The google group is moderated one so you need to be a member to view your link...

yes please share the goods, as this could be very interesting

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

Suffice it to say the Wattage Group was not exactly impressed and I believe the basic contention was that the numbers did not add up. One poster did make the following interesting observation: "Really, you guys are so cynical. Maybe he just moved his cleats back to the arch of his foot. Seriously though, while PEZ has been an advertisement for these "efficiency cranks" for years, I'd want to look at the measurement tools first. Was it the same power tap, was it torque zeroed, etc. " I think you can also get to this same sort of discussion on cyclingforums.com.
---------------

---

Born again Heathen
In Case of Keith Moon - Break This Glass
Ironman Certified Coach
USAT Certified Coach
Precision Nutrition Certified

Here's a nugget from the thread, name and email omitted:

********************************

FWIW, I live in the land of puerto too, so a few things I know:

with the numbers he's telling, he should be climbing that hil in 25
minutes, not 28.

my PB over there is 30 minutes at 64 kg and 310 W,my VO2Max is
somewhere around 65.

the doctor he mentions doesn't work for the Spanish federation and is
well known here for PED prescription

**********************************

Good job, AC--you just killed the Google wattage server....

BTW, on a completely unrelated note: why do you want a flat clincher disc, anyway? I thought lenticular discs always tested faster? If you are still hung up on it, the Renn guy said at Interbike that they make be coming out with a track version, so you may want to give him a call.

I read that this morning and laughed thinking about you. I thought ok N=1, no control and the old "wow, athletes trained and got better. Amazing.", notwithstanding the lunacy of the improvements.

[reply]
EDIT (for those of you who aren't already members of the wattage list and/or don't want to join up just to read one thread): among other dubious claims re. his VO2max, etc., Mr. Rodriguez claims that training with Powercranks for ~1 y has increased his functional threshold power from 4.1 to 5.8 W/kg. At the same time, though, he only claims to average 5 W/kg on a ~30 min climb, and gets beaten by ~2 min on a ~50 min climb by riders generating 4.3 W/kg. IOW, none of the data add up...[/reply]

What are you talking about? the only climb mentioned in the article was an approximate 30 minute climb. Where is this: "and gets beaten by ~2 min on a ~50 min climb by riders generating 4.3 W/kg. IOW, none of the data add up..." coming from?

I guess if you just can't bring yourself to believe such improvements are possible all you have left is to start calling people names.

---

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

It's still working for me?


When tested alone, lenticular disks tend to ever-so-slightly outperform flat disks at yaw. However, I'm concerned with performance in a frame at low yaw angles.


I actually talked to him (or maybe emailed him?) about this a couple of years ago, but so far, nada. I therefore recently broke down and bought a Zipp - it was the most expensive option, but at least it's readily convertible for road use (or so I justified it in my mind).

1. See the wattage list thread for details.

2. There could be a lot of reasons why Mr. Rodriguez's data doesn't add up...that's why I didn't directly call him a liar, but only used the word in my cutesy thread title (which I have now changed to question, just to further lessen the potential sting).

EDIT: So, just for the record: are you saying that you believe his claims? If so, how do you explain the fact that his actual performance is rather unremarkable despite the phenomenal physiological data?

I aim to please?

Yeah, I coulda phrased that better...

Why on earth would you even intimate he is a liar if there are many explanations as to why the data doesn't add up? Did you bother to email him for some clarification (his email was included in the article I noted)? when you say lessen the potential sting are you referring to a potential liable/slander suit?

Why wouldn't I believe his claims? What is his motivation to lie to me or to Pez? What is his motivation to put himself out for ridicule by yourself and others? And, his testing numbers are right in line with what others have reported to us (including the VO2max improvement reported by Dixon) but we have never had these improvements so well documented over such a long period of time. Just because you don't believe such improvements are possible is not evidence he is lying or that they didn't occur. I will try to get his PowerTap files mentioned in the article as existing but not attached posted somewhere for everyone to see.

---

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

Ok. I swore I would never get involved in another PC debate. So I won't debate. Rather, I will simply state the obvious.




1) The person in question claims his FTP is 5.8 W/Kg, meaning he claims to be capable of maintaining 5.8 W/Kg for an hour.

2) If 1) is true, why was he only able to maintain 5 W/Kg for a 30 minute climb?

3) If 1) is true, why was he beaten by riders generating only 4.3 W/Kg for a 50 minute climb?

Now, we can say he is really capable of 5.8 W/Kg, and just chose not to use his exceptional ability it in those two particular instances.

Or, we can say something smells a little funny. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions.

---

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!

Someone better give this guy a heads up that at ~67kg (ie quite small) and FTP of 394W he better prep himself for a crack at the hour record.

AC and Philbert would know better than anyone else, and I can't see any logic in anyone disagreeing, as the only data to suggest that this data is true and expected is all hearsay.

One interesting point of note: he bought the PC’s after reading Ed Coyle’s JAP case study about Lance. Everyone in the know knows those data add up about as much as the data in question here.

Maybe you can increase VO2max, etc by ~17% after being already well trained, but not in less than 12 months, not by a long shot.

Before calling BS on him, maybe his Dr needs to go back and re-calibrate all of his equipment.

“I guess if you just can't bring yourself to believe such improvements are possible all you have left is to start calling people names.”

Just an observation - the people on the Wattage Forum are some of the smartest, best educated, knowledgeable and dedicated cyclists around – and no, I don’t include myself in the foregoing description – I am like the dumbest person trying to learn power. For example, my long distance cycling mentor who I have know for years is a PhD Economist and Econometrician with a lot of statistics thrown in there somewhere. By nature and training, this type of brain analyses everything to the 4th decimal point including the every popular theory that one needs to develop the upstroke. They are not calling names and I don’t believe the Wattage Forum has an axe to grind– they are saying the data in question makes no sense.
-------------

---

Born again Heathen
In Case of Keith Moon - Break This Glass
Ironman Certified Coach
USAT Certified Coach
Precision Nutrition Certified

[reply]
Ok. I swore I would never get involved in another PC debate. So I won't debate. Rather, I will simply state the obvious.


[quote]
[font "Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"][black][size 2]Why wouldn't I believe his claims?[/size][/black][/font][/quote]


1) The person in question claims his FTP is 5.8 W/Kg, meaning he claims to be capable of maintaining 5.8 W/Kg for an hour.

2) If 1) is true, why was he only able to maintain 5 W/Kg for a 30 minute climb?

3) If 1) is true, why was he beaten by riders generating only 4.3 W/Kg for a 50 minute climb?

Now, we can say he is really capable of 5.8 W/Kg, and just chose not to use his exceptional ability it in those two particular instances.

Or, we can say something smells a little funny. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions.[/reply]

1. That is what FTP (1hr) means so that is what I suspect he tested.

2. If you look at the data carefully, he tested at 5 w/kg in September when he did the climb. It was not until April of this year that he tested 5.8 w/kg. He has a big climb coming up this weekend, we will see how he does.

3. He was? Where did this come from? How do we know that those who beat him only averaged 4.3 w/kg or how do we know what he averaged during that particular climb. I know nothing about this so I can't comment.

Frank

---

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

[reply]
[b]“I guess if you just can't bring yourself to believe such improvements are possible all you have left is to start calling people names.”[/b]
[b] [/b]
Just an observation - the people on the Wattage Forum are some of the smartest, best educated, knowledgeable and dedicated cyclists around – and no, I don’t include myself in the foregoing description – I am like the dumbest person trying to learn power. For example, my long distance cycling mentor who I have know for years is a PhD Economist and Econometrician with a lot of statistics thrown in there somewhere. By nature and training, this type of brain analyses everything to the 4th decimal point including the every popular theory that one needs to develop the upstroke. They are not calling names and I don’t believe the Wattage Forum has an axe to grind– they are saying the data in question makes no sense.
-------------[/reply]

I have no idea who is on that forum but I do know Dr. Coggan and I believe he is one of the most narrow minded "scientists" I have ever had the pleasure to interact with. I am not alone in that feeling. I personally have no desire to go that forum and have the same debates with the same people again. Let them tell each other how smart they are and what an idiot I am and feel all good about it. And, let them struggle to improve. The cranks speak for themselves to those who use them properly. One can only lead a horse to water, nothing else.

I will stay here where we can actually have intelligent conversations about these things now with the naysayers pretty much staying out of these discussions now. Except, of course, when something like this comes along and they are all afraid you poor people might be duped by my "marketing" efforts as these stories can't really reflect reality. Can they?

Frank

---

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

OK, here are two Powertap files for the same climb 12 months apart. these do not reflect the exact improvements detailed in the testing but they are still reflect a substantial improvement and the second climb was only 2 months after starting the PowerCranks. He is doing the same climb this weekend and has promised to forward the powertap data after the climb. I will post it when I get it.

---

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

Everyone of the Cycling Forums wrong too?

http://www.cyclingforum.com/...016501a4c6cc6620afc8

-------

---

Born again Heathen
In Case of Keith Moon - Break This Glass
Ironman Certified Coach
USAT Certified Coach
Precision Nutrition Certified

I'd post the fancy graph, but that's too much work. Here's another amazing success story from some cranks:

Power-Tap #2: 9/26/06 Rider Wt. 63KG
Duration: 25:02
Work: 335 kJ
TSS: 30.9 (intensity factor 0.862)
Norm Power: 228
VI: 1.02
Distance: 8.667 mi
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 399 224 watts
Heart rate: n/a n/a n/a bpm
Cadence: 37 141 89 rpm
Speed: 2.6 36.8 20.8 mph
Pace 1:38 22:59 2:53 min/mi
Hub Torque: 0 321 73 lb-in
Crank Torque: 0 797 219 lb-in

Peak 25 min.: 4/7/07 Rider Wt. 60KG
Duration: 25:18
Work: 463 kJ
TSS: 48.5 (intensity factor 1.072)
Norm Power: 306
VI: 1
Distance: 9.805 mi
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 488 305 watts
Heart rate: n/a n/a n/a bpm
Cadence: 43 133 81 rpm
Speed: 12.5 39.4 23.2 mph
Pace 1:31 4:48 2:35 min/mi
Hub Torque: 0 186 90 lb-in
Crank Torque: 0 658 324 lb-in

The cranks I was using: Dura Ace. Obviously, the DA cranks are an amazing training tool.
Of course, I WAS wearing red shoes at the time, so I'm giving credit to them.....

The cranks *don't* speak for themself. That is, if average cyclists - as you defined at cyclingforums improved as you suggested, then average cyclists who used Power Cranks would suddenly be top 10 at events like the TdF. There's a few director sportifs that would be clamouring to sign them right now, while their star cyclists are being excluded. as someone else said, at 394 W and 67 kg, he could have a crack at the World Hour Record.

ric

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com

Well, I do know something about this. I live in madrid, I know that climb, I know the guy who beat your man by two minutes in navacerrada (this weekend's climb) last year and I will be there this Saturday to see what happens...

I also know that the PEZ article is FULL of lies, some are relevant to PCs, somo are not, but there are lots of lies in that article, so overall credibility is ZERO

I also know a few thing about the doctor that's treating this guy (he doesn't work for the Spanish federation, that's one of the lies), and if that guy has improved half of what he says he does I suspect the reason for that, and its not the use of PCs