But, I still want some PowerCranks.

For free.

---

-All You Haters Suck My Balls-

It doesn't seem sad, it is sad. That some of the people here were such complete butt-heads that someone who came here to relate his experience was hounded off and wants no further contact. And, that such behaviour inhibits other actual users of the product here from saying anything for fear of the same BS coming their way. Sad indeed.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Frank--I'm freely admitting being insanely late to this discussion and too lazy to search through the multitude of threads, but I wanted to ask-- has any of your research focused on riders' pedaling efficiency (left/right balance, in-stroke power variability)--not baseline power output--before using your product? It would seem that someone with reasonably good pedaling technique at baseline is going to benefit much less from using PCs because bad technique is much easier to fix than FTP. It just seems like someone with a nice, round, balanced pedal stroke isn't going to see a 100% increase in FTP like the guy who added 5mph.

Sorry if this has been addressed ad nauseum.

Our "research" doesn't specifically address this but it is pretty clear it is true. The better one's technique is before getting on PC's the less the PC's have to offer in this area and these people should see smaller benefits. Of course, for these people achieving improvement is much harder so even a smaller improvement is welcome. Probably why many in the pro peloton find us useful despite the fact they are not seeing that 40% number.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

And, our average customer (who uses them per our instructions) is reporting that 40% improvement in one season. Lakerfan's 10% in 6 weeks suggests the potential. It does not prove the case. Joe Skufka reported to us a 5 mph speed improvement in 6 months, from 20 to 25 mph. If his aerodynamics were the same that calculates to (edit: almost) a doubling of his power. Most of our users have to open up and get worse aerodynamics in the beginning so it is unlikely this improvement was an aerodynamic result. So, yes, we have seen reports of improvements in power greater than 80%.[/reply]
You could have just replied "I don't have any real data". Because that's all you are saying. It just took you more words.

Rik

Why don't you ask him? You could PM him. He is convinced the PC's had no influence on his improvement. How would you explain that kind of improvement in 6 weeks in the off season? You like data. He has data. I would be interested in your explanation. I don't see much "overload" in his data that would account for that kind of improvement but I would look forward to your input on this issue.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Sigh...in true FD fashion, you've completely misunderstood and twisted the point. The behavior of those who pointed out the falsified file is not what is sad...

So, I seem to recall many others relating their experiences on ST...heck, just in this thread alone there are a couple... yet they haven't been "hounded off" or anything. I wonder what the difference is? (no need to answer, that's just a rhetorical question)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

You are grasping at straws Frank.

Rik

You could have just replied "I don't have any real data". Because that's all you are saying. It just took you more words.

Rik[/reply] Increasing a monthly time-trial test speed from 20-25 mph (and getting to 27 mph the next year) isn't "real" data? How on earth did people assess this stuff in the days before power meters?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

No, you are ignoring the question. You are always asking for power data showing power improvement. Lakerfan has that data. he has analyzed it one way. Why don't you tell us how you analyze it.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Whatever happened to that big "study" a while back you were supposedly rounding up volunteers for?

Go back and read that thread my friend. It had nothing to do with pointing out that the data in the file had been manipulated. It even became apparent to the person who submitted the file. It was the attributing to this file an intent to deceive (similar to what you are doing now by using the term falsified). Go back and read the thread with an open mind and understand his disgust.

If you think people are not intimidated from posting anything positive about this product here you are not talking to the same people I do. Wonder why that might be? Lakerfan seems so intimidated that he seems compelled to turn a very positive experience into "they had no positive effect on me" experience so he can talk about it here.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Hey Frank, if a person was to make two lists. Let's just randomly choose, oh I don't know say....1. Things that are commonly done a practical jokes. And for the second list maybe .... 2. Things that are commonly done to manipulate results or opinions.

On which of those lists would you most likely find "altering a power file"?

You say "manipulated" (in a heavy-handed attempt to "minimize" what occured), and I say "falsified"...and yet, they both mean the same thing. The presented file was bogus.

Now...as to how it got that way? All I can say is "Occam's Razor"...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Lakerfan somehow doesn't strike me as the type to be intimidated. He does, though, seem rather annoyed that you keep trying to misinterpret his experiences with PCs.

Rik

Well, here is the problem with that approach when one is making an accusation of lying.

1. The ride in question was observed and the rider referred to as "the real deal"
2. As I remember, he reported his average power and time from what his computer said at the top. No file involved. Some of the power numbers seemed high for the time reported until he noted that he had a heavy bike and his own weight was up. There was the problem of his being so far ahead of the observer he couldn't actually confirm that he finished the climb in the reported time. So, being incapable of actually believing what someone might say if it goes beyond their expectations, "everyone" wanted to actually see the real data file.
3. The problem with the manipulation was one of inconsistencies, cut and paste. Really amateurish stuff. It was if someone wanted it to be discovered, not trying to hide anything. Joaquin had no reason to suspect there was a problem, he just forwarded what was on is computer. I had no reason to suspect, I just posted what was forwarded.
4. So, it turns out the data file was manipulated. But, the ride was done and observed. What is not to believe? Where is the motivation for Joaquin to manipulate this data?
5. The real file, which still happened to be on his cycle computer, seemed to have "lost" the problems associated with the original file, even including the ride back down to pick up the observer and to ride back up with him, something that had been deleted from the original file. But, there was so much invective thrown his way no one will ever see that here except Dr. Chung and me.
6. Some practical joke or whatever it was.

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want on whatever evidence you have just as Lakerfan is free to conclude the PC's had no positive effect on his power improvements.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

He doesn't strike me as the type to be intimidated either, at least by me. But his analysis simply makes no sense. Sort of like he is trying to stay in the good graces of the "in crowd". Just analyze his data and give us your interpretation. Perhaps he might get annoyed with you if you come up with a different explanation regarding his improvement in view of his reports. If you agree with him I would like for you to present just one other example of someone of a similar capability have that same improvement under similar circumstances on regular cranks. (off season base work without any particular focus, just riding the bike).

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

You're so awesome, Frank :-D

---

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!

Here's my analysis: volume increase. And, it appears, some intensity increase along with that. Pretty simple stuff really.

Here's lakerfan's most recent (and apparently final) post on the subject:

Quote:

Frank,

I will clarify for the sake of others one last time and then I promise to never comment on another PC thread in my life. You need to ask yourself: Are you only hearing what you want to hear?

I increased my mileage by 30% during the period when I wrote that blog. That is no exaggeration. I actually went back and reviewed all my power and training data for the last 4 years just to confirm. I have never ridden more miles in training for 9 IMs than I have during that period of time. There's no other way to say this but that's called an overload. That isn't open for debate. That's an indisputable fact. We can dispute as to whether that specific overload was responsible for my improvement but we can't dispute that is was an overload.

Rik

You might want to check out my response to him. His improvement makes no sense from a traditional training point of view. If it does, why doesn't everyone see personal bests starting in two weeks on 7 hours of training time a week in the off season.

give me your analysis of the data, not his.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks