Power Meters and Pedaling Effectiveness

RapDaddyo

I'm so jealous. My only similar claim is that my first pilot's license was issued in 1960 and has only six digits. Rock on!

ric_stern/RST

George, i'm not hiding anywhere, i answered your post before. We all have better things to do, such as helping cyclists or going cycling, rather than responding to your demeaning and bullying questions.

I suggest you find a nice bit of countryside in NY to ride through, and take a nice ride on your bike along with a few deep breaths, and try and calm down.

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

ric_stern/RST

No one was hiding, i was working. Perhaps that's something you should do, or go for a bike ride.

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

acoggan

I asked where you were from because it might give some indication of how familiar you are with the situation.



"legal status"? Well, I would imagine that both the BCF and the ABBC are their equivalent of our 501c3 non-profit corporations, but what do I know?



Is Chris Carmichael not a coach because he doesn't hold a USAC coaching license?



I doubt that the BCF told you that - more likely, they told you that they weren't BCF certified coaches.



What "elusiveness"? I don't see how Ric or Lindsay could have explained things any more clearly.



Indeed, it is - only I'd say that you're the one whose credibility - or sanity - is questionable.

RapDaddyo

I have drawn my conclusions on the questions I posed in this thread. The purpose of this posting is to share those conclusions (and my thinking for each) and thank everyone for their contributions.

I have decided to buy the PT Pro. I ordered it today. Basically, it was a process of elimination. I have some serious concerns about the consistency of the Polar and the ergomo. Further, the Polar doesn’t provide usable power data on a trainer, limiting its value to riding on the road. As to SRM Pro vs. PT Pro, I have concluded that both are sufficiently accurate and consistent for my purposes and that any discrepancies in accuracy have no practical value to me. Originally, I felt that the optional torque analysis feature of the SRM Pro was a plus, but I have concluded that any attempt to balance my pedaling stroke would probably require lab analysis with force-instrumented pedals and is probably a waste of time anyway due to the power level-to-power level and day-to-day variability of cyclists who have been tested. If price weren’t part of the equation, I would probably get the SRM Pro with the Dura-Ace cranks. But, price is part of any purchase decision and I don’t think I can exploit any small advantages of the SRM Pro vs. the PT Pro. When the SL begins shipping again and after a few months of field use, I may choose to buy an SL hub for the weight savings. I am having an entire new wheel built on the PT Pro hub, retaining my current wheel in the event that I have any problems with the PT hub. If so, I’ll just pull it off and send it back for a replacement and keep on riding on my current wheel and with only HR data. No big deal – that’s more than I used to have. As to the reliability issues with the PT Pro, I have attempted to get hard numbers from the manufacturer but they have declined to share that data. Specifically, I asked for the warranty return rate of the PT Pro hub and receiver and computer, as a percentage of units shipped, in the last, say, year. In the absence of hard data, I have called a few dealers and others here on the West Coast and have found that there have been very few returns of the hubs and somewhat higher returns of the receivers. I’m not overly concerned about replacing the receiver – it’s only $60. Even if I bought a spare at the outset, the PT Pro is still less than a third the cost of the SRM Pro. As to software, I plan to buy the CyclingPeaks software package because it looks as though it has the most robust set of features. If there’s anything else I want that it doesn’t provide I’ll do myself, with SPSS and an export of the training files.

I look forward to having access to power data, both during and after my rides, especially when I’m working on producing high power levels for a sustained period. I’ll probably experiment a bit with pedaling mechanics and riding positions, mainly to find by trial and error the formula for producing the highest power levels for specific durations. I’m particularly looking forward to building my own MP/duration curve. After a few months of use I’ll post my experience, especially whether use of a PM has improved my training or performance.

Thanks to all for your input. I have learned a lot and, most importantly, have received answers to my questions.

biker-linz

Excellent choice Sir! (and your reasoning is pretty similar to mine). I have a PT-Pro built onto a Velocity Deep-'V' rim and it is pretty much bullet-proof. Anything I can do to help you get started please let me know.

I will of course charge you a ton of cash, 50% of which I have to pay to the pixies at ABCC headquarters.

L.

__________________
MSc (Applied Sport and Exercise Science)
RST Associate Coach
ABCC Level 3 Coach
Doctoral Student (Physiology), University of Oxford, UK.
www.cyclecoach.com
www.science4sport.com

n crowley

One of the easiest ways of balancing your power stroke is the continuous changing of your leading power leg on the count of 3 or 5. It takes concentration but it works.

jws

RapDaddyo,

It sounds like you got a good grasp of the issues and made good choices. The SRM Pro is great, I'm sure, but much more expensive.

If you have more than one bike, just get an extra receiver for $60 and you'll have power on 2 bikes for the price of (almost) one. CyclingPeaks is the only way to go, too. Good luck, jws

mises

To paraphrase Ann Elk, here's my theory and it is mine. I think there is pedaling efficiency and then there's pedaling efficiency. The former being minimizing the amount of force wasted on elongating the cranks. The latter being optimizing the timing and sequence of muscle contraction and relaxation. I think what most people perceive as good pedaling both visually and physically is the result of the latter; the optimal sequencing of contraction and relaxation to minimize energy spent fighting yourself, rather than the normal sense of fighting the cranks. I suspect this would have a much higher correlation with metabolic cost and efficiency as well, but little if anything to do with the distribution and direction of the force applied to the pedals.

Unfortunately it's no more easily monitored than the forces applied to the pedals since it would require a number of electrodes and biofeedback apparatus to give appropriate feedback.

[Unless you are Noel Crowley and have non-invasive remote sensing oxygen consumption/force/strain/bioelectric sensors in your eyesockets that allow you to directly perceive all the forces generated and the costs of producing them, even on video ;-)]

n crowley

[QUOTE=mises
The former being minimizing the amount of force wasted on elongating the cranks. The latter being optimizing the timing and sequence of muscle contraction and relaxation. I think what most people perceive as good pedaling both visually and physically is the result of the latter; the optimal sequencing of contraction and relaxation to minimize energy spent fighting yourself, rather than the normal sense of fighting the cranks. I suspect this would have a much higher correlation with metabolic cost and efficiency as well, but little if anything to do with the distribution and direction of the force applied to the pedals.




You believe you know sufficient about force distribution and direction of application, there are researchers round the world searching for the perfect pedal stroke, what do you "suspect" the perfect pedal stroke to be and what advantages should it be able to offer ?

mises

Noel -

I think the best pedaling depends on the individual's physical characteristics and there is no universal "perfect pedaling" style any more than there is a universal perfect cadence between individuals or even for a single individual in varying circumstances.

Research I have seen has found no correlation between distribution of pedal force and maximum sustainable output, if anything mashers came out the best. The more meaningful differences are in economy. While small they can be significant enough to allow riders to achieve results that their lab numbers wouldn't predict. So perfect pedaling to me would be getting out of your own way as much as possible and how that would be accomplished would depend on the pedaling style you use (presumably because it's most comfortable for you).

It still leaves the problem of determining the best pedal stroke for an individual but here's my solution: head out the door and ride as far away from home as you can get, then turn around and head back. The body monitors an amazing array of physiologic processess and attempts to keep things in homeostasis; do enough of those death rides and your body will figure out the easiest way possible to achieve them. Not much fun (and don't worry about feeling like falling into the ditch sobbing, it's normal) but it does enforce a certain economy of effort without the need for a mobile exercise lab.

I do agree with you on the alternating sides when pedaling. I always synchronize breathing with pedaling and try to use odd patterns to alternate sides on the exhale.

But using arms to pedal? My power meter (and death rides) tells me I not only do better when I relax my arms, but my hands, fingers, feet, stomach, neck, face, and let my mouth hang open like a slack jawed rube from Kentucky (I do make exceptions in heavy bug seasons). But that's just me and, as all my doctors like to remind me when I bring up this or that study, all the statistics in the world don't tell you what is going to happen in a particular case.

n crowley

[QUOTE=mises]Noel -

I think the best pedaling depends on the individual's physical characteristics and there is no universal "perfect pedaling" style any more than there is a universal perfect cadence between individuals or even for a single individual in varying circumstances.

Research I have seen has found no correlation between distribution of pedal force and maximum sustainable output, if anything mashers came out the best.




Thanks for the answer but as I had expected, you had nothing to offer on the search for the perfect technique. Of course you cannot use your arms, anyone who uses the natural way of pedalling is in the same position, it's only the rider who uses the linear style can do that. All research to the present day has been done on variations of the same basic technique in which vertical pedal pressure is the main power supplier so it is of little value. There are no publications on Anquetil's technique, at a demonstration of Anquetil's linear style, a young researcher would learn infinitely more in twenty minutes than from reading all published research on pedalling biomechanics (medical/performance).

biker-linz

If that's the case Noel why didn't you take up the offer of free lab time and financial assistance that I believe was offered to you?

L.

__________________
MSc (Applied Sport and Exercise Science)
RST Associate Coach
ABCC Level 3 Coach
Doctoral Student (Physiology), University of Oxford, UK.
www.cyclecoach.com
www.science4sport.com