What sw is being run or does it just come with the camera? The data on the screen is cool

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

The camera has gps
Then I will load the data from the computer or the clock
And having the two gps, they synchronize themselves
Use the VIRB Edit

Link : http://www.garmin.com/.../downloads/virb-edit

I'm always amazed at how often you keep saying how few people are willing to try new stuff, when so many of us do. Lots of us are just sitting here watching you do stuff we've already seen. Many of us have our answers based on years of testing and experience...

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

If this were true, why are not folks posting their data to be reviewed?

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

I LOVE seeing all the "ignored posts" by waterfun in this thread! Thank you Dan for the block feature! Such a better forum experience.

I wasn't aware that this was a requirement...

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

I have posted data....and also linked to Jim Martin's studies...didn't you see it above?

Anyway, you say your HR is lower by actively lowering your cadence...at the same power levels?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I saw, but since you did things at PE, and not a fixed power, not sure how valid.

But all these others say they have done experiments, but not one of them can produce data to be analyzed.

So, attached is my current data. All done in erg mode. I start with the same warmup. 160 watts to 300 watts, 1 minute steps,
for 15 minutes. (I do not always get to 300 watts so this is why the first HR numbers are so variable.) I then do 150 watts at 70 rpm for 5 minutes. Then it is 10 minute steps at the different RPM's, crank lengths you see at 200 watts.

We started with my sitting up to get some base line data, and in the past, I have never been able to get into aero with the PC's.
Then with the new bike fit, meaning seat much higher, and shorter cranks, we started into the test period with each rpm step, 5 minute where ever I wanted to have my body, to the last 5 in aero. I could do longer in aeor now but one, I want to keep the same test parameters, and two, I just get too bored, and sore body parts doing long stuff in aero. Race I go into pain stuff, but am not willing in training.

Been sick for 2 weeks so I have just been doing the testing with 150mm cranks. Will have to admit, I am starting to really like the feeling of the shorter cranks, which is WAY shorter than I have used and way shorter for a tall guy. My knees no longer have to bend as much. I do like pushing the power with the least fatigue which seems to be at the 70 rpm rate. When I go above this, the HR does go up, and I can really feel the different fatigue level in my legs.

So I am not, and will never say, what is right for anyone else, and we still do not know what I will try to race on next season. We just continue to do the testing, with the best fixed test setup we can do, and only change one thing which is the RPM rate.

As I said, other than your post, no one else has posted any data other than me. And I do feel my data is pretty good since it is 100% the same with power, etc. There is no asking if each run was done the same way. Mine are being done 100% the same way.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

I would venture that since Tom's PE resulted in virtually identical times, power, and HR, its a pretty valid test.

The question I have regarding your method is how does this compare to race situations? Are you testing at the same power you race at? Have you found a difference in sustainable maximum power with different lengths?



Why do I need you to analyze my testing? This may come as a big shock to you, but there's a big difference between "don't care/need to produce data", and "can't produce data"...

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

Dave

For his experiment Tom actually measured the power output with a power meter something you've never done outdoors.

As to why others have chosen not to post their personal data .............................not everyone aspires to be just like you.

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

I'm probably setting myself up here...but, I've got a bunch of questions about that "data set" (concise answers would be appreciated):

- Do you always do the cadence steps in one direction (low to high)? Do you ever do them high to low?

- Are the HR values an average? If so, over what time span of the intervals?

- Is 200W the power level you intend to race at? If not, are you aware published studies show that the most economical cadence varies with power level? e.g.


- Do you plan to race on unlocked powercranks? If not, then why is mostly all of the testing done that way? De-coupled crank pedaling performance does not equal coupled crank pedaling performance.

- In regards to the question above, did you happen to notice that of the few tests you've done with the cranks locked (coupled cranks), those tend to show the lowest HRs overall? If lessening HR in your bike leg is your goal, then why do you think that is?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Brilliant Hugh, you really nailed it! BTW, this forum could really benefit from a like button.

As you can see by looking at the data, the first tests, from 9/17 to 10/4 where from high to low, after that, low to high. We got rid of the over 90 since I really cannot pedal well at 100, let alone could never hold 110 rpm.

Ideally, HR would be average for the time period, but I found no easy way to do. So the HR numbers are at the end of the period. This method has been used for all the HR numbers collected.

Again, we are just collected data for a fixed setup, with only one change at a time. This way we can see with one change, just Cranklength and fit, what happens.
I have even left the gearing alone to not impact being able to compare the data. Since I do not have a power meter on my bike, I have zero idea what happens in a race, I just go as fast as I can. Now, sure would love to get a power meter for the race bike now. :)

Not sure what Frank will suggest about racing. Today, all I have are normal 200 and 175 compact cranks. I basically can ride PC's just like regular cranks.
That question is in my mind though. Frank believes that PC's allow a rider to develop a more efficient pedal stroke I know the vocal ones, who have never tried PC's, do not agree. (I hope they never do one legged bike drills :)

What I have seen is not HR correlated to the PC's, what I see is a relationship to getting in aero. Those first half tests were 100% done sitting up, and had the lowest HR's. When I added the 50% aero, I am seeing the HR go up 2 to 5 beats when I get in the aero PC's pr locked cranks. Since I have also raced hard twice during the testing, and have been sick, one has to look at more data that just the HR. As an example, I added the field to the far right which is my run time on my 9 mile run route. When my times are over 1:30, my body is not rest, either from a race, or being sick. A lot of testing has been under these conditions. Finally getting over my cold, but still not recovered enough that I have yet to be able to get back on my treadmill. I am also trying to collect resting HR in the morning. Tough trying to remember before I get out of bed, since the HR jumped just walking up my stairs.

All great questions!! This is why I continue to ride and collect more data. Too many things have happened relating to taking HR to just use a small sample size. I have no more races for a while. I hope to not get sick again. So, if I can get my long run times back to 1:27, able to run on the treadmill again for my 6:30 pace, then the HR numbers will be more interesting to look at. If they stay the same, not sure what that will mean. Other than I can easily change things, crank length, use fixed cranks, etc. to keep getting more data.

Wish we were having this discussion on my thread since all great stuff for folks to look at in the future. In a year either I am going to say I was the biggest fool, or. ...

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

If that's "concise", I'd hate to see "wordy" :-/

Part of the reason you have difficulty doing the higher cadences is because you're doing them on unlocked PCs, and aren't taking advantage of the inherent mass balance of a couple-crank system. That's also the reason (the inherent mass balance effects, that is) your HR is lower when using the fixed cranks...you might want to think about those 2 facts for a bit, and what that means, especially for how you'd want to race (i.e. don't you want to "save" those hip flexors for the run and not have them fatigued unnecessarily while cycling?)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

That maybe true, but Higher RPM does produce higher HR, and more leg fatigue, for us mortal bikers.

I do not believe I has said, or have seen, lower HR that I can say is because of fixed cranks. Do you see in the data. What I did day, and see, whether on the PC's or fixed cranks, is my HR is lower while sitting up, and higher in aero with either type of cranks.

I again am not saying I am going to use PC's in a race, did I?

I agree with your thoughts. But when I do in training, where I have used PC's for YEARS, sure has not hurt my running in races. :)

So all I can ask of you, is if you have any thoughts on how the data I am collecting is showing info related to crank length, that would be great. I am not worrying about racing now. What length I use, locked or not. I also am not worrying about what I train with has to be 100% the way I race. May not be ideal, but I think I am doing okay with my way, having fun for my hobby. (Potts training 99% indoor bike trainer has not hurt him much in races. :) )

Thanks for the great questions. I really do not have any thoughts where this is going to end. If it support folks saying crank length means nothing, great. If it supports I might give it a try for some races with real short cranks, for me, that will be fun too. For the amount of time, energy, and cost so many put into this sport, with such poor race results, I am happy, and lucky, I seem to be doing it totally wrong to the ST way, and have been so lucky to have decent race results. Would I like to improve my bike, yep, which is why I finally got of the 200 cranks, and got a decent bike fit. My first race results, for me, were encouraging.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

To throw you a bone...as you were told long ago, there's no downside from a power production, or HR, standpoint to using crank lengths in the range you've tried. There's nothing in your HR data that implies otherwise. So, at least you've confirmed for yourself that we were all correct when we told you what the prior research had shown. Good thing you've come around :-)

Now then...show me the data that higher cadences in and of themselves (as in regardless of power level) necessarily mean higher HR or leg fatigue.

The study plots I shared above imply that's not the case (i.e. the maximum economy cadence varies with power level). In other words, if you forced yourself to use a cadence too low for a particular power level, you would be LESS economical than you chose.

Of course, to add further uncertainty to your task...reducing HR (i.e. minimizing aerobic demand) may not actually represent the correct goal to "optimize" to reduce muscular fatigue. It turns out, in fact, that "freely chosen" cadence appears to correlate to the lowest muscular fatigue. Look here:

"The relationship between energetically optimal and freely-
chosen cadences remain unclear, and several studies have sug-
gested that minimisation of aerobic demand is not a key deter-
minant of preferred cadence selection [28,29,34,40]. Recent
studies have reported that the preferred pedalling rate of ex-
perienced cyclists was coincident with a minimisation of neu-
romuscular fatigue and not with a minimisation of aerobic demand."

Energetically Optimal Cadence vs. Freely-Chosen Cadence During Cycling: Effect of Exercise Duration (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/...of_Exercise_Duration .

Also,

"These data strongly suggest that the optimal pedaling rate estimated from neuromuscular fatigue in working muscles is not coincident with the pedaling rate at which the smallest VO2 was obtained, but with the preferred pedaling rate of the subjects. Our findings also suggest that the reason that cyclists prefer a higher pedaling rate is closely related to the development of neuromuscular fatigue in the working muscles."


Optimal pedaling rate estimated from neuromuscular fatigue for cyclists.

Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/...fatigue_for_cyclists .


In other words, in regards to cadence, "If it feels good, do it" :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

My data, for me, clearly show higher RPM, higher HR. As to leg fatigue, all I can offer is what I feel, just as some many say a certain crank length "feels" the best.

I have never made any statement about crank length and power. Sure wish folks would not try to say I said something. And I have no data to make a comment one way or other.

I do not have enough data, IMO, to say HR and crank length.

I do have data that shows my HR is higher in aero. Even though I have not measured in this testing, I have seen, I think, about 10 watts more power in Aero.

But, as folks have said, crank length can impact fit, which impacts everything else. So I still am trying, for me to find best crank length with gives the best fit
with the most efficient biking. Lower HR is one of those parameters. My ability to stay in aero is another parameters. Adjusting RPM for minimum use of energy, with maximum power for speed, is another.

Just do not know why folks have to say I told you so. I have never made a statement one way or another about anything. But if that makes some feel good, great.

I still offer, if everyone is such an expert, and is doing all this stuff "right", why are they not winning all the races they do? :)

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

At only 200W...and only on your trainer...



Which is it? Are you trying to minimize the use of energy or minimize fatigue (as you stated earlier) at your race power? The 2 points might not be the same, AND your testing as you're doing it now can't tell you that one way or the other. Heck, you don't even know how it corresponds to your race power.



Are you saying we all imagined the "Took my first ride on 200mm cranks. WOW!" thread a decade ago...along with many other assertions since then that you'd "never" go back from them?? IIRC, you were asserting that you were able to ride hills faster and in a higher gear at the same effort...if that's not from an increase in power, then what is it?



That's quite a straw man you've got there...Who says that if you "do all these things right" then that automatically means you win? All it does is improve the chances...there's a reason they still run the races ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Tom, please, give up! "It's been four hours.........The cows can tape something by now" (geetee quoting from City slickers in the other thread)

I'm only doing it for the benefit of the cattle :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Among all the other variables, there's this quote from someone in another thread: "Gear basically never gives you real speed, it is the parents, luck, and the engine"

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

Well you did say this recently.

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.