[reply]
Thanks for letting me know how the PT works. Except you forgot to say whether the power measurement comes from peak, average or minimal torque during the period and peak, average, or minimal velocity during the period. Do you know? How it works could make a difference in evaluating and possibly explaining these inconsistencies without a need to invoke nefarious intent.
[\reply]
It takes a snapshot in time. If set on the 1.26 second recording mode, it takes the instantaneous value at that time slice. 1.26 seconds later, it takes another instant value. No max, min, average, etc. Just what the data is. Same for the other time recording modes (i.e., 2.52 seconds, ...).


[reply]...but I do not accept that this is evidence that Joaquin deliberately manipulated the file to make himself look better than he is. If I wanted to change a PT file to look better than I am I would simply change the torque and power numbers by a set percentage across the board and leave everything else alone. This would be undetectable using all the methods you folks have used to examine this file.[/reply]

Which is why I originally said nothing about intent, just that the data was bad. It could indeed be a Powertap glitch, though in my 4-5+ years and 2000+ riding hours of owning 3 PT CPUs I've never experienced such a problem.

I agree. The question is, who manipulated them?

That still would have been caught by Robert. I'm not going to explain how, since that would make it easier for someone to attempt to fake another file in the future, but anyone familiar with all the types of analyses possible with a power file would figure it out...




People do stranger (dumber?) things every day...




The PT takes an average of the previous 1.26s for all values and saves them. That fact makes no difference in how this file is being evaluated.




SOME inconsistencies???? The WHOLE thing is inconsistent. Frank, your sounding a tad bit delusional here...
The ONLY things consistent with your distorted view of the situation is average power, the elapsed time, and the distance. The problem (for you and the liar) is that the physics of the situation and the other data in the file allows for a cross-check with reality. This file fails that check miserably.



As I said above, that type of manipulation is actually possible to detect and Robert would have found it if that is what had happened. You'd have to try harder than that.
The funny thing is, that he didn't even need to go into that much depth of analysis...this fake was so sloppy, it basically screams out at you that it is fake.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

[reply]
Hey, I am not so sure that anyone here is "out to get me" as this file is not mine. However, I wonder about the rush to accept nefarious intent here because of some inconsistencies in the file. I accept there are some inconsistencies I cannot explain (especially the speed/distance issue and a HR profile that looks "strange") but I do not accept that this is evidence that Joaquin deliberately manipulated the file to make himself look better than he is. If I wanted to change a PT file to look better than I am I would simply change the torque and power numbers by a set percentage across the board and leave everything else alone. This would be undetectable using all the methods you folks have used to examine this file..[/reply]

Actually, it would be. If you jacked up each number by 16%, you'd have a significant jump in your VI, due to the way that Pnorm is calculated. Climbing is a very low VI effort. So if you bumped every number up 16%, you'd change that quite a bit. You'd also have glaring inconsistencies in your speed/power numbers. And you'd also be able to pick up problems in the related gear ratios.

All of this is assuming you actually paced the effort correctly and went the actual distance.

That is where the problem comes in. You not only told people how much power you could output (which is not that hard to fake), but you also told people how fast you went, and how long the climb was. Manipulating THIS data is not that easy.

If it was just about holding X watts for Y minutes, then sure that is not that hard to fake. But faking a complete file, with time, speed, distance, etc. is not easy at all and cannot be done via the method you suggest.

If you also have false ideas about how fast/strong you are, then you would be prone to starting way to hard and blowing up, which would make that file then even more difficult to doctor, since a 16% spike at the beginning would reveal inconsistencies in your critical power for shorter duration efforts.

So, how easy do you NOW think it is to fake a file that says that you climbed 8+km in ~29:00 at a power of 355 watts? Not so easy...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

You DO NOT set the intervals that your data is recorded differently for the various measurements. That's impossible. You possibly do have the screen value averaging set to different time spans, but that doesn't affect the saved data.

I don't believe you even did that time. You are the only one who said that you did. After all, Kendall wasn't there at the finish and the only report of your time that he received was from you.

I'm sorry...but you've lost ALL credibility.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

clearly bogus data. Reminds me of a similar juvenile attempt with a fabricated "NP Buster" file on the old topica wattage list ;-)

Just how stupid do some folks think others are????? And who can't use the RAND() function in Excel if you wanted to make it tougher to decipher???

This is truly a classic!! Where is RST BTW? ;-)

Can you refresh my memory?

That's because you apparently cannot understand the truth. YOU are the one who sought out "notoriety" due to your apparent improvement that you attributed to powercranks. After being questioned about the claims and offering up a whole bunch of "sketchy" data with absolutely NO independent corroboration of your claims, here was your "put up, or shut up" moment...and you blew it...BIG time.

If I was Frank Day, I'd be pretty damned pissed off at you right now.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

You may not have said anything about intent, but plenty of others here have.

---

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

Frank,

The issue of "nefarious intent" aside, there is STILL no evidence that Joaquin can do what you and he said he could. How difficult is it for a guy with a powertap, internet access, and a challenging climb nearby to prove pretty convincingly his claimed prowess on the bike? It's so easy that the simple fact that he hasn't done it yet speaks volumes.

Maybe you should vet your PC "success stories" a little more carefully in future.

Don.

So far, I have no "data" that says I am faster or stronger on the bike because of PC's. I have only seen over the years run improvements which
I have heard others say. I am trying to remember, Chad, or Dev or anyone else who has used PC's over time, have you seen any real
bike time improvements? Chad, I thought you did a test and told me you did not?

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

Could you explain these "glaring inconsistencies" in the speed/power numbers again. That might be true on the flat where speed and power are somewhat related but when climbing the highest powers can occur at the lowest speeds due to the effect of gradient. Since this effort was 100% climb such a "glaring inconsistency" is cannot be apparent from this or any file.

Well, the file shows he went the "correct" distance in the stated time and the average power and time is what he told Kendall and all of us from the beginning. The only inconsistencies are in the average speed for the time does not compute to the distance and somehow, a computation of his gearing is not consistent, and his HR seems incredibly flat. Now why someone who is trying to make his power numbers look "better" would manipulate the speed numbers, when they cannot be used to compute the power, is beyond me.



It would be incredibly easy, without changing one other thing in the file and no one would be able to know. Earlier in this thread it was determined that for this distance and his weight at the time that the power number of 355 was reasonable. Here is what Rappster wrote in post 53 of this thread:

" http://analyticcycling.com/ForcesSpeed_Page.html

Putting in your total weight as 83kg, this gives a time of 29:09 for the climb (8800m @ 7.8% grade), using the stock CdA. So pretty much exactly what you rode.

The big difference is that your weight is 70kg, as opposed to 62kg, or even 64kg, which is what had been presented here. 5.11w/kg is vastly different from 5.77w/kg (same power if you weighed 62kg). At a weight of 70kg, your power numbers make a lot of sense."

So, the distance and the power data in the file compute with the climb and what he reported at the time but there is something wrong with the speed data. It is not easy to explain but it is the data. You can presume he is lying if you choose or you can presume there might be another explanation for the inconsistency.

---

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

You know I read the first couple of pages when this thread started and then saw it devolve into the typical "Frank vs. Everyone Who Does Not Claim PC's Are God's Gift To Us" thread so i stopped reading it, but these last few pages have been gold. It's like being sucked into a tv show that starts out good, becomes predictable and then throws a tasty new plot line in. Thanks!

---

______________________________________________________

Proud Founder of the Jamis Mafia- Daring to be different.

I agree, this is very entertaining, you're all making my 1/2 day at work much more enjoyable!!

Happy Thanksgiving to me...

---

------------------------------------------------
Ann Arbor Triathlon Club

Follow me on Twitter

I'd say the fact that much of the file has clearly been faked by copying and pasting the same numbers over and over again is much more damning.

Bear Grylls?

I think Joaquin is the Bear Grylls of ST.

You keep saying this...but it doesn't make it true. It is actually very DIFFICULT to fake a power file that wouldn't be detectable, especially for a case such as this with a given distance, elevation, and mass.



It is very easy to explain...it's been manipulated.

Think about this one. The speed measurements and distance measurements are taken from the same signal in the PT hub. The distance is calculated by counting how many pulses there are and multiplying by the entered wheel circumference and summing. The speed measurement counts the pulses and multiplies by the SAME wheel circumference and divides by 1.26s.

The ONLY way for both of those values to be inconsistent with each other is for the entered wheel circumference to be different for the calculation of the speed and the distance. This is impossible with the PT head unit.

So...either Joaquin has the ONLY PT head unit in existence that allows for a different wheel circumference setting for distance and speed and for some reason he's set them different...OR, the file has been faked.

Which is more likely? Hmmm???

Your lack of critical thinking about this is really shedding a bad light on any claims/speculations you make about your product.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Hope you ain't referring to mine!

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

1. There are no glaring inconsistencies. I said there would be glaring inconsistencies IF YOU CHANGED ONLY THE POWER NUMBERS BY 16%. THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS DONE TO THIS FILE. DOES IT MAKE IT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND IF I TYPE IN ALL CAPS SINCE YOU SEEM TO HAVE TROUBLE WITH BASIC COMPREHENSION OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE WRITING.

2. THE FILE DOES NOT SHOW THE CORRECT DISTANCE IN THE CORRECT TIME. IT SHOWS A GLARING ERROR BETWEEN THE speed*time DISTANCE AND THE distance-recorded DISTANCE. THAT IS THE MOST DAMNING BIT OF EVIDENCE, SINCE THAT PROBLEM DOESN'T SHOW UP ANYWHERE ELSE.

3. "Now why someone who is trying to make his power numbers look "better" would manipulate the speed numbers, when they cannot be used to compute the power, is beyond me." BECAUSE THE CLIMB IS A KNOWN DISTANCE AND DURATION. IF HE DID THE CLIMB IN 35:00, THEN IT WOULD BE OBVIOUS HIS POWER WASN'T 355, SINCE THAT WOULD BE ABSURDLY SLOW.

4. " It would be incredibly easy, without changing one other thing in the file and no one would be able to know. Earlier in this thread it was determined that for this distance and his weight at the time that the power number of 355 was reasonable. Here is what Rappster wrote in post 53 of this thread: " EXACTLY. YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. IN ORDER TO LIE ABOUT POWER OVER A GIVEN CLIMB, YOU NEED TO FUDGE THE POWER AND THE SPEED (OR THE DISTANCE).

Simply put, Frank, you just don't get it. It really does take a certain amount of power to make it up La Morcuera in 29:00. So if you are trying to fake a climb up La Morcuera, then you need to fake power and speed (or power and distance/time). The point was not simply to make a file that showed a 30min effort @ 355w, which would easier (though still not easy) to fake. It was to show a climb up La Morceura at a given pace (i.e. a given time for the distance) and a given power.

You just don't get it. Everything about the file is wrong. If it only took 300 watts to climb La Morcuera in 29:00, then yes, you could simply bump the power number up and get the file you were looking for. But, since it takes more power than that, you can't simply modify the power numbers.

Let's make it simple. I go ride a 40k TT. It takes me 60min at 300watts. I lie and tell everyone I did it in 53:00 at 375watts. I can't just bump up the power number from my file. \

EVERYTHING IS WRONG. That is what you don't get. The only reason the file says he climbed 8.whatever km in 29:whatever is because someone changed it to say that. They had to change everything, because no part of the file supported the claim that is being made.

EVERYTHING ABOUT THE FILE FOR THE CLIMB IS FALSE. Given that the rest of the file is totally normal, that implies that someone doctored the file.

IS THIS CLEAR???????????????????????????????????????

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Ummm, yeah....

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Agreed. When H2Ofun wandered in, I was reminded of Flounder walking into Delta House.
.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

My eyes hurt...

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

"...you guys playing cards?"



.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

ken,
no certainly not. I haven't got time to track it down today but, unless this is deja vu all over again :-), I feel something similiar happened 2-3-4-5 years ago there.

it probably was not as stoopid as this one though. is there a PowerCranks hall of fame??

Had nothing to do with H2oFun, it was watching Frank tilting at windmills.

---

______________________________________________________

Proud Founder of the Jamis Mafia- Daring to be different.