Ugh, all we say is that our typical user is gaining 40% in 6-9 months after starting exclusive training with PC's. That claim does not say that every watt of increase is due to PC's. Some of it, of course, may be due to training effect and, in fact, some probably is. That is why one does independent studies to try to isolate the variables. However, 40% is much more than most people expect to see in that period of time so some must be due to the PC's and the independent studies that have been done seem to suggest a substantial benefit in both efficiency and VO2 max can be attributed to use of PC's.
So, if someone comes here and says I have increased my speed x amount in 6 months of training with PC's and that calculates to X watts increase. You may disagree as to how much of the increase is due to PC's themselves and how much they might have seen if they had trained traditionally but the result remains yet people come here and call them liars and shills and whatever. Yet, when similar "unbelievable" improvements are seen in aerodynamic drag by using one of current "favorite" bikes of this site everyone thinks it is just wonderful and justifies their last or future purchase despite the fact that no good control of all the variables existed in the test. If someone really wanted to know what the difference was they would go to a wind tunnel and put a mannequin on the bike(s) so everything would be known to be exactly the same between the tests, except the bike. Then we would know.
This result is an estimate yet it seems people are taking it as gold. And the number is so large it is hard to believe it to be true but people want it to be true which probably accounts for why everyone is taking it as gold. We will see how the racing goes. (of course, we will need a lot of numbers to assess whether race conditions affected the results one way or another.)
I simply pointed out the seeming hypocrisy.
--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
So, if someone comes here and says I have increased my speed x amount in 6 months of training with PC's and that calculates to X watts increase. You may disagree as to how much of the increase is due to PC's themselves and how much they might have seen if they had trained traditionally but the result remains yet people come here and call them liars and shills and whatever. Yet, when similar "unbelievable" improvements are seen in aerodynamic drag by using one of current "favorite" bikes of this site everyone thinks it is just wonderful and justifies their last or future purchase despite the fact that no good control of all the variables existed in the test. If someone really wanted to know what the difference was they would go to a wind tunnel and put a mannequin on the bike(s) so everything would be known to be exactly the same between the tests, except the bike. Then we would know.
This result is an estimate yet it seems people are taking it as gold. And the number is so large it is hard to believe it to be true but people want it to be true which probably accounts for why everyone is taking it as gold. We will see how the racing goes. (of course, we will need a lot of numbers to assess whether race conditions affected the results one way or another.)
I simply pointed out the seeming hypocrisy.
--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks