In Reply To
Read the Coyle study - his numbers, not mine.....[/reply]I have read the study (and many others), and can tell you flat-out that you won't find such values for efficiency in that paper or anywhere else
Try table 6 for a list of efficiencies of each subject.
I'm going to have to call you on this one for sure. Since the the efficiency of the subjects was a major topic of the study.
To clarify the reason that I brought this up; The focus of this thread has been with the physicological aspect of the person. No problem with that. I will not discuss those aspects as everyone seems to be doing that quite well.
The study did show, however, the ratio of the power applied to the pedals as compared to the power that actually reached the rear wheel. This is the efficiency that I was eluding to. The numbers showed two measurements of efficiency one ranging from 66% - 82% and the other was 58% up to 82%.
Now then having established this. My point, be it very simplistic in concept was.....This is an area for power improvement. Take some numbers for the 66% efficient subject. If this subject was able to produce 500 watts to the pedals, only 330 will go to the rear wheel. If you could improve this to 82%, the rear wheel will now see 410 watts. Of course using the other measure of efficiency sited in the study, the 58% would yeild only 290 watts verses for 82% a yeild of 410 watts.
If PC's cause the level of efficiency to increase, then it would be possible to generate more rear wheel power with no impact to the cardio system.
Further, the study clearly graphed to torque curves generated by the subjects. This torque curve is indeed cyclic in nature. When riding a tandem this torque curve is multiplied due to two riders. The variations of the torque applied to the pavement is audible when drafting.