/RST

Frank, in terms that cyclists might understand (e.g., category 1, 2, 3, etc.) or physiological terms (e.g., VO2max of 65 mL/kg/min, MAP of 380 W) could you explain who your typical user is that "...will gain 40% in power, at least for reasonable distances (40K or so), after 6 to 9 months of exclusive use..."

Thanks
Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

n crowley

I would put my life savings on the stomper. How could your circular power application be smooth when you are applying almost nil in the dead spot area and maximum in the 3 o'c area. What the circular style does is extend the effect of both the upper and lower dead spot areas, while you are busy rolling one foot over the 12 o'c area and scraping the mud off your shoe in the 6 o'c area, the stomper is able to avail of an earlier start to his downstroke and a follow through at the end.

Fday

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.

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. One experienced triathlete reported improving his usual 12 mile "testing" loop time trial speed from 20 to 25 mph in 6 months and he has subsequently, after 3 years, improved to 28 mph. This is almost a doubling of power in only 6 months. The more elite cyclists and triathletes are more typically seeing about 25% improvement (for instance Phil Holman, a masters track cyclist improved his top speed from 35-38 mph and pursuit speed from 30 to 32 mph in 7 months of almost exclusive use, which calculate to be about 28% improvement, if I remember correctly).

So, while there seems to be quite a bit of variation amongst users a very large proportion of those who take them seriously and use them a lot seem to see about 2-3 mph improvement in that time frame. Some see less, some see more.

Fday

Why do you presume the circular pedaler is applying "almost nil" at the dead spot area. One of the major areas of improvement found in PowerCrankers is at the top and bottom of the stroke. Circular pedaling is more than just unweighting.

Look, you can put as much money as you like on the stomper if you wish. However, you will be betting against the physics and will most surely lose every time.

If the average power is the same but the stomper has more power variation in the stroke the maximum and minimum speed of this rider will be more than the rider with a more even (or perfectly even stroke where there would be no speed variation) stroke. Unfortunately, because wind resistance varies with the square of the speed, the average wind resistance will be greater for the stomper than for the even pedaler which means, he either has to put out more power to ride at the same average speed or must slow down to ride at the same power. The greater the power variation the greater the losses.

n crowley

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?

ric_stern/RST

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*.



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

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Fday

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.

Fday

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.