one man's view:

1. i got mine to train with, not race. maybe i will reconsider someday. they are easy to swap back and forth - if you have another set of chainrings it is a 15 min job at the very outside. otherwise they were on all the time

2. i lost none. i started using them (exclusively) 10 weeks before an IM and didn't lose a beat. i did raise my bar and rode at slower cadences. it hurt some, but in a good way - but i rode the same hours/miles as before including some long ones from the start. mr day tells me i did a bit better than most in this regard, but i am not an elite, and i think people can do better than they think. be sure to read the instructions and use the ideas there. personally i think some people get the PC's and then try to ride them like their regular cranks - i think you should do the opposite, and ride the PC's the way they demand and then strive to ride your regular cranks the way you ride your PC's.

3. i did. to me it is like , say, lifting weights. if you learn to lift with good technique, why go back and lift with poor? also - i really don't see why not using them in training would ever be better than using them. you can do everything on them you can with regular cranks from a training perspective. there are a few exceptions from a handling or choice perspective. . . .until you are really well used to them you probably don't want to be in a large fast group, for example. maybe you would like to go mt biking - that sort of thing - cool. i held those same reservations, oin any case, but once i got them i truthfully never wanted to take them off. i prefer PC riding to regular and did from the first ride i had them. i think they are a blast, and have been trying to ride this way for 20 years. :)

that's the way it worked for me. i am an avg joe AGer like yourself.

It is claimed that PC's eliminate the dead spot area.
In one legged pedaling when using the PC, how does
the power application with it differ in the dead spot
area from the power application used in the same
area with a normal crank.

well, it doesn't per se, as i see it from a technical standpoint. in practicum it is markedly different, tho. for one thing with PC's your non pedalling leg is not out flopping around laterally - it is clipped in nicely and securely at the bottom of the pedal stroke - much nicer. not that you have to do that - EVERY pedal stroke with PC's is in effect a onelegged drill, for every inch and second ridden.

hmmmm. in re-reading perfection's question maybe i missed the point of query. sorry if so. to answer the question another way. . .the power application differs with PC's in the "dead spot" by forcing the rider to maintain constant forward pressure on the crank. if you lag for a micro second it falls out of synch. you may think you do this already - likely you do not. it is this very revelation that makes the adaptation period with PC's so eye opening and difficult.

[reply]well, it doesn't per se,



So it is a false claim, it does no more than an
expert round pedaler can do with normal cranks and
at the higher revs. all he can do is neutralise the
dead spot area.
Without any additional equipment it is biomechanically possible to start the maximum power application
stroke at 11 o'clock and finish at 5 o'clock. That is
what I mean by eliminating the dead spot area.
You will always have the slightest break as power
application switches from one leg to the other.

well no, perfection. by forcing the rider to maintain postive pressure at all times during the pedal stroke over minutes/miles/hours the cumlative effect DOES become quite different. one one legged drill done smoothly and one half of a PC pedal revolution are the same thing. but with PC's you immediatey do the other leg, and continue to do perfect onelegged drills for the duration of the ride - in this it becomes quite different. to duplicate a one hour PC ride with one legged drills you would have to do two hours and do them perfectly. in this difference is where the claim you are nit picking comes from.

hm. once again perhaps i have misread perfection's commentary !

"...You will always have the slightest break as power
application switches from one leg to the other. ..."

in this comment i believe perfection is mistaken. with PC's there is no switching from one leg to the other. each legs maintains positive power independant of the other at all times. it varies in amount, but it never stops from either leg.

i would also differ with perfection's assertion that it is some way "biomechanically impossible" to drive the crank 360 degrees. again, with PC's the rider disproves this with every single pedal revolution which stays in phase/synch. experienced PC riders can do this for hours upon hours. "impossible" ?? how so???

sorry for diverting from the original line of query. . . . . .:)

Tim, Perfection knows he has a perfect pedal stroke. He knows that PC's would show him that he is indeed, a perfect pedaller. That's all fine and dandy.

What I'd love to see, is Perfection's expression if he were to actually ride on a resistance trainer with PC's for an hour! Unless Perfection is a top-level world-class cyclist, I wager 10,000.00 CASH that he could not do this ride at his normal cadence, as long as he has never trained on PC's, and as long as his normal cadence is 85 or above (or even within 10 rpm's of his normal cadence), for the entire ride without getting out of sync (out of sync occurance demonstrating that forward pressure wasn't provided the entire pedal stroke, therefore, not Perfect).

I've got the money...care to bring 10 grand with you and take up the wager, Perfection? Please bring cash, I'll provide the PC's and an observer, you bring another observer. Heck, we'll do it in front of the local bike club and have lots of observers! I'll tie a piece of sewing thread around the PC crank arm and tie it to one of the cutouts on the big chainring ...essentially establishing the initial crankarm to chainring position, and if that thread breaks, you lose. If you keep that thread intact for the entire ride, you win, and I pay you 10,000.00, and I'll declare you to have a perfect pedal stroke...inasmuch as "perfect" means that you never stop applying forward pressure to the crankarm at any time in an hour resistance trainer ride.

If he takes me up on this bet and you are a person that wants to observe, don't bring snacks to the test, it won't be long before the test is done, I'll have an extra ten grand, and Perfection will be making excuses as to why PC's aren't "fair", or he will admit his pedal stroke isn't as perfect as he continuously claims it to be.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Pete,

1. In the beginning everyone swapped back to regular cranks for racing (and that was my recommendaation). with experience though it seems that many (not all) slow back down from what they can do in training when they do this. That is the reason I now recommend people race on them, until the brain is completely transitioned which may take awhile, to maximize race performance. Of course, many will not do this and swapping back to regular cranks on a single bike is easy and many do it.

2. The transition is so "fast" for most that most do not lose any aerobic fitness, or if they do they gain so much more in efficiency that overall performance is improved so it is not noticeable.

3. This is simply my recommendation to maximize the benefits. I accept that you and others may think another way of using them is best for you (and everyone else). If data arises that another way is optimum I will change my recommendation. My goal is to help people to get the most benefit out of my product, not force them to use it all the time. The more benefit real world people see from using the product the easier it will be to sell them!

Frank

---

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

Pete,

I'll tell you a little bit about how I've been using my PCs. My approach is different than Tim's. I have had the cranks for about two months now. I followed Tim's postings on another forum of his first few weeks on PCs. I think it's fair to say that when he started using PCs, he had a much bigger base and was generally a more fit and experienced cyclist than I. His results are very impressive, but not unattainable. (Though not attained by me.)

My first ride on PCs was on a trainer and lasted about 15 min. I was just giving them a test drive to see how different they really were. My first "training" ride on PCs was 30 min, and again on a trainer. What you've heard is true, these things kill your hip flexors and keep you brutally honest about your pedal stroke. My next ride was on the road, again for half an hour. For me, road riding vs. a trainer is very different. I think road riding is harder (most think the trainer is harder) as I tend to ride on lots of rolling hills and short bursts of power. It is very draining on the PCs. After that point, all of my rides have been at least an hour. (The one exception is my commute rides which I don't really count since they last about ten minutes.)

I am also very concerned about my aerobic base. Actually, I'm concerned about three things: aerobic base, position, and cadence. Since I can't yet ride my PCs for 4+ hours at a time, I often use standard cranks for the longer rides. I know Frank's recommendations, but I'm a bit conservative about this and I'm convinced I'm already gaining benefits from PCs. I do plan on using PCs for my long rides, but I'll end up building slowly to the point where I can. In the meantime, I want to make sure that I get all my LSD rides in that my training calls for. If it takes me 6 months to get to the point where I can ride 4+ hours on PCs versus 4 months, I'm fine with that. For now, I find it interesting to switch back and forth.

My second concern was position. Yes, it is easier to ride PCs sitting upright. I have my PCs on a road bike, and have not changed my position since I put them on. My goal is to get used to riding them in an aero, or drop position. As others note, this may result in a drop in power, and faster time to fatigue. I want to train my legs to the point where I can ride in an aero position and pedal "PC style" effectively. I'm getting there. I spend 95% of my PC rides on the hoods and in the drops. My biggest concern right now is that my PCs are on a road bike, and when I do my LSD rides on std cranks, it's on my tri setup. So the position is rather different. BUT, my tri setup is steeper than the PC setup, so my hip angle is similar to riding in the drops on my road bike, so in that respect PCing in the drops should be similar to PCing on my tri bike.

Finally cadence. This is the area where I'm open to change. I typically race in the 95-105 range. On PCs, I cruise in the low to mid 70s. I'll do drills where I spin at 85, or 95 for a 1-2 minutes on the PCs, but it's hard to keep up for much longer than that. I suspect that over time my cadence will slowly creep up. But, if riding PCs and switching back to std cranks shows me that I'm actually more effective racing at 80-85 versus 100+, I'm open to make that change. I really have to wait and see how my body adapts and how a slower cadence might impact my run. Only time will tell.

As for racing, I wouldn't do it. I think PCs are great and based on my limited experience I highly recommend them. But, they are much more complex than standard cranks which means they will be more prone to break or fail under heavy load. I wouldn't mind this so much during training, but would be furious if it happened in a race. I'm 200 lbs. and actually needed to get a clutch replaced recently. The fix was under warrantee and the service/turnaround were top notch. I never regretted buying the product. But again, they are a training tool in my eyes, and not part of my racing setup.

Frank recommends full time PC use so users can realize maximum benefit in a minimum amount of time. I have no problem with that. I'm taking the long view and trying to balance my reasons for using PCs with my other training concerns. I think that with so many people using PCs now in so many different ways, we'll start to see some interesting results based on the different approaches to training. Yes, this will be anecdotal, but interesting nonetheless.

that the issue of reliability is a major one for people choosing not to race on them, especially if it is an important race. However, our failure rate has been quite small so it is not like it is a huge risk.

This year there will be some people racing on them. We should be able to see if the speed improvement that one gets (and I expect) is big enough for more to take that risk of a mechanical in order to achieve better race results (the benefit justifies the risk). If that improvement is not there I will certainly remove my current recommmendation that people consider racing on them for that very reason (the benefit does not justify the risk)

We will know a lot more this season.

Frank

BTW, your training approach is rational and I expect you will achieve the full potential of the cranks, it will just take you a little longer and you understand and accept that. Thanks for the feedback.

---

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

I do not have a clue as to what you are trying to prove. Trying to

perfect the round pedaling style is like trying to dig your way out of

a hole, it will always have a dead spot area. Medical experts made the

same mistake in trying to find the cure for cycling's lower back pain and

that explains why they are still searching for the cure. It is the round pedaling style that causes the backpain, by the continuous strain that

it places on the lower back. Trike riders who use hand cranks to power

their chainwheel can use pushing and pulling and apply power with

both arms throughout the entire 360 degrees but this is because arm

muscles can apply almost equal power in all directions.

You try an experiment, try powering your chainwheel by the drawing

back pulling up and forward power only, do not use any direct downward pressure and see how far you can travel on your bike.

perfection, sorry if I'm being redundant here. What PCs to is force the rider to always be applying force to the cranks in the direction of rotation. When riding PCs, there's no point in the pedal stroke where no force is applied by either leg. It also eliminates the "negative force" that riders tend to exert by the the leg in the recovery portion of the pedal stroke. This is where the power comes from.

PCs DO NOT make sure that the rider applying a consistent amount of force (when looking at an individual leg) all the way around the pedal circle. So in this sense, there is still a bit of a "dead spot." But a dead spot on PCs simply means that less force is exerted by the leg, whereas a dead spot on standard cranks often means no force, or even negative force is applied by the leg. I don't think anyone is claiming that PCs will make the upstroke as strong as the downstroke, or anywhere close to it for that matter.

Perfection wrote: I do not have a clue as to what you are trying to prove.

I am not trying to prove anything. I am trying to get you to quit talking down about something you've never even experienced, and touting your idea of pedalling as the perfect way, and the way to avoid back pain to boot! I am certain there are many medical people that would argue with you about your back pain notions, too, but I'm not qualified to address that...

I have tried PC's and I see how they benefit me. Are PC's producing the perfect pedalling stroke? I don't know (I think a true perfect pedalling stroke may change depending upon the event, and it is more complicated than just making sure you aren't allowing your rising leg to get help to rise from your pushing leg), but, they certainly have made my stroke more efficient, and more efficient is better.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Francois, if you're lurking out there, are you going to do Buffalo Springs this year? Are you going to use the PC's?

Bob Sigerson

This may be splitting hairs, as the real measure of PC worth is whether or not one's cycling improves, but it seems to me that if one gets so proficient at using PCs to the point that even racing is done with them on the bike, then what's really been accomplished is that the rider has gotten really great at riding with Powercranks. If this is the case to the degree that the rider does not retain the neuromuscular efficiency on regular cranks then where is the benefit in that? I guess if you can ride faster and more efficiently in a race using PCs then that's fine, but it does seem a bit odd that people are now discussing using them in races instead of regular cranks.

If I may, I'd also like to respectfully suggest that Frank set up a PC discussion board on his own Powercranks.com site. The issue of Powercranks seems to push too many hot buttons over the course of daily discussions on this board. With a dedicated experience-sharing, problem-solving, big fuzzy hug love-in board for PC users and potential users interested parties can be shown the way to that board instead of taking up this one.

that is pretty funny, tri-taiwan. should we all just talk about zipp 404's and 78 degree seat angles ?

oh yeah - i am sorta with you on the racing thing. . . . :)

For a triathlete, the real measure is, not only how much faster they are on the bike but also how much faster they are on the run.

The fact that someone would be faster on PC's than on regular cranks only says something about how hard it is to change unconscious behavior that comes from years and years of pedaling "improperly". The benefit is that eventually this can be retrained and if one wants to take advantage of the "no cheating" feature of PC's it is available to them during the race. Nobody has ever said this improvement comes quickly or easily.

Once someone has completely retrained the brain then the speed should be the same on regular cranks (if not a tad faster because of the lighter weight).

Regarding a discussion group, I would prefer that someone not associaated with the product set that up and moderate it. That way, non-customers do not feel like the comments are manipulated by me just to sell product. I have enough credibility problems simply with my claims. Even if I were to do that, people would still ask questions about the product on other forums, such as this one, just as they do about CT, wheels, and a myriad of other products so you would still have to put up with the postings of others. Sorry.

Frank

---

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

Nowhere but Slowtwitch could you fine Dr. Modave, Dr. Coggan, Dr. Prevost and Dr. Day, plus a bike shop owner and fitter, Mr. Demerly, coach, Mr. Plumb, debating the merits of a product with a hefty cost. Have you ever looked at the website for the ion room fresheners. The government says they do little good and can be dangerous but the testimonoial on the fresheners sites give nothing but praise. The off-site experiences of t-t-n, goatboy and ktalon to name a few are pushing me in the directon of PC's.
Keep the debates going.

Bob Sigerson

The difference, as Mr. Day acknowledges himself, is the inventor/owner/marketer's presence in our discussions. We don't have Andy Ording of Zipp (or Steve Hed for that matter) on this board talking about their products, which by their nature don't stir up controversy. At times it's great to have Frank Day on this board to answer various technical questions that come up from time to time, but I know for a fact I'm not alone in feeling that PCs are being marketed here. I believe the line between discussion and marketing could be a bit better defined if Powercranks has its own discussion board.

Crank away.

Bob, I KNOW my name doesn't belong in the same paragraph as the others you mentioned from a standpoint of knowledge or performance. Those other people are much more knowledgeable and have achieved some high pedigree points for their performances. I probably more accurately represent the decent middle-aged triathlete, that is a fierce competitor, that may stand on the podium on a good day, because I had a great race and/or the top guys didn't show up. But, I will give it everything I have, and even risk giving too much during a race if I can gain improvement over last year's time.

For people like me, PC's are very intriguing. After 30 seconds of trying them, they are a little disconcerting. After 30 minutes of trying them, they are humiliating. After 30 days of trying them, there is ample evidence that they are helping my biking speed and efficiency, but they are helping my running tremendously...especially in the sprint at the end of a long race. I was able to run 7:10, and 7:05 the last two miles of a half-marathon (total time 1:38:40)...and the last 1/2 mile was uphill! For me, that's amazing...I only ran a 21:50 5k the week before I got the PC's! And I only ran 8 miles twice preparing for the 1/2...PC's made up the bulk of my training. I can't wait to see what 30 weeks of PC riding will teach me.

I do, sometimes, make the mistake of lashing out at comments that recur over time. If a person is honestly questioning a position, that's one thing, but to just try and set a trap with a question so they can snipe...well, let's just say I had a bad day today! I'll try and make sure I don't get quite so riled up. The fiestiness won't dissappear, after all, it's that fight in me that helps me reach PR's on race day, but I'll try and keep it in check a little better.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

the nice thing about me being here is no one will let me get away with saying anything untrue about the cranks. I am simply trying to educate which, could result in sales (and, in fact, has). However, I suspect that most who have bought because of these discussions are happy they occurred and they purchased. If not they do have the option of sending the product back, at least for 60 days.

Further, on a forum like this, I have to defend what I say (just as I made Dr. Coggin and others defend what they say). You may not believe what I say but few "users" have ever claimed that I misrepresent what the product can do. In fact, I am not aware of a single instance of same although I did have a recent customer send his cranks back after 30 days saying he used them exclusively and didn't see any improvement. I don't see how but that is what he said so the only bad things you have heard about the cranks have come from me, Gary in SD (who used them for a week), and people who have never been on them. There may be others and they are welcome to put in their two cents.

There are many users on this site and discussions of how to best use the product are perfectly appropriate, and I am sure they appreciate the input of the inventor and one person who probably knows the product best. You may see it as crass marketing but my being here turns as many off (like you) as it turns on. But, I see helping users get the best out of them will, eventually, sell more cranks than anything I actually say here. Results sell, not hype. Stay tuned.

---

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

yep...