Another try at the "Biomechanical Evaluation of Pedalling Mechanics-Big Lance' thread
- Thread starter Fday
- Start date
gman0482 said:If I take the amount of force I use at 2-4 o'clock (very strong), and try that same force between 11-5 o'clock, either (a) my nee caps would explode, or (b) umm there's is no (b), ITS IMPOSSIBLE to replicate that kind of torque during those points!!! (IMO)
Sounds like someone's suggesting that their cycling is limited by their strength.
*a challenger troll is approaching*
Enriss said:
The question I asked was, how do the objectives of the powercranker (use of leg muscles) differ from those of the perfect circular pedaller during the upstroke. I know exactly how PC's work, that's why I am asking this question. Do you know what is meant by "circular" pedalling?
gman0482 said:Look, I might be a new-b, but that is simply not true and impossible. If I take the amount of force I use at 2-4 o'clock (very strong), and try that same force between 11-5 o'clock, either (a) my nee caps would explode, or (b) umm there's is no (b), ITS IMPOSSIBLE to replicate that kind of torque during those points!!! (IMO
You are new and that is the explanation for your reply.
Enriss said:It is if your rotate your clock
Exactly.
I'm not trying to argue anything here, and maybe you can teach me something on this.
But here's how I look at it, and after even trying to do this 'linear' (sideways) pedaling technique.
If, what you're saying is true, that 11-1 oclock has the same torque as 2-4, then here's my proposition... I can easily average 220W using only a downstroke from 2-4 oclock. So if it's the same, then try to average 220W with putting torque only between 11-1 oclock. Not possible and/or not economic.
If what you mean is that linear method is the same 11-5 as 2-4 ?? then you might as well just say : 2+2=4, but my method: 0+2+2=4.
I dont get it, and don't say cause I'm new. Obviously others on here don't get it as well.
I don't disagree with pedaling a full rotation, but disagree with just pedaling side-to-side. Am I missing something ???
gman0482 said:Exactly.
I'm not trying to argue anything here, and maybe you can teach me something on this.
But here's how I look at it, and after even trying to do this 'linear' (sideways) pedaling technique.
If, what you're saying is true, that 11-1 oclock has the same torque as 2-4, then here's my proposition... I can easily average 220W using only a downstroke from 2-4 oclock. So if it's the same, then try to average 220W with putting torque only between 11-1 oclock. Not possible and/or not economic.
If what you mean is that linear method is the same 11-5 as 2-4 ?? then you might as well just say : 2+2=4, but my method: 0+2+2=4.
I dont get it, and don't say cause I'm new. Obviously others on here don't get it as well.
I don't disagree with pedaling a full rotation, but disagree with just pedaling side-to-side. Am I missing something ???
yes, outside real world riding.
Fday said:
I think about it all the time. Powercrankers have to use their unweighting leg muscles a little more but this is precisely what Armstrong is attempting to eliminate from his old pedalling style, so how could PC's force a rider to do what Armstrong is attempting to do with his new style. The fact is you have not the slightest clue as to what is involved in the most effective unweighting technique. In both circular and PC pedalling the entire leg's muscles are used and this reduces downstroke crank torque, with the ideal unweighting style only the upper leg's muscles are used and total concentration can be devoted to the downstroke, and it is probably this technique that Armstrong is introducing into his new style of pedalling.
N Crowley, if it is you who suggests linear (sideways) pedaling style, can you read and reply to my previous post ? again, I'm not trying to argue here, just want to understand your concept please. Again, to me, if you're saying 11-5 is the same torque as 2-4, then I see it as: 2+2=4, but your style says 0+2+2=4, Since 2-4 is inside of 11-5 or 11-4, whichever.
I'm bogged by the fact that you say you can replicate the same or higher torque at 11-1 oclock, that at the 2-4 oclock range (downstroke).
-Greg
I'm bogged by the fact that you say you can replicate the same or higher torque at 11-1 oclock, that at the 2-4 oclock range (downstroke).
-Greg
gman0482 said:
Linear pedalling enables a rider to increase crank torque between 11 and 2 to that of torque applied between 2 and 4 o'c, the torque between 4 and 5 is the same as in natural pedalling, it does not change. The powerstroke starts with instant max crank torque.
n crowley said:
This is no different than a regular pedaling style that everyone knows and does. Nothing new from what Friel has in his bible, and everybody else for that matter. A full rotation. If you say linear pedaling, that means that you focus only on pedaling sideways, which is IMO a waste. What's the difference ???
Again, are you saying you can output the same torque 11-2, than at 2-4 ?
Thanks,
-Greg
Anyone called for me? You don't need to be strong. Your name may as well be Armsweak and you'd still be winning 7 TDFEnriss said:
gman0482 said:
To any observer I pedal as all other cyclists do but my power input is very different. Starting at 11 o'c, I apply the same maximal tangential force to the crank all the way to 4 o'c, from 4 to 5 o'c the tangential effect is reduced. That maximal torque between 11 and 1 o'c is made possible by a simple adjustment in the use of leg muscles which creates the opportunity to not only discreetly apply this crank torque but also avail of maximal single arm resistance that is necessary for an instantaneous maximal torque start to this 180 deg. powerstroke at 11. Is that how Friel does it ?
n crowley said:
Potato, patato.
I see no difference. Sometimes, I'll stretch my legs while pedaling by moving my knees far out, and pedal like that for a while. Or, sometimes I'll pull harder on the upstroke and go easy on the downstroke. All of that doesn't mean I just invented a new pedaling style.
