Frank, I was trying to stay out of this any further, but you've dragged me back in. Are you saying that my analysis of the file was biased in order to discredit either you or Joaquin "however it must be done?" Had that been my goal, I surely would not have stopped when I did because what you've seen so far is not the entirety of what I looked at, and the oddities I've pointed out are not the only problems I've found. I held back for two reasons: first, it gave me no pleasure to point out the flaws in this file; and second, there's no sense in beating a very, very dead horse. That is not the behavior of someone who is trying to discredit you "however it must be done." However, since you brought it up, I will ask you to consider your own question: of the two of us, who has the greater motivation to "manipulate" the interpretation of the data?

Just how big are buckets where you come? Are they really thimble-sized? I sure as heck wouldn't like to be bailing out a leaking boat with one of your Frank Day PC-buckets <TM>.

I see Magnus out training fairly frequently. Everytime he passes me or approaches from the other direction, i only ever see him using SRMs. I've never seen him use Power Cranks. Every photo i see of him in racing or training he has normal cranks on, or SRMs.

I used to live about 5 km from him. I probably live about 20 km from him now, and see him fairly regularly (it's difficult to miss someone so big!)

ric

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com

So your anti-PC delusion is so strong you're seeing SRMs when his cranks are actually PCs? Maybe you should get yourself examined.

They're obviously the SRM powercranks prototype. Only Maggie gets them being a pro and all.

---

______________
HEDmafia.com

Sorry, I do have the data to show my longer cranks have made me faster up the hills, IMO. You can look at my data,
and try to find where I "changed" it if you want. So, do the analysis of the data that I posted the link to.
For both the longer cranks, and when I started to use the PC's. Here is your chance to show, by the data,
that I did not get faster with longer cranks on my 30 mile hill ride, or did not get faster running when riding the PC's.
I wonder why no one has taken this opportunity to prove I am wrong, so I can eat crow.

http://www.h2ofun.net/...pbellTrainingLog.xls

I am serious wanting to have folks look at the data. Since, I may be totally out to lunch, but here is a chance,
with data, to prove your points.

Dave

---

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

LOL! The link doesn't work!

http://www.h2ofun.net/...pbellTrainingLog.xls

That's VERY PowerCranks of you! (TM)

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lemond is cycling's version of Rev Jessie Jackson." -johnnyperu 5/18/07
"Just because I suck doesn't mean my bike has to" -rickn 9/2/08

I still offer to Frank and Andrew that I would be glad to test out the SRM/PC combo, and see what my training does.
Frank, I am game. Want to loan me some? I could do PC's and longer cranks all at one time.
With adjustable cranks, I could try my route with 170', 175, 180,...., 200 and see what happens.
I just want to be the fastest I can, and if using 150s do this, on my bike they will be.

Dave

---

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

Lets try again.

http://www.h2ofun.net/...pbellTrainingLog.xls

Again, I have no bias to anything. If things I use do not work, for me, I change faster than the wind.
So, I really am interested in my data being looked at since, w/o doing some control charts, my times
seem to show to me they have helped. But, this could just be another senior moment.
So, again, I am serious, lets look at the data honestly, and let me know. I reallly have nothing
to eat crow on, but I never have an issue doing this is if makes folks happy. (I use this strategy in life
all the time, since it does seem to help others egos. )

Dave

---

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

Here is another post I made on the race training thread that no one took my offer up on.



Another thing you can see is when I got hurt with my sports hernia on 4/22 and basically
stopped doing any run training. This is when I restarted using the PC's. Again,
Started PC's, basically stopped running except in races, kept running, for me,
great run times, and as can been seen, have improved my running times a lot, IMO
for my age and how little running I do!

On 12/25/2006 you can see I went to longer cranks. Do a pre and post 30 mile hill loop
ride, and lets see what the data says. Again, I am ready to change if I am all wet.

Dave

---

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

Here is my picture of my commute bike with PC's on, so there is no question I use them.



Dave

---

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

Well, I brief review (and by brief, I mean BRIEF) of your charts shows me one thing: training more makes a person faster. Your training time hasn't gone down, even though you aren't running as much (so you keep reminding us). How do you know it wasn't the increase in swimming that made you faster starting in January? Or maybe it was the increased time on the bike, PC's or not?

Also, from weeks 1-15, you were only averaging 15.3-15.4 miles per week running. Weeks 16-47 you were averaging almost 11 miles per week running. That's HARDLY a big drop in mileage to say over and over again how little you've been running compared to before. Last year (for the whole year) you only averaged 15.4 miles per week running.

You averaged 68 miles per week for all of 2006 on your bike, but over 90 miles per week so far in 2007 on your bike.

You averaged over 4.1 hours per week in the pool in 2007, 2006 only got about 2.5 hours per week in the pool, 2005 only found you in the pool .95 hours per week.

NOW FOR THE KICKER: Let's look at your running chart: In 2005 you averaged about 1.88 hours of running per week. Guess what you've been averaging in 2007...wait for it....1.93! Your running TIME hasn't decreased at all compared to 2005! In 2006 you averaged about 2.3 hours, so your average weekly running has gone down about 20 minutes per week compared to 2006.

YOU NO LONGER GET TO TELL US ABOUT HOW LITTLE RUNNING YOU DO! YOU WEREN'T RUNNING TO START WITH AND ARE ONLY RUNNING 20 MIN LESS PER WEEK NOW!

Looking at your chart, if the PC's DID in fact help, it could easily be attributed to the extra volume and the PC's we're "just along for the ride". Same could be said for extra swimming, biking on regular cranks (or PC's), or running. Your volume is very similar to mine weekly, and we'll both greatly benefit from the famous ST More is More mantra (assuming we don't get injured).

One final note, let's look at your average weekly training time:

2005: 6.07 hours
2006: 8.89 Hours
2007: 11.5 hours

Shocker! You got faster from training more!!! Holy crap, how could this be?! You've nearly doubled your hourly training in 2007 compared to 2005.

This is FAR from conclusive that PC's helped. If I were Frank I'd be asking you to pipe down a little bit.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lemond is cycling's version of Rev Jessie Jackson." -johnnyperu 5/18/07
"Just because I suck doesn't mean my bike has to" -rickn 9/2/08

That is pretty harsh and there was really no need for it IMHO.

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Searching for the bliss of ultimate exertion.

That is the issue with most anything someone does. It is basically impossible to change just one piece, and not "add volume", etc.
Meaning, since I started back on PC's, I reduced my swimming time 25%. But, I increased my bike time, all of which the increase
was 100% PC's. So, if someone wants to find a way to say something did not, and could not have helped, you can ALWAYS
find this. But, I am totally convinced that my running is faster. All one has to do is look at my run time over the last year, and
see a change in the last few months. Was it because of 80 miles per week on the PC's I added, (and reduced swimming 25%)
or was it just being on the bike 80 miles per week more? Impossible to answer.

Now, did you look at the 30 mile data pre and post 12/25/2006 when I went to longer cranks?

Again, why some think some things can not work for anyone else, when they have never tried them, just is nuts!!
Why do some ride slack, and some steep, if only one way can be right?

Dave

---

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 have no idea why you did what you did...only you can enlighten us about that. I only know that you did it.



Are you implying that the data from that ride is still in your PT head over one month later? This from a guy who didn't bother to save his all-time personal best file just because he was on travel? Sure it is....

Puh-leeze...do you really expect anyone (well...anyone besides Frank) to actually believe that ANY file that you present from this point on represents the truth? You yourself said that you could just have a stronger rider use your PT wheel and then present the file...of course, then there'd be a witness to your charade.

Like I said before, after this fiasco, your credibility is non-existent.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Unethical no. Delusional yes.

I think the poor guy actually believes everything he writes. In a way, that's even more sad...

But it makes for some good time wasting on the internet. :)

so has anyone admitted (yet) to manipulating the file? Or apologized for posting fake data?

Agreed - seems like an angry man. How someone can get so bitter and upset (and self-righteous?) over a few of pieces of metal baffles me.

There are certain topics that I don't agree with. If I see them in the title of a post, I don't open it - Simple!
...this particular topic, however, NEVER ceases to amuse and amaze me:-)

When I think I'm being unreasonable, I read a PC thread and smile.

---

#######
My Blog

You're assuming that any data that's still in his head unit over one month later is from him. He's already admitted that it would be easy for him to find a stronger rider to use his PT and do the climb. My bet is that any data that's downloaded from that head unit won't match exactly EITHER of the previous versions submitted by Joaquin. Why? Because they are both fabrications.



Correction...the data HAS been demonstrated to have been manipulated. Nobody has said that you were involved. After all, the file came to all of us directly from Joaquin. The only thing unethical that you've done is to attempt to minimize the implications of the clear fabrication.




That is where you are wrong. I actually may have given them shot...not to mention how many others may have given them a try as well.

That is why you should be angry about this. A person claiming that your product has helped him immensely and is featured in the "success stories" on your website has been found to be an outright liar and fabricator. I don't see how that doesn't reflect badly on you and your product. It certainly isn't helping you.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Dave,
The "data" from your 30 mile loop doesn't tell you much compared to your race splits. I see that you have done the Folsom int. the last 3 years, and that your bike speed was:

2005: 21.1(non-aero helmet, non-aero wheels)
2006: 21.2 (aero helmet, non-aero wheels)
2007: 21.4 (aero helmet, $3000 wheels)

Given that you have nearly doubled your bike mileage and are more aero now, why do you think your bike splits haven't improved more?

No, but I've been working on an application that lets you "Joaquinize" your PT files.

Credibility before whom? Do you know me? Do I know you?

I do not expect a nickname to believe anything. It is only you who has asked me for my file. I NEVER claimed anything. Claiming anything before nicknames who do not know me is just speaking to the moon.

I am almost 40 y/o any many things in my life so as to bother about my wattage up La Morcuera before Tom A. You must be very famous in your town, but I really have no clue who you are. And I guess you have no idea who I am.

If you insist so much that I, or Frank or anybody can spend hours of his time thinking on how to manipulate files to impress nicknames in a forum 4,000 miles away, it means that YOU have done such things and you see everybody doing like you.

Why are you so interested in discussing about my wattage? Are you a serial killer?

The data is in the CPU. If you are interested tell DHL to pick it up at my home.

" That is the issue with most anything someone does. It is basically impossible to change just one piece, and not "add volume""

That's where you're wrong. Training volume can stay consistent with ANYTHING you add.

"Meaning, since I started back on PC's, I reduced my swimming time 25%. But, I increased my bike time, all of which the increase
was 100% PC's"

So maybe you got faster from reducing swim time and increasing saddle time, PC's or not. I'm not saying the PC's didn't make you faster, I'm just saying YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT MADE YOU FASTER.

"So, if someone wants to find a way to say something did not, and could not have helped, you can ALWAYS find this"

I never said they CAN'T. Just in this case YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT DID. And if I had to put my money on why you got faster, it would go on increased volume alone. Had you done the exact same training but with regular cranks instead of PC's, I THINK (but of course neither of us know) you'd be just as fast.

"But, I am totally convinced that my running is faster. All one has to do is look at my run time over the last year, and see a change in the last few months"

I don't doubt that. BUT IS IT FASTER BECAUSE OF PC'S OR THE INCREASE IN VOLUME? My money goes on the doubling of volume in your training, but that's just a guess.

"Was it because of 80 miles per week on the PC's I added, (and reduced swimming 25%) or was it just being on the bike 80 miles per week more? Impossible to answer"

Agree, IMPOSSIBLE to answer. So it's about time to stop singing the praises of PC's SINCE YOU HAVE NO IDEA IF THEY HELPED OR NOT.

"Now, did you look at the 30 mile data pre and post 12/25/2006 when I went to longer cranks?

Again, why some think some things can not work for anyone else, when they have never tried them, just is nuts!!
Why do some ride slack, and some steep, if only one way can be right?"

This thread isn't about you or your 200mm cranks. Remember Dave, it isn't "you, you, you" all the time. But I will check it out when I have time.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lemond is cycling's version of Rev Jessie Jackson." -johnnyperu 5/18/07
"Just because I suck doesn't mean my bike has to" -rickn 9/2/08

No, not yet.

And to make a semi-point here. I ride Q-rings. My personal testing is that I gained 8 watts on the same course. I rode the computrainer 6 times with a powertap. 3 with round rings and 3 with Q-rings, alternating weeks, same time, same course every Sunday for 6 weeks. After the 6 weeks I noticed while on that particular course, I gained an average of 8 watts while on Q-rings. Not very scientific, but hey I'm not that intelligent of a guy.

Now since last year, and switching to Q-rings, my threshold is up from 280(first time testing with a PM) to 315. I also have gone from training 4-5 hours a week last year to a 3:1 schedule preparing for an 8 day stage race in June. 13 hours, 17 hours, 20 hours, 8 hour rest week. So did the Q-rings give me a, 11% increase in FTP(so far), or would it be my increased training and racing over the past year?

Man, I better get Gary Tingley on this.

---

______________
HEDmafia.com

"Now, did you look at the 30 mile data pre and post 12/25/2006 when I went to longer cranks?

Again, why some think some things can not work for anyone else, when they have never tried them, just is nuts!!
Why do some ride slack, and some steep, if only one way can be right?"

OK, I just glanced at it, and from what I see in 2007 vs. 2006 you got about 3-4 seconds per mile faster at Folsom. Of course, in 2007 you also had $3000 wheels that you didn't have in 2006, right?

If it were me, I'd want to see a MUCH bigger drop in my bike splits after dropping $3g's on wheels.

Now at the Golden State Tri you got about 90 sec faster in 2007 vs. 2006 for your bike split. Were there any other changes OTHER than the 200mm cranks?

Granite Bay you SLOWED down 4.5 min on your bike split. That's surely not moving in the right direction.

Tri For Real you SLOWED down 50 seconds on your bike split...once again not moving in the right direction.

If I can see ANYTHING wrong here, it's that you're now on better wheels, have an aero helmet (or so I hear) have longer cranks, PC's, and are training MORE and you're bike splits aren't improving, and in some instances getting slower.....

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lemond is cycling's version of Rev Jessie Jackson." -johnnyperu 5/18/07
"Just because I suck doesn't mean my bike has to" -rickn 9/2/08