Poor man's Powercranks? (PPC)

[doctorSpoc]

Then, let me ask you this as you seem to have a reasonable middle of the road viewpoint here. In view of Joaco21's posted improvement, why on earth is it so hard to get anyone here to admit that it might be even possible that these might be worth the price or effort?

Everyone seems locked into the "impossible" 40% number, yet it is in the same order of magnitude reported by Joaco21 and many others but I am seen as a charlatan for simply telling potential customers what current customers report, because it hasn't been proven true. "Proving" (to a scientific certainty) our "claims" true is an essentially impossible task at this point in time.

I'll be very straight forward... Joaco21's claims are not reasonable... they seem to be complete BS... i simply don't believe him... as Judge Milian say "i wouldn't believe him if his tongue came notarized..." extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and all that. it's simple a numbers game. from where i'm sitting the probability that your or your customer's 40% claim is true is extremely low in my estimation so i am very comfortable in going about my business believing it is not true... probability that an improvement on the order of 5% is reasonable and i am comfortable believing that there is a chance that, that sort of improvement may be possible.. this is all in the face of no terribly convincing or conclusive evidence either way (at least for a claim as high as 40%)

 

[Fday]

I'll be very straight forward... Joaco21's claims are not reasonable... they seem to be complete BS... i simply don't believe him... as Judge Milian say "i wouldn't believe him if his tongue came notarized..." extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and all that. it's simple a numbers game. from where i'm sitting the probability that your or your customer's 40% claim is true is extremely low in my estimation so i am very comfortable in going about my business believing it is not true... probability that an improvement on the order of 5% is reasonable and i am comfortable believing that there is a chance that, that sort of improvement may be possible.. this is all in the face of no terribly convincing or conclusive evidence either way (at least for a claim as high as 40%)

All I can say is, WOW! I take back what I said about your having a reasonable middle of the road view. Why would you think he would make up numbers to present here? Do you think I put him up to that post? I can assure you I didn't as I don't even know who he is. I continue to be amazed at how closed minded most people are as to even the potential for improvement, let alone, what can actually be achieved now. You seemed to understand the large number of areas in which cycling improvement can be achieved. However, you seem to have completely underestimated the potential of each of these areas, either alone or together.

 

[Felt_Rider]

Like others probably lurking about watching the discussion I may be getting lost or missing some information so I need some help catching up here.

I am only seeing one person named Joaco21 being listed as a person that has claimed positive results. Is this the only one in reference or are there more individuals making the same claim?


On a side note my specialty to some degree is in hormone manipulation and though the comment on fitness vs. apparent fitness seems to be a wise statement I am not quite sure I agree with that comment. Perhaps the statement wasn't written as clearly as it could have been so I will avoid the conversation to keep on topic.

 

[doctorSpoc]

All I can say is, WOW! I take back what I said about your having a reasonable middle of the road view. Why would you think he would make up numbers to present here? Do you think I put him up to that post? I can assure you I didn't as I don't even know who he is. I continue to be amazed at how closed minded most people are as to even the potential for improvement, let alone, what can actually be achieved now. You seemed to understand the large number of areas in which cycling improvement can be achieved. However, you seem to have completely underestimated the potential of each of these areas, either alone or together.

kinda tougue-in-cheek but the fact remains that i don't believe that an improvement on the order of 25-40% came directly from the use of power cranks... but, could be a straight up lie, could be an honest mistake, could be increase motivation and better training (shiny new part do that sometimes), could be the correcting of an undiagnosed nutritional deficiency... don't know?

 

[frenchyge]

....probability that an improvement on the order of 5% is reasonable and i am comfortable believing that there is a chance that, that sort of improvement may be possible.. this is all in the face of no terribly convincing or conclusive evidence either way (at least for a claim as high as 40%)

If I'm remembering correctly, the 40% mark is an average amongst the many testimonials Frank receives, some being lower and some even higher. However, I'm not sure what attempts have been made to separate athletes just beginning their training from those who are 'stable' in their training, before performing the averaging.

 

[Fday]

Like others probably lurking about watching the discussion I may be getting lost or missing some information so I need some help catching up here.

I am only seeing one person named Joaco21 being listed as a person that has claimed positive results. Is this the only one in reference or are there more individuals making the same claim?


On a side note my specialty to some degree is in hormone manipulation and though the comment on fitness vs. apparent fitness seems to be a wise statement I am not quite sure I agree with that comment. Perhaps the statement wasn't written as clearly as it could have been so I will avoid the conversation to keep on topic.

Joaco21 is the only person on this thread who has come on and claimed any specific PC results. I believe he did so because I related that I had heard of such a result and apparently someone emailed him and told him he was being brought up so he hopped on board to confirm. Unfortunately for him he didn't realize that whenever anyone says anything remotely positive about PC's on these threads they are accused of being liars or shills.

Anyhow, I will put forth another result that anyone can check. Phil Holman. Phil is an engineer and just as much a non-believer as anyone here, believing my claims to be "impossible". Long and heated debates back and forth on the old rec-bicycles-racing and other list-serves. Anyhow, I challenged him to use them as we recommended and keep a public record for the group and he agreed. (people thought I was crazy) 7 months later he reported he had improved his top speed on the track from 35 to 38 mph, improved his pursuit speed on the track from 30 to 32 mph, and just happened to qualify for and then win a bronze medal at track worlds.

No specific power numbers to report but those speed improvements calculate to be just about the same numbers Jaoco21 reported.

So, such improvements are either "impossible" or commonplace. Take your pick.

Regarding my comments differentiating apparent from actual fitness, it is simply an attempt to separate earned fitness from the cheaters. epo is actually a little funny in my book as it provides no benefit over equivalent natural means of raising HCT, like living at altitude or altitude tents or "unnatural means" like transfusion. Those with the same HCT have essentially the same benefit, regardless of how it is obtained. It would be easier to simply prohibit competition at HCT's above 45 (for the men) and not worry about how the athlete got there. If someone were to show up at the race with a HCT of 46 they must simply be bled until they are below 45, then they can compete and be equal. The same can't be said for other doping agents.

 

[vadiver]

If I'm remembering correctly, the 40% mark is an average amongst the many testimonials Frank receives, some being lower and some even higher. However, I'm not sure what attempts have been made to separate athletes just beginning their training from those who are 'stable' in their training, before performing the averaging.

The only time I have seen the 40% mark stated it was Frank claiming it was his number when he conducted his Conconi test. When he came up with numbers it was the second person who completed (2 out of 7) his test. Frank was closer to 50% and this person was 38%.

All the other claims come in at a 10%-20% range. And Frank totaly discounts the effects of a change in training protocal.

Tha is what makes Jaocos statement so efficient. He finds a thread, the only thread that mentions a Spanish cyclist, within hours of joining the forum. Then does not waste a single sentence explaining the bennifits of Frank's product. Including the most recent discussion of lower cadences. The onlything it did not report on was the reduction of a good aero position.

I do not doubt Jaocos claims, I am very suspect in what all he says in his post. Furhter it is only one person out of thousands. Doubting Jaoco would be on the same level of doubting a person could come back from cancer and compete at an elite level. Several people have done that, but they are rare individuals or in otherwords outliyers.

 

[Fday]

If I'm remembering correctly, the 40% mark is an average amongst the many testimonials Frank receives, some being lower and some even higher. However, I'm not sure what attempts have been made to separate athletes just beginning their training from those who are 'stable' in their training, before performing the averaging.

You are correct and it is not possible to know who is stable and who is not but it is a lot different if someone has been riding and competing for less than a year or if they have been doing so for more than 5. Most of our customers are not new athletes but have stable histories, although i am sure some of them have made a conscious decision to "get serious". So some of the benefits may be related to training effect or other things, although I doubt much of it is the "shiny do-dad" effect.

Another example on the high end. Joe Skufka, an experienced age group triathlete. His wife gets him a pair of PC's for his anniversary. Once a month he does a little 12 mile TT loop to gauge his fitness. Pre PC his best speed is 20 mph. After 6 months of exclusive PC use it is 25 mph. This calculates to almost a doubling of power (at least for this 12 mile trial) in 6 months in someone who most would say was reasonably well-trained before. Certainly more than the "shiny do-dad" effect. Oh, and the next year he had improved again to 27 mph. The following year he only got to 28.

So, yes, our 40% claim is "on average" for our typical new user. Some see more some see less.

 

[Felt_Rider]

Regarding my comments differentiating apparent from actual fitness, it is simply an attempt to separate earned fitness from the cheaters. epo is actually a little funny in my book as it provides no benefit over equivalent natural means of raising HCT, like living at altitude or altitude tents or "unnatural means" like transfusion. Those with the same HCT have essentially the same benefit, regardless of how it is obtained. It would be easier to simply prohibit competition at HCT's above 45 (for the men) and not worry about how the athlete got there. If someone were to show up at the race with a HCT of 46 they must simply be bled until they are below 45, then they can compete and be equal. The same can't be said for other doping agents.

That is the only part that troubles me.
Fitness is always earned in my experience regardless of natural or unnatural means.

Think about it.

 

[Fday]

That is the only part that troubles me.
Fitness is always earned in my experience regardless of natural or unnatural means.

Think about it.

Honest fitness. Fitness having been achieved strictly within the rules. Would you accept that term?

 

[vadiver]

You are correct and it is not possible to know who is stable and who is not but it is a lot different if someone has been riding and competing for less than a year or if they have been doing so for more than 5. Most of our customers are not new athletes but have stable histories, although i am sure some of them have made a conscious decision to "get serious". So some of the benefits may be related to training effect or other things, although I doubt much of it is the "shiny do-dad" effect.

Another example on the high end. Joe Skufka, an experienced age group triathlete. His wife gets him a pair of PC's for his anniversary. Once a month he does a little 12 mile TT loop to gauge his fitness. Pre PC his best speed is 20 mph. After 6 months of exclusive PC use it is 25 mph. This calculates to almost a doubling of power (at least for this 12 mile trial) in 6 months in someone who most would say was reasonably well-trained before. Certainly more than the "shiny do-dad" effect. Oh, and the next year he had improved again to 27 mph. The following year he only got to 28.

So, yes, our 40% claim is "on average" for our typical new user. Some see more some see less.

The problem with you touting all of these extrodinary claims is they mean viturlly nothing.

How many units have you sold?
How many of the thes >10% claims do you have?

You have mentioned less than 20 people with these great claims. You have said you have sold thousands. That is such a small percentage, who cares.

What you need to do is commision a test and get actual results. That will solidify your claims.

The study is not that hard to conduct.

 

[joaco21]

Hello again,

I have receive an email from cyclingforums telling me that there was a reply to the message I left some days ago. I have just logged in and I have been 40 minutes reading all the messages after mine.

I am leaving this one just to clarify that
1) I have nothing to do with PowerCranks, inc. And yes I do not know Frank Day at all. I now Andrew because I ordered my PowerCranks together with the Computrainer and I received the US model, and I called him to get the European version (which I received inmediatelly)
2) It looks to me that in the US (like in Europe) there are many cyclists willing to spend thousands of dollars in expensive wheels, training camps, training in altitude, but are not willing to test new products as PowerCranks
3) I bought them one year ago because I was 38 and I read an interesting article about increasing power by increasing efficiency (the article was related to Lance's succesive successes in the TdF whilst he was aging)
4) Many amateurs and elite cyclists are afraid of new products that may change their pedalling technicque, or even worse, will ruin their racing season, but I am not, since I am a Master class racer, with two kids and nothing to loose. And I like new things, and PowerCranks looked interesting to me.
5) When I decided to use them I fully read the user's manual (which few people do) and I followed the manufacturers advice (i.e. use them almost exclusivelly for 6-9 months)
6) First I got a VO2 max test, to check the results one year later.
7)I suffered like a dog the first weeks, and I was about to quit, but I decided to continue, since it still made sense to me.
8) I usually train with some Spanish pro's from Madrid, and I usually take a test by climbing a first cat climb near Madrid (La Morcuera) which is 9 km long with a 8% avg gradient. My best time before 2006 was 29'37" in september 1992 when I was an amateur rider.
9) In september 2006 I came again to do the climbing test. My new record was 27'46". (and I weight 4 kilos more than in 1992). Some days later I got the VO2 max test. Since the racing season might also had influenced the result I decided to take another test in April, after the winter training.
10) I bought a Power-Tap three years ago (I like all new gadgets) and I have all the data from my training recorded (I also bought Cycling Peaks software) from the last three years.
11) I regularly take other field tests besides the big climb (8 min, 20 min, 1hour FTP) and my power has increased in all of them 25-30%
12) If anyone is interested I can send you the files. You will see all the data there, HR, Cadence, Power, Speed...
13) I continued using PowerCranks all through the winter exclusivelly
14) I will take my VO2 max test next week. My guess is that my FTP will be around 375 Watts (34% increase over last year) since last weekend I went with my team to do our first training in the mountains and I did a 12 km climb at an average of 377 Watts.

My Doctor says that an explanation to the results is that I got more muscles in my legs trained aerobically (which is like adding cilinders to a car) and I can now burn more fat and sugar aerobically without raising my lactate levels. In fact my LT is now at 175 Bpm when last year it was at 171 bpm.

My pedalling technicque has also changed but I do not if that has increased my power.

I wrte all this here because I am a fan of cycling and I support all people bringing new ideas to this sport. From time to time there are new discoveries that turn around old theories. PowerCranks seem to me like one of these new discoveries that do not fit to the current status of the science. But maybe the hteories are wrong. Crearly there must be an explanation to this. But I guess I will be very happy this coming racing season being the only Spanish rider to use them. And I have at least one year advantage over my rivals!

 

[n crowley]

Hello again,



My pedalling technicque has also changed but I do not if that has increased my power.

In what way has your pedalling technique changed ?

 

[vadiver]

Hello again,

8) I usually train with some Spanish pro's from Madrid, and I usually take a test by climbing a first cat climb near Madrid (La Morcuera) which is 9 km long with a 8% avg gradient. My best time before 2006 was 29'37" in september 1992 when I was an amateur rider.
9) In september 2006 I came again to do the climbing test. My new record was 27'46". (and I weight 4 kilos more than in 1992). Some days later I got the VO2 max test. Since the racing season might also had influenced the result I decided to take another test in April, after the winter training.
10) I bought a Power-Tap three years ago (I like all new gadgets) and I have all the data from my training recorded (I also bought Cycling Peaks software) from the last three years.
11) I regularly take other field tests besides the big climb (8 min, 20 min, 1hour FTP) and my power has increased in all of them 25-30%

My pedalling technicque has also changed but I do not if that has increased my power.

I wrte all this here because I am a fan of cycling and I support all people bringing new ideas to this sport. From time to time there are new discoveries that turn around old theories. PowerCranks seem to me like one of these new discoveries that do not fit to the current status of the science. But maybe the hteories are wrong. Crearly there must be an explanation to this. But I guess I will be very happy this coming racing season being the only Spanish rider to use them. And I have at least one year advantage over my rivals!

14 years between testing your time on this climb? Nothing has changed in your cycling since then.

Individual results will varry. If you did nothing to unweight or pull up on the pedal and now you are that would be some improvement.

You say the only change in your cycling in the past year has been the product. That implies you have not increased frequency, effort, diet, positioning, other components of the bike etc. Is that the case?

Again your results are fine. It is when Frank claims the average rider gains 40%. That would put your measly 25% improvement way below average. Do you feel that your improvement is way below average, average, or above average?

 

[joaco21]

In what way has your pedalling technique changed ?

My feet tend to look for the right angle to apply the force against the pedal all the way around, but I do not consciouslly think about it. I feel like I start pushing the pedals at the 1 o'clock position rather than at the 3 o'clock position, by using my harmstrings,. I also unweight the pedals "all the time" and push up strongly when climbing or doing hard efforts.

 

[joaco21]

14 years between testing your time on this climb? Nothing has changed in your cycling since then.

Individual results will varry. If you did nothing to unweight or pull up on the pedal and now you are that would be some improvement.

You say the only change in your cycling in the past year has been the product. That implies you have not increased frequency, effort, diet, positioning, other components of the bike etc. Is that the case?

Again your results are fine. It is when Frank claims the average rider gains 40%. That would put your measly 25% improvement way below average. Do you feel that your improvement is way below average, average, or above average?

Yes, I have gained 4 kilos, and I train 7-9 hours a week now, and 20 hours a week 14 years ago. Also I am now 14 years older. My best time on that climb has slowly increased year by year, in fact in 2005 my best time was 30'14". And suddently, this big jump.

As for last year, I have not changed anything at all, in fact my third child was born and I tend to dedicate less time to long rides.

I do not now anybodyelse who uses PowerCranks here in Spain so I cannot say whether my improvement is above or bellow average. Still I think it is incredible.

 

[vadiver]

Yes, I have gained 4 kilos, and I train 7-9 hours a week now, and 20 hours a week 14 years ago. Also I am now 14 years older. My best time on that climb has slowly increased year by year, in fact in 2005 my best time was 30'14". And suddently, this big jump.

As for last year, I have not changed anything at all, in fact my third child was born and I tend to dedicate less time to long rides.

I do not now anybodyelse who uses PowerCranks here in Spain so I cannot say whether my improvement is above or bellow average. Still I think it is incredible.

This and your previous post start to explain things a bit more.

Although you talk about buying your PT three years ago you have not indicated how long you trained and at what effort three years ago, two years ago, and last year. How has your winter routine changed?

20 years ago you trained about three hours per day, now you are down to one hour. The length of time spent training does not necessarily indicate you are training better. The shorter training at greater efforts would yield different results. Just like sprinters are different than long distance runners. So if you are putting forth the same amount of effort in less time, you will see a difference in your results.

Age an weight do not mean that much to me. I am 20 years older and 20KG heavier than I was when I really started riding. My percentage body fat is about the same as it was. I did not use a cyclocomputer to verify but I think I am faster and a better rider than I was. I know I can rider farther/longer with less fatigue then I could 20 years ago.

It is the post just prior to this one that intrigues me the most. Why would you wait until the three o'clock position to start applying force? How did the different crank change this?

Unweighting seems straight forward to me. I have been one that learned to run on my toes so it just made sense to me to get my feet up on the recovery stroke.

Why would anyone with toe clips or clipless pedals not lift up when doing a hard pull? That was the whole point of putting clips on pedals. In fact I remember a conversation I had with a person about clipless pedals. I did not know how you would ride with them if you did not have your shoes on. When they asked why my comment was, "my feet will come off the pedals on the back stroke". I was rightfully laughed at.

Had you ever done successful ILS?

As far as your improvement compared to other users. You are about 40% less than aveage, and someone else will have improved by 55%. Does that sound about right to you?

 

[n crowley]

It is the post just prior to this one that intrigues me the most. Why would you wait until the three o'clock position to start applying force? How did the different crank change this?

This means any improvements he reports have to be ignored. This may also explain Frank's 40 % improvement as he has already stated that he had not the slightest idea about his pedaling technique before he started using PC's. I have always known that early instant total unweighting controls your timing or start of your power stroke but I did not believe that there could be such a delay for some riders.

 

[vadiver]

This means any improvements he reports have to be ignored. This may also explain Frank's 40 % improvement as he has already stated that he had not the slightest idea about his pedaling technique before he started using PC's. I have always known that early instant total unweighting controls your timing or start of your power stroke but I did not believe that there could be such a delay for some riders.

That is kind of what I was thinking, and have been thinking.

Now Jaoco's improvements are probably real and great for himbut it was the change in technique that would do it, not the product. Until he replys back it will be hard to tell. But if he waited until the 3 o'clock position that is a lot of waisted time almost 25%, or his marked improvement. And he could have done that with visualization.

When I am just crusing/resting I think my maximum force is at 3 o'clock and from then on I am releasing the force getting ready to unweight. From the sounds of Jaoco, that was when he was starting to pedal. That is waisting 30-60 degrees of rotation. On a harder effort it is probably a little past 3 o'clock but not by much. The difference is the lifting of the pedal but my hamstring is no where near as strong as my quad.

 

[n crowley]

That is kind of what I was thinking, and have been thinking.

Now Jaoco's improvements are probably real and great for himbut it was the change in technique that would do it, not the product. Until he replys back it will be hard to tell. But if he waited until the 3 o'clock position that is a lot of waisted time almost 25%, or his marked improvement. And he could have done that with visualization.

When I am just crusing/resting I think my maximum force is at 3 o'clock and from then on I am releasing the force getting ready to unweight. From the sounds of Jaoco, that was when he was starting to pedal. That is waisting 30-60 degrees of rotation. On a harder effort it is probably a little past 3 o'clock but not by much. The difference is the lifting of the pedal but my hamstring is no where near as strong as my quad.

The PC's forced him to unweight at the bottom of his downstroke and this kickstarted his other leg into action and demonstrated the error of his ways but I don't believe there is anything extra to be gained by further use or torture of PC's.