Where does power come from?

[Fday]

A new user getting off of the couch would most likely improve substantially using anything. I improved 27% (18 to 23 MPH on the same course) last spring with out doing much of anything. Since that is only speed, how much is that in power?

That is close to a doubling in power, perhaps a little more. Check it out at analyticcycling.com

If it takes 6-9 months to see the bennifits why only a 90 day guarantee?

Because that is enough time for people to see these are substantially better than what they have done before. We have, in the past, given people who were having trouble adapting and using them more time. It usually didn't make any difference. We "took the fun" out of cycling for them and they couldn't put up with what it would take to put it back in with PC's. 90 days is enough.

I appologize, it was in post 219 of this thread. You said it was the other person that had the 500W. But my question would be the same. For how long was that sustained.

The protocol we used, if I remember correctly, was we started at 100 watts and every minute we would increase the wattage, 40 watts until we got the HR above 120 or so, then 20 watts a minute. So, the subject is at each wattage for one minute then it gets increased until they can go no longer. He would have had to sustain that power for 1 minute for it to count.

 

[vadiver]

That is close to a doubling in power, perhaps a little more. Check it out at analyticcycling.com

It is about 87% increase in power over 7 months. Doing nothing but riding. No fancy PM or cranks. Just getting off of my sorry but and riding 5 days a week. Generally for 45-60 min. in the evening and three to four hours on Saturday.

Where do you come up with your Power = kV^3 formula? I have not been able to find that anywhere.

In the past three weeks I have improved my power (average for 80 min) by 22% already and peak power by I think 27%. Again, by just riding.

So if I coincedentally had your product on the bike I would be seeing the same results. Possibly better but it is getting back in shape. I would however not consider myself a strong rider at all.

Because that is enough time for people to see these are substantially better than what they have done before. We have, in the past, given people who were having trouble adapting and using them more time. It usually didn't make any difference. We "took the fun" out of cycling for them and they couldn't put up with what it would take to put it back in with PC's. 90 days is enough.

Fair enough. I have another question about your product. I do a lot of long steep climbs. As a result I have a lot of long steep decents. After I cannot spin anymore I rest with my feet between 8-10 (2-4). Can that be done on your product or do the feet fall to BDC? How does that effect cornering at 40-50MPH?

The protocol we used, if I remember correctly, was we started at 100 watts and every minute we would increase the wattage, 40 watts until we got the HR above 120 or so, then 20 watts a minute. So, the subject is at each wattage for one minute then it gets increased until they can go no longer. He would have had to sustain that power for 1 minute for it to count.

Did you test how their power over one hour improved?

 

[Piotr]

It is about 87% increase in power over 7 months. Doing nothing but riding. No fancy PM or cranks. Just getting off of my sorry but and riding 5 days a week. Generally for 45-60 min. in the evening and three to four hours on Saturday.

87% increase in power over 7 months is substantial even for a beginner. Did you lose any weight? If so, that may account for some increase in speed (depending on terrain). Also, beginners probably have lesser pain tolerance and thus tend not to put their best effort initially. Since you didn't have any "fancy PM" some of your speed improvement may be attributed to a nice tail wind. Of course, 87% increase in FTP is equivalent of going from untrained to a cat. 3. It isn't unheard of in 7 months.

 

[Fday]

It is about 87% increase in power over 7 months. Doing nothing but riding. No fancy PM or cranks. Just getting off of my sorry but and riding 5 days a week. Generally for 45-60 min. in the evening and three to four hours on Saturday.

Where do you come up with your Power = kV^3 formula? I have not been able to find that anywhere.

In the past three weeks I have improved my power (average for 80 min) by 22% already and peak power by I think 27%. Again, by just riding.

You are obviously and amazing and extraordinary athlete. You should write a book.

So if I coincedentally had your product on the bike I would be seeing the same results. Possibly better but it is getting back in shape. I would however not consider myself a strong rider at all.

If you had our product on your bike for the last 3 weeks I am quite certain we would have slowed you down. First you swear at us, then you swear by us.

Fair enough. I have another question about your product. I do a lot of long steep climbs. As a result I have a lot of long steep decents. After I cannot spin anymore I rest with my feet between 8-10 (2-4). Can that be done on your product or do the feet fall to BDC? How does that effect cornering at 40-50MPH?

They fall to BDC. It doesn't affect cornering much, can improve it because it lowers your center of gravity and you have to unweight the inside leg to pull up some to get it out of the way.

Did you test how their power over one hour improved?

No, all I tested was max power using a modified Conconi protocol.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Is this soap opera still running?

"Like sands through the hour glass, these are the (Frank) Days of Our Lives..."

 

[vadiver]

87% increase in power over 7 months is substantial even for a beginner. Did you lose any weight? If so, that may account for some increase in speed (depending on terrain). Also, beginners probably have lesser pain tolerance and thus tend not to put their best effort initially. Since you didn't have any "fancy PM" some of your speed improvement may be attributed to a nice tail wind. Of course, 87% increase in FTP is equivalent of going from untrained to a cat. 3. It isn't unheard of in 7 months.

It has to do with a lot of things.

Yes I lost 3.7% of my body weight in this period. The pain tolerance was not really there but I would say i did not put forth my best effort for different reasons. The course is an out and back so wind would not change that much in 45 minutes.

Where I would say there was a difference in effort was. Being new again to cycling it was harder to stay in the drops at first. I probably did the first ride 90% on the tops, second 90% in the drops. There were not a lot of turns on the course that I could go through without blowing through a stop sign in heavy trafic. The ones that I could, I read something on how to trun in crits that helped me a lot. I learned how to shift better on terrain changes. I upped my cadence 30% and turned a smaller gear.

But I think the biggist improment is I cut out eight hours of TV and substituted eight hours of excersise. When you start at a lousy base, there is a lot of room for improvement.

 

[vadiver]

You are obviously and amazing and extraordinary athlete. You should write a book.

Not at all. I was just out of shape. To see the improvements you claim in new riders has more to do with getting in shape then anything else. This is why a pro will see very little improvement with your product, and Cat 1 may see a bit more, all the way down to a couch potato.

It is like all the mirical tummy firmers you see on infomercials. "Using this product, good diet, and lifestyle change" you will have a 40% flatter tummy. Where a good diet and lifestyle chanage will help termendously.

If you had our product on your bike for the last 3 weeks I am quite certain we would have slowed you down. First you swear at us, then you swear by us.

I have not sworn at you nor by you. I just comment on your 40% power improvment claim with no support other than 10% in 6 weeks.

<snip>

Where do you get your formula of P=kV^3 IOW, where do you finde Power is the cube of velocity?

 

[n crowley]

If they start out equal, 6 months later the PC'er will win hands down. No doubt in my mind whatsoever.

You do realize that statement is contrary to the results of Coyle's research. On the Slowtwitch Forum I read that after three years training with three different sets of PC's, an experienced rider (cdw) could record faster times by returning to normal cranks. Reliable tests he did when using the PC's showed no increase in power output and he was forced to use a more unaerodynamic position. If after gaining that 40 % increase, you yourself could not state where in the pedal stroke that increase occurred, it should have been obvious that this power increase was due to nothing more than improved fitness.

 

[Fday]

You do realize that statement is contrary to the results of Coyle's research. On the Slowtwitch Forum I read that after three years training with three different sets of PC's, an experienced rider (cdw) could record faster times by returning to normal cranks. Reliable tests he did when using the PC's showed no increase in power output and he was forced to use a more unaerodynamic position. If after gaining that 40 % increase, you yourself could not state where in the pedal stroke that increase occurred, it should have been obvious that this power increase was due to nothing more than improved fitness.

Phooey, Coyles research was debunked a long time ago here for proving any such thing. Even Andrew Coggan admits this now. Coyles research only proves, in my mind that the more experienced athlete generates more power. Power wins. Take two otherwise equal riders, the more efficient one will generate the most power, hence he wins.

CDW's report goes to duathlon and he has made the choice that he feels, for him, that he gains more now from the increased aerodynamics he can get from racing on regular cranks, than he gets from the increase power he gets riding in a more open position on PowerCranks. He runs better when he races on PC's, his bike is faster when he gets extremely aero. He has chosen an extreme aero position he cannot ride his PC's in for any length of time. Here is part of what he wrote:

"I ride with about 18cm of drop, so that may have something to do with it, but it becomes a question of what you are willing to give up in order to gain something else. I could probably race the PCs better with a high pos, but then I would give up the aero benefits. So far, testing has shown me that the low, aero position with regular cranks spinning high rpm is more beneficial to the whole race than my previous experience racing on PCs."

Notice he has not abandoned them for training, the bulk of his training still being on PC's after 3 years. That is fine with me, whatever makes you faster.

Frank

 

[workingguy]

Where do you get your formula of P=kV^3 IOW, where do you finde Power is the cube of velocity?

The kurt kinetic website has the formula for the Road Machine trainer, as well as other trainers like cycleops. The the Road machine is reportedly the most accurate in simulating on-the-road conditions. The KK assumptions are 160lb rider, 1% grade. 1% grade is minimal, but not neglible. But I don't think that would alter the exponents in their formula, y = 5.244820x + 0.01968x^3 where y is power and x is speed. At high values of x, the first order term, 5.244820x, become less significant. At 20mph, the first order term is 105 of the 262 total watts. At 30 mph, the first order term is 150 of the nearly 700 watts.

 

[workingguy]

The kurt kinetic website has the formula for the Road Machine trainer, as well as other trainers like cycleops. The the Road machine is reportedly the most accurate in simulating on-the-road conditions. The KK assumptions are 160lb rider, 1% grade. 1% grade is minimal, but not neglible. But I don't think that would alter the exponents in their formula, y = 5.244820x + 0.01968x^3 where y is power and x is speed. At high values of x, the first order term, 5.244820x, become less significant. At 20mph, the first order term is 105 of the 262 total watts. At 30 mph, the first order term is 150 of the nearly 700 watts.

So for a high enough x, and a small enough delta x, y = kx^3 provides a good approximation.

10% increase in speed and the necessary increase in power:

25mph: ignoring the first order term: 307, counting the first order term: 439
27.5mph: ignoring the first order term: 409, counting the first order term: 553

ratio: ignoring the first order term: 1.331 (1.1^3),
counting the first order term: 1.26

 

[vadiver]

So for a high enough x, and a small enough delta x, y = kx^3 provides a good approximation.

10% increase in speed and the necessary increase in power:

25mph: ignoring the first order term: 307, counting the first order term: 439
27.5mph: ignoring the first order term: 409, counting the first order term: 553

ratio: ignoring the first order term: 1.331 (1.1^3),
counting the first order term: 1.26

It is just an approximation that only works with small delta x with large x and the units do not work out properly. That is why going from 20 MPH to 25 MPH at 25% delta x does not work.

Just follow the units.

Again from what I found power equals work devided by time. Or P=F*V

P in watts. F in Newtons and V in M/S.

Force = M*A so a newton if I am not mistaken would be (kg)*m/s^2
Velocity is m/s.

so a watt would be (kg)*m/s^2*m/s or (kg)m^2 / s^3.

Watt=kgm^2s^-3


Using the KK estimation would yeild Watt = m/s + (m/s)^3 which is not correct. If the formula was correct it would work for all values of x and delta x. Since it is just an estimation the magnatude of error gets greater when x is small or delta x is large.

That is why Dr. Frank came up with a 100% increase in power when in reality it was only 87% going from 18 to 23 mph.

If I use the KK formula I have a 10% error on my 18MPH power estimate and a 15% error on the 23MPH power estimate using A/C. On a 1% slope it shows a 63% power increase vs a 72% power increase. To me that is substantial.

 

[vadiver]

You do realize that statement is contrary to the results of Coyle's research. On the Slowtwitch Forum I read that after three years training with three different sets of PC's, an experienced rider (cdw) could record faster times by returning to normal cranks. Reliable tests he did when using the PC's showed no increase in power output and he was forced to use a more unaerodynamic position. If after gaining that 40 % increase, you yourself could not state where in the pedal stroke that increase occurred, it should have been obvious that this power increase was due to nothing more than improved fitness.

Frank does not think improved fitness has anything to do with a gain in power.

 

[vadiver]

<snip> Take two otherwise equal riders, the more efficient one will generate the most power, hence he wins.

<snip>Frank

Frank,

Lets look at a motor vehicle. Take two equal vehicles other than one is 10% more efficient than the other.

One gets 30 MPG, the other 33 MPG. Put in 1 gallon of fuel and set them off using the same power. Yes, the one that gets 33 MPG will go farther. Or we can set them so they only burn their fuel at a rate of 1 gallon per hour. Yes, the one that gets 33 MPG will have more power at that rate. This is great if the controling factor is the fuel.

In cycling that is not the case. If I use 1000K/Hour and you use 900K/Hour at equal power outputs I need to eat one more Gel per hour then you. If our race was limited to 1000 calories and we each were equal in every way except you were 10% more efficient than I, yes you would win. But bike races are not limited to the amount of food one can take in.

Power is a limiting force, not fuel.

 

[Piotr]

Frank,

Lets look at a motor vehicle. Take two equal vehicles other than one is 10% more efficient than the other.

One gets 30 MPG, the other 33 MPG. Put in 1 gallon of fuel and set them off using the same power. Yes, the one that gets 33 MPG will go farther. Or we can set them so they only burn their fuel at a rate of 1 gallon per hour. Yes, the one that gets 33 MPG will have more power at that rate. This is great if the controling factor is the fuel.

In cycling that is not the case. If I use 1000K/Hour and you use 900K/Hour at equal power outputs I need to eat one more Gel per hour then you. If our race was limited to 1000 calories and we each were equal in every way except you were 10% more efficient than I, yes you would win. But bike races are not limited to the amount of food one can take in.

Power is a limiting force, not fuel.

I disagree. People are not cars and that logic won't fly. Looking at anyone's power curve it is obvious that if rider A goes 2 hrs at 300 W and rider B goes 3 hrs at 300 W, rider B will be able to go at 300+ for 2 hrs. Power curves still slope down after 2 or 3 hrs in the saddle, so efficiency will play a role in road races.

Edit: IOW, if you're only burning 900kJ/hr while competitors are burning 1000kJ/hr, you should be burning 1000kJ/hr and going faster than they.

 

[vadiver]

I disagree. People are not cars and that logic won't fly. Looking at anyone's power curve it is obvious that if rider A goes 2 hrs at 300 W and rider B goes 3 hrs at 300 W, rider B will be able to go at 300+ for 2 hrs. Power curves still slope down after 2 or 3 hrs in the saddle, so efficiency will play a role in road races.

I would agree with your that rider B would be able to generate 300+ for two hours if they can generate 300W over three hours. However, that would make rider B more powerfull than rider A. We are assuming rider B and rider A have the same power output. So rider A would be able to go 3hrs at 300W as well.

The longer one rides the amount of power produced drops as well as you stated. That would explain why someone can produce over 1000W in a sprint for a short duration but that does not mean they can maitain 1000W for an hour, two, or three.

 

[Piotr]

I would agree with your that rider B would be able to generate 300+ for two hours if they can generate 300W over three hours. However, that would make rider B more powerfull than rider A. We are assuming rider B and rider A have the same power output. So rider A would be able to go 3hrs at 300W as well.

The longer one rides the amount of power produced drops as well as you stated. That would explain why someone can produce over 1000W in a sprint for a short duration but that does not mean they can maitain 1000W for an hour, two, or three.

Well, yes, more efficient rider is more powerful over longer periods. This isn't just a question of food intake, but glycogen storage capacity. Professionals don't race for 6 hrs simply because they carry lots of food. It would be great if that's all it took. Perhaps the "edit" at the end of my last post is more illustrative.

 

[vadiver]

Well, yes, more efficient rider is more powerful over longer periods. This isn't just a question of food intake, but glycogen storage capacity. Professionals don't race for 6 hrs simply because they carry lots of food. It would be great if that's all it took. Perhaps the "edit" at the end of my last post is more illustrative.

Not necessarily. Your second sentence confirms this. Since every body is different, just because I am less efficient than you, if we have the same power out put but have a higher capacity to store energy we can still have the same power of the same period of time, I just burn more.

Your edit assumes I can generate the power to go from 900Kj/h to 1000Kj/h. If I cannot, I cannot.

All of this is assumeing same power output anyway. If rider A can generate 300W/hr and rider B generate 200W/hr and the race is one hour in duration, rider B does not stand a chance. And that is what the start of this whole discusion has been about Dr. Frank's claim that a rider gets a 40% increase in power using his product. The only thing that we know for sure is that in 6 weeks using his product a rider can expect to have a GE 10% more than a person without using his product. Do you think being 10% more efficient will make a difference in an hour? What duration do you think that 10% GE becomes a factor.

 

[Piotr]

Not necessarily. Your second sentence confirms this. Since every body is different, just because I am less efficient than you, if we have the same power out put but have a higher capacity to store energy we can still have the same power of the same period of time, I just burn more.

Your edit assumes I can generate the power to go from 900Kj/h to 1000Kj/h. If I cannot, I cannot.

All of this is assumeing same power output anyway. If rider A can generate 300W/hr and rider B generate 200W/hr and the race is one hour in duration, rider B does not stand a chance. And that is what the start of this whole discusion has been about Dr. Frank's claim that a rider gets a 40% increase in power using his product. The only thing that we know for sure is that in 6 weeks using his product a rider can expect to have a GE 10% more than a person without using his product. Do you think being 10% more efficient will make a difference in an hour? What duration do you think that 10% GE becomes a factor.

I will admit that I'm no expert. I simply took face value exception to your logic in that post. Truth be told if I believed that I could gain "only" 20% in one season I'd buy the product. Instead, I bought a Powertap, because I know it will help me work smarter to achieve such a goal without making any specific promises.

 

[vadiver]

I will admit that I'm no expert. I simply took face value exception to your logic in that post. Truth be told if I believed that I could gain "only" 20% in one season I'd buy the product. Instead, I bought a Powertap, because I know it will help me work smarter to achieve such a goal without making any specific promises.

I also should have stuck with what the study says and not Franks claims.

Originally Posted by Fday
From the study:

Gross efficiency was determined using the mean respiratory values from the gases collected and the resistance applied during the pretraining and posttraining submaximal rides. The values obtained from the average work performed against the resistance and the energy expended from the RER value were converted into caloric equivlents (kcal-min^-1) using the Weir equation (30), and then multiplied by 100 to yield a percentage value as identified previously.

Since I know you will ask, although I don't expect you to know what it means, RER means respiratory exchange ratio.

Since the change in power was the same between the two groups, I interpret this as saying the users had a 10% better gas exchange then the non-users.

If this is true, the users would have .3ml of CO2 in their system for every 100ml of air consumed. (These values would be of a resting person and not a person working at 70% maximum, I do not know if the ratios change with work, I assume they do.) I further do not know how much CO2 needs to build up before one starts to feel the effects.

So far all that has been shown as improvment from his product is this 10% vaule of GE. I do not know if it matters.

As far as a coach, powermeter, other tools, I think it is correct. What do you think you will get the most value out of. These are all expensive putouts. IMHO, I would probably go with the PM/Coach before the other tools if I really wanted to compete. Both the PM/Coach will be able to improve my performance year after year. Franks product only improve me for six to 24 months depending on how Frank feels at the time.

I think there is a reason why every elite athlete has a coach.