Curious writes: "it is possible to attain warp speed without the use of hyper-drive... "

No it is not ...

---

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

I'm watching, but not posting, thereby conserving nearly 100% of my energy.

At least that way you don't have to explain where it is going (although, according to Yauqui, that would be easy - it was sucked out of you by this thread), but the fact that you admit to having energy we may want you to explain where it came from :-)

---

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

Actually I think most of it it probably came from those high cal Trappist ales referred to earlier (though the current culprit as I type is a Samuel Smith's Taddy Porter).

Try not to think of it as drinking, but rather as carbo loading. :-)

The chamelion writes: "No magic here - as I said before, in the case of somebody actually pedaling a bike it comes from muscle contraction (something upon which we both agree)."

I am really confused. the condition we are talking about is pedaling with no energy going to the wheel at a quasi constant pedaling angular velocity, as in riding a bicycle (say at a cadence of 90 while the bicycle is coasting down a hill at 50 mph, so it is not fast enough to actually drive the bicycle). You agree that it takes muscle action to do that but, because I cannot tell you exactly where the pedaling losses are, you think it conserves energy. If it were to conserve energy then it would require no muscle action, once started. (the manequin thought experiment which does not apply to this case because the angular velocity of the pedaling motion is not quasi constant).

You either agree that muscle action is required or you don't. If you do, then energy is not conserved and it makes no difference where it is lost, it just is and we can determine where at a later date. If you don't then you must answer the question: Where is the energy stored that, say can be used to accelerate the thigh from a velocity of zero to its maximum velocity when the foot moves from the BDC position to the 270 degree position (approximately)? Be specific please. (Hint: Don't use the potential energy of the other foot coming down from TDC because then I am going to ask you where the energy is coming from to also increase the potential energy of this very foot at the same time as it accelerates and moves up). Just talk about kinetic energy, to keep it simple, if you can.

---

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

I'm lost, no big surprise, I'm not well versed in the laws of physics. I'm glad some people are, so that many things (like sending rockets to the moon) can be achieved.

I don't know if inefficiency of pedalling is related to the square or cube or whatever of the cadence. What I do know, is that if you have an inefficiency, you want to minimize the amount and/or frequency at which you repeat the inefficiency in order to be more efficient, unless an inefficiency is a lessor byproduct of some other action that is more efficient for the task at hand. I also know there are several kinds of potential inefficiencies taking place in a pedal stroke, some of which may be more important to eliminate than others (I suspect that the importance of elimination of specific inefficiencies may vary from subject to subject...not everyone has the same limitations). I also know that some of the inefficiencies are more important to eliminate depending upon whether you are in a sprint effort or a time trial, or a sprint triathlon compared to an Ironman distance.

I'm also certain that NO amount of current physics knowledge is sufficient to be able to put all of the nuances of a pedal stroke into a formula that works to determine efficiency for any individual, much less a group of individuals. There are too many variables which affect efficiency...blood flow, blood pressure, capillary density, hemoglobin level, glycogen level in the muscle, hormones present/absent, mental status, motivational status, previous/current training regimen, mitochondrial efficiency/numbers, oxygenation level, tightness of the cycling shoe, variation from one pedal stroke to the next, etc.

From a practical point of view, it seems that the "best" running stride rate for an individual often somewhat coincides with their "most efficient" cycling cadence. The faster striding runners seem to do better (meaning higher average speed for a sustainable time) with higher biking cadences, and slower striders do better with lower biking cadences. Personally, when running at my "best" sustainable speed, I have a stride rate in the lower-mid 80's. My best cadence on a bike seems to be about the same or slightly slower, at least for up to 1/2 ironman distances. I have no experience in Ironman distances.

I fought going to the lower cadence for a long time, thinking a higher biking cadence was better due to my road racing background. I found higher cadence worked great for road racing (I have a record of never losing a field sprint), but I found I'm faster at lower cadences in time trials, and also triathlons.

I wonder if this stride rate/bike cadence relationship is a truism across a wide range of subjects, or if I'm noticing something that isn't true at all.

---

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

> I am really confused. the condition we are talking about is
> pedaling with no energy going to the wheel at a quasi constant
> pedaling angular velocity, as in riding a bicycle (say at a
> cadence of 90 while the bicycle is coasting down a hill at 50
> mph, so it is not fast enough to actually drive the bicycle).

But wait. Under this artificial scenario it doesn't matter
whether the pedals speed up or slow down. Your condition of
constant crank velocity is arbitrary in this case. If you place a
constraint of constant crank rate upon the system, then of course
it requires energy transfer. But it is energy transfer both into
and out of the system.

On a fixed gear bike, for example, the energy goes into (and back
out of) imperceptible changes in overall velocity. If someone
sets you in motion on a fixed gear bike, you pedal virtually
effortlessly.

The issue which gets in the craw has to do with energy
conversion... as though simply moving thighs up and down *in
itself* costs energy. It doesn't. Period. This is where those
with some technical background cry foul at what you say.

If you were to condition what you say, and specify the parameters
within which you are making your claim, I think it would help
others to understand your claim rightly. It is not correct to say
that the weight at the end of a linkage/crank assembly ipso facto
costs energy. Piston engines have this, and they do not lose
efficiency on that account (note also the virtually constant RPMs
that are possible). It is not correct even in cycling (fixed gear
case).

It may have some merit in a case where energy once given to the
system cannot be returned (freewheel/freehub scenario). But once
you get to this level of reality, you need to take reality full
force. Consider: if I start at standstill at TDC, I need to push
across/down to move. I am accelerating my thigh in addition to
accelerating the entire human/bike mass. Once I approach BDC, I
am decelerating my thigh while continuing to accelerate the
entire human/bike mass. In other words, my inertia is the brake
that is stopping the thigh's downward motion. Thus the thigh's
kinetic energy has not been turned to heat; it has been turned
into kinetic energy of bike and rider. Nothing has been lost.

At higher pedalling rates, there will be more drivetrain energy
coming from thigh kinetic energy relative to brute application of
thigh force to the pedals than at lower pedalling rates. But so
what? Whether you use your muscles to accelerate a little and
push a lot, or to accelerate a lot and push a little, both of
them amount to a force that the muscles need to supply.

I still contend that the physiological realities are the major
factor here.

Pedaller writes: "But wait. Under this artificial scenario it doesn't matter whether the pedals speed up or slow down. Your condition of
constant crank velocity is arbitrary in this case. "

ARBITRARY!!! It just happens to describe the normal condition. If you want arbitrary, think of the manequin thought experiment.

He then continues: "The issue which gets in the craw has to do with energy conversion... as though simply moving thighs up and down *in itself* costs energy. It doesn't. Period. This is where those
with some technical background cry foul at what you say. "

Combined with the Chamelions last twisting of the facts, I am out of here. This is impossible. At least Bob understands. I have done my best. If this thread continues it will be without me.

---

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

The chamelion and frank day,

what up? how are things? kids doing well? frank how is buisness? chamelion still pissed of at about everything? good good. glad to hear it. what the fuck are you guys getting at? are we still on rotorcranks or we just trying to throw down some physics shizznit and see who has the most grey matter?

i am pretty stupid. i think we can all see that. the air force took me to work in a special short plane. a cat scan of my head showed no brains so we stored extra ammo up there. i am one inbred cracker. this ofay's elevator ain't going to the top.

what exactly is y'alls point? it seems to me you have argued yourselves into a circle. so using tiny words and speaking real slow give me a little sentence on what exactly the point is y'all are trying to make.



thanks. love y'all both. love, peace, hair grease.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

"ARBITRARY!!! It just happens to describe the normal condition."
Frank, if "pedalling with no energy going to the wheel" (your words)
is the normal condition for you, we will never agree. Either you're in
mannequin/freewheeling mode or you're not. If you are, then constant
crank rate is an arbitrary imposition. If you're not, then there is
plenty of energy to the wheels to take up differences in total energy
of the leg system. The 5W or whatever to accelerate the thigh might
reduce power to the wheels from 200W to 195W; the 5W given back by the
deceleration of the thighs increases power to the wheels to 205W. This
(amongst other factors) will causes miniscule undulations in crank
rate = bicycle speed -- a phenomenon which, based on other posts of
yours relating to uneven power application, I know you accept.
Absolutely constant crank rate is a myth; or at least, so difficult
that I doubt anyone has attained it. Therefore acting as if the
leg+crank system is a closed system is wrong.

The bottom line is that, while accelerating a thigh does cost energy
with the square of the rate (or power with the cube), this energy is
not necessarily lost; it can be given back to the overall system (ie,
to the wheels).

Bob does have good insights. When you tried to impose constant crank
rate on the discussion, the question of energy inputs and outputs
naturally arose. The energy has to come from somewhere, and it has to
go somewhere. In my mind, the crux of this discussion is not
'whether', but 'where'. My position is that it can be as a delta to
the output power. Therefore the matter of pedalling efficiency vs rate
is one that cannot be answered with a simplistic squared or cubed
formula, because in an ideal system the squared or cubed formulas
apply and yet there is no decrease in efficiency! The answer to the
efficiency question will depend primarily on physiological
considerations.

Anyway, this thread can die. Perhaps it should. It's one of the
longest threads ever, and I killed it after only my second post. Do I
get an award or something?

Mr. Pedaller,

In analyzing any system it matters not what is going on outside of that system. If the system we are analyzing is simply how much energy (if any) does it take for a rider sitting on a bicycle to make the pedals go around, it matters not how much energy or force beyond that that is being applied to drive the bicycle, because that is not part of the problem. No energy can be given to the bicycle until this minimum amount needed to make the legs move is given. If outside energy is required at any point to do the task then there are only two possibilities as to where is must come from, it must come from from muscle contraction of the rider or from the stored energy in the bicycle/rider combination at speed. Te first one means the rider must work harder to maintain speed, the other means the bicycle must slow down. If no outside energy is required, then energy is conserved within the system and it should be self-sustaining.

Until you and Chamelion, and some others who contributed as if they knew what they were talking about, can understand what the problem being discussed is there can be no discussion (those who didn't understand but stayed on the sideline to stay out of it because it was too esoteric for them don't count). bob, by way of his questions, understood the problem. To say that the quasi constant pedaling cadence is arbitrary simply because I tried to unload the pedals to make a point to better define the problem (after about 20 other similar attempts) made me feel a tad like Sisiphous. If you would prefer, use this analogy - "coasting" on a fixed gear. Surely you wouldn't say that the anglar velocity or the pedal suddenly changes simply because the rider tried to put the force on the pedals to zero. Analyze the energy requirements of the legs then.

Next time we get into this discussion (and I am sure we will next time I bring up the fact that pedaling requires energy - something that every new PowerCranker discovers on their first ride regardless of what the Chamelion feels he "knows") we should better define what we are discussing.

This "discussion" would be a lot easier if we were all in one place and had a black board.

---

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

I just wanted to be the 200th post on this increasingly dull discussion.

---

"What's good for me ain't necessarily good for the weak-minded."

I see your 200th post and raise you a 200th reply. :-)

"I'm watching, but not posting, thereby conserving nearly 100% of my energy."

I just rode a century and now I am experiencing 100% of my pain. I have 0% energy, so nothing can be conserved. Soon, my legs will collapse in upon themselves and form a tiny black hole. Then what happens?

I am Jack's aching connective tissue.

---

------------------------------------------------------------

I bet the French could figure this one out....(shit, what was I thinking? No they cant....)

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?